# Pro-choice "Christians" ?



## earl40 (Jul 5, 2022)

I have a serious question for all. I doubt one can be a Christian and be pro-choice. The main reason is in my mind one must be spiritually blind, and ignore The Holy Spirit when He screams abortion is wrong. Can you convince me otherwise how a "Christian" can be pro-choice?

Reactions: Like 2 | Amen 1


----------



## Jeri Tanner (Jul 5, 2022)

It seems so to me too, Earl. Of course the Lord alone knows the heart. Can one can be born of the Spirit and so terribly misinformed? but surely only temporarily...

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Justaguy (Jul 5, 2022)

Abortion and chattel slavery seem to have much of the same root of sin: denying persons the image of God. Both sins are gruesome and barbaric. 

There were great theologians who owned slaves, it would be hard for me to deny them being Christians. 

I don’t know how a Christian could affirm the murder of the unborn, but I also don’t know how a Christian could enslave another person.

Reactions: Like 4


----------



## RobertPGH1981 (Jul 5, 2022)

I suppose a Christian can logically come to the conclusion that abortion is okay under certain conditions (perhaps Rape, Incest). For example, What would you tell the parents of a rapped 12-year-old girl that was pregnant by her 1st cousin? Most of this discussion boils down to two categories in my view. 

1st defining when life begins (ie. when somebody receives a soul). 
2nd understanding of the sovereignty of God. 

*When life Begins: *To me, the scriptures teach that life and soul begin within the womb. For some, the exact timing is debated. When does somebody physically receive a soul? Is the soul something inherited at conception, or is it something inherited when you gain consciousness? Some point to passages in Genesis speaking of the breath of life (Gen 2). In their view life begins at first physical breath. It ignored passages in Psalms when God formed us in the womb. This is probably the most crucial to the discussion. 

Not to far behind is the 2nd item... The Soveignty of God... 

*Sovereignty of God*: If you believe God is sovereign then all things then he can work out horrible things for good. The perspective on this varies since all things to some wouldn't mean sinful things. Rape/Incest, for example, is horrible and it would be difficult for somebody to come to grips with why he would allow that or even turn that into good. This is lost on the unbeliever and also lost on those who limit the Sovereignty of God.


----------



## C4MERON (Jul 5, 2022)

And also, how would you respond to a brother or sister who held to a viewpoint that would allow for abortion under circumstances such as if it meant the high likelihood of the death of the mother? 
I have heard, but still disagree with, the rhetoric that says we ought to consider that the taking of a life is not, under all circumstances wrong (ie to save another life). I would argue that to hold such a viewpoint in this example is to severely limit, if not outright deny, the sovereignty of God in all things. Is the arm of the Lord shortened to save a mother even under seemingly medical certainty? by no means!


----------



## Eyedoc84 (Jul 5, 2022)

C4MERON said:


> And also, how would you respond to a brother or sister who held to a viewpoint that would allow for abortion under circumstances such as if it meant the high likelihood of the death of the mother?
> I have heard, but still disagree with, the rhetoric that says we ought to consider that the taking of a life is not, under all circumstances wrong (ie to save another life). I would argue that to hold such a viewpoint in this example is to severely limit, if not outright deny, the sovereignty of God in all things. Is the arm of the Lord shortened to save a mother even under seemingly medical certainty? by no means!


Ectopic pregnancies?


----------



## Rome2Geneva (Jul 5, 2022)

Eyedoc84 said:


> Ectopic pregnancies?


As a Roman Catholic I would appeal to the concept of double effect for cases such as ectopic pregnancies. I'm not sure how this overtly Thomistic concept is received in Reformed circles but I would love to hear some thoughts on the matter.


----------



## Taylor (Jul 5, 2022)

Justaguy said:


> I also don’t know how a Christian could enslave another person.


Murder is _always_ wrong. Not slavery. God commanded slavery as a just form of punishment for certain criminals.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## RobertPGH1981 (Jul 5, 2022)

Eyedoc84 said:


> Ectopic pregnancies?


 An ectopic pregnancy does not lead to an abortion. In this case, both the mother and child would die if the mother tried to bring the baby to term. The baby wouldn't receive proper nourishment either, so to preserve life the mother would be saved. 

If for some reason the choice was between mother and child, I think the view would always to choose the mother. Since taking her away could harm the other children, or future children.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Before (Jul 5, 2022)

RobertPGH1981 said:


> suppose a Christian can logically come to the conclusion that abortion is okay under certain conditions (perhaps* Rape, Incest)*. For example, What would you tell the parents of a rapped 12-year-old girl that was pregnant by her 1st cousin? Most of this discussion boils down to two categories in my view.


Wouldn't adoption be a better option than abortion in these instances?


----------



## Eyedoc84 (Jul 5, 2022)

RobertPGH1981 said:


> An ectopic pregnancy does not lead to an abortion. In this case, both the mother and child would die if the mother tried to bring the baby to term.


I’m confused. Your second sentence contradicts the first.


----------



## RamistThomist (Jul 5, 2022)

Eyedoc84 said:


> I’m confused. Your second sentence contradicts the first.



I think he means that "abortion" isn't being used in the typical Planned Parenthood sense. This would be analogous to removing a miscarriage.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## ryanpresnell (Jul 5, 2022)

Taylor said:


> Murder is _always_ wrong. Not slavery. God commanded slavery as a just form of punishment for certain criminals.


This is certainly true, brother. I think a more charitable interpretation would view "enslave[ment]" as more of an unlawful kidnapping (Exodus 21:16) type of slavery, which is also _always _wrong_,_ rather than something more akin to hard labor in prisons, especially since the term "chattel slavery_"_ was used almost immediately prior.

Earl,
I am acquainted with a few "pro-choice" individuals who profess Christ at my university. It pains me to think that one for whom Christ died would advocate for the death of unborn children. I pray that God will grant them repentance.

