How ought a christian view abortion?
|
Posted by Glenn in
Abortionism, Debates and Discussions, Faith |
Michael Williams had a post in which he stated his position as being in opposition to abortion on a moral basis, but accepting of the legality of it in cases of rape and/or incest. Basically, his premise is that the harm done to the woman justifies her being allowed to end the pregnancy. I respect Mike a lot, and do not doubt the sincerity of his faith, but I questioned (and still do) his reasoning for opposing the morality of the abortion but not the legality of it.
Since I've eaten a chunk of Mike's bandwidth on this question, I'll repost it here on my dime; How ought a Christian view the subject of abortion? Should pragmatism rule? Should emotionalism trump scriptural principles? What scriptural principles are in view with this issue? To stake out my position on the issue, here's a couple of excerpts from my comments in Mike's post...
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - (My comment to Mike) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
... You seem to be trying to find justification for an unjustifiable act without reasoning from the source of wisdom given us by God. Where does scripture teach that killing an innocent child is acceptable? I think you are not approaching this subject from a biblically based world view. To counter that, and perhaps to help address Michelle's question, I offer this;
God created mankind in His image (Genesis 1:26)
That doesn't mean that we all look like God, but we do bear the reflection of His character in our being. Granted, it's distorted by our sinful nature, but it is there nonetheless.
Bearing the image of God within ourselves gives each individual great intrinsic value. We are each special, and our lives are to be treated with great value. (Genesis 9:6)
we are not born because of mere happenstance, or because of a chance meeting of sperm and egg, but each of us is individually concieved and personally crafted by the Creator of the Universe. (Psalm 139:13-18 )
Sometimes bad things happen to good people. Sometimes, it even seems that death would be preferrable to life. (Job 1:1-3:26). As difficult as it may be, we are not in a position to "play God" to try to make it right. Only God is God. (Job 38-41)
There is no such thing as being a little bit guilty. (James 2:10-13). If it is wrong to murder an innocent child, it is not made less wrong because of the tragedy the mother has endured.
This is just off the top of my head. I know it doesn't address specifically the issue of when life begins, other than in the broad sense of "life begins when God causes it to be. Who am I to argue with God?"
Posted by: gaw at December 20, 2004 10:47 PM
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -(Another comment of mine to Mike)- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
... I wasn't making the point that all laws should be based on biblical morality (although there is merit to the idea). I was responding to your contention that it would be preferable to allow the killing of an innocent child because of the circumstances regarding it's conception.
I did not try to argue that all moral issues should be given the full weight of civil authority, as you are implying. Rather, I am saying that given the difficult circumstances of a pregnancy by rape, it is preferable, and biblically supportable, to protect the innocent life of the child.
Here's another biblical concept... the purpose of civil government is to protect the innocent and punish the wicked. 1 Peter 2:13-16
By that standard, the rapist would be punished, the crisis pregnancy centers and adoption organizations would be supported, and the mother would recieve whatever assistance a victim of crime needs... short of killing the child. That's my take on it, and it's based on what we as brothers in Christ should agree on... the inerrant Word of God. Do you find scripture that contradicts this view? I'll read the post you cite above about abortion and the bible, but in the meantime I'm wondering... what is your biblical basis for terminating the pregnancy?
Posted by: gaw at December 21, 2004 02:30 AM
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Anyhow, that's my take on it. What's your thoughts?
Trackbacks
Trackback specific URI for this entry
No Trackbacks
Comments
Display comments as
(Linear | Threaded)
The problem with your argument is that it is not factually sound. Yes, we've established that killing PEOPLE is wrong, but is a fetus a person? But, what makes a person? This is where the water becomes murky and your logic becomes flawed.
Answer me this, when does a mass of living tissue become a person? Is it at conception? Are Zygotes people? Or, does it start with male and female gametes?
To Continue:And perhaps more importantly, who gets to decide this?
Would you then say that ...
EDITED FOR BREVITY
At this point, he begins to frame my argument for me, alleging that somehow I would equate autoeroticism with murder. He then rants against religion, ending with the statement that "The words GOD, BIBLE, RELIGION, ILLEGAL, and Law should never be used in the same sentence."
