Pro-choice "Christians" ?

Status
Not open for further replies.
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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?
 
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.
 
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.
 
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".
 
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.”
 
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).
 
"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.
 
Slippery slope here.

First posts against abortion.

Next we'll be seeing folks opposed to genocide posting.
 
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.
 
Last edited:
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.
 
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?
 
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.
When did Jonathan Edwards man-steal?
Massachusetts 1731,1756

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.
 
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?
 
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


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.
Perhaps I need better to understand what you think man-stealing is.
 
“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?
 
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.
 
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.
 
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).
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top