Reactions: Like 4


----------



## jw (Jul 5, 2022)

Abortion & Slavery -as an institution- are not even close to the same thing. I realize that is a very controversial take in this era -and I don't mean to be provocative- but the ignorance of the subject, as well as the assertions made to godly men who eloquently express the Scripture doctrine thereof- are quite grievous. Everything must be defined, including _chattel_. Before doing so, implying that what is meant by _chattel slavery_ is equivalent to "great theologians who owned slaves" is cloudy, and ought to be cleared up. Anyway, that's not the point of this thread, so I apologize for diverting

Reactions: Like 7


----------



## Taylor (Jul 5, 2022)

ryanpresnell said:


> This is certainly true, brother. I think a more charitable interpretation would view "enslave[ment]" as more of an unlawful kidnapping (Exodus 21:16) type of slavery, which is also _always _wrong_,_ rather than something more akin to hard labor in prisons, especially since the term "chattel slavery_"_ was used almost immediately prior.


I understand, brother. I just wanted to be clear, I suppose. Of course, I object to prisons, as well. I believe they are actually worse than some of the worst expressions of antebellum chattel slavery. They are worse for the prisoners and worse for society.

Reactions: Like 5


----------



## ryanpresnell (Jul 5, 2022)

Taylor said:


> I understand, brother. I just wanted to be clear, I suppose. Of course, I object to prisons, as well. I believe they are actually worse than some of the worst expressions antebellum chattel slavery. They are worse for the prisoners and worse for society.


Good point- maybe I assumed too much! I know very little about the prison system. That was just the first hypothetical example that came to mind. Thanks for letting me know I'll have to look into that some more.


----------



## En Kristo (Jul 5, 2022)

Salvation is an act of God. Nobody is required to pass a theological exam to enter into God’s eternal rest. I suspect the thief on the cross wouldn’t have fared well on a test on the Westminster Shorter Catechism. In that sense, their will be saints in heaven who hold all manner of errors. That said, the Biblical position is that abortion is a grievous sin. The exception to save the life of the mother is grounded in the right of self defense. I have read some rabbinical commentary that forbids abortion even in the case of saving the mother’s life: “Who is to say which life is more important?” That’s an interesting take, but I don’t find it persuasive.


----------



## aaronsk (Jul 5, 2022)

En Kristo said:


> Salvation is an act of God. Nobody is required to pass a theological exam to enter into God’s eternal rest. I suspect the thief on the cross wouldn’t have fared well on a test on the Westminster Shorter Catechism. In that sense, their will be saints in heaven who hold all manner of errors. That said, the Biblical position is that abortion is a grievous sin. The exception to save the life of the mother is grounded in the right of self defense. I have read some rabbinical commentary that forbids abortion even in the case of saving the mother’s life: “Who is to say which life is more important?” That’s an interesting take, but I don’t find it persuasive.


The exception to save the life of the mother doesn’t make sense. Abortion as spoken of in this context means to not just terminate the pregnancy but the life of the child. In the exceedingly rare case where the baby is yet alive in the womb and the pregnancy is deemed a danger to the mother the pregnancy may be terminated but with the intent of keeping the baby alive.

Now it may happen the baby does not live but this is in spite of every reasonable effort being made for the sake of both patients. Its quite different from just killing the child.

There are more commonly (as I understand), instances where the baby has passed while yet in the womb and this poses a risk to the mother. To abort the pregnancy in this case is not to kill the child.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## En Kristo (Jul 5, 2022)

I could not agree more. The goal is to save the life of both the mother and child. That said, it is extremely rare these days that this situation arises. Most often, this situation is used as a red herring to deflect the debate away from the essential point that an unborn baby is a person.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## py3ak (Jul 6, 2022)

earl40 said:


> I have a serious question for all. I doubt one can be a Christian and be pro-choice. The main reason is in my mind one must be spiritually blind, and ignore The Holy Spirit when He screams abortion is wrong. Can you convince me otherwise how a "Christian" can be pro-choice?


You could read Paul Woolley's minority report on the matter for the OPC.









Report of the Committee to Study the Matter of Abortion: The Orthodox Presbyterian Church


We're the Orthodox Presbyterian Church. Our purpose is simple: to bring glory to God through our churches and individual lives to make known to the world the good news of salvation through Jesus Christ




www.opc.org





It is found very near the end of the whole document. I dissent wholeheartedly from Woolley's position, but it is one way that your question has been answered.

Reactions: Informative 2


----------



## RobertPGH1981 (Jul 6, 2022)

Before said:


> Wouldn't adoption be a better option than abortion in these instances?


I am responding to topics that people would shy away from. Its easy to say its wrong until you're standing in front of rape victims. They may argue that the aborted child would go to heaven. How would you then respond?


----------



## earl40 (Jul 6, 2022)

py3ak said:


> You could read Paul Woolley's minority report on the matter for the OPC.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


"Charity is still a Christian virtue in spite of the low place that it holds in the minds of many Christians. To safeguard the rights of a fertilized egg at the expense of the welfare of adult men and women seems to the undersigned to betray a lack of Christian understanding of the moral law."

He does seem to say one can be a Christian, and be very ignorant on the issue of abortion. I can maybe agree with such. What is interesting is that when I press a pro-choice "christian" to what they believe about what the bible says about abortion, and what they believe who Jesus is, they conversation stops with offence taken. In that I dare question personal beliefs about their faith. Now talk about a sacred cow that may be talked about, which SHALL NOT BE CROSSED in the USA.


----------



## earl40 (Jul 6, 2022)

RobertPGH1981 said:


> I am responding to topics that people would shy away from. Its easy to say its wrong until you're standing in front of rape victims. They may argue that the aborted child would go to heaven. How would you then respond?


 One could say that "you may never see that baby in heaven".


----------



## RobertPGH1981 (Jul 6, 2022)

earl40 said:


> One could say that "you may never see that baby in heaven".


The child is a child of believing parents. 1 Cor 7:14; 2 Sam 12:23


----------



## RobertPGH1981 (Jul 6, 2022)

Eyedoc84 said:


> I’m confused. Your second sentence contradicts the first.


One poster mentioned this but to clear things up, when people say Abortion we think of it in the planned parenthood sense (ripping the baby to pieces). Killing with chemical burns.

