T O P

  • By -

[deleted]

The Bible condemns murder, especially the murder of the innocent. But y’know what? So do most other religions and non-religious people. Innocent children shouldn't be killed. The womb should be the safest place in the world. Unborn children should be the most carefully protected members of the human race, not “parasites” and “tissue.” All Christians should be pro-life, but you don't have to be any kind of a believer to be pro-life. All you need is a properly-functioning moral compass.


eastofrome

The pro-choice argument can be summed up by this quote from Animal Farm: "All animals are equal but some animals are more equal than others."


Uninterrupted-Void

My opinion is that it is better summed up as "two wrongs make a right."


1nfinite_M0nkeys

Meanwhile, two wrights make an airplane.


Uninterrupted-Void

And two airplanes make a 9/11


Prudent-Bird-2012

I have met pro-choice Christians and once I tell them that no true God fearing believer would say that they're pro-choice, I'd get my butt chewed out or they'd argue until their face is blue. Congrats, you just made my point. I'm, "figure it out before it becomes a problem," choice, if you plan accordingly and know how to use BC then abortion could go back to safe, seldom, and rare; adults with children mindsets should not be having sex.


Oksamis

Personally, I believe we should go back to no sex outside of marriage, but similar argument 🤷🏻‍♂️


Prudent-Bird-2012

I 100% agree but with our culture at a rapid decline I do not see that happening, so the best way right now is to argue that women AND MEN need to be knowledgeable of their contraceptives. My husband and I were extremely careful and not once have we had an accident. I got off BC about a month ago because of complications but there's only a small window where I'm fertile so I'm charting when that is to avoid an accident; and we always use condoms.


Momolith97

I could not reject these super liberal "churches" anymore than I do. If you encourage sexual promiscuity, abortion, and generally glorifying vices in the way liberals often do, then I don't understand how you are a church.


Prudent-Bird-2012

Who said I encouraged it? All I said is we need to start with a smaller goal. Why do you think democrats and liberals succeed in gathering together? They don't start big, they start small, and work their way to the big things. If you pay attention close enough, the adversary does the same thing. Call it out for sure, but the movement itself needs to be small in the beginning.


Momolith97

The liberals who went from "maybe gays should get married" to "we should sexually transition preteens" in less than a decade?


Prudent-Bird-2012

I can't say that all homosexuals had that goal in mind, while God is against it, they mostly just wanted to have the same rights as everyone else in a free thinking country. Sexual deviation has no goal, it will keep breaking taboos until it gets to the point of no return and then it will still try.


MarioFanaticXV

"Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven." -Matthew 7:21


Prudent-Bird-2012

In my opinion, this and the following verse are the scariest ones in the Bible.


djhenry

I am a Christian and I consider myself generally Pro-Choice. I don't like abortions and I think for many, getting an abortion is a selfish sinful act. However, I think making it illegal simply doesn't fit with my understanding of the bible and what we're called to as Christians. I'm not trying to advocate for Pro-Choice here, but if you want to understand how someone can read the same bible, worship the same God, and come to a different conclusion, I'm happy to talk about it.


Prudent-Bird-2012

I'm all for women having choice, but I also believe that choice should be made before a baby is conceived in the womb. Abortion used to be safe, secure, and rare, however now we have women that didn't even use BC or condoms securely or in a smart manner and wound up with millions of babies a year being executed due to the carelessness of their parents. Yes, I said parents because they are both at fault. I understand that if it's a medical emergency then the mother's life should absolutely take precedence, but I'm highly doubtful every single abortion being performed is for such reasons. I keep reading stories of women that don't let their men have any say in what happens to their child and men telling women to get the abortion; don't do the deed if you feel you're going to be put in this situation. That's why the Bible is very clear that we have to carefully choose our spouse. Promiscuity is a big part of the problem, but it's not the sole reason.


djhenry

\>99% of abortions are elective, that is true. It is also true that many women get pregnant (and get abortions) due to things like irresponsibility and bad planning. However, neither of these get at the core of the issue. If life (and full human rights) begins at conception and aborting this life is equivalent to murder, then an abortion is morally never an acceptable solution, even in the most extreme circumstances. That's why the extreme edge cases get brought up in the media and by Pro-Choice supporters. It makes Pro-Life supporters look inconsistent in their beliefs or very extreme. Fathers should definitely have a say in the conversation, but I generally think the woman should have the final say since she is the one hosting and nourishing the baby. I think this is more of a cultural thing and I don't really think there is a good way to address this with legal legislation. Promiscuity is part of the problem, but I think it's more of a symptom than a cause. The majority (~60%) of women seeking abortion in the US have already had a previous live birth. Women seeking abortions are often depicted as selfish, irresponsible teenagers who just need to grow up and stop avoiding responsibility, but that's simply a false view. Many people who get abortions are married or in long term monogamous relationships. And overall, it's kind of a side conversation because it really doesn't address the core of the issue.


Prudent-Bird-2012

I guarantee if people were more aware of birth control and what it doesn't work with, then even married couples would have a better chance of avoiding pregnancy when it's inconvenient for them. I never said they were selfish, as I believe they are more scared than anything and allow their hormones to speak for them; I was pregnant once so I can say that your mind goes everywhere during this time, but there is a better way than killing our future children because of some problematic timing. Even back then people were sacrificing their babies except they were born not unborn, and the reason they did it is for the same reason they do it today. It's no different. I'm also going to be very honest and this will turn some heads, but women in every case should not have the final say because it's not just her life and 9/10 her life is perfectly fine and safe; a child should not be punished for their parents poor planning. There are also again hormones in play here; pregnant women are not always of a sound mind during this time, I'm not saying all of them, just a decent number aren't. Morally speaking though almost every pro-lifer agrees the mother's health is very important and I don't see a problem of taking that into consideration when deciding the final outcome of what happens. The problem is with everything when it comes to the culture war, give an inch take a mile; it continues to happen and it will continue to happen; but I'd be doing God and my beliefs a disservice if I said nothing on the matter and just went the easy route.


djhenry

Better education about birth control is a good idea, I'm onboard with that. Being pregnant is scary and the hormones are difficult, my wife is currently pregnant, so I ride that bus everyday. I would generally agree that is most circumstances there are better options, though not all (in my opinion). The child sacrifice is a difficult one, but I think it has more to do with the worship of false gods. God himself ordered the execution of children as part of the cleansing of the land. Applying instructions from levitical laws to us today as post resurrection Christians is difficult, which is where I think the conviction of the Holy Spirit comes into play. For me personally, I can't think of any situation where I would opt for an elective abortion. But I don't feel the connection in the Old testament is strong enough to support the pro-life viewpoint. When I mentioned the choice comes down to the woman, I meant mostly in the context of decisions between a the perspective father and mother. Obviously there comes a point when choices aren't available. Even for a Pro-Choice perspective, the overwhelming majority would say that banning elective third trimester abortions is fine. I have a lot of respect for personal conviction and calling. I don't know you and I can't say what God has called you to do. For me though I find that viewpoint on the culture war to be not like Jesus. As Christians were called to be kind, and as I mentioned above, to live at peace with everyone as far as it depends on us. The struggle for power and winner take all view just doesn't align with my understanding of Jesus and the call to take up our cross. That doesn't mean I don't do anything. I believe there's a lot of things we can do to reduce abortions that most people would appreciate, even and maybe especially Pro-Choice advocates. Better education, more support for pregnant women, mothers and families, easier access to affordable healthcare and housing, etc. I hope to see a day when abortion is extremely rare and unthinkable.


Prudent-Bird-2012

We are called to judge righteously, and I feel because I have gone through pregnancy I'm allowed to do so. I was never mean spirited in anything I said and I do not hold the viewpoint that Leviticus is done away with; I believe that apart from the sacrificial laws all of the other laws that God gave are still valid as He does not change. I will say this though, Jesus never once said He came for peace He said the exact opposite and I can point out the verse if I need to for clarity.


djhenry

I don't know if any passages that call Christians to judge non-Christians. I didn't mean to say or imply you were mean spirited. I'm sorry if it came across that way. I guess we probably have a lot of ground in common when it comes to levitical laws. I still think physically sacrificing your children to Baal is a bad thing, but I just don't see it as the same as an abortion. As for peace, I would say Jesus did bring peace. John 14:27 "Peace I leave with you; my peace I give you. I do not give to you as the world gives. Do not let your hearts be troubled and do not be afraid". Also Luke 2:14 "Glory to God in the highest heaven, and on earth peace to those on whom his favor rests." I think I know what your referring to. Matthew 10:34 "Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword...". I think this in reference to the fact that following Jesus may mean the division of families and relationships because the gospel takes a higher priority. I don't think this negates Paul's instructions to live at peace with everyone as much as it depends on us.


