Abortion on Christian Grounds

[betsy]

Now that I've established the verses that clearly indicate the great significance that God had placed on the fetus, and that it is considered human let me get to the next point.

The Commandment: Thou shalt not kill.

That is a law! One of the 10 Commandments that we, as Christians, are supposed to OBEY.

The Spirit of the Law is as important as the letter of the law.

The 10 Commandments of God are given to all - Jews and GENTILES! Furthermore, Jesus had a very strong message about the Law in the New Testament.

Matthew 5:17-20

"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven."

[betsy]

Ground #2

“My body, my choice.”

True followers of Christ must not support this feminist doctrine for the simple reason that your body is not your own in the first place.

1 Corinthians 6

19 Or do you not know that your body is the temple of the Holy Spirit who is in you, whom you have from God, and you are not your own? 20 For you were bought at a price; therefore glorify God in your body[c] and in your spirit, which are God’s.

1 Corinthians 3

16 Do you not know that you are the temple of God and that the Spirit of God dwells in you? 17 If anyone defiles the temple of God, God will destroy him. For the temple of God is holy, which temple you are.

It is said that today is the generation of the “I,” or the “Me,” or the “My.”

“My body, my choice” really sums it up. Everything is directed towards self-gratification. From all the material things we have and try to accumulate, the pursuit of careers, our obsession with personal fulfillment.

Sacrifices are made in order to achieve these gratifications. Priorities are re-shuffled. Family. Children. Even The Lord’s Day. All for the sake of gratifying the SELF.

Those who've read and understood the Bible will know that the Old Testament shows a seeming endless cycle of idolatry - wrath of God - repentance - forgiveness - idolatry - etc.., The Jews just kept on backsliding and almost alwyas getting influenced by pagans to the point that they end up giving sacrifices to idols and other gods. One of the worst they did was sacrifing their children to the god Baal, or Molech.

Evidently in the present time, SELF had become a god. SELF had become the modern-day Baal.

Don’t we Christians believe that the body is not ours? That is the temple of the Lord. That since we carry Christ in our hearts, we are the “Church?” Our children are not ours. They’ve been entrusted to us by God.

Jeremiah 19

3 And say, Hear ye the word of the Lord, O kings of Judah, and inhabitants of Jerusalem; Thus saith the Lord of hosts, the God of Israel; Behold, I will bring evil upon this place, the which whosoever heareth, his ears shall tingle.

4 Because they have forsaken me, and have estranged this place, and have burned incense in it unto other gods, whom neither they nor their fathers have known, nor the kings of Judah, and have filled this place with the blood of innocents;

5 They have built also the high places of Baal, to burn their sons with fire for burnt offerings unto Baal, which I commanded not, nor spake it, neither came it into my mind:

Are we not the present day equivalent of the stiff-necked, backsliding Jews from the Old Testament? They said they believe in God, and yet they worshipped other gods. They made offerings to other gods….they even committed the worst sacrifice in the eyes of God. They offered God’s children as sacrifice to Baal.

Think about it. Are we not sacrificing our unborn children to the god, SELF?

Edited July 21, 2012 by betsy

[betsy]

Ground #3

Matthew 22:36-40

36 “Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?”

37 Jesus replied: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ 38 This is the first and greatest commandment. 39 And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’

40 All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.”

If we're supposed to love God with all our heart , with all our soul and with all our mind.....Why do we desecrate His temple?

Why are we placing SELF above Him? Why do we approve, and abet others to offend Him?

By supporting the murder of unborn children, we break those two greatest Commandment of all.

Edited July 21, 2012 by betsy

[betsy]

Ground #4

What do you say when someone asks you, "Is abortion right or wrong?"

What do you say when a fellow-Christian tells you, "Bring the church to the 21st century!" or "It's time to modernize the church."

Those statements suggest God is out-dated. That God should bow down to suit what the modern times demand. Therefore that means this world wants to dictate to God.

Those statements smack of arrogance, vanity and rebellion. Isn't that reminiscent of the fallen angel, Lucifer? Who was arrogant and vain? Who led a rebellion against God?

Romans 12: 1-2

I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, that you present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable to God, which is your reasonable service. 2 And do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, that you may prove what is that good and acceptable and perfect will of God.

Political correctness does not trump the Laws of God. One can be civil and diplomatic.....but that does not necessarily mean we set aside, or attempt to twist around what's written in the Bible. We have to hold our Christian ground.