In the case of ectopic pregnancy, the procedure is different. They give medication to prevent growth and then remove the fallopian tube. The baby wouldn't survive and neither would the mother.


----------



## retroGRAD3 (Jul 6, 2022)

RobertPGH1981 said:


> The child is a child of believing parents. 1 Cor 7:14; 2 Sam 12:23


I don't think these are airtight proof texts for proving all babies go to heaven (they could be), but all people are born in sin. Also, the verses assume the parents are true believers, which if they are willing to murder their children, would be in question.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## RobertPGH1981 (Jul 6, 2022)

retroGRAD3 said:


> I don't think these are airtight proof texts for proving all babies go to heaven (they could be), but all people are born in sin. Also, the verses assume the parents are true believers, which if they are willing to murder their children, would be in question


I agree to your assessment. But just to push a little bit further.... When does a human receive their soul? Is it at the moment of conception?


----------



## retroGRAD3 (Jul 6, 2022)

RobertPGH1981 said:


> I agree to your assessment. But just to push a little bit further.... When does a human receive their soul? Is it at the moment of conception?


The Bible does not speak on this so I really don't have an answer. Perhaps some of the philosophy people do. 

If you want my opinion, I would say yes, at the moment of conception.


----------



## Tychicus (Jul 6, 2022)

Someone mentioned the principle of double effect. Here is Justice Gorsuch applying it to assisted suicide and Euthanasia:

"To ascertain whether a meaningful moral line can be drawn between assisted suicide and the right to refuse on the basis of intent, we must first, of course, consider whether a meaningful moral line can ever be drawn between intended and unintended consequences. The notion that intended consequences possess some special moral character, tacitly endorsed by the Supreme Court in _Quill_, is often called the principle of “double effect” and is sometimes associated with Thomistic moral philosophy. The principle is commonly interpreted as setting forth certain conditions for assessing whether a person may morally perform an action from which two effects will follow, one bad, and the other good: The agent may not positively will the bad effect but may merely permit it; if the agent can attain the good effect without the bad effect, he or she should do so; and the good effect flowing from the action must be at least as immediate as the bad effect. In other words, the good effect must be produced directly by the action, not by the bad effect. Otherwise, the agent would be intending a bad means to a good end. Finally, the good effect must be at least as important as the bad ef- fect to compensate for allowing the bad effect to occur." - Gorsuch, _The Future of Assisted Suicide and Euthanasia _(Pg 54).

For Aquinas himself, refer:
https://aquinas.cc/la/en/~ST.II-II.Q64.A7


----------



## RobertPGH1981 (Jul 6, 2022)

retroGRAD3 said:


> The Bible does not speak on this so I really don't have an answer


The moment of conception up until the heartbeat is when the arguments start to break down. It's tough to provide scriptural support in this area, so in theory, one could argue abortion for rape would be acceptable up until heartbeat (6 weeks). Nothing firm in the scripture would prevent this line of thinking especially since the reception of the soul cannot be clearly defined.


----------



## Jake (Jul 6, 2022)

An argument I heard recently from a professed Christian on this topic is that there are some legitimate cases for abortion but that the state is not capable of correctly judging these, so it's better to allow it than to be stuck waiting on the state. This came up in a conversation about the case of a 10 year old girl who had to travel out of state from Ohio to Indiana to get an abortion. Even with an exception for rape, rape takes a long time to charge, so to protect the vulnerable the government should not interfere. It'd be a similar argument to not having government restrictions on divorce. 

There's obviously a lot of issues with this, but it is a hard thing to assert a 10 year old should carry a baby to term, if that's even possible.

I've also heard arguments based on Numbers 5:11-31 but that is an obscure passage to me that is hard to build a doctrine with.


----------



## retroGRAD3 (Jul 6, 2022)

RobertPGH1981 said:


> The moment of conception up until the heartbeat is when the arguments start to break down. It's tough to provide scriptural support in this area, so in theory, one could argue abortion for rape would be acceptable up until heartbeat (6 weeks). Nothing firm in the scripture would prevent this line of thinking especially since the reception of the soul cannot be clearly defined.


Life begins at conception. Whether there is a soul or not at that point doesn't mean murder has not been committed. There was life and then life is killed.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## chuckd (Jul 6, 2022)

earl40 said:


> I have a serious question for all. I doubt one can be a Christian and be pro-choice. The main reason is in my mind one must be spiritually blind, and ignore The Holy Spirit when He screams abortion is wrong. Can you convince me otherwise how a "Christian" can be pro-choice?


Playing devil's advocate, they may personally see the evil in the action, but don't think a non-Christian should be subject to what they feel are personally held morals and standards.


----------



## retroGRAD3 (Jul 6, 2022)

chuckd said:


> Playing devil's advocate, they may personally see the evil in the action, but don't think a non-Christian should be subject to what they feel are personally held morals and standards.


What are you trying to communicate here? Are you saying it is ok for a Christian to ignore evil as long as they themselves are not personally doing it? Are we not to be light to the world?


----------



## RobertPGH1981 (Jul 6, 2022)

retroGRAD3 said:


> What are you trying to communicate here? Are you saying it is ok for a Christian to ignore evil as long as they themselves are not personally doing it? Are we not to be light to the world?


I am not trying to communicate anything. I am only playing the opposing view. I agree that abortion is murder. 

My only point is that taking a hardline between the first six weeks can be tricky scripturally. I agree that its wrong.


----------



## retroGRAD3 (Jul 6, 2022)

RobertPGH1981 said:


> I am not trying to communicate anything. I am only playing the opposing view. I agree that abortion is murder.
> 
> My only point is that taking a hardline between the first six weeks can be tricky scripturally. I agree that its wrong.


My response was directed towards Chuckd's post (#33). 

To your comment though, I don't think it is that tricky. I think sometimes we just make things tricky by overthinking it. God says he hates the shredding of "innocent" blood. Murder is universally condemned in the Bible. You don't solve a rape by murdering the child. Execute the rapist and let the child live. The child may have been the result of a crime, but the child is not guilty of that crime.

