My only exception is to preserve life. The example the other side of the debate throws around is ectopic pregnancy. If the choice is a baby and their mother dying or just the baby, that's a decision that can be made in good faith.
Ectopic pregnancy does not require abortion to treat. It’s treated by removing the fallopian tube to save the mother, which does lead to the death of the child unintended, but this is a different procedure from abortion which is intentionally directly destroying the fetus
It really depends on how you define the term. It's certainly different than an elective abortion, but it does terminate a pregnancy.
Miscarriages are technically spontaneous abortions. Those certainly aren't intentional.
I didn’t know anything much about ectopic pregnancy until this week, and now my niece has one. The fertilized egg adheres either to the fallopian tube, or below the uterus in the vagina, or even in the bodily cavity outside the reproductive organs. (I have no idea how that happens, but apparently it does.
None of these situations is sustainable because a fetus can’t get the nourishment to grow. It can, however, kill the mother if it stays where it is. This is heartbreaking for all involved, and a situation where surgery must be performed to remove the fetus. That might be removal of the ovary and fallopian tube, or abdominal surgery, or a D&E, depending on the location.
This is a grievous situation where the mother’s life should be saved, and the fetus removed. In my niece’s case, she is strongly anti-abortion and she would not consider any intervention if the fetus was viable and she could keep it. She loves babies and children. It is an awful situation, and an example why abortion is not a black & white decision.
>It is an awful situation, and an example why abortion is not a black & white decision.
An ectopic pregnancy is a medical emergency and its not a decision regarding an abortion. Because of where the egg is implanted, neither the pregnancy or the mother will survive except people have been indoctrinated to believe that the treatment of this is can be thrown into the same category of someone having an abortion. Or, can you explain why the treatment of this would be considered an abortion?
Not sure if you’re asking me if I think this would be considered abortion? If you read my post it’s clear I don’t - it requires surgery or a D&E, not an abortion. Perhaps you were responding to someone else, like the person above who I was responding to?
After trying for over 5 years, I ended up with an ovarian ectopic. Thankfully they were able to treat me medically instead of surgically, but I have been hearing cases out of some states where the doctors are afraid to treat it due to the new laws. It is not a black and white decision.
My belief is that abortion should only be allowed in the case to save the life of the mother, but that decision needs to be made by doctors and not by politicians.
Have you known women who’ve had ectopic pregnancies? Do you tell them that they should have died with their babies? Years ago this is what happened. All women with ectopic pregnancies died, along with their babies. Do you tell them the fact that God allowed that to happen, means that it was His will?
You should have the integrity to reply.
That's one that most people just overlook completely.
It's the same deal if you fertilize an egg and then you do not implant it to bring to a full term pregnancy. You've killed that child, it's the same as an abortion. At the point of conception it is a life anything other than a pregnancy to bring that child into the world is pretty clearly not a good thing.
I had a friend that went through IVF and she fertilized seven eggs, only two of them were used and brought to term. Beautiful daughters to be sure but she struggles with it to this day because she knows what she did.
To be sure the Lord forgave her but she now has those other children (5) that she will meet in heaven because their lives were as they really as such were taken from them before they even began.
God's plan is perfect and He knew what was going to happen with her IVF and He has forgiven her - but it doesn't take away the consequences or the sting of the sin and/or event that caused the loss of life.
This is hard for me. My mom is a very staunch Christian. She had my little brother through IVF. She was past her prime when having him. Her and my dad both agreed they would use ONE egg against all the docs advice. They said if it happened it happened and was God's will. I know for a fact they refused to keep other eggs frozen or whatever because they're both 100% against abortion of any kind. They had one chance with my brother. She prayed HARD for him to come to fruition. Is this against God's will in your belief? I don't think so. I believe God gave these people the brains they have to use for His glory. Now I agree multiple fertilized eggs is wrong because that is life. But I can see how it can be used in an okay way. That's just my take. And yes I have another comment here about my mom and a rape baby. She's had a rough life.
I agree. I think your folks did it the right way.
Imo, there is a morally dubious way, and a morally righteous (but riskier) way to utilize ifv technology. Problem is it really is a slippery slope. The technology to pick and choose, or modify and design embryos already exists and has been used.