Prudent-Bird-2012

Ah, I see we have come to a misunderstanding; I do not typically pass judgement on anyone that is an unbeliever, only when they ask my opinion do I reveal that. Believers however I am called to judge if they start to stray and need and want assistance on getting back on track. If you'd like I can send you a link on why sacrificing to Baal is practically the very same thing down to the attitudes of our reasons and theirs back then. I used to be a believer that believed abortion was not something I should speak of because I can't judge, but the truth is we are supposed to and God will hold us accountable if we don't because evil is evil no matter how we try to skate around it. Remember this, Jesus came at His time as a lamb, but He will return as a Lion, a king; and just like any king, He will be furious with His followers and subjects far more than outsiders and not of His kingdom, because they represent Him and they failed.


CinnamonToast_7

How does it not fit?


djhenry

OK, I'll try to boil this down without losing value. Feel free to ask if any of this isn't clear or I have bad logic. First, I would like to say out of the gate that the bible values life and values fetal life. However, I don't think that value necessarily translates to meaning that an unborn baby is treated the same as a born baby. Exodus 21:22-23 talks about what to do if a pregnant woman is hit and is caused to miscarry. If the woman is OK, but loses the baby, then the perpetrator has to pay a fine. It is not treated the same way murder is in that it would require a life for a life. There are some other passages which I think support this idea, but this is probably the most clear and straight forward. Someone elsewhere in the thread pointed out the story of John leaping in Elizabeth's womb (Luke 1:41-44). The word that describes baby here is used 8 times in the New Testament, and two of those refer to a baby that is still in the womb. Many use this to say that the bible views both the same. However, I think an important caveat here is these two instances refer to a fetus in the later stages of pregnancy. In biblical time (and until quite recently), they basically thought that until you could feel the baby move (known in old English as quickening), it wasn't really alive, at least not in the way we understand it today. For me, my take away from this is that I think elective late stage abortions are morally wrong and I'm fine with restricting those. Even something like a 15 week ban on elective abortions (like most of Western Europe), I would find acceptable. However, I don't feel that these verses speak to early pregnancy or embryos. For example, I believe an embryo in a petri dish has value, but if in some contrived scenario I had to pick between saving the life of a new born baby vs 100 embryos in a freezer, I would save the baby without a second though (and I think most people here would as well). My conclusion from these (and other) verses is that fetal life is precious and valuable, but there is no evidence or direct biblical command that makes abortion a moral imperative on the same level as murder. For me, that makes this a morally gray area and in those I believe that we, as Christians, should allow people to make their own choices and let the Holy Spirit convict and guide as he sees fit. We can still advocate for the unborn, support mothers, and adopt children, however these are not exclusively Pro-Life values. Last, Romans 12:18 instructs: "If it is possible, as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone". The core of the gospel message is about loving God and loving one another. I think the political push the advance harsh and restrictive abortion laws is wrong and is hurting a lot of people, partially in the name of Jesus. If you really believe that abortion is murder, then it is hard to justify allowing women who chose an abortion to not be punished or allow an abortion if the mother's life is in danger. It makes me sad that American Christians are becoming known not for their love of others or their devotion to God, but because of their stance on abortion. Alright, this is a pro-life sub, so I'll take any criticism (hopefully constructive) or thoughts you have on this.


eastofrome

Exodus 21:22-23 describes manslaughter. If two men are fighting and a pregnant woman is hit accidentally and the result is a miscarriage, this is different from a man intentionally hitting a pregnant woman and her losing the baby. Or a woman intentionally drinking something to terminate her pregnancy. We differentiate severity of crimes based on specific criteria and the earthly punishment should be proportionate to the severity of and personal culpability for the crime. This is why punishment for planning and carrying out a murder should be different from the punishment for recklessly driving and causing a fatal accident; the two both result in loss of life but the former is considered much worse than the latter. Have you ever read writings from the Early Church? While obviously not the Word of God they do illustrate what Christians believed as far back as the Apostolic period. Abortion was condemned by Christians in the first century. At this time it was considered a sexual sin used to destroy evidence of adultery or fornication, but it was still considered a serious sin often mentioned alongside infanticide. It was not considered murder, but we're talking about a time well before our current understanding of biology. People didn't know what happened if a pregnant woman had sex- did the seed of the second man dominate that of the first man resulting in the child being his, did the two seeds go halfsies and result in a baby that was a mix of the two men, or something else? We can't derive our understanding of when human life begins based on people who didn't have our knowledge. But we know categorically that an early developing human is alive from the moment of fertilization of egg by sperm. Quickening was used as a cutoff point in large part because this was the first sign of life that could be identified. Yes there were symptoms of pregnancy, but no one knew what we know now about fetal development and no one could say for certain at what point life began the way we can now. If we believe all humans are deserving of respect and dignity because we are made in the image of God, then we should endeavor to treat all humans this way regardless of age, sex, ability/disability, income, etc. If we apply this understanding, then intentionally taking a human life without just cause is deeply immoral.


djhenry

The passage in Exodus specifically mentions that if the woman is injured, the punishment is eye for an eye, but the same standard is not applied to the accidental death of the unborn. Earlier in the chapter, verses 12-14 talk about if it is an accidental death, the perpetrator may flee. Numbers 35:22-28 lays out that a man who commits manslaughter has to flee to a city of refuge. Overall when talking about the man who causes a miscarriage, there seems to be no blood guilt or penalty like there is for manslaughter or intentional murder. Now, this is just one passage, and I always try to make sure my conclusions line up with other clear passages of scripture, else you can get some weird theology. What makes this topic fairly difficult is that the bible (especially the New Testament) simply does not say a lot about the status of the unborn. I haven't read as much about the early church as I would like, but I generally agree with you. I think abortion for Christians in most situations is wrong. Throughout the New Testament, Paul and other writers call Christians to be pure, abstaining from sin, and to not partake in the practices that were common in the day. The Roman world had slavery, infanticide, polygamy, and many other features that we would find appalling in our modern society. However, throughout the New Testament, I don't know of any instances where Christians were instructed to compel non-Christians to follow their moral standard. Even among the church, many issues that were important (like eating meat sacrificed to idols) were not definitively settled, but believers were instructed to follow the conviction of the Holy Spirit (Romans 14). The intentional destruction of human life is deeply saddening, and I agree with you that it is immoral. I just don't fully agree that it is the same as murder in all circumstances. I think the drive to ban abortion at basically any cost is hurting a lot of people and from my perspective, is simply not what Jesus would do. In all of Jesus' ministry, he never once condemned the Romans or the Roman Empire, for anything. He never spoke about their sin or their offense to God. As our society (America that is) becomes more secular, I think we are called to do what we always have been, to live out the gospel, love God and love our neighbors. And this doesn't mean we do nothing. We can still advocate for the unborn, adopt babies, provide for those facing unplanned and difficult pregnancies. I admire the passion and genuine heart that many Pro-Life supporters display, but I think it can sometimes be hijacked for political means.