Reactions: Like 6


----------



## Before (Jul 6, 2022)

RobertPGH1981 said:


> I am responding to topics that people would shy away from. Its easy to say its wrong until you're standing in front of rape victims. They may argue that the aborted child would go to heaven. How would you then respond?


I would have them focus on what our responsibility before God is..."Thou shalt not murder".


----------



## RobertPGH1981 (Jul 6, 2022)

retroGRAD3 said:


> Murder is universally condemned in the Bible.



Body and Soul are synonymously used in the scriptures and never separate from my understanding. There are some that make a three part distinction of mind, body, and spirit but some theologians view that as an error (RC Sproul). I personally believe life begins at conception and we cannot disconnect the Body/Soul. You mentioned it wasn't clear when a person receives their soul. It would be essential to have a soul to be a bearer of God's image. You must bear God's image for murder to apply to killing. 

Genesis 9:6 says, “Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed, for God made man in his own image.”


----------



## retroGRAD3 (Jul 6, 2022)

RobertPGH1981 said:


> Body and Soul are synonymously used in the scriptures and never separate from my understanding. There are some that make a three part distinction of mind, body, and spirit but some theologians view that as an error (RC Sproul). I personally believe life begins at conception and we cannot disconnect the Body/Soul. You mentioned it wasn't clear when a person receives their soul. It would be essential to have a soul to be a bearer of God's image. You must bear God's image for murder to apply to killing.
> 
> Genesis 9:6 says, “Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed, for God made man in his own image.”


If I was unclear, my presupposition is that life (and soul) begins at conception. So, that is how I would argue. If someone wants to argue over souls they likely are godless pagans and only doing it to try and pull a fast one and not really face the issue (the murder of a child).

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## Pergamum (Jul 6, 2022)

"Pro-murdering babies Christian" - no thanks. I refuse to have even any friends like this. 

God saves us despite MUCH of our stupidity; and so maybe some people love Jesus and severely think a baby is not a live human until a certain point. Even the mentally handicapped can be saved. And so dumb prochoice people might have hope. But this issue seems so clear. If there is a heartbeat and it looks like a baby on the sonagram, then their conscience must be seared as with a hot iron before they support killing it. I know of Christians who have taken the Morning After (Plan B pill) and they did not connect this to murder....but many abortions occur after the baby looks like a baby, and this requires a special degree of evil, especially for woman - who are supposed to be the more nurturing sex and yet vote majority to kill babies. There is something deeply wrong with Western women since the onset of feminism.

Reactions: Like 8


----------



## Edward (Jul 6, 2022)

Slippery slope here. 

First posts against abortion.

Next we'll be seeing folks opposed to genocide posting.


----------



## Justaguy (Jul 6, 2022)

jw said:


> Abortion & Slavery -as an institution- are not even close to the same thing. I realize that is a very controversial take in this era -and I don't mean to be provocative- but the ignorance of the subject, as well as the assertions made to godly men who eloquently express the Scripture doctrine thereof- are quite grievous. Everything must be defined, including _chattel_. Before doing so, implying that what is meant by _chattel slavery_ is equivalent to "great theologians who owned slaves" is cloudy, and ought to be cleared up. Anyway, that's not the point of this thread, so I apologize for diverting


I’m willing to be enlighten on this, I don’t want to divert from the thread as well. 

Chattel slavery has a common historical usage, I won’t belabor a personal definition as that shouldn’t be needed. Chattel slavery isn’t contested on definitions. I think as an institution it is comparable abortion. Unborn children are denied personhood, as a compromise, black slaves were given 3/5’s personhood.

For theologians, start with Edwards, he owned slaves in the Exodus 21:16 sense. Another great theologian I’ve benefited from is Dabney, I won’t quote what he said about about our Black image bearer brothers here, but it’s abhorrent.


----------



## Justaguy (Jul 6, 2022)

Taylor said:


> Murder is _always_ wrong. Not slavery. God commanded slavery as a just form of punishment for certain criminals.


I said chattel slavery. If you want to contend that that is not always wrong and in opposition to God’s law we can continue.


----------



## jw (Jul 6, 2022)

Justaguy said:


> I’m willing to be enlighten on this, I don’t want to divert from the thread as well.
> 
> Chattel slavery has a common historical usage, I won’t belabor a personal definition as that shouldn’t be need. Chattel slavery isn’t contested on definitions. I think as an institution it is comparable abortion. Unborn children are denied personhood, as a compromise, black slaves were given 3/5’s personhood.
> 
> For theologians, start with Edwards, he owned slaves in the Exodus 21:16 sense. Another great theologian I’ve benefited from is Dabney, I won’t quote what he said about about our Black image bearers here, but it’s abhorrent.


When did Jonathan Edwards man-steal? RE: Dabney - Yes, I agree that he said and believed some terrible things with regard to race, and I easily confess my disagreeance with him on such things. What does his error in regard to that have to do with the biblical data of the institution of slavery?


----------



## Taylor (Jul 6, 2022)

Justaguy said:


> I said chattel slavery. If you want to contend that that is not always wrong and in opposition to God’s law we can continue.


Depends on how you define it.


----------



## Justaguy (Jul 6, 2022)

Taylor said:


> Murder is _always_ wrong. Not slavery. God commanded slavery as a just form of punishment for certain criminals.


I said chattel slavery. If you want to contend that that is not always wrong in opposition to God’s law we can continue.


jw said:


> When did Jonathan Edwards man-steal?


Massachusetts 1731,1756



jw said:


> RE: Dabney - Yes, I agree that he said and believed some terrible things with regard to race, and I easily confess my disagreeance with him on such things. What does his error in regard to that have to do with the biblical data of the institution of slavery?


I’ve said that chattel slavery has the same root as abortion: denial of the image of God. When referencing chattel slavery I thought I was distinguishing between other historical forms (biblical data I.e) of slavery. Maybe I could have been more clear.


----------



## Justaguy (Jul 6, 2022)

Taylor said:


> Depends on how you define it.


“The system, which allowed people — considered legal property — to be bought, sold and owned forever”… are there other common usages of that term that disagree with this definition?


----------



## jw (Jul 6, 2022)

Justaguy said:


> I said chattel slavery. If you want to contend that that is not always wrong in opposition to God’s law we can continue.
> 
> Massachusetts 1731,1756
> 
> ...