SNF-The point of the post was not to argue how a NON-christian should view abortion, but rather how should a CHRISTIAN view it.
I believe most CHRISTIANS would agree that a child becomes an independent life form worthy of legal protection at sometime prior to birth. Do you agree with that view, or is a child only worthy of legal protection when it can walk, talk, and pay taxes?
Where do YOU draw the line on when life begins?
I'll draw the line on when life begins based on a scientific and logical approach...EDITED FOR BREVITY
He defines "the scientific and logical approach," and then gets philosophical...
I say life begins when it can be fully sustained by itself.
EDITED FOR BREVITY
Because he says, it's scientific? The rest of the rant is about the unborn child being a parasite, religion is bad, crusades were bad, scientists universally agree that a fetus is not a person.
Now, I’m not saying that Christians shouldn’t teach other Christians that abortion is wrong. EDITED FOR BREVITY
Christians' opposition to abortion is entirely based on faith and God, not logic or fact. Since an unborn child cannot sustain it's own life, it is not alive. If abortion is kills, then m-------tion is murder.
Approaching lawmaking with the attitude that asserting FAITH as an argument is sufficient to pass law is SCARY. EDITED FOR BREVITY
Only scientific atheists are qualified to administer justice.
I'll draw the line on when life begins based on a scientific and logical approach. Starting with stating a hypothesis based on fact not faith, then formulating a theory and testing it to repeat the results until the entire scientific community agrees and decides to make that theory a law.Following your methodology, we'll never know even what life is, much less when it begins.
If something cannot sustain its own life it is a parasite not a human being....
I'm sorry that you equate an unborn child with a tape worm. Be that as it may, how would the parasitic nature of an unborn child make it less human?
I say it should equal murder when science says it equals murder, not when religion does.
Murder is a legal definition based upon a moral judgement that one ought not kill another without sufficient cause. Science, as you describe it, is not equipped to make such a moral judgement.
Religion is based solely on faith... There is no factual evidence or logic to support your beliefs.
I would argue that point...
Didn't you people learn anything from the crusades? You can't go around passing off your beliefs on other people.
Yeah, we learned that there are militant islamists out there that want to kill christians, jews, and infidels.
I'm not convinced a fetus in the early stages is a person. Apparently neither is anyone in the scientific community.
On what basis do you make this claim? How do you define this "scientific community?"
You cannot logically call abortion murder and at the same time refuse to address the issue of when life begins.
Good point. I have not attempted to define the line at which non-life becomes life, other than to say it occurs prior to birth. I don't think I'm adequately equipped to argue this point in a secularly "scientific" fashion to your satisfaction. I believe there is a moral component to the question as well, and I don't think secular science is capable of sufficiently addresing this issue. In that light, I am not going to try to convince you of what point a human life is worthy of legal protection, other than what I've already stated... it is at some point prior to birth.
until you are able to prove scientifically that a fetus in the early stages is a person Uhmm... how do you define person? I don't think your secular science has adequately addressed that issue.
The only purpose of government is to bring order to chaos.
Uhmm... by punishing the wicked while protecting the innocent?
If you think abortion is wrong then prove it. Follow the normal process of scientific analysis.
Following the normal process of scienctific analysis, prove that scientific analysis is capable of arriving at a MORAL judgement.
Sorry, computer crashed while making that last post, missed another point...If a fetus is not developed far enough to sustain its own life outside of the womb than it is not living by any legal definition that we have today, and I don't think it should be.
Here you have contradicted yourself. Earlier you said the fetus that connot sustain itself is a parasite, which is by definition a living thing.
Splitting hairs doesn't make your argument any more valid. A fetus is life just like a germ is life, just like a cancer is life, just like a virus is life but, sterilizing my lab equipment is not murder. My science does address the issue of what makes a person. I believe that a person is something that can first and foremost sustain its own life, and secondly that is capable of logic and reason.
EDITED FOR BREVITY
M-------tion is not murder, abortion does not end a life, his logic and facts are all we need to understand the deep moral and ethical delimas related to life and death.