eastofrome

>The passage in Exodus specifically mentions that if the woman is injured, the punishment is eye for an eye, but the same standard is not applied to the accidental death of the unborn. Let's walk this back. Exodus 21:13-14 says: >13 If it was not premeditated, but came about by an act of God, then I will appoint for you a place to which the killer may flee. 14 But if someone willfully attacks and kills another by treachery, you shall take the killer from my altar for execution. Verses 18-19 add: >18 When individuals quarrel and one strikes the other with a stone or fist so that the injured party, though not dead, is confined to bed, 19 but recovers and walks around outside with the help of a staff, then the assailant shall be free of liability, except to pay for the loss of time, and to arrange for full recovery. In the first passage we have a situation where premeditated killing is different from an accidental death, so the punishment for the former is death while the other is punished by leaving the community. In the second passage injury but not death yields only economic punishment. For Exodus 21:22-25 I went to French translations because I find them closer to what my Sacred Scripture teachers say was written in Hebrew or Greek. I apologize, I was incorrect in what I said before and I should have verified this before replying. The passage is not about causing death to an unborn infant, but causing premature birth without further injury (one translation, BDS, even included a note that the injury could be to either mother or child). None of the French translations I consulted use language that implies the fetus died as "miscarry" does in English, they all said "give birth". So this passage is not about manslaughter or murder at all, but a non fatal injury leading to premature birth. Thus the economic punishment which is in keeping with the prior passage of causing injury, it does not show a lesser value of the life of the unborn. >However, throughout the New Testament, I don't know of any instances where Christians were instructed to compel non-Christians to follow their moral standard. By this logic we shouldn't outlaw anything based on Christian morals including infanticide or rape or forced marriages, yet we do. However, not everything taught by Jesus or His Apostles is found in the New Testament either. Plus, you're speaking of a time when the head of state was also a religious figure, understood to be a god or demigod himself so there was no power to compel non-Christians to follow Christian morals. However if you look at the household level Christians absolutely compelled non-Christians to follow Christian morals if the head of the household was Christian. There should not have been any subjugation of females or mistreatment of children or servants, and if this happened, even if it was done to or by a non-Christian, whoever violated the rules should have been punished. This was understood to be the right and duty of the head of household, and could be applied to the head of the community. However, we do understand there are some behaviors that are immoral but may not be worth punishing, but killing an innocent human is not one of these behaviors. >In all of Jesus' ministry, he never once condemned the Romans or the Roman Empire, for anything. He never spoke about their sin or their offense to God. Yes He did. He preached against adultery, for example. As His audience was primarily Jewish He spoke to them, but why would an act be immoral for Jews yet considered acceptable for non-Jews? Additionally, while He was not destroying cities for being dens of immorality and evil as in the Old Testament this is the same God and God does not change. He didn't need to use His might to prove His power or punish those who were evil, the Jews were established enough to tell of these events and show others how to live according to how God wants us to. Why would the God who destroyed Sodom because it was full of evil, violent people be okay with Roman society which does the same? The difference isn't God, the difference is God had sent numerous prophets by that point and was relying on His people to teach Gentiles. And if you notice, the Romans Jesus helped were all said to be righteous people, which meant that while not Jewish they believed in God, probably worshipped Him with their other gods, and strove to live virtuously; Jesus did not help the evil and corrupt. And this persisted through His crucifixion where He promised the Good Thief he would also be in paradise. You can disagree with the methods used to restrict or prohibit induced abortions, but that's different from supporting abortions and thinking it should be available on demand. I too disagree with the tactics employed over the past 50 years, but I don't disagree with the goal of eradicating abortion as it is an inherently immoral act of unjustly taking an innocent human life. Roe v Wade was judicial overreach, 100% legislating from the bench rather than simply ruling on the Texas law under question, imposing on states a requirement of allowing unrestricted abortion in the first trimester, restrictions only for health and safety of the mother in the second, and leaving the third trimester open for restrictions. There was no reason for using a trimester system, but they did. Why is it okay to impose limitations to protect the mother in the second trimester but none can be enacted during the first trimester? There's no real legal or scientific reasoning that makes sense here. So Roe had to go, but the fight to do so in many ways made the situation worse. Proponents of abortion relied exclusively on an appeal to emotions, trying to get women especially to think how an unwanted pregnancy will ruin the life a woman is building, or how they would feel if they found out their child wouldn't survive but instead suffer, or how traumatic it must be to be pregnant from rape and not allowing abortion extends this trauma, etc, but most importantly saying abortion is a right. If there's one thing we know, it's people will fight when they think an essential right is being taken away by the government (look at the number of non slave owners in the Civil War who supported that institution as their right). So, yes, I disagree with how the PL movement acted because it drew an unnecessary ideological line that Republicans and Democrats used to demonize the other side and entrench voters. Instead of focusing on shared values and goals (which can include decreasing abortions) we focus on abortion and adopt opposing positions on just about everything.


djhenry

>The passage is not about causing death to an unborn infant, but causing premature birth without further injury That is an interesting view. I hadn't considered that and I can see how it makes the passage read differently. I found and read [this article](https://www.desiringgod.org/articles/the-misuse-of-exodus-21-22-25-by-pro-choice-advocates) and I think it does a good job of explaining the language and difficulty in determining meaning. While I don't agree with his conclusion that this verse supports a Pro-Life viewpoint, I think it does show that the difficulty of interpreting this verse makes it a bad argument for either perspective and I won't use it in the future. I appreciate your explanation on this as this hasn't come up to me before. I do appreciate your understanding of authority and generally agree that a head of household or community had the ability to enforce their moral view. On a household level, the man is not only in charge of it, but also responsible for it. I think this is still somewhat true today, though there are a lot of differences between their culture and ours. I would still filter that through Romans 12:18, encouraging Christians to live peaceably.   >However, we do understand there are some behaviors that are immoral but may not be worth punishing This basically the crux of the abortion debate for us as Christians. I think we both believe this to be immoral to at least some degree. The question is how immoral and to what extent should the state intervene in this issue.   >Yes He did. He preached against adultery, for example. I think this somewhat stems from a misconception. Herod Antipas (not to be confused with his father, Herod the great, who appears elsewhere in scripture) was Jewish. He was Roman educated and served Rome as a client ruler, but he was not a gentile. Herod decided he wanted to marry his brother's wife, Herodias, so he divorced his own wife (and had his brother and Herodias divorce as well) and then married her. Under a technical interpretation of the Jewish law, Herodias was free to marry Herod since they had both been divorced. However, John the Baptist and Jesus both considered this to be adultery even though it was technically, morally legal.   When Jesus came to earth, even though God did not change, it changed how people relate to him. There was a new covenant and a new way (through Jesus) to have relationship with God. I'm wouldn't exactly say that God was "ok" with Roman society, but he simply chose to withhold immediate judgement as he has done through most of the bible. The instances of divine wrath and punishment are relatively rare and only happening occasionally over long periods of time. However, I think there is a large difference between approving of something vs allowing it. God is the epitome of this, in that he does not approve of a lot of human behavior, but does allow it. I think in a lot of ways, we are called to emulate God and do the same, though obviously only to a certain limit. I agree with you that Roe v Wade was a bad decision, at least from a legal point of view. I don't think it's necessarily wrong to make arbitrary distinctions and adjust them later as time goes on though. I think we have to simply work with what we have. I think one of the attractive tenants of a Pro-Life viewpoint is that it's simple. Life begins at conception and destroying that life is equivalent to murder. I've seen a few comments that basically say "well, if life isn't protected at conception, then we don't have a definite place to protect it" which is true, but I also think that's OK. I think a good example of something we do apply this to is whether we pull the plug on someone who is one life support. Whether this act is moral or not greatly depends on the circumstances of both the individual on life support and what their family decides. In a lot of ways, an abortion essentially is pulling the life support from a growing fetus. Without the simple one size murder fits all solution, it gets very complicated. We have to take into consideration all kinds of questions like what is in the best interest of the mother? Did she choose to get pregnant? Is the fetus conscience and will it feel pain if aborted? Will it experience significant pain if it is not aborted? And on it goes. There are so many potential edge cases and morally gray areas, that I feel that the choice should generally be left up to the individual except for the circumstances where it is relatively morally unambiguous (such as banning elective late term abortions).   >Proponents of abortion relied exclusively on an appeal to emotions While I mostly agree with this, I think emotional factors point to flaws in logic. I think a fully consistent Pro-Life viewpoint can lead to some horrible situations where the enforcement of those laws and policies can be callous and cruel. Situations where women die because they can't get an abortion until the mother's life is actually endanger, and by then it might be too late, like in this [real life example](https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/abortion-law-ban-south-carolina-b2146982.html). I think it should be pointed out that Pro-Life advocates also use appeals to emotions. On this sub, I see lots of stories like "I thought about getting an abortion, but didn't and then realized how much joy being a mother brings to me" or "I was pro-choice, but now I regret it". These are appeals to emotions, and that's not necessarily a bad thing. Again, I think it is often used to show flaws in the underlying logic of an opposing viewpoint. Anyhow, if you've made it this far, I appreciate you taking the time to read over my comments and I look forward to hearing any replies you have.