Please remember that Satan is a master of deceit, who will use anything or anyone as a tool to alienate and lead us from God.

Before we follow or approve of any new way of life, we have to contemplate deeply and ask ourselves: whose agenda are we promoting? God's or Satan's?

Edited July 21, 2012 by betsy

[betsy]

Point # 5

We have to look inside and ask, why did we want religion in the first place?

Why did we embrace Christianity? What is our reason for being a Christian?

If the answer is salvation and eternal life, then it's very crucial to know and understand God's will, and to be able to discern when we're being misled. Otherwise, what's the point?

It's not like as if we're on a trial run.

Eternal life is the purpose of this whole exercise, is it not?

Edited July 21, 2012 by betsy

[betsy]

Lastly....

Are we off the hook if we choose to be neutral or silent regarding abortion?

Proverbs 24

11 If thou forbear to deliver them that are drawn unto death, and those that are ready to be slain;

12 If thou sayest, Behold, we knew it not; doth not he that pondereth the heart consider it? and he that keepeth thy soul, doth not he know it? and shall not he render to every man according to his works?

We are supposed to help the weak. How ironic that the most helpless humans are those inside the womb.

Matt 7: 21-27

21 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.

22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?

23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.

24 Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a rock:

25 And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell not: for it was founded upon a rock.

26 And every one that heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them not, shall be likened unto a foolish man, which built his house upon the sand:

27 And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell: and great was the fall of it.

[cybercoma]

Did you really need 7 posts back-to-back for that?

[cybercoma]

To be fair, religion does offer the benefits of community involvement.

[Guest Manny]

Not allowing abortions also leads to social problems. We could argue about which ones are worse.

For that reason I'm much more in favour of allowing. Disallowing is worse, IMO. The statement I made though was more general, that while I'm in favour of letting people choose to do what they want as long as no one else is harmed, that kind of attitude also leads to big problems that we can't easily foresee, because we are all interconnected in some way. And subtle long term effects are not well understood. It's when we marginalize families, when we allow people to pursue their dreams and drop their obligations, when children are brought up in a non-nurturing environment, when a whole society gets raised to be insensitive to the needs or rights of others. Then we breed a nation of sociopaths... end of the road for laissez faire morality.

I see it here man in my city. Kids brought up with no guidance, parents both drunk hammered. But they provide the basic necessities, by law, yes. The very basic. And those young ones that they breed- they have nothing. Hardly any of them will make it to become human beings.

There's doing what's legal, and there's doing what's right. So when I say I'm in favour of allowing, that doesn't mean I believe it's right.

Edited July 21, 2012 by Manny

[Moonlight Graham]

It's not an argument about the baby hijacking the mother's baby. What is being forwarded is a conflict of rights between the baby and the mother's sovereignty over her own body. That's what the thought experiment explores, I believe.

Ok, I agree. This is the main argument. There's also the dilemma that comes in about doctors having the right or not to perform abortions. But what you stated is the main dilemma.

As you eluded, whose rights triumph? The right of the baby/fetus/embryo to live, or the right of the mother to control her own body? I think much of it depends on where people draw the one on when an organism growing inside a mother's womb becomes a human being (or even a proto-human) who is entitled to rights, such as the right to life. Some say the line begins at conception, some say third trimester.

My point is that beyond this dilemma, those wanting choice over their bodies DO have it in one vital respect (unless its rape). There are no accidental pregnancies, only unwanted ones, beyond some wildly rare occasions. Women & men have sex knowing the risks, and ignorance of these risks is no defense. There is a probability of getting pregnant when having sex. Is it moral to kill a growing baby when you knew the risks in the first place? Do people have the right to have sex for pleasure and end a life when the roll of the dice doesn't end up on their side? Have humans of the past 50 years or so, due to medical breakthroughs, been taking sex as seriously as they should? Was Uncle Ben right when he said "with great power comes great responsibility?" Is the new spider-man film at good?

[cybercoma]

As you eluded, whose rights triumph? The right of the baby/fetus/embryo to live, or the right of the mother to control her own body?

There's a problem immediately with your language.

Nobody has a right to live. We all die. More to the point, there's a significant difference between killing someone and not keeping someone alive. If people had a right to live, it would be an infringement on their rights to pull the plug on them. With a mother and fetus, the fetus is plugged into the mother. She has no moral obligation to allow the fetus to continue to be plugged into her against her will. It would be nice. It may be the right thing to do. However, she's not obligated to give up her body for someone else to live.