EDITED FOR BREVITYA fetus is a parasite, is not and could not be a person, because it cannot sustain its own life or think. He has never read a scientific journal claiming that gametes can think.
As for your comment about government, let’s be realistic. EDITED FOR BREVITY
Justice favors the rich and powerful.
And, let’s be honest about the crusades.
EDITED FOR BREVITY
Christians did many bad things. He then gets his facts wrong about the truth of what happened to Galileo, and then rants about FACTS, not FAITH.
And lets talk injustice…..EDITED FOR BREVITY
Trashes the pope for having a lot of money. After screeming about FACT not FAITH again, he suggests that science will find the meaning of life before God does.
So, if there is a god… EDITED FOR BREVITY
The world is full of different religions that all can't be right, the pope is a jerk, and I would force a ten year old girl to risk her life.
And finally lets talk about the inability of science to arrive at a moral judgment. I think that science is the basis behind most moral judgments. This is because science is a result of reason, and reason is the fundamental basis of law.
Laws aren't about morals... Not really. Because morals are relative. What one person considers immoral is not always the same as what another person considers immoral.
For example... I don't think aborting a fetus in the early stages is immoral because I don't think its murder, and I don't think its murder because I don't think a fetus is the same as a PERSON.
Its clear that the only fair way to make a law about abortion would be to take a scientific approach to the topic and first determine when is a fetus a PERSON and when is a fetus just a mass of CELLS and DNA.
If you're proposing that we make laws based on morals alone, and you refuse to acknowledge that morality is relative... then you might find that Muslims, atheists, and Satanists can pass laws just as easily as you can if the only requirements become
1. FAITH & 2. Morality
And, worse yet when people get to use passages from say the bible or why not the KORAN as a means to support their claims of what defines morality for them.
SNFGet a grip.
Splitting hairs doesn't make your argument any more valid.
I haven't heard much in the way of valid arguments from you.
My science does address the issue of what makes a person. I believe...
Those last two words contradict the preceeding sentence. You are basing your position on FAITH.
It's not murder to masturbate
I never made such a claim, and your continued effort to imply that this is my position is assinine.
At least my argument can be backed up by some FACTUAL evidence.
Still waiting to see some.
Again I'll point out that a fetus in the early stages cannot sustain its own life.
There is also no evidence that a fetus in the early stages is capable of reason.
Are these the only two criteria by which we determine if something is alive? Or Human? By what scientific basis do these two criteria become the sole factors establishing the existence of life?
Unless of course you can somehow prove that a fetus in the early stages somehow qualifies as a PERSON and not a PARASITE.
Why can a person not be a parasite? You haven't met my in-laws, have you?
Show me the definition of PARASITE, and tell me how a fetus that cannot sustain itself differs from that definition.
Click the link above, you'll see the definition. You contradicted yourself when you said that the unborn child is both a parasite and also not living.
Then if you were to say next...
You have done such a poor job of hearing what I DID say, I'm not going to argue about what you WANT me to say.
Now to address your comment about the scientific community...
Your point? You stated the entire scientific community believed one thing- That a fetus in the early stages is not a person. I wanted to know what was your source for that claim. In your words, PROVE IT.
As for your comment about government, let’s be realistic.
Yeah, let's. I never claimed that governments instituted among sinful, mortal humans are perfect institutions. I did say that they have a God given purpose, but we sinful humans tend to mess things up.
And, let’s be honest about the crusades.
Many sinful people have done sinful things under the pretense of representing Jesus Christ. So how does that prove that an unborn child is not a person worthy of legal protection?
take a look at the dark ages, and Galileo.
I'm not even going there with you... your point is mistaken and irrelevant.
Prove to me that your interpretation of the bibles position on abortion isn’t anymore flawed.
How can I prove to you something you refuse to accept? I am not trying to convince you to accept my position, so I have nothing to prove.
And lets talk injustice…..
Oh, puhleeez.
I think it is far more likely that science will determine the meaning and the definition of life before God does.
Oh, you're being funny now... Ha Ha!
It’s really far more likely that a group of researches will find the meaning of life and agree on it than it is that religions will.
Wait, you're serious? Oh that's even funnier!!