Perhaps I need better to understand what you think man-stealing is.


----------



## Justaguy (Jul 6, 2022)

jw said:


> Perhaps I need better to understand what you think man-stealing is.


Common usage. I don’t have much nuance to provide to the term.


----------



## jw (Jul 6, 2022)

Justaguy said:


> Common usage. I don’t have much nuance to provide to the term.


What's the "common usage," then? Did Jonathan Edwards kidnap a free Christian person to sell to unbelievers or enslave them unjustly?


----------



## Taylor (Jul 6, 2022)

Justaguy said:


> “The system, which allowed people — considered legal property — to be bought, sold and owned forever”… are there other common usages of that term that disagree with this definition?


God permitted these things, did he not?


----------



## ryanpresnell (Jul 6, 2022)

Jake said:


> An argument I heard recently from a professed Christian on this topic is that there are some legitimate cases for abortion but that the state is not capable of correctly judging these, so it's better to allow it than to be stuck waiting on the state. This came up in a conversation about the case of a 10 year old girl who had to travel out of state from Ohio to Indiana to get an abortion. Even with an exception for rape, rape takes a long time to charge, so to protect the vulnerable the government should not interfere. It'd be a similar argument to not having government restrictions on divorce.
> 
> There's obviously a lot of issues with this, but it is a hard thing to assert a 10 year old should carry a baby to term, if that's even possible.
> 
> I've also heard arguments based on Numbers 5:11-31 but that is an obscure passage to me that is hard to build a doctrine with.


For what it's worth, there are some who have doubts about this particular case, as with a few other popular-but-dubious I-told-you-so cases of doctors allegedly holding off proper medical care because they needed to spend hours on the phone with a lawyer after not researching what post-Roe trigger laws would prohibit- even though they had a warning much time in advance due to the decision leak. It's becoming increasingly frustrating to see this bloodthirsty argumentation because, as you pointed out, it's extremely poor, and I think their reliance on stories like these to even _pretend _to have a decent case for abortion proves that they've got nothing. Even if I grant solely for the sake of argument that any 10-year-old should be able to have an abortion at any moment, how does that help the abortion advocate? They don't care about whether the 10-year-old is okay, they just want to use her and (other?) rape victims for their own political gain-- yet they accuse _us _on the pro-life side of not caring about them! I'm seeing more and more people on social media, some of whom are even involved in my campus ministry, post things like this. I don't know how I should go about trying to change people's minds.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## EuphratesRiver (Jul 6, 2022)

earl40 said:


> I have a serious question for all. I doubt one can be a Christian and be pro-choice. The main reason is in my mind one must be spiritually blind, and ignore The Holy Spirit when He screams abortion is wrong. Can you convince me otherwise how a "Christian" can be pro-choice?


I believe it is possible. I had never thought much about abortion until the topic resurfaced in last decade, and since then now have a better understanding of the whole ordeal.


----------



## Justaguy (Jul 7, 2022)

Taylor said:


> God permitted these things, did he not?


No. Exodus 21:16

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Pergamum (Jul 7, 2022)

If I buy stolen items knowingly then I sin. Isn't it worse then to buy a stolen man?

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## Taylor (Jul 7, 2022)

Justaguy said:


> No. Exodus 21:16


You never included man stealing in your definition. You just said buying, selling, and owning slaves as property. These cannot be inherently immoral, since God more than permitted them (cf. Exod. 21:2-6, 7, 20-21).


----------



## Justaguy (Jul 7, 2022)

jw said:


> What's the "common usage," then? Did Jonathan Edwards kidnap a free Christian person to sell to unbelievers or enslave them unjustly?


Edwards’s participation in chattel slavery is well documented. I mean literally too. You can see the actual receipts from his purchases. One being a 14 year old girl for purchase price of 80 pounds.

You can read the accounts of his participation and decide if they were enslaved justly.


----------



## Justaguy (Jul 7, 2022)

Taylor said:


> You never included man stealing in your definition. You just said buying, selling, and owning slaves as property. These cannot be inherently immoral, since God more than permitted them (cf. Exod. 21:2-6, 7, 20-21).


Glad I could clear that up.


----------



## RobertPGH1981 (Jul 7, 2022)

Pergamum said:


> If I buy stolen items knowingly then I sin. Isn't it worse then to buy a stolen man?


What if your goal was to free them after purchasing them? Otherwise, they may end up in the hands of a tyrant who would mistreat them.


----------



## Pergamum (Jul 7, 2022)

RobertPGH1981 said:


> What if your goal was to free them after purchasing them? Otherwise, they may end up in the hands of a tyrant who would mistreat them.


I have heard of the ancient church doing this, and it would seem a large part of ethics is motivation. So I would agree this is not sin. I once bought rot-gut moonshine from a seller newly moving into a remote tribal area and poured it out because many of them use the bad kind of alcohol that blinds people. My indigenous jungle evangelists' solution turned out better. When the seller came back, even despite a regional law being passed, the evangelist recited the law and smashed the stand and all the bottles with an axe and sent the seller fleeing.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Justaguy (Jul 7, 2022)

RobertPGH1981 said:


> What if your goal was to free them after purchasing them? Otherwise, they may end up in the hands of a tyrant who would mistreat them.


It would seem unwise.

Pumping money into the market is probably fueling additional incentives and growth. 

I wouldn’t want to buy all the drugs from cartels just to ensure they stayed out of the hands of kids.


----------



## jw (Jul 7, 2022)

Generalizations will not do. Failing explicitly to define words thrown out as accusations is -at best- lazy, -at worst- dishonest and dishonorable toward those of whom you accuse such things. I would encourage any to spend a little more time examining the contexts of both the OT Scriptures with regard to the regulation of slavery in the OT, considering the differences the Lord puts between enslavement of brethren, vs enslavement of non-covenant people, spoils of war, _etc_. Also, consider the NT assumption of the right relationship between slaves and masters, their duties one to another, and this in the context of household relationships (Wives, husbands, children, slaves, masters, _etc_.). It is not so cut and dry as the modern era would have us believe, and the abuses of a thing lawful, even regulated, do not call for its abolition, but its reform. When the Lord has given revelation on a matter, no amount of so-called “natural law” may cast out its lawfulness. On the other side of that -to be clear- no amount of the lawfulness of a thing can excuse the misuse, abuse, or misapplication of the thing, and every man will give an account.