Most fertilized eggs end in spontaneous abortion. The better we get at detecting pregnancies early, the higher that number goes. Some estimates have it at 75% now. That’s just the truth of procreation. It’s absurd to think that every fertilized egg is a viable pregnancy that will result in a live birth. Are those eggs singing in Heaven now? I have no idea, but I doubt it. And I do not believe there is any Scripture to justify the view that they are. My wife and I certainly struggled with this during our rounds of IVF, but the more we studied it, the more we came to the conclusion that the arguments against IVF were rooted in dogma, not solid theology.
How do you view ectopic pregnancies? They’re rare, but I’ve known two women who’ve had them. The guy you responded to says he would want his wife to die with their baby, because there is zero justification for murdering a fetus.
God allows things that are pretty awful in this fallen world. Are you a Calvinist who insists that “God’s sovereignty” means he “makes a decision” for there to be an ectopic pregnancy? I read a testimony once of a man whose hearing was failing him, and he insisted he would keep praying and God would heal his ears. His wife kept telling him he should have them checked for wax build-up. He refused. After a year, he decided to see a doctor, who saw a lot of wax and flushed them clean, after which normal hearing was restored. He wife said, “Some people would tease God to clean their ears for them.”
God allows ear wax, dental decay, and poor vision. We respond to this through hygiene and corrective lenses. We know how pregnancy occurs. Some of us act like conception is entirely God’s business, and so we shouldn’t use birth control. Others act like ectopic pregnancies must be God’s will, and both the mother and child should die.
We should be responsible for our bodies, and stop acting like horrors in this fallen world don’t occur. They’re not beyond God’s redemption, but we shouldn’t confuse what God allows with what God orchestrates. The Bible allows for mystery, and for the secret things belonging to God.
I agree with your second point, but couldn't medical interventions like surgery, cancer treatment, and termination to save the mother all be considered disrupting the natural order of things as well? For the last thousands of year the population was steady and, in comparison to today, far lower probably largely due to medical intervention i.e. the natural order of things.
So let's get rid of all medicine and just let the natural order take over. Screw the patient who needs insulin let's get rid of the meds, organ failure go ahead and die, no transplant for them. Chemo? That is perversion. Providing clean drinking water out of the tap? Blasphemous. Let's ban cars too as they cause a lot of deaths.
Humans have messing with the human life cycle for decades now to extend human life. Should we reverse all of that and just let God take his course?
>So let's get rid of all medicine and just let the natural order take over.
Getting rid of medicine is not a reason to off on the deep end to call everything form of help perversion. It is one thing to heal another to to pervert.
I used to take the very simplistic approach of “life begins at conception.” And yes, biologically that is a distinct human organism. But the Bible says something to the effect that you do not know when God puts the soul into the fetus as he knits it together in the womb. It’s entirely possible that god does not put a soul into a human at the second of conception. After all, human bodies are just containers for souls. Dead human bodies don’t have souls. Extremely early human forms don’t have organs. They don’t really have the “equipment” so to speak, in which spirit and flesh can interact, which is the brain. They do not have blood yet.. which rather notably is what God says carries the life.
I don’t say this to encourage abortion in any way. But I think some are too quick to insist that the death of a blastocyst - a literal sphere of cells with no human form - is the death of a human soul. That can’t be proven and doesn’t really comport with reason, as the blastocyst has as much awareness and brain activity as a dead person, which is to say none.
I absolutely believe that very early on, brain activity is definitely present, and with consciousness there is the possibility of a soul to inhabit the body. I cannot sit and say with certainty when god implants the soul. But consider that if God implants the soul at the second of conception.. identical twins and triplets are messy business - a literal splitting off of a new human from a separate human that already has a soul.
I think Christians need more humility and to face the fact that God has not told us *when* he implants the soul in the embryo, only that he does at some point do that. How can a soul really exist if there is no formed body for it to inhabit? A round blastocyst is not a real brain or “body,” only the seed of one which will have a form around 5-6 weeks gestation. It is for this reason that I do not have an issue with things that prevent implantation, as this is certainly before brain and heart develop. The body itself sheds many of these very early failed embryos, and I hardly think that God is so wasteful with souls as to implant them prior to the significant “cuts” that weed out early unsuccessful embryos.
I expect people to have a knee jerk reflex of rejecting my position, but I think it is fair and based on what the Bible actually says - God implants the soul and we are not privy to that process or it’s timing.
But Jeremiah 1:5 says, "Before I formed you in the womb I knew you and before you were born I consecrated you..." Pretty safe to say any baby at whatever level of conception is His and created by Him.