SNF, I have really enjoyed this exchange. Unfortunately, I don't see much point in continuing. You are obviously not going to convince me that abortion is without moral consequence, as I am not likely to convince you that moral consequences exist. Your obvious disdain for things christian, as well as your apparent fixation on autoeroticism are not conducive to the type of discussion I was looking for on this topic. Specifically, the question I asked was; How ought a christian, in light of the teachings of the Bible, view the subject of abortion. If you care to address that question, I'd be happy to continue the discussion.
I wrote everything above before reading your last post. Let me say that, while I may not agree with you entirely, that post is the most reasonable thing I've heard yet. I'll promote the topic of what is the source of our laws to another post, feel free to join in there on that discussion.
I don’t have any disdain for Christians. My only problem with religion is that people practicing it tend to want to force their beliefs on other people who don’t want them… EDITED FOR BREVITYso long as people like him make the laws, m-------tion will never be illegal? Abortion should be legal because, by his definition, an unborn child is not a person. Abortion is no different than pulling the plug on a comatose person.
My fear is we won’t be able to draw the line? Some people do think that m-------tion is a sin…EDITED FOR BREVITY
And those folks might someday want to throw Mr. Bater in jail.
I just think it might be a good idea to verify we’ve actually got a duck, and make sure that we hold defining that duck to the same standards we use for defining everything else… so we can be careful other people with not so MORAL motives don’t start trying to pass their chickens off as ducks…. We might find ourselves stuck with a whole lot of ducks that just don’t quack….
So that’s my final peace on it all…. For me its about establishing sound lawmaking procedures so that we can protect ourselves from the unsuspected loop holes that can cause real damage to our society…. An argument has to be factually sound to become a law… if that doesn’t remain a requirement we are in for some really bad times….
Thanks for the debate…. It’s been good. Even though I don’t fully agree with you I do have new insight into the basis for your beliefs…. And, that’s never a waste of time : )….
It is indeed important that we better define "personhood," for lack of a better term. Here is, I think, a balanced discussion of the matter.Unfortunately, your definition is problematic. By the standard you suggest, I could see a lot of paraplegics being pushed down the stairs. Seeing as they can't care for themselves, and may not be able to demonstrate self awareness, why not just kill them off? I'm sure you're not saying you would condone killing cripples, but that is becoming the reality in more secularly progressive countries such as the Netherlands.
It has indeed been an interesting dialogue.
Y'all come back now, y'hear?
Actually my definition of “PERSONHOOD" says nothing about pushing paraplegics down stairs...That would be morally wrong because it has been established that a paraplegic is a person.. Even by my "morally bankrupt" definition of the term.....
A paraplegic can exist without life support, and is therefore capable of sustaining their own life without the assistance of outside influence....
It's the people in a coma that are on life support that would be affected by my definition....
But they're already getting "murdered" by the thousands each day, so that's not really a concern for anyone because for some reason society doesn't hold their lives to as high a standard as we do that of unborn children.....
Even though some of these comatose patients are premature or problem pregnancy babies themselves....
If they're born and can't breathe on their own and there is no sign of brain function it is then ok to terminate life-giving functions arguing that the infant could not sustain its own life without outside assistance and therefore is not entitled to it...
Although we all know on occasion some babies do improve their condition if born premature and life assisting procedures are put in to place… But, we are not requiring that parents do these expensive and often times uncertain procedures to try and save their babies life……
Suddenly a baby outside the womb doesn't deserve the same consideration that was given when it was a fetus.....
It seems that we are only concerned with making laws against babies still directly involved in the reproductive cycle... Yet once they are out.... how they will be cared for and what we do with the sick ones... and who gets to decide doesn't seem to be much of a concern for anyone....
Christians and other religions included......
I just don't see anyone lobbying to make laws requiring the criminalization of terminating individuals on life support.... or legally declared brain dead.....
It seems that being able to sustain your own life is only considered a requirement for a right to life if you're still inside the womb.. Once you're out nobody cares that much anymore....
I wonder why that is.....
EDITORIAL COMMENT
This is actually a reasonably stated opposing argument. Moments like this make me wonder...