Reactions: Like 6 | Amen 2


----------



## C. M. Sheffield (Jul 7, 2022)

Slavery and man-stealing are not the same thing. Conflating the two only shows one to be careless or worst, dishonest.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## Pergamum (Jul 7, 2022)

C. M. Sheffield said:


> Slavery and man-stealing are not the same thing. Conflating the two only shows one to be careless or worst, dishonest.


How can I get a slave then without stealing a man?


----------



## retroGRAD3 (Jul 7, 2022)

Pergamum said:


> How can I get a slave then without stealing a man?


I believe the distinction is being made between the actual slavers (people going to territories and enslaving the person against their will) and people buying and selling slaves (those buying/selling people who are already slaves, but are not the ones going into places and enslaving them). The buying/selling part, not being "stealing", only the initial enslavement part would be. I think that is what I am gathering from this discussion so far.


----------



## Pergamum (Jul 7, 2022)

retroGRAD3 said:


> I believe the distinction is being made between the actual slavers (people going to territories and enslaving the person against their will) and people buying and selling slaves (those buying/selling people who are already slaves, but are not the ones going into places and enslaving them). The buying/selling part, not being "stealing", only the initial enslavement part would be. I think that is what I am gathering from this discussion so far.


Ok, thanks for the clarification. But are we allowed to buy stolen goods?

I grant that if a nation wars against us and we defeat them, in the past, we might enslave their male war captives as a punishment for a certain period of time. This happened in the past. As recent as WWII the Soviets made the German prisoners of war work hard labor for 5 or 6 years before freeing them, but their treatment seemed a very unjust evil that made me root for the Germans in WWII anytime they faced the Soviets. I wish the USSR was obliterated. 

But a set period of time and then emancipation seems just. For children to be born into slavery as slaves seems a great evil, as was done in the American South.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## retroGRAD3 (Jul 7, 2022)

Pergamum said:


> Ok, thanks for the clarification. But are we allowed to buy stolen goods?


If you are asking my opinion specifically, I would say no, we should try to avoid buying stolen goods. However, if we are talking about the death penalty crime of man stealing, I am not sure it falls into the same category.


----------



## C. M. Sheffield (Jul 7, 2022)

Pergamum said:


> How can I get a slave then without stealing a man?


Biblically speaking, one may be subjected to slavery as a spoil of war. One may willingly enter the relation of a slave due to extreme poverty. A slave may be bought from another who lawfully owned them. And a slave may be obtained through inheritance. There are likely other ways in which a slave may be lawfully obtained but that's a few off the top of my head.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Pergamum (Jul 7, 2022)

O


retroGRAD3 said:


> If you are asking my opinion specifically, I would say no, we should try to avoid buying stolen goods. However, if we are talking about the death penalty crime of man stealing, I am not sure it falls into the same categor


Ok. I am not condemning you. I am just trying to figure it out for myself. If I were a good man in the south, I might be tempted to buy slaves and treat them better than my neighbors. I know some good men did this. When the culture is 100% one way it is hard to fight it. It is easier to mitigate and lessen the effects of the sin when you are not able to eliminate the sin yourself due to a prevailing culture.


----------



## Pergamum (Jul 7, 2022)

C. M. Sheffield said:


> Biblically speaking, one may be subjected to slavery as a spoil of war. One may willingly enter the relation of a slave due to extreme poverty. A slave may be bought from another who lawfully owned them. And a slave may be obtained through inheritance. There are likely other ways in which a slave may be lawfully obtained but that's a few off the top of my head.


Does this still apply today? I need someone to shine my shoes.


----------



## J.L. Allen (Jul 7, 2022)

To the OP, 

There have been several here who have cited ignorance to the issues of abortion excusing (somewhat) the inconsistency they hold. That is conceivably the only plausible way. I know of a Christian man who, not long after being saved, lacked a good church context to help him discern ethical/moral issues. He was, just prior to his conversion, sexually active with women he was friends with, weening himself off of illicit drugs and drunkenness. He even lived with his girlfriend at the time. He went to a Planned Parenthood for STD testing thinking it was something similar to a city health clinic. Another aspect he was ignorant to was the nature of the Plan B/morning after pill. He didn't understand the pill until even a few years ago. Yet, the more he learned and was taught, the more he sought reform and repudiated his ignorant ways. Paul speaks of the same in Scripture.

I think ignorance was more prevalent in decades past because the technology hadn't shown us that it was a living human being from the point of conception. Then, just like now, some people are duped by "experts" telling them that it is only a clump of cells and nothing more. Some people don't wish to dig any deeper than this and just trust these "experts." It's a fact that some people are simple in this way. Many, many Christians (and pro-life pagans) immediately saw the issue long before high-definition ultrasounds and the like. Again, I just don't think we have the same threshold of ignorance anymore with the access of information so readily at our fingertips.

Perhaps an example of this is Matt Walsh's documentary "What is a Woman?" There are people left, right, and center becoming aware of the deep evils of the transgender movement (and all the associated movements with it). They are shocked they didn't see what is really quite clear.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## C. M. Sheffield (Jul 7, 2022)

Pergamum said:


> Does this still apply today? I need someone to shine my shoes.


You're better off just paying someone to shine your shoes or better yet, do it yourself.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Pergamum (Jul 7, 2022)

C. M. Sheffield said:


> You're better off just paying someone to shine your shoes or better yet, do it yourself.


I need to get shoes, first, that can be shined. 10 dollar Wal-mart specials don't need shining.

Reactions: Funny 2


----------



## Sovereign Grace (Jul 8, 2022)

earl40 said:


> I have a serious question for all. I doubt one can be a Christian and be pro-choice. The main reason is in my mind one must be spiritually blind, and ignore The Holy Spirit when He screams abortion is wrong. Can you convince me otherwise how a "Christian" can be pro-choice?