I think much of it depends on where people draw the one on when an organism growing inside a mother's womb becomes a human being (or even a proto-human) who is entitled to rights, such as the right to life. Some say the line begins at conception, some say third trimester.

Life begins at conception. There's a variety of arguments about when legal personhood begins, but that's my point here. It doesn't matter when personhood begins. It could be a full-grown adult person that was injured by a woman in the wild. They have a doctor with them who could save the person's life, but he would have to hook him medically into the woman for 9 months, so her organs could filter his blood. She's under absolutely no obligation to give up sovereignty over her body to keep him alive. It would be nice. Perhaps she should do it because she is responsible for his condition. However, it's her body, so that's her choice to make, full stop.

Women & men have sex knowing the risks, and ignorance of these risks is no defense.

I don't think anyone is ignorant of the risks, as you put it. Women want to be able to choose when and how they have kids. There's myriad ways to do this. Abortion is just one of many tools women have at their disposal to keep from getting pregnant. Moreover, I think when you compare the number of abortions in a year versus the number of people that have sex and use condoms or the pill, abortion is not a terribly popular tool.

Knowing the risks means nothing. Being able to control one's fertility despite having sex has become a right.

There is a probability of getting pregnant when having sex. Is it moral to kill a growing baby when you knew the risks in the first place? Do people have the right to have sex for pleasure and end a life when the roll of the dice doesn't end up on their side?

This goes back to the thought experiment, particularly where I asked does it matter if she caused the person to require the use of her body for survival. Say the way she caused the person's injuries was a car accident. She knew the risks getting behind the wheel of a car. Does that oblige her to allow this other person the use of her body for survival? I don't see any such moral obligation here. Once again, there's a distinct difference between keeping someone alive through the use of your body and taking someone's life. There is no doubt that taking someone's life is immoral. However, simply refusing another person use of your body for survival, even if their circumstances are a result of your actions, carries no such moral obligation. If a woman does not want a fetus taking residence in her uterus, she is not obligated to leave it there. Edited July 22, 2012 by cybercoma

[Moonlight Graham]

There's a problem immediately with your language.

Nobody has a right to live. We all die. More to the point, there's a significant difference between killing someone and not keeping someone alive. If people had a right to live, it would be an infringement on their rights to pull the plug on them. With a mother and fetus, the fetus is plugged into the mother. She has no moral obligation to allow the fetus to continue to be plugged into her against her will. It would be nice. It may be the right thing to do. However, she's not obligated to give up her body for someone else to live.

The Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Section 7, states:

"7. Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice."

Life begins at conception. There's a variety of arguments about when legal personhood begins, but that's my point here. It doesn't matter when personhood begins. It could be a full-grown adult person that was injured by a woman in the wild. They have a doctor with them who could save the person's life, but he would have to hook him medically into the woman for 9 months, so her organs could filter his blood. She's under absolutely no obligation to give up sovereignty over her body to keep him alive. It would be nice. Perhaps she should do it because she is responsible for his condition. However, it's her body, so that's her choice to make, full stop.

So you believe that at 9 months a woman should be able to abort?

I don't think anyone is ignorant of the risks, as you put it.

I'm sure there's quite a few stupid people who think condoms and/or birth control can prevent pregnancy 100%. Surprise!

Edited July 22, 2012 by Moonlight Graham

[Melanie_]

Its simple, Betsy. If Christians object to having abortions, they should not have them. But don't expect the rest of us to live by the arbitrary rules of your Magic Sky Pixie.

Edited July 22, 2012 by Melanie_

[Bonam]

This is precisely the moral issue, which is why I have said before that it doesn't matter whether or not you consider a fetus a legal person.

Indeed, and the answer to this particular moral issue is I think why we share the same stance on abortion.

I do remain puzzled at the seeming inconsistency that you don't accept this argument when applied to the issue of the state forcing childcare payments, where it is applicable in precisely the same way. Is the distinction to you simply that one is a financial loss of freedom while the other is a physical loss of freedom, and the financial loss of freedom is less intrusive of the two and thus allowable? I would say to that that both are morally equivalent, in that both have the ultimate effect of some of your time and productive energy being forcefully required to be expended on behalf of another instead of yourself.

Regardless, that's a whole other topic...

[Bonam]

So you believe that at 9 months a woman should be able to abort?

That's not a question that needs to be answered, because at 9 months the fetus is viable as a separate organism and can be extracted without killing it.