But in conclusion I would say that there is no logic or reason that could support any CHRISTIAN that supports abortion for any reason...As Christians you have defined abortion as murder.... And based on the standards set forth by your dogmatic law abortion meets the criteria and can be factually argued with excerpts from the bible… This is possible because you believe the bible to be law and you allow FAITH as an assertive defense for your argument…
While I don’t think that is a sufficient standard to govern the masses I do believe that for Christians the issue of abortion should not be under debate….. If someone doesn’t agree with the words of the bible then by sheer logic they are not Christian….
So if you are a true Christian you can't be in support of abortion of any kind.. Not even for a raped women... not even for a woman suffering from severe emotional distress....
Saving the mother's life might still be a debatable issue... but that is the only one I can see....
Since your post was originally about how should a Christian view abortion...
I think logically if you're Christian you must be pro-life.. if you're not pro-life then you are not Christian....
EDITORIAL COMMENT
Another a reasonably stated opposing argument.
I think logically if you're Christian you must be pro-life.. if you're not pro-life then you are not Christian....I can see how you would come to this conclusion, but allow me to disagree a little here... (Really? Must I disagree even when you are agreeing with me?)
Being a christian is not a matter of holding a particular dogmatic position upon particular political/moral issues. You probably wouldn't think it by the way we sometimes carry on about these things, but we are not perfect creatures that have it all figured out. If that is what it took to be christian, we'd all be damned.
Instead, my being a christian involves recognizing that I am born sinful, that I do not have it in myself to fully remove that sinfulness, and that sinfulness seperates me from God. The blood of Christ atones for that sinfulness, allowing me to grow in a relationship with God.
This is the central "dogma" that makes a person christian.
I do agree that the logical position for a christian is pro-life... but many christians are not logical.
Add Comment
Link List Thingy
Link List Recently Hosed!
Please Stand By...
Want your link here?
ESV Bible Search
Comments
about Disassembly
Sun, 10/11/09
Thank you thank you thank you
for these pictures. I would ha
ve NEVER gotten this overly co
mplicated toilet back to [...]
Sun, 10/11/09
Thank you thank you thank you
for these pictures. I would ha
ve NEVER gotten this overly co
mplicated toilet back to [...] about Freeze a Yankee...
Mon, 07/06/09
Yes I had the River song too.
It was really funny also.
Something like
Lots of thi
ngs in Texas, that we al [...]
Mon, 07/06/09
Yes I had the River song too.
It was really funny also.
Something like
Lots of thi
ngs in Texas, that we al [...] about Stupidest News Item Ever (Part 1)
Fri, 07/03/09
Leith Kristin Merrow is immatu
re and arrogant. She's read a
couple of rock & roll books, a
nd now wants to be the n [...]
Fri, 07/03/09
Leith Kristin Merrow is immatu
re and arrogant. She's read a
couple of rock & roll books, a
nd now wants to be the n [...] about Is Joel Osteen teaching a false doctrine?
Thu, 06/18/09
the claim you make there is un substantiated. Christians inde ed do not worship the same God as mulsims and hindus, [...]
Thu, 06/18/09
the claim you make there is un substantiated. Christians inde ed do not worship the same God as mulsims and hindus, [...]
about Twenty Dollar Bill Conspiracy Revisited
Tue, 06/16/09
Mario-
Dude, check the comm
ent policy before you come aro
und here calling me names. How
rude of you.
Speaki [...]
Tue, 06/16/09
Mario-
Dude, check the comm
ent policy before you come aro
und here calling me names. How
rude of you.
Speaki [...] about Twenty Dollar Bill Conspiracy Revisited
Mon, 06/15/09
Your a F@#$ing idiot!!!! none of this is evidence of anythi ng. oh, the eagle must be tryi ng to attack him. Who [...]
Mon, 06/15/09
Your a F@#$ing idiot!!!! none of this is evidence of anythi ng. oh, the eagle must be tryi ng to attack him. Who [...]
about Jihad Watch: Letters from a mujahid
Mon, 06/08/09
alrighty here who the hell do
u think u r to make fun and ri
dicule ISLAM and its PEOPLE??!
! do u not know that isl [...]