Amen to all this!! I just don’t see how someone who is truly born of the Spirit of God would be okay with women murdering their babies.


----------



## alexanderjames (Jul 8, 2022)

Sovereign Grace said:


> Amen to all this!! I just don’t see how someone who is truly born of the Spirit of God would be okay with women murdering their babies.


It is utterly shocking how many Christians around me seem to view abortion as an unclear issue, or are even indifferent towards it. I blame the influence of the culture in tandem with ignorance of knowing God and His word.
Surely the answer is strong preaching from the pulpit.

Reactions: Like 2 | Amen 1


----------



## Before (Jul 8, 2022)

alexanderjames said:


> It is utterly shocking how many Christians around me seem to view abortion as an unclear issue, *or are even indifferent towards it*.


Not unlike the indifference during another Holocaust circa WWII.


----------



## jw (Jul 8, 2022)

Here is something to consider: There was a righteous man named Lot who had become so jaded and desensitized by the culture around him, that he did not hesitate to offer his daughters as objects of raging lust, though -in some way- he was vexed by the people's wickedness. This callousness was not sudden, but incremental, and is much how many of us have become desensitized to, for example, homosexuality, such that we can laugh at such things, or at effeminacy. But do you know one thing, most grievously, to which many many many professing Christians have become desensitized? The so-called freedom to propagate soul-murder. We've called it _Freedom of Religion_, but the Lord is decidedly against such bondage, being the LORD God of truth, and commanding all men everywhere to have no other god before Him. It is shocking that there are professing Christians who may countenance abortion, but it ought also to be shocking -if not more- that many of us can so easily tolerate/countenance that men may openly propagate soul-murder without fear of temporal consequence. It goes to show that being jaded is not limited to the second table. Lord help us to examine ourselves, know and understand the vileness of sin, confessing & forsaking it, removing the logs from our own eyes, such that we may exclaim with the Psalmist "Rivers of water run down mine eyes because _they_ keep not thy law!"

Reactions: Like 3 | Edifying 2 | Amen 1 | Praying 1


----------



## Wonderkins (Jul 9, 2022)

Pergamum said:


> Does this still apply today? I need someone to shine my shoes.


I think Chick-fil-A does that

Reactions: Funny 1


----------



## Berean (Jul 9, 2022)

Wonderkins said:


> I think Chick-fil-A does that



Their CEO Dan Cathy.


----------



## lynnie (Jul 9, 2022)

C. M. Sheffield said:


> Biblically speaking, one may be subjected to slavery as a spoil of war. One may willingly enter the relation of a slave due to extreme poverty. A slave may be bought from another who lawfully owned them. And a slave may be obtained through inheritance. There are likely other ways in which a slave may be lawfully obtained but that's a few off the top of my head.


Biblically speaking under the New Covenant, we are to do unto others as you would have them do unto you. Would you like to be bought by someone? Would you like not having the option offered of a decent paying job instead of slavery? Is your definition of biblical the same as Jesus Christ? Does capitulation to culture justify treating somebody differently than you would want to be treated, according to the Lord's command?


----------



## lynnie (Jul 9, 2022)

jw said:


> Here is something to consider: There was a righteous man named Lot who had become so jaded and desensitized by the culture around him, that he did not hesitate to offer his daughters as objects of raging lust, though -in some way- he was vexed by the people's wickedness. This callousness was not sudden, but incremental, and is much how many of us have become desensitized to, for example, homosexuality, such that we can laugh at such things, or at effeminacy. But do you know one thing, most grievously, to which many many many professing Christians have become desensitized? The so-called freedom to propagate soul-murder. We've called it _Freedom of Religion_, but the Lord is decidedly against such bondage, being the LORD God of truth, and commanding all men everywhere to have no other god before Him. It is shocking that there are professing Christians who may countenance abortion, but it ought also to be shocking -if not more- that many of us can so easily tolerate/countenance that men may openly propagate soul-murder without fear of temporal consequence. It goes to show that being jaded is not limited to the second table. Lord help us to examine ourselves, know and understand the vileness of sin, confessing & forsaking it, removing the logs from our own eyes, such that we may exclaim with the Psalmist "Rivers of water run down mine eyes because _they_ keep not thy law!"


Can you define soul murder? Honest question. Thanks.


----------



## JH (Jul 9, 2022)

lynnie said:


> Biblically speaking under the New Covenant, we are to do unto others as you would have them do unto you.


That commandment was just as abiding under the Old as it was in the New, though. It pertains to the positive duty annexed to the sixth commandment.

WLC 99, P4: That as, where a duty is commanded, the contrary sin is forbidden; and where a sin is forbidden _[in this case the sixth commandment]_, the contrary duty is commanded: _[to do unto others, as you would have them do unto you.]_

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Jul 9, 2022)

Let us get back on topic as discussions concerning (American) slavery always perish in the ditches of people talking past one another. 

I think that the OP is asking the wrong question. Could someone hypothetically be pro-choice while morally objecting to abortion and still be a real Christian? Perhaps they may be a real Christian. The real question, however, is should someone holding such a scandalous opinion be permitted to be a member in good standing of a Christian church. I believe that someone holding that opinion needs to be kindly admonished to give it up, censored if they do not, and excommunicated if they remain stiff-necked in obstinately maintaining it.

Reactions: Like 5 | Amen 1


----------



## C. M. Sheffield (Jul 9, 2022)

lynnie said:


> Biblically speaking under the New Covenant, we are to do unto others as you would have them do unto you. Would you like to be bought by someone? Would you like not having the option offered of a decent paying job instead of slavery? Is your definition of biblical the same as Jesus Christ? Does capitulation to culture justify treating somebody differently than you would want to be treated, according to the Lord's command?

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Before (Jul 9, 2022)

Reformed Covenanter said:


> Let us get back on topic as discussions concerning (American) slavery always perish in the ditches of people talking past one another.
> 
> I think that the OP is asking the wrong question. Could someone hypothetically be pro-choice while morally objecting to abortion and still be a real Christian*? Perhaps they may be a real Christian. The real question, however, is should someone holding such a scandalous opinion be permitted to be a member in good standing of a Christian church. *I believe that someone holding that opinion needs to be kindly admonished to give it up, censored if they do not, and excommunicated if they remain stiff-necked in obstinately maintaining it.