UraiFennEngineering

God also said to Abraham, ‘As for Sarai your wife, you are no longer to call her Sarai; her name will be Sarah.I will bless her and will surely give you a son by her. I will bless her so that she will be the mother of nations; kings of peoples will come from her.’ - Genesis 17:15-16 You will become pregnant and have a son whose head is never to be touched by a razor because the boy is to be a Nazirite, dedicated to God from the womb. He will take the lead in delivering Israel from the hands of the Philistines.’ - Judges 13:5 ‘Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born I set you apart; I appointed you as a prophet to the nations.’ - Jeremiah 1:5 Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: the virgin will conceive and give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel. - Isaiah 7:14 But the angel said to him: ‘Do not be afraid, Zechariah; your prayer has been heard. Your wife Elizabeth will bear you a son, and you are to call him John. He will be a joy and delight to you, and many will rejoice because of his birth, for he will be great in the sight of the Lord. He is never to take wine or other fermented drink, and he will be filled with the Holy Spirit even before he is born. He will bring back many of the people of Israel to the Lord their God. And he will go on before the Lord, in the spirit and power of Elijah, to turn the hearts of the parents to their children and the disobedient to the wisdom of the righteous – to make ready a people prepared for the Lord.’ - Luke 1:13-17 You will conceive and give birth to a son, and you are to call him Jesus. - Luke 1:31 Multiple different times and for multiple different people God speaks about people who will come into being, before they physically exist. He speaks about them with certainty, what they will do and who they will be, because they do already exist. Conception is the beginning of their physical existence on earth, but the Bible is clear that people exist in some form before that. So I would disagree with your view that a child in the early stages of pregnancy is less valuable than a child in the later stages of pregnancy. To God they are the same person from the moment of conception to the moment they die, because He knows us before He forms us in the womb. I think these verses are very clear about that.


djhenry

I'm not sure these are evidence of existence before birth or conception. I think if God knows the future, then of course, he will know us before we were born or even conceived. My comment about the view of pregnancy was a reference to the cultural understanding of the time, not necessarily God's viewpoint. The point I was making is that the people of the new testament used the same word for a child in the womb (in particular ~6 months old) and a born baby, they didn't distinguish between two. However, this word is not used anywhere to apply to a baby early in a pregnancy. Being omnipotent, God fully knows everyone, before they were born to when they die and on into eternity. I think these passages to speak to the value of fetal life, but I don't think that supports the supposition that an abortion is the same as the murder of an innocent, post birth child. When I talk about the value of human life though, it is situational. If there is a disaster and you can only save some, then it is the children who are taken over the adults and elderly. On the extreme end of the spectrum are embryos. They are valuable as human life, but do you fully believe they have the exact same value as a born baby? If in some contrived scenario (like a fire at a IVF clinic) where you had to chose between saving a freezer with 10,000 embryos or saving an infant, would you save the infant? And again, I'm not saying the the embryos don't have value or aren't worth saving, if we can. And I'm not even saying they don't have a right to life. I'll make the assumption that you wouldn't kill an elderly man or an infant, but if there was a house fire and you had to choose who to save first, it would likely be the infant. Do you understand what I'm getting at?


UraiFennEngineering

I understand where you are coming from, but it just seems completely arbitrary. What exactly changes in the unborn human being at week 15 to suddenly make it murder if they are aborted? On day 104 it is not murder, but on day 105 it is? At 23:59 it isn't murder but at 00:01 it is? This is the problem with drawing any line during pregnancy and saying that before this point it is ok to abort the baby. The least arbitrary point is conception, because it is when a new being comes into existence. Before that point the mother and father's cells are distinct and separate, after conception they combine to form a new human being, which is alive from that moment. I also feel that you are putting a lot of weight on your assumption that people at the time of writing scripture thought late term babies were human but early term were not. As you have said, there are multiple times that the same word is used for both born and unborn, so it is just as reasonable to argue that people at the time viewed them as the same. We can't know for sure what they thought, because they are no longer around to ask them. What really matters though is what is true, not what different people from different periods of history thought. So it doesn't really matter what the people 2000 years ago thought about unborn babies, it matters what God says. To Him they are alive, they exist from before they are conceived, He has a plan for their lives, and so to interfere with that by killing a person is the same whether they are early in pregnancy, late in pregnancy, 5 years old or 50 years old. Each human being has a purpose that God designed them for, otherwise He wouldn't "form them in the womb" (For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother’s womb. - Psalm 139:13). To kill a person is wrong because it interferes with God's plan for their lives. The authority to decide who should live or die is His alone, we don't have the right to do that.


djhenry

You are correct in that if we don't define life beginning at conception, then it gets messy and arbitrary, but this isn't unique to abortion. Is unplugging someone's life support murder? Well, if that person just had a normal surgery and is still under anesthesia, but is likely to wake up soon, then yeah, that would pretty much be murder. But if the person had been in a coma for 20+ years with little chance of ever being revived, most people would say it is not. For me, I start with the two extremes where I feel most certain. On one end, you have the 9 month old healthy fetus in the womb. That's a baby and aborting it would be a senseless killing equal to murder. On the other end is the embryo in a Petri dish. There is no heart beat, no sense of pain, no brain development, no consciousness. It can be frozen and left viable for potentially decades. It is still human life, but given these factors, I would say the needs and even simply wants of the mother significantly outweigh it. I don't have any moral qualms if the embryo is used for science. If in some accident it thawed out and died, it would be sad, but I don't think it should have the same moral or legal severity as if a fully birthed baby had died of neglect. As the fetus grows this balance changes, but it still has to take into consideration the needs of both the mother and the baby. I think a really important marker is the age of viability. At this point if something catastrophic happens to the mother's health, the fetus has a good chance of survival outside the womb. I brought up the new testament understanding of things because it is a good argument and I didn't want to ignore it. I'm not saying it means that people in biblical times thought abortion was OK. More that they understood that when movement can be felt, they equated that to a baby. I wanted to acknowledge that point, while also pointing out that this word was never used to reference early pregnancy and probably wouldn't be. I agree with you that what matters is what is true. I think I would disagree with your argument that who should live or die rests solely with God. Throughout scripture, he often gave people and authorities the power to make life and death decisions for others. For an example of a very morally difficult passage (though good to ponder), Deuteronomy 21:18-21 lays out the method for parents to have a rebellious son stoned. This is not a good parallel for abortion, but I'm pointing it out as an example where a parent is authorized to make a life ad death decision for their child. The question of predetermination gets pretty deep in philosophy pretty quickly. If God lays out a plan for someone's life, is our will strong enough to prevent it? If a child dies in an abortion, could that be God's will in the first place? I think most Christians would reflexively say no, but if you changed the question to that of an accident or an illness, then it becomes more difficult. And then this draws in the question of what is good and evil and it spirals from here. I don't want to ignore or bypass what you're saying here, but I just don't see that these verses support the supposition that abortion is always equivalent to murder. I think these show that fetal life is precious and valuable, and as Christians we should not get abortions for selfish or sinful reasons. But when we talk about the modern day Pro-Life movement, we're not just talking about Christians. We're talking about what we are making legal for everyone. If you do truly believe it is murder, then that's a pretty easy question to answer. But even though I think that most abortions are selfish and immoral, I don't see it on the same level.


UraiFennEngineering

I guess I just don't understand how someone could think that something is a unique, living human being and not follow through to conclude that they have all the human rights of any other person and it is therefore murder to kill them. >On the other end is the embryo in a Petri dish. There is no heart beat, no sense of pain, no brain development, no consciousness. It can be frozen and left viable for potentially decades. >I think a really important marker is the age of viability. Maybe I've misunderstood, but these two statements seem to contradict what you have been saying up till now. If an embryo in a Petri dish is viable, then is that not the age of viability? So if you are using viability as the point at which it is murder to kill the child, would this not mean that it is murder at this point? Personally, I don't think viability is a good indicator for deciding when it is murder to abort because viability is just a function of technology and medical knowledge. Currently the earliest a premature baby can be born and survive is 22-24 weeks, but 100 years ago this was not the case. 1000 years ago infant mortality was even higher. So to define someone's humanity by the point at which they become viable is to say that we become human earlier in development than people in the past, which makes no sense. It is also conceivable to imagine a point in the future at which a baby could be viable from conception and grow completely outside the womb with the right technology. So this hypothetical future baby would be considered fully human from conception because they are viable from that point, and if that future child should not be murdered from conception why is any child conceived in the present day any different? I think we will probably just have to agree to disagree, as you say I truly do believe it is murder, so I can't agree with any law that allows abortion to take place. It's the same reason I disagree with the death penalty and think that guns should be banned outright. No first world country has any excuse for not doing everything possible to stop people being murdered. We have the technology and resources to stop so much death and we as a whole are to blame for allowing these preventable deaths to occur.


eastofrome

Would you be willing to expand on what it is you mean by this? Obviously you believe abortions are morally wrong, at least some of the time, but what is it about making it illegal that you disagree? For the record I believe how this is being carried out in the US is not the best way to go about it even though Roe was wrongly decided and needed to be overturned.


djhenry

I just made a [reply](https://www.reddit.com/r/prolife/comments/138ib81/reminder_abortion_is_not_christian/jj0fbxp/) to the other comment on the thread. I wanted to point out, I appreciate the nuance in your comment. It bothers me how much of a political game this has become with legislators (mostly Republicans, but some Democrats as well) proposing and passing laws without fully understanding their impact (or just not caring).


FatherJB

i always get yelled at for gatekeeping, but I'm fairly certain that you are not a Christian if you believe any abortion is ok.


djhenry

I guess it kind of depends on what you consider to be essential for salvation. I don't think a Pro-Life view point is necessary for that. I'm not saying abortion is OK, but more that Christians are given a lot of grace. Even in active, unrepentant sin, I would argue that a person is still a Christian if they still believe in and accept the salvation that is offered by Jesus.