Mon, 06/08/09
alrighty here who the hell do
u think u r to make fun and ri
dicule ISLAM and its PEOPLE??!
! do u not know that isl [...] about Twenty Dollar Bill Conspiracy Revisited
Mon, 06/01/09
Ok i belived the whole twin to
wers and hte pentagon thing bu
t this ... this is just stupid
. cyclopsis dont exsist [...]
Mon, 06/01/09
Ok i belived the whole twin to
wers and hte pentagon thing bu
t this ... this is just stupid
. cyclopsis dont exsist [...] about Is Joel Osteen teaching a false doctrine?
Thu, 04/16/09
Be serious now. Joel Osteen is
not a "Prosperity Preacher" h
e's a False Teacher. His writi
ng, TV show and Intervie [...]
Thu, 04/16/09
Be serious now. Joel Osteen is
not a "Prosperity Preacher" h
e's a False Teacher. His writi
ng, TV show and Intervie [...] about Comments policy
Sat, 03/21/09
in the name of allah, the merc
ifull, all precious be to alla
h and dont forget 2 our phroph
et muhammad
in the na [...]
Sat, 03/21/09
in the name of allah, the merc
ifull, all precious be to alla
h and dont forget 2 our phroph
et muhammad
in the na [...]Categories
- Important Things (10)
- Faith (22)
- Family (15)
- Home School (9)
- Morality (9)
- Issues and Events (15)
- Debates and Discussions (27)
- Politics (22)
- Technology (12)
- War (9)
- Miscellany (35)
- Challies Watch (5)
- Divergences (4)
- Home Repair (12)
- Linkatash (18)
- Poetry, Music and Arts (6)
- Things Not Desirable (1)
- Abortionism (6)
- Atheism, Secularism (2)
- Heresy, Hypocrisy (7)
- Islamism (11)
- Leftism (7)
- Media Idiocy (17)
- Stupidification (4)
Choose Your Template
Quick link
Deep Thought of the Day
Theology-
God good, devil bad.
Jesus saves, Allah kills.
God good, devil bad.
Jesus saves, Allah kills.
Calendar
|
May '13 | |||||
| Mon | Tue | Wed | Thu | Fri | Sat | Sun |
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | ||
| 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 |
| 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 |
| 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | ||
Coming Events
Archives
Quicksearch
Archives
Recent Entries
Kitty, Reloaded
Got Sarah?
President Pantywaist
Twenty Word Reviews, Apologetics and Design
Twenty Word Reviews, Heroes and Fiction
Excuses and apologies
Response to Sara
What marriage is not...
Lapin/McCain
View From the Bird Cage
04/14/10 at 0:22 AM
Got Sarah?
07/19/09 at 22:59 PM
President Pantywaist
04/10/09 at 16:15 PM
Twenty Word Reviews, Apologetics and Design
01/09/09 at 2:10 AM
Twenty Word Reviews, Heroes and Fiction
01/09/09 at 1:16 AM
Excuses and apologies
12/09/08 at 1:00 AM
Response to Sara
12/02/08 at 21:23 PM
What marriage is not...
11/13/08 at 3:40 AM
Lapin/McCain
08/30/08 at 2:37 AM
View From the Bird Cage
07/10/08 at 2:14 AM
What others are saying...
Ogre says...
"NOT Evil Glennn"
Pseudo-Polymath
"...our procrastinator got off his duff and moved his site..."
Two or Three dot Net
"... great writing, sharp layout... the main reason why I like this blog is ... I laugh everytime I see the title..."
Gun Toting Liberal
"Hates me, but links here."
Powered by
PROCRASTINATION!
FREE and SPAM-PROOF!
CLICK HERE to sign up for Fred Langa's award-winning e-newsletter. You'll see how to get LOTS more from your hardware, software, and time online!
About Me
By way of background, I'm a homeschool dad in College Station, TX. Southern Baptist, with tendencies for somewhat reformed views on various subjects. I'm registered independent, but I vote Republican. I'm an employer, a Sunday School teacher, and a heterosexual white male. I am living proof that God uses the foolish things... Polls
Do you do blog polls?
Archives
Archives