Perhaps we could start by asking *'what is a real Christian?'*


----------



## jw (Jul 9, 2022)

lynnie said:


> Can you define soul murder? Honest question. Thanks.


Soul-damning error, and its propagation.

Reactions: Like 2 | Informative 1


----------



## earl40 (Jul 9, 2022)

Reformed Covenanter said:


> I believe that someone holding that opinion needs to be kindly admonished to give it up, censored if they do not, and excommunicated if they remain stiff-necked in obstinately maintaining it.


 I agree though my elders don't at my church.

Reactions: Sad 2


----------



## Physeter (Jul 30, 2022)

Justaguy said:


> I said chattel slavery. If you want to contend that that is not always wrong in opposition to God’s law we can continue.
> 
> Massachusetts 1731,1756
> 
> ...


Chattel Slavery and Abortion are tied together by the same evil threads - denial of the value of a human being and racism. Margaret Sanger who founded Planned Parenthood wanted to use abortion for eugenics. In promoting birth control, she advanced a controversial "Negro Project," She even spoke to the Klu Klux Klan. She advocated for a eugenics approach to breeding the human population and to quote her - “_the gradual suppression, elimination and eventual extinction, of defective stocks — those human weeds which threaten the blooming of the finest flowers of American civilization_.” Her views in this regard are appalling. But this is how abortion got started.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Scottish Presbyterian (Jul 30, 2022)

Reformed Covenanter said:


> I believe that someone holding that opinion needs to be kindly admonished to give it up, *censored* if they do not, and excommunicated if they remain stiff-necked in obstinately maintaining it.


Do you mean they should have their tweeter account cancelled?

Reactions: Funny 2


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Jul 30, 2022)

Scottish Presbyterian said:


> Do you mean they should have their tweeter account cancelled?



Auto-correct does not like the terminology associated with Reformed church order. (Censured, not censored.)


----------



## Before (Jul 30, 2022)

Grumman Tomcat said:


> Chattel Slavery and Abortion are tied together by the same evil threads - denial of the value of a human being and racism. Margaret Sanger who founded Planned Parenthood wanted to use abortion for eugenics. In promoting birth control, she advanced a controversial "Negro Project," She even spoke to the Klu Klux Klan. She advocated for a eugenics approach to breeding the human population and to quote her - “_the gradual suppression, elimination and eventual extinction, of defective stocks — those human weeds which threaten the blooming of the finest flowers of American civilization_.” Her views in this regard are appalling. But this is how abortion got started.


I don't doubt this, but quoting sources is usually helpful.


----------



## Physeter (Jul 30, 2022)

Before said:


> I don't doubt this, but quoting sources is usually helpful.


I found these by googling Margaret Sanger and eugenics.









Margaret Sanger, racist eugenicist extraordinaire


Recent articles have reported on an unearthed video from 1947 of Margaret Sanger demanding no more babies for 10 years in




www.frc.org





_She recounted this event in her autobiography: "I accepted an invitation to talk to the women's branch of the Ku Klux Klan ... I saw through the door dim figures parading with banners and illuminated crosses ...In a letter to Clarence Gable in 1939, Sanger wrote: "We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population, and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members" (Margaret Sanger commenting on the 'Negro Project' in a letter to Gamble, Dec. 10, 1939)_.
And








Planned-Parenthood Racism - Students For Life of America


It's important to understand racism and Planned Parenthood. The company has disproportionately affected minority communities for decades.




studentsforlife.org




_“Birth Control is not contraception indiscriminately and thoughtlessly practiced. It means the release and cultivation of the better racial elements in our society, and the gradual suppression, elimination and eventual extirpation of defective stocks — those human weeds which threaten the blooming of the finest flowers of American civilization.”_
Just detestable. There is plenty of evidence she was a reprehensible person.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## SolaScriptura (Jul 30, 2022)

Being a “pro-choice” Christian is like being a Christian who names their child after a pagan deity.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## beloved7 (Jul 30, 2022)

There are all sorts of people in the West who profess Christ; pro abortion, pro gay marriage, pro feminism etc. Not to mention the near militant antinomian stance against Sabbath keeping. It would seem there are more false believers in the US than regenerate ones, so this should come to no surprise, sadly. 

The only upside to the post Christian society is that Christ is cleansing His bride. As it becomes more inconvenient to profess Christ, the false ones will stop. We will know them by their fruit.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Steve Curtis (Jul 30, 2022)

SolaScriptura said:


> Being a “pro-choice” Christian is like being a Christian who names their child after a pagan deity.


So, naming your daughter, say, Diana, _after_ she is born is no different from killing her _before_ she is born???

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## SolaScriptura (Jul 31, 2022)

kainos01 said:


> So, naming your daughter, say, Diana, _after_ she is born is no different from killing her _before_ she is born???



There are the names we use that just so happen to have their origin (oftentimes unbeknownst to the average person) in pagan usage; I don't quibble about that... but there are times when a person intentionally names their child after a pagan deity. That's heathenism. It's infidelity to the God of hosts, to intentionally take the name of a different God and implicitly honor "it" by naming your child after it. In similar vein, to be a Christian and believe one is free to kill an unborn child is likewise infidelity to the God of hosts. Both are denials that being one of God's people has attendant behaviors and moral norms.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Steve Curtis (Jul 31, 2022)

SolaScriptura said:


> There are the names we use that just so happen to have their origin (oftentimes unbeknownst to the average person) in pagan usage; I don't quibble about that... but there are times when a person intentionally names their child after a pagan deity. That's heathenism. It's infidelity to the God of hosts, to intentionally take the name of a different God and implicitly honor "it" by naming your child after it. In similar vein, to be a Christian and believe one is free to kill an unborn child is likewise infidelity to the God of hosts. Both are denials that being one of God's people has attendant behaviors and moral norms.



Thanks for clarifying!


----------