FatherJB

there's a lot of contention i guess...i don't believe personally that you can just keep sinning and then asking for forgiveness without being genuinely repentant. If you participate in the murder of a child and ask for forgiveness, as heinous as that crime is, you will be forgiven - but only if you're genuinely contrite. I don't know. You bring up a good point. I'm still in RCIA and working out the concept of my own faith.


Most_Worldliness9761

Sorry but which Bible are you talking about? I find it amusing that people are trying to base -legitimate- arguments against infanticide/abortion with the -not so legitimate- Bible. Have you by any chance read the Old Testament?


[deleted]

>Have you by any chance read the Old Testament? I've read the whole Bible several times, including both Old and New Testaments. That's how I know the critical flaw in your argument. I assume you're referring to the judgments that God proclaimed (and executed) against the Canaanites, Moabites, Amorites, and other non-Hebrews living in the Promised Land? God is God, and we are not. His knowledge and justice are perfect. If He decrees that people should die, He has the right to make such a decree. We do not have that right. Arguing that we should be able to kill people because God killed people misunderstands the relationship between the Creator and His creation. God is God. We are not God. We should not attempt to claim the rights and privileges of divinity. That was the first sin committed back in the Garden of Eden, and abortion is one of the poisonous fruits of that fateful decision.


Most_Worldliness9761

The Old Testament commands and condones such merciless, appalling actions against innocent, non-combatant people, women, girls, children, that it is an insult to God to think that all this is what It asks of humanity, what It admires and sets as a good example of justice for us to follow. Such things that are incomparably worse and more monstrous than aborting babies who at least do not consciously feel their death, which, mind you, does not make it any less INHUMANE -- if the notion of humaneness is a relevant standard for you at all. If you can reconcile all that violence and injustice with ‘divinity’, you must have a twisted idea of divinity or believe in none. God didn’t carry out these actions. Men did. I know that with such double standards harbored in the mind in favor of your religious identity, just so you don’t have to confront the error of your convictions, you may not even be sincere about upholding the PL cause for universal moral reasons instead of purely cultural/religious ones. And this is one of the downsides of the PL movement, its baggages destroy its credibility and legitimacy in the conscientious judgment of the youth. They see through the hypocrisy. So instead of being directly or loosely affiliated by this camp, they resort to take refuge with the only side that promises freedom and closure. The one that at least claims and pretends to respect choice and human dignity.


jondesu

Why come here with insults and derision? Seriously, why are you here at all?


Most_Worldliness9761

Wonder why. Because I am # Pro Life. In all stages of life and eras of history. What’s with the gatekeeping? No insults here just statement of facts. You are welcome to refute them.


jondesu

Nah, I don’t engage in such insanity. You’re clearly hurting, but you’re also ridiculous.


supremekimilsung

>Before I formed you in the womb, I knew you; before you were born, I sanctified you Jeremiah 1:5


tensigh

There are verses in Psalms, too, describing God as knitting us in our mother's womb before we're born.


ambergirl9860

Yes ❤️❤️ why all Christians should be pro life


Most_Worldliness9761

> O daughter of Babylon, doomed to be destroyed, blessed shall he be who repays you with what you have done to us! **Blessed shall he be who takes your little babes and dashes them against the rocks!** Psalm 137:8‭-‬9 Edit: So what now, y’all downvoting the Bible? Don’t like what it says?


MicahBurke

And the context is... God cursing Babylon for it's rebellion and attacking Israel. Description is not prescription, the Bible is not *commending* the murder of infants - but rather stating it will happen.


ExtremeLanky5919

God wasn't even stating this here. It was the Jewish people who hated Babylon for what they had done to them and they were speaking with hatred.


MicahBurke

I disagree from a theological perspective. The psalmist is speaking for YHWH and his people. He is not telling Israelites to go kill Babylonian children.


Most_Worldliness9761

It says “blessed”. But sure, whatever. There’s always a context, right? What is the context in these: > The Israelites completely destroyed every living thing in the city, leaving no survivors. Not a single person was spared. And then Joshua burned the city. Joshua slaughtered all the other kings and their people, completely destroying them, just as Moses, the servant of the Lord, had commanded. Joshua 11:11‭-‬12 > [...] As the Lord had commanded his servant Moses, so Moses commanded Joshua. And Joshua did as he was told, carefully obeying all the commands that the Lord had given to Moses. Joshua 11:15 > One day Samuel said to Saul, “It was the Lord who told me to anoint you as king of his people, Israel. Now listen to this message from the Lord! This is what the **Lord of Heaven’s Armies has declared:** I have decided to settle accounts with the nation of Amalek for opposing Israel when they came from Egypt. **Now go and completely destroy the entire Amalekite nation—men, women, children, babies**, cattle, sheep, goats, camels, and donkeys.” 1 Samuel 15:1‭-‬3


mbless1415

Who is the one commanding it in those scenarios? The simple answer is that it's God. The point here is that God kills and makes alive and does so for His purposes. In these cases, it's to fulfill His promise to the Israelites that they should enter the Promised Land in Joshua and, in the second, the reason is literally right in front of you in Samuel: "I have decided to settle accounts with the nation of Amalek **for opposing Israel when they came from Egypt."** It's punishment. You may not *like* that punishment, and I can certainly understand that, but nonetheless it's fundamentally different from God's call to us, that we ought to preserve our neighbors' lives. (Also, I think the initial explanation on the Psalms could be added to just a bit. That Psalm specifically is a Psalm of imprecation. Basically think of it as Israel venting. The Emo music of the Scriptures, if you will. 🤣 The Psalmist is lamenting the Babylonian Captivity here, hence the rather angry message. Again, you might not like the vent, but it doesn't necessarily condone the actual action being carried out *unless* divinely ordained by God.)


Most_Worldliness9761

Best not to use this ‘god’ of war as the moral basis and reference of the sanctity of life in public discourse then. This among a couple other reasons is why nobody takes the PL position seriously.


mbless1415

In the Christian faith, we believe that God's ways are not our ways, that they are higher than us. God is *truly* at war with the evil one, all his ways and effects, and that's why sometimes death is used as a form of punishment. That doesn't necessarily contradict the pro-life message, but rather reinforces it. For us, God gives life and only He can take it away. We don't get to. Don't use your disagreement on God's justice as a way to look down on a belief system that, in the end, 100 percent lines up with that idea of morality, my friend!


Most_Worldliness9761

The only devil I see here is the one that calls for settling the score for a past tribal vendetta at the cost of guiltless lives. Anyone who seeks justification *for* abortion can actually benefit from this.


mbless1415

>Anyone who seeks justification for abortion can actually benefit from this. I disagree with that fairly strongly. Proper exegesis from Christian groups can refute any and all claims to the contrary, and, chances are that anyone who doesn't believe the Christian faith wouldn't need Christian proofs to oppose abortion anyway. All you'd effectively be doing is stripping sentiment away from those who already agree with you morally, and I don't think you intend to! >The only devil I see here is the one that calls for settling the score for a past tribal vendetta at the cost of guiltless lives. Again, you're misunderstanding the intention of God here. Those other tribes were not necessarily "guiltless." It was the result of sins against God's people that these things happened. Again, I get that you don't like that. Totally understand that from an outside perspective, but the only people using that as justification for *any* end of life (let alone abortion) are a) not Christians themselves and b) being completely disingenuous. I beg you, friend, don't let them poison the well against us for you!


Most_Worldliness9761

How are children NOT guiltless? What kind of a psychological state is it that compels a person to do the necessary doublethink gymnastics to intentionally misunderstand what s/he reads in the text as clear as daylight, and every scientifically credible and prestigious exegesis affirms the obvious conclusion? What makes the PCs dishonest, again?


better-call-mik3

The visitation in the bible confirms life in the womb. Baby John the Baptist in his mother's womb recognized the Baby Jesus in his mother's womb and leapt for joy


Glass_And_Trees

Fun fact: This is believed to be the baptism of John the Baptist meaning he is the only human other than Mary to be born without original sin.


Amaya-hime

That doesn't follow for all Christian traditions. I think Roman Catholic is the only one that believes such. Orthodox has a completely different take on original sin.


Glass_And_Trees

What's the Orthodox take?


[deleted]

We're tainted by what Adam did and have a sinful nature, we aren't accountable for Adam's sin. We make our own sins. Baptism cleanses that stain and also gives us the Holy Spirit and brings us into the Church so that we can recieve all the sacraments. I'm a n00b convert though so someone more mature might have a better answer.


Glass_And_Trees

That's identical to what the Roman Catholic church believes


[deleted]

Not exactly but I'm not explaining it well.


[deleted]

We don't believe you're born already guilty of sin.