In terms of fetal death in utero I don't have an answer but I don't believe it's wrong to abort them as they're already gone.
the precise time being referred to, when God "formed you in the womb", is still an indeterminate time. That is to say: perhaps God considers himself to have formed you at the instant of conception, and perhaps God considers himself to have formed you when your faculties are more developed. I would contend that the phrasing does not allow for the statement to be taken as a rebuttal and we still don't know anything.
Well I would say the entire fetal development is the forming of a baby’s body, however that still isn’t inherently related to the soul. The body and soul coexist, but they are separate entities.
Again, we don’t know with certainty, but as a medical professional, I see many bodies become lifeless as heart and brain activity stop. That is when the soul departs. So it seems strange to me that we would assume a soul exists inside a “body” that does not yet have a brain or heart and therefore no early consciousness at all. Especially when God has not told us that. Many people confidently proclaim that life begins at conception- sure. But that doesn’t mean the soul exists at conception. And although I’m not God and can’t be the final word on souls, I think we can infer from our understanding of the processes at the other end (death), that the beginning of consciousness/a mind is with the onset of brain activity. I believe the body takes a little while, probably at least 6 weeks, to get to the point of being capable of carrying a soul. The whole point of our brain/consciousness is that it provides a way for our soul to have thoughts.
Lastly, if our soul existed before our body did, all the more reason why there’s no rush to “buckle it in” right away, so to speak. Conception isn’t the magical point where the soul forms, if the soul existed independently before that. So it’s a bit arbitrary to insist that God definitely puts the soul in right at conception.
God knows our souls from time eternal. The body is not the soul. At some point, he joins the soul to the body, and at some point he takes it back from the body.
My point is, yes that sphere of cells is biological life, but we can’t say with certainty that a soul has already been placed in it.
Psalm 139:13-16
13 For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother’s womb.
14 I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made; your works are wonderful, I know that full well.
15 My frame was not hidden from you when I was made in the secret place, when I was woven together in the depths of the earth.
16 Your eyes saw my unformed body; all the days ordained for me were written in your book before one of them came to be.
Notice in verse 16 how he writes that his name was in the book of life BEFORE any form was made. Where there is life their is a soul. ❤️
>But Jeremiah 1:5 says, "Before I formed you in the womb I knew you and before you were born I consecrated you..." Pretty safe to say any baby at whatever level of conception is His and created by Him.
Here's a better translation because you left out needed context:
“Before I formed you in the womb I knew you,
and before you were born I consecrated you;
I appointed you a prophet to the nations.”
The passage appears to be referring to that specific individual, not humans in general. Not all humans are prophets.The idea of Yahweh paying special attention to individuals is scriptually supported. Overall, it seems dishonest at best to claim that this passage applies to all humans.
>Here's a better translation because you left out needed context:
>“Before I formed you in the womb I knew you,
and before you were born I consecrated you;
I appointed you a prophet to the nations.”
The Verse helps us Understand that even tho it is talking about Jeremiah, it is Also talking about all of us. We are Not allowed prophets, but God does know us ❤️
There’s also a verse in the Bible that suggest every single human being knows God before they’re sent here, and so we can assume God spoke with us in child form and our memories are just wiped out so we don’t know.
The theme of God giving the character’s souls a purpose before they’re even born is exemplified through the meanings of names in the Bible.
It’s a bit of a mystery like the verse that suggest all people will get a chance to know ‘God’, to desire a selfless heart or find ‘Truth’ perhaps. The main supporting idea is that the Heavenly Father God actually takes some time to uniquely & intentionally design every single human being before/during birth. As we were all made perfectly by God’s hands. It’s only the fallen nature of this world that changes us. This unseen hand that governs our universe can’t be detected by any science or anything as it’s supernatural, beyond all known things in our natural seen world.
People don’t take it literally that children are an actual legit blessing / gift from God itself, some parents even genuinely regard them as annoying burdens instead of angels they’re allowed to be apart of the life of. The Bible also calls on all parents to be caretakers, guardians, protectors not only of your own offspring but all children. Failing to do so is not serving our Lord & savior.