[bleeding heart]

For that reason I'm much more in favour of allowing. Disallowing is worse, IMO. The statement I made though was more general, that while I'm in favour of letting people choose to do what they want as long as no one else is harmed, that kind of attitude also leads to big problems that we can't easily foresee, because we are all interconnected in some way. And subtle long term effects are not well understood. It's when we marginalize families, when we allow people to pursue their dreams and drop their obligations, when children are brought up in a non-nurturing environment, when a whole society gets raised to be insensitive to the needs or rights of others. Then we breed a nation of sociopaths... end of the road for laissez faire morality.

I see it here man in my city. Kids brought up with no guidance, parents both drunk hammered. But they provide the basic necessities, by law, yes. The very basic. And those young ones that they breed- they have nothing. Hardly any of them will make it to become human beings.

It's not perfectly obvious, at least not to me, that things have changed terribly in this regard over the way things were decades ago.

The main difference might well be that abuse and neglect of children used to be considered largely a private affair...and now, not so much.

[cybercoma]

The Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Section 7, states:

"7. Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice."

That section applies as much to the mother as it does to the fetus. In fact, it is the fetus that is depriving the mother of liberty and security of the person by requiring the use of her body against her will. The government cannot enforce this because it is against the mother's charter rights. Once again, you cannot require a person to give up sovereignty of their own body in order to keep someone else alive.

So you believe that at 9 months a woman should be able to abort?

This is a non-started because people don't have abortions at 9 months for fertility reasons.

I'm sure there's quite a few stupid people who think condoms and/or birth control can prevent pregnancy 100%. Surprise!

?

Again, requiring complete abstinence is unreasonable. We have the tools to control fertility. It's a woman's right to decide whether or not she wants to have another human being incubating inside her and to deny it just the same. If you woke up one morning to find someone tapped into you to survive without your consent, you would have every right to demand that they be surgically removed. It's no different with a fetus. You're not morally required to submit to using your body for someone else's purposes without your consent.

[cybercoma]

Its simple, Betsy. If Christians object to having abortions, they should not have them. But don't expect the rest of us to live by the arbitrary rules of your Magic Sky Pixie.

+1

[cybercoma]

Indeed, and the answer to this particular moral issue is I think why we share the same stance on abortion.

I do remain puzzled at the seeming inconsistency that you don't accept this argument when applied to the issue of the state forcing childcare payments, where it is applicable in precisely the same way. Is the distinction to you simply that one is a financial loss of freedom while the other is a physical loss of freedom, and the financial loss of freedom is less intrusive of the two and thus allowable? I would say to that that both are morally equivalent, in that both have the ultimate effect of some of your time and productive energy being forcefully required to be expended on behalf of another instead of yourself.

Regardless, that's a whole other topic...

Your body versus your property. Security of the person is in the Charter. Security of your wealth is not. The government can and does pass laws regarding your wealth all the time. In fact, it's a necessity for the administration of society for everyone's benefit.

[Guest Manny]

What about court ordered forcing someone to make support payments. Then they must earn income, giving up their wealth, their time, and their body to keep another person alive. They have to do it.

[cybercoma]

What about court ordered forcing someone to make support payments. Then they must earn income, giving up their wealth, their time, and their body to keep another person alive. They have to do it.

They don't have to. If they don't have any declared income, the courts can't take money from them that they don't have.

In my time, I've come across a number of guys that earn money under the table, so they don't have to make payments to their ex-wives (alimony) or children (child support).

[Guest Manny]

They don't have to. If they don't have any declared income, the courts can't take money from them that they don't have.

In my time, I've come across a number of guys that earn money under the table, so they don't have to make payments to their ex-wives (alimony) or children (child support).

All you're saying is that they've found a way to evade their legal requirements, by lying. What if they make the income and refuse? If the income they make is found out, they will be pursued by the law.

[cybercoma]

All you're saying is that they've found a way to evade their legal requirements, by lying. What if they make the income and refuse? If the income they make is found out, they will be pursued by the law.

Yes they will. There is no constitutional protection of property. There is protection of the body. So you don't have to work. Nobody is required to work by law. Edited July 22, 2012 by cybercoma

[Guest Manny]

Yes they will. There is no constitutional protection of property. There is protection of the body. So you don't have to work. Nobody is required to work by law.

True but the body can be thrown in jail. Then the body is rather inconvenienced...

[cybercoma]

Pro-Life Logic 101