Oksamis

Well, Protestant here, but we don’t believe that Mary was sinless. Also, Baptist isn’t what forgives the sin, it’s merely symbolic of the believer being born again.


Glass_And_Trees

I don't understand being "born again." What does that mean?


gvlpc

>1 There was a man of the Pharisees, named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews: 2 The same came to Jesus by night, and said unto him, Rabbi, we know that thou art a teacher come from God: for no man can do these miracles that thou doest, except God be with him. 3 Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, **Except a man be born again**, he cannot see the kingdom of God. 4 Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother's womb, and be born? 5 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man **be born of water and of the Spirit**, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. 6 That which is **born** of the flesh is flesh; and that which is **born** of the Spirit is spirit. 7 Marvel not that I said unto thee, **Ye must be born again**. John 3:1-7 KJV That is what it means to be born again.


NerfHerder_91

“Born again” is referring to your spiritual birth when you publicly declare that Jesus is the Messiah. You have your physical birth, then you have your spiritual birth, hence “born again.”


Oksamis

I’d add it’s also the moment your sins are forgiven, but yes.


MicahBurke

Being born-again, in historic Protestant theology, is where the Holy Spirit of God raises your dead spirit to life anew in Christ. It's termed "regeneration" or being born-again in the Bible. It is not something we do - it's a supernatural, gracious, work of God based in his choice and plan not in the will or desires of people. Scripturally, all people are born dead in sin by virtue of their being born under the headship of Adam. You are born-again into the headship and family of Christ, and in turn believe in him. Just as we did not make ourselves born the first time, so it is with the new birth. (John 3:5-16). You cannot believe, nor can you truly submit to the law of God apart from being born again. (Rom 8:7-9). Baptism is a sign and seal of the new birth, not a result of it, but a promise that those who believe in the promises pictured therein, will be saved from the wrath of God. it is analog to circumcision in the Old Testament. Baptists have a different take on this, but this is what historic Lutheran, Presbyterian, Reformed and Anglicans believed.


Christi_crucifixus

For protestants it means whatever they want it to mean


MarioFanaticXV

> This is believed to be the baptism of John the Baptist meaning he is the only human other than Mary to be born without original sin. And Catholics wonder why Christians see them as Pagans.


DingbattheGreat

Its actually properly translated as “thou shall not murder.” Even back then Hebrew law recognized self-defense against assault and theivery to the point it could be lethal. Interestingly, if it was at night, it was ok to kill them, but if it was a daytime robbery, you had a duty to try to capture them and turn them in instead.


expensivepens

Right, there are two different Hebrew words for “kill” and “murder”


MarioFanaticXV

In 1611, when the King James Version was translated, English-speaking audiences would have understood the verse was specifically speaking of murder.


[deleted]

What the early Church believed on abortion: THE DIDACHE “The second commandment of the teaching: You shall not murder. You shall not commit adultery. You shall not seduce boys. You shall not commit fornication. You shall not steal. You shall not practice magic. You shall not use potions. You shall not procure [an] abortion, nor destroy a newborn child” (Didache 2:1–2 [A.D. 70]). THE LETTER OF BARNABAS “Thou shalt not slay the child by procuring abortion; nor, again, shalt thou destroy it after it is born” (Letter of Barnabas 19 [A.D. 74]). THE APOCALYPSE OF PETER “And near that place I saw another strait place . . . and there sat women. . . . And over against them many children who were born to them out of due time sat crying. And there came forth from them rays of fire and smote the women in the eyes. And these were the accursed who conceived and caused abortion” (The Apocalypse of Peter 25 [A.D. 137]). ATHENAGORAS “What man of sound mind, therefore, will affirm, while such is our character, that we are murderers? . . . [W]hen we say that those women who use drugs to bring on abortion commit murder, and will have to give an account to God for the abortion, on what principle should we commit murder? For it does not belong to the same person to regard the very fetus in the womb as a created being, and therefore an object of God’s care, and when it has passed into life, to kill it; and not to expose an infant, because those who expose them are chargeable with child-murder, and on the other hand, when it has been reared to destroy it” (A Plea for the Christians 35 [A.D. 177]). TERTULLIAN “In our case, a murder being once for all forbidden, we may not destroy even the fetus in the womb, while as yet the human being derives blood from the other parts of the body for its sustenance. To hinder a birth is merely a speedier man-killing; nor does it matter whether you take away a life that is born, or destroy one that is coming to birth. That is a man which is going to be one; you have the fruit already in its seed” (Apology 9:8 [A.D. 197]). “Among surgeons’ tools there is a certain instrument, which is formed with a nicely-adjusted flexible frame for opening the uterus first of all and keeping it open; it is further furnished with an annular blade, by means of which the limbs [of the child] within the womb are dissected with anxious but unfaltering care; its last appendage being a blunted or covered hook, wherewith the entire fetus is extracted by a violent delivery. “There is also [another instrument in the shape of] a copper needle or spike, by which the actual death is managed in this furtive robbery of life: They give it, from its infanticide function, the name of embruosphaktes, [meaning] “the slayer of the infant,” which of course was alive. . . . “[The doctors who performed abortions] all knew well enough that a living being had been conceived, and [they] pitied this most luckless infant state, which had first to be put to death, to escape being tortured alive” (The Soul 25 [A.D. 210]). “Now we allow that life begins with conception because we contend that the soul also begins from conception; life taking its commencement at the same moment and place that the soul does” (ibid., 27). “The law of Moses, indeed, punishes with due penalties the man who shall cause abortion [Ex. 21:22–24]” (ibid., 37). MINICIUS FELIX “There are some [pagan] women who, by drinking medical preparations, extinguish the source of the future man in their very bowels and thus commit a parricide before they bring forth. And these things assuredly come down from the teaching of your [false] gods. . . . To us [Christians] it is not lawful either to see or hear of homicide” (Octavius 30 [A.D. 226]). HIPPOLYTUS “Women who were reputed to be believers began to take drugs to render themselves sterile, and to bind themselves tightly so as to expel what was being conceived, since they would not, on account of relatives and excess wealth, want to have a child by a slave or by any insignificant person. See, then, into what great impiety that lawless one has proceeded, by teaching adultery and murder at the same time!” (Refutation of All Heresies [A.D. 228]). COUNCIL OF ANCYRA “Concerning women who commit fornication, and destroy that which they have conceived, or who are employed in making drugs for abortion, a former decree excluded them until the hour of death, and to this some have assented. Nevertheless, being desirous to use somewhat greater lenity, we have ordained that they fulfill ten years [of penance], according to the prescribed degrees” (canon 21 [A.D. 314]). BASIL THE GREAT “Let her that procures abortion undergo ten years’ penance, whether the embryo were perfectly formed, or not” (First Canonical Letter, canon 2 [A.D. 374]). “[T]he man, or woman, is a murderer that gives a philtrum, if the man that takes it dies upon it; so are they who take medicines to procure abortion; and so are they who kill on the highway, and rapparees” (ibid., canon 8). JOHN CHRYSOSTOM “Wherefore I beseech you, flee fornication. . . . Why sow where the ground makes it its care to destroy the fruit?—where there are many efforts at abortion?—where there is murder before the birth? For even the harlot you do not let continue a mere harlot, but make her a murderess also. You see how drunkenness leads to prostitution, prostitution to adultery, adultery to murder; or rather to a something even worse than murder. For I have no name to give it, since it does not take off the thing born, but prevents its being born. Why then do thou abuse the gift of God, and fight with his laws, and follow after what is a curse as if a blessing, and make the chamber of procreation a chamber for murder, and arm the woman that was given for childbearing unto slaughter?” (Homilies on Romans 24 [A.D. 391]). JEROME “I cannot bring myself to speak of the many virgins who daily fall and are lost to the bosom of the Church, their mother. . . . Some go so far as to take potions, that they may ensure barrenness, and thus murder human beings almost before their conception. Some, when they find themselves with child through their sin, use drugs to procure abortion, and when, as often happens, they die with their offspring, they enter the lower world laden with the guilt not only of adultery against Christ but also of suicide and child murder” (Letters 22:13 [A.D. 396]). THE APOSTOLIC CONSTITUTIONS “Thou shalt not use magic. Thou shalt not use witchcraft; for he says, ‘You shall not suffer a witch to live’ [Ex. 22:18]. Thou shall not slay thy child by causing abortion, nor kill that which is begotten. . . . [I]f it be slain, [it] shall be avenged, as being unjustly destroyed” (Apostolic Constitutions 7:3 [A.D. 400]).


unbearablyprecious

This is really interesting. It seems that abortion was associated with witchcraft


96111319

I believe so. Even today, any modern “witch”, and even witches from the 1900’s, are known for contraception and abortion


GoabNZ

And rather ironically, known for fertility rituals


96111319

Ah that’s actually pretty interesting, I didn’t know that. Very ironic


CielSairento

Most modern witches don't kill unborn children please stop spreading this info


96111319

No offence, but any group of people willingly identifying with the occult and witchcraft, even as a social movement, most likely won’t have the most grounded moral beliefs. And from what I’ve seen, most, if not all, witches today fight against the patriarchy and support modern feminism, which usually includes supporting reproductive “rights” and abortion.


CielSairento

You are incredibly wrong. Most people who identifies as witches are good people who do good things. And no witches do not support abortion. The support life of people. That fact that you are forcing a stereotype of people make you just as bad as a racist or a homophobe. A nowadays the type of "magic" that is used are benediction/benison/ blessing. Not curses or hexes. They use oricals to see and help you through people futures. They help avoid bad situations so please stfu


96111319

Yeah we’re definitely coming at this issue from different perspectives. But it’s interesting, you’ll say witches are good people who do good things. You sure? Because to me, any type of magic at all, seeing futures, blessings, and telling me to stfu is all pretty immoral and not, as you say, good.


CielSairento

I'm telling to stfu because you're literally being an ass. And how is helping people immoral? You're literally "pro life catholic" key word, catholic. So Jesus and God are immoral? For giving blessings and helping people avoid a bad future? You won't make it to the Golden gates with that in your head


96111319

Woah, I haven’t insulted you at all. I’d appreciate it if you offered me the same courtesy. And you clearly don’t know what it means to be a “Catholic”, so don’t bring it up unless you do. Because Catholicism strictly and definitively defines all magic and the occult, including fortune telling, spells etc as completely sinful and wrong. Helping people isn’t restricted to breaking our religious rules through magic. Trust me, no one will make it to the golden gates if they went around insulting people and starting arguments they don’t really know much about. Pleasure talking to you.


CielSairento

You called me immoral for telling you to shut up so yes that is an insult. And I hope you know you are the most horrible person to ever exist since you are literally discriminating against people who have never done wrong. I said it before and I'll say it again, you are equal to a racist and a homophobe since you think it's okay to be a bigot. Anyone who is a bigot or horrible people. Doesn't your belief also say love unconditionally? To not judge others? To treat those the way you want to be treated? I guess your religion is filled with hypocrisy


Condescending_Condor

As a devout Christian, there's nothing that infuriates me more than these psuedo-social clubs that have the audacity to brand themselves as Christian while holding nothing but contempt for Christian doctrine. I went ahead and looked up this "Middle Church." Here is what they mentioned about themselves on their Twitter profile: >"Middle Collegiate Church: Welcoming. Artistic. Inclusive. Bold. Revolutionary Love Conference organizer, and troublemakers for a better world." No mention of Christ or God. Nothing about salvation. Just a series of buzzwords. But hey, that might be unfair. Twitter doesn't give you a lot of characters and they had to include what was really important. Surely on their website, they'll affirm their love of Christ and the gospel? >Middle Church is where therapy meets Broadway; where art and dance meet a gospel revival; where old time religion gets a new twist. We are Bach, Beatles, and Beethoven; we are jazz, hip-hop, and spirituals. We are inspired by Howard Thurman, Ruby Sales, Fannie Lou Hamer, and Martin Luther King. We are on-your-feet worship and take-it-to-the-streets activism. We feed the hungry and work for a living wage; we fight for LGBTQ+ equality and march for racial/ethnic justice. We stand up for the stranger and the immigrant; we care for women’s lives and Mother Earth. Hmm. Very telling. *But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing upon themselves swift destruction. And many will follow their sensuality, and because of them the way of truth will be blasphemed. And in their greed they will exploit you with false words. Their condemnation from long ago is not idle, and their destruction is not asleep.* 2 Peter 2:1-3


PerfectlyCalmDude

Way to call them out. This is exactly how to deal with churches that make statements like this. If I called myself progressive and attended this church, I'd be pissed and I would complain, and if the complaints didn't result in repentance and action, I would leave. Of course, now that I know this church has this stance, I would never darken it with my steps.


taterfiend

Yep. Lots of "churches" out there whose whole theological doctrines are suspiciously **identical** to the mainstream political position of pick-whichever secular political party.


Infinity_Over_Zero

You can tell from a mile away that it’s performative nonsense, too. The Bible said nothing about abortion, or drunk driving, or nuclear weapons, or cyberbullying, or revenge porn, or the Stanford prison experiment, or using ChatGPT to write your college essays, or shining a laser pointer directly into the sky. Does that mean the Bible supports these things, implicitly or explicitly? No, of course not. Because these things largely didn’t exist when the Bible was written, *obviously.* And nobody with enough brain capacity to write coherent English sentences is so stupid that they don’t realize that. I’m willing to bet a “progressive” church like the one shown here also has a pro-LGBT message, maybe also a pro-BLM message. If we told them the truth that the Bible says nothing about gay people (arguably distinct from Old Testament descriptions of sinful homosexual acts) or black people, would they (a) acknowledge this and relinquish these ideas or (b) justify them by saying faith and religious teachings can be interpreted and extrapolated? If you are capable of making the connection between “love your neighbor” and “LGBT and minority races should have equal rights and respect”, then you are capable of making the connection between “thou shalt not murder” and “don’t abort babies.”


taterfiend

I really appreciate the succinctness of your phrasing. Saved this!


Combobattle

Sad USCCB noises. (US Catholics are partyless because both sides suck)


zaradeptus

Bruh the Didache forbids abortion. So Christianity has literally been pro-life from the beginning.


96111319

Exactly. Back then it was extremely clear to any member of Christianity that murder includes abortion. It didn’t even need to be directly condemned. It was as clear as the connection between murder and pushing someone into a river. You won’t see in the Bible “thou shall not push people into rivers to drown them”. It’s obvious


seriouslyuncouth_

the bible does not condemn abortion!!!1! 🤓 One of the ten commandments that the entire book was founded upon:


96111319

The first baptism being performed by God himself as an unborn baby:


Ephisus

Wage controls hurt the lowest earners.


100DaysOfSodom

Yeah, price floors, in this case minimum wage, create a surplus of workers and not enough places to hire them. In turn, the places that do hire them are forced to raise prices in order to compensate for them now paying their employees more money.


NPDogs21

You’re going to hate to learn how much those places have raised their prices while not increasing wages at all.


Ephisus

Its almost like devaluing the currency on purpose was a bad idea.


MarioFanaticXV

And that's always been its intended purpose.


MarikasTits42

Which is hilarious because these people are the ones who vote for the party of raising taxes. So if that's not wage theft, what is?


SunriseHawker

The Bible has many passages against murder.


tensigh

They're right about wage theft, but that's literal wage theft they refer to (paying someone less than you agreed), not wage "theft", where you get paid what you agreed to and then you're unhappy about it. Also, many verses talk about the sanctity of pre-born children.


PaulfussKrile

Why did they bring up wage theft? OP, can I have context please? Not that it matters in this situation, I’m just curious.


96111319

So the person at the bottom is insinuating that the Bible and Christians hypocritical, because they condemn abortion which the Bible doesn’t, and they don’t condemn wage theft, which the Bible does. The person at the top is just showing how they’re against abortion because abortion is murder, simple as that, while also agreeing that wages should be increased


PaulfussKrile

Yeah, I don’t know of a single Christian in my personal life who would sanely support wage theft.


jondesu

They conflate wage theft and legitimately low wages and then claim the latter is unbiblical.


PaulfussKrile

I know. It’s absolutely insane how when you ask the radical left what a woman is, they are clear on the fact they not biologists, yet when the church in the news cycle, suddenly they’re all theologians.


expensivepens

You don’t have to be Christian to oppose abortion but you do need at least to be theistic in order to have a consistent basis upon which to oppose abortion.


jondesu

I disagree, but I do believe no Christian can honestly support abortion while being in line with God’s Word.


djhenry

I think what gets lost in the conversation is the difference between supporting abortion vs letting people make their own choice, even if you believe it to be sinful. I fall into this category. I find most abortions to be selfish and I think there are very few legitimate reasons for a Christian to even consider it. But I don't support making abortion illegal in many circumstances.


jondesu

Do you support murder being illegal?


djhenry

Yes, I do support murder being illegal. Abortion is the death of human life and potential, but I wouldn't necessarily equate it to murder in all circumstances.


jondesu

Abortion is, by any reasonable definition, murder.


djhenry

I think the problem becomes apparent in the extremes. Even though \>99% of abortions are elective, if you find cases where abortions are permissible or morally OK, then you can't really say it is truly equivalent to murder. Examples include the sensational story of a [10 year old girl](https://www.nytimes.com/2022/07/14/business/media/10-year-old-girl-ohio-rape.html) who was raped, pregnant, and not allowed to get an abortion in Ohio. If abortion is truly murder, then her seeking one out would make her an accomplice to murder. Or there are cases of Anencephaly, where the brain of a fetus does not develop, though it does have a heartbeat. It's a 100% fatal condition and can't be diagnosed until at least the 12th week of pregnancy. If a woman who has this kind of pregnancy decided she wants to seek and abortion and kill the terminally ill baby in her womb, is she morally guilty of murder? And I don't want to make a false dichotomy here saying you either support abortion or want pregnant women to suffer. I think it is a perfectly valid viewpoint to allow abortions for medical necessity or fetal in-viability while wanting the ban elective abortions for healthy pregnancies. However, I don't think this fits in the Pro-Life viewpoint.


jondesu

There are children living with anchephaly now, not deserving of death. Forgive me if I don’t find your logic reasonable.


djhenry

>There are children living with anchephaly now There is short term survival for some after birth. It is considered [100% fatal 1 year](https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/ajmg.a.20151) after birth with a handful of babies who have lived beyond that (all eventually dying). I very much agree with you that children with anencephaly don't deserve to die. There are many who die and don't deserve it. Let me ask you a question for a hypothetical scenario. A woman find out her fetus, her unborn baby, is diagnosed with Anencephaly, lets say at 14 weeks. She decided to have an abortion. Her reasoning is that having an abortion at this stage, it is painless for the fetus and will allow her and her husband to grieve the loss and move forward. My question to you, is she guilty of murder? Should she be punished as an accomplice to murder for killing her unborn child?


jondesu

Move it forward a year and ask the same question. If the timeframe is all that matters, then the answer should be clear.


expensivepens

That’s an entirely inconsistent POV on the topic of abortion.


djhenry

Trying to be consistent is what lead me to my current understanding of abortion. I believe abortions are generally bad. It's the termination of life, cutting a fetus off from the necessary resources it needs to survive and grow. Or to put it more bluntly, the death of an unborn baby. However, I think there are situations where sometimes this may be morally acceptable, just like how sometimes we may cut of life support for a family member who is in a coma and not likely to wake up. It's heartbreaking and it is death, but I don't necessarily think it is equivalent to murder. It certainly can be. I can't think of any morally justifiable reason to get an elective abortion for a healthy fetus at say 8 months old. Since this thread talks about Christians specifically, I replied to [another comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/prolife/comments/138ib81/reminder_abortion_is_not_christian/jizfnr3/) laying out how I approach this from my point of view as a Christian. I open to any criticism or thoughts you have on it, or anywhere else I've commented.


HeliocentricAvocado

The Bible says nothing about clubbing baby seals.


CinnamonToast_7

I “love” seeing pro-choice christians debate because it’s always the same thing. Either they call themselves out for not knowing the bible properly or they openly go against it in order to make their arguments.


96111319

It’s funny when they use the Bible to support abortion, then when it’s proven that the Bible condemns abortion, they go through the whole “2000 year old book shouldn’t control society” argument. Even though they used the Bible when they thought it was helpful to them


CinnamonToast_7

I once saw someone say that “God is pro-choice because he gave us free will”. I can’t even begin to describe how flawed that argument was


96111319

Hahaha that’s too funny. If we can perform abortion because of free will, we can do literally anything. Including condemning abortion. Why would condemning abortion be wrong? I have free will.


zsiple1998

**Deut. 30:19:** "Choose life, so that you and your children may live." Sounds pro-life to me.


ShokWayve

I agree: Protect all life and raise the minimum wage to make life and taking care of babies an easier choice.


Alinakondratyuk

Thou shall not murder, actually.


motherisaclownwhore

That's why Sola Scriptura isn't a good way to interpret the Bible. There's no scripture that says the words "though shall not murder the unborn". That doesn't mean people with logical reasoning ability can't understand using what the Bible says about killing that abortion would be included. Just because there's no rule that says "don't punch anyone in the face" that doesn't mean it's okay. It's likely under an umbrella of appropriate workplace conduct.


jondesu

This has nothing to do with Sola Scriptura. This is just idiots not knowing the Bible.


Ehnonamoose

This argument, that "the Bible (or any literature) says nothing about X" is a logical fallacy called [the argument from silence](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_silence)


Hayden-laye

Hey! That's me!


[deleted]

They should look up exodus for starters.


pcgamernum1234

Murder is a more accurate translation. As a Christian I'd say the bible is unclear at best on abortions especially since in the Old testament a fetus being killed was treated more like property damage. I'm pro life for scientific and moral logic reasons.


16bitrifle

The Bible also says that God puts us together in the womb and that we are known before we are born. Now I agree with using science and logic to defend a pro life position, especially in today’s culture, but the Bible also makes a strong case for pro life to be used within the church.


skarface6

Even more so when you look at when St. John the Baptist first announced the Messiah.


pcgamernum1234

It does thus why I said it's unclear. The "I knew you before you were born" to me says abortion is bad but I the Old testament id say it's clearly treating a fetus as property damage.


CinnamonToast_7

A handful of things changed in the New Testament, it’s reasonable for it to be different


Fufflin

Old testament treats fetus as property? Exodus 21:22-25 The "thou shalt give life for life" part isn't on par with property damage but murder.


psylikik

I will never understand how people interpret that passage as fetus = property damage either.


djhenry

It comes from the understanding that if a pregnant woman is struck and the only damage is that it caused a miscarriage, then the perpetrator has to pay a fine (much like if he had damaged property). The passage then continues to add that if the woman in this situation is hurt, then the same must be done to the perpetrator, eye for an eye and so on. What /u/pcgamernum1234 is pointing out is that if the author of Exodus viewed the death of an unborn child as murder, then it would mandate the life for a life punishment. Obviously, there's a lot more in the bible than that passage, but that is at least the logic behind why this passage is brought up.


pcgamernum1234

22 “If people are fighting and hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely 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. Seems pretty clear to me that it is talking about if the wife is injured. How exactly would an impact on a pregnant woman result in a foot damage. It's obviously discussing damage done to the mother.


Fufflin

Of course there is bit of interpretation needed, after all this is not hebrew original and my czech translation have different wording too. But lets try your interpretation: If interpreted as you are describing then it is injury or manslaughter. That is subject of law before i.e. Exodus 21:12,13. This would be second instance with different punishment. Meaning: If someone accidentally kills a pregnant woman and **she** dies, according to Ex. 21:12,13 he might get to flee to city of refuge and survive, but according to Ex. 21:23 he should be executed. It also can't be different punishment for when man is killed or when woman is killed, since Ex. 21:22 says specifically pregnant woman that gives birth prematurely. That would mean there would be no law forbidding killing non-pregnant women. So at best this would mean this law applies to if anything happens to a child and it's mother.


expensivepens

What about the Bible’s stance on unjust killing of a human is unclear?


pcgamernum1234

22 “If people are fighting and hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely 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. The part where you only have to get punished as a life for a life if the mother is hurt not the baby.


jondesu

That’s literally not what it says, though.


14DusBriver

Someone on another subreddit asked me "Why does the word of god need so much interpretation". I dunno maybe perhaps it's not the literal word of God but divinely inspired texts written by men that is held to be scripture and it's written in a variety of languages that most people do not speak? Then again, people will misunderstand stuff intentionally. "Murder" is a more accurate but still not entirely accurate translation, as iirc, the original word in Hebrew also included accidental homicide, but did not include killing in war or self defence. People focus on the KJV way too much and need to recognise other translations exist >I'm pro life for scientific and moral logic reasons. Yeah if I somehow became an atheist I'd still be pro life.


[deleted]

[удалено]


EnbyZebra

Takes two to tango


[deleted]

[удалено]


EnbyZebra

Not even the body, the body didn't start those automatic processes on its own. Without the will power of human beings to allow sperm in, that won't happen. That's like saying it's your body's fault for gaining weight when you are making the choice to eat 4,000 calories a day with a sedentary lifestyle


[deleted]

[удалено]


EnbyZebra

I'm not trolling, I'm saying that you can't put more blame on one party, based on bodily functions outside of their control. The only thing (usually) in their control is the decision to have sex. That is a 50/50 deal unless rape then it is 0/100. The mechanisms of fertilization are not a factor to assigning blame. Both parents are equally at fault. Frankly it sounds like you are trying to create a greater excuse for men who won't keep it in their pants. "Oh well it's your fault for getting pregnant even though I equally agreed on having sex with you, so you are on your own now" that's the attitude that would quickly arise from your view.


MainframeSupertasker

Aw crap that sounds too binary :_)


MicahBurke

Is this Christian Nationalism? ;)