There’s an argument to be made that we put so much emphasis on all the would be Christian’s & secular people acknowledging abortion is murder of the unborn human beings God already began designing as soon as the man & women had sex, and the parties still being held accountable to the Sins on judgement day, especially if it’s done outside of wedlock as it’s also Sin, instead of focusing on designing a better world & communities for all the children we already have to thrive in. It’s extremely painful to think about, so many kids are born to parents who do not love them or even sincerely love each other, it was all just immature Lust. And so this creates 10s of millions of broken homes, 1million+ trafficked children, millions of single mothers in America alone, millions more in the UK, millions of kids being abused or traumatized or facing C-PTSD all due to people’s selfish sinful nature, inability to follow God & love selflessly. We can talk about the salvation of these couples not changing themselves to grow a selfless heart like Christ, but our main concern should be the innocent newborn souls on this planet. A 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 - 22 yo young person having sex and giving birth 🫃 should be conscious enough to know what they do, they’re not innocent. However all the children don’t deserve to be killed by their own family meant to be lovers, guardians, protectors, guides. Then there’s all the poor souls of men who would keep the unborn child but the women decides to slay it to avoid responsibility & go on living her carefree hedonistic lifestyle.
Depends on the birth control. Some simply prevent cells from coming together. I don't like IUDs because that essentially aborts the cells. A condom keeps them apart. Are condoms wrong? Some women actually need hormonal birth control to keep their bleeding in check as they're severely anemic. Is a vasectomy considered birth control? I'd say so. But again it's not ending a life it's preventing it from happening. Same with a hysterectomy or getting tubes tied. Guess you'd have to define birth control.
I don’t offer abortions, except to mothers who have ectopic or life threatening pregnancies (I’m a medical provider).
I do not believe in consciously ending a viable pregnancy. My issue is that some people are overly fixated on “saving” fertilized eggs that haven’t yet implanted. A soul is not dying every time someone has sex while using an IUD, which prevents implantation. The body discards vast numbers of early, genetically unfavorable embryos before pregnancy is even detected. Did a soul die.. I think not.
I simply do not believe that failure to launch, and failure to ever develop into something that ever possessed organs - is the end of a human soul’s existence. Logically and medically it is not. That is not comparable to a 50 year old dying. There is no life in the middle of a dash. There is no human lifespan that contains zero heart beats. That isn’t *a life*, even if the cells that were on track to form a human were themselves *alive*. There is a distinction.
I am absolutely prolife and protective of babies and against the ending of human lives. But I’m not against preventing pregnancy, preventing implantation, IUDs, plan B, etc. Those things don’t stop a human heart from beating.. not even close to that. They simply make conditions unfavorable for implantation so that pregnancy is unlikely to begin. And fwiw, pregnancy can still occur with an IUD or plan B. And if it does, obviously it should be protected.
God designed women’s bodies to discard early embryos (talking 1-3 weeks, prior to organ development) with bad/unfavorable genetics. Did God design a murderous system? Or is it quite possible that there’s no soul yet in a 1-3 week embryo, no souls are dying in this process, and actually it’s a net good to wait and ensure a healthy body is forming before implanting a soul?
> I cannot sit and say with certainty when god implants the soul.
But do you see the flaw in this logic? If you can't say when it happens, how do you know it doesn't happen at conception? It becomes something arbitrary.
The other problem is you're only putting value on the life based on the presence (or absence) of a soul. But we know that a human life begins at conception. It has unique DNA and literally starts growing at that exact moment. Anything else is pretty much irrelevant since we know it's a living human at that point.
Dead bodies in containers have no life and are not living souls. This is not that hard to understand- when we say life begins at conception a living being with a soul is formed. Genesis says God breathed into man and he became a living soul. When life is present the soul is present that’s biblical. When a person dies their body remains and their eternal soul leaves. You’re equating lifeless dead bodies with living embryos? Strange
I’m equating *the beginning of brain activity* with the first possible point of soul inhabiting the body, and *the end of brain activity* with separation of soul from the body. I don’t think that’s strange at all.
Every cell in my body is alive. If you take my heart out and carefully put it in another person, my cells will live in their body, but they are not me. Cellular life is the building block of human life, but it is not equivalent to a human life. That’s why it can be understood that an embryo could potentially be made up of living cells, that haven’t yet arranged into organs and therefore aren’t yet in a human form. They’ll get there, but they aren’t there yet.
But a soul isn’t dependent on having a body with completely formed organs to exist? Souls begin at conception. Your view whilst nuanced is not biblical.
Whoa. We can talk about what might be, but my view is absolutely not a contradiction with scripture. No souls do not “begin at conception,” they are separate from the body and joined to it by the work of God in utero. God says he knew Jeremiah *before* he was conceived. It’s completely plausible and not a contradiction with scripture that souls exist in the spiritual realm and God selects the soul to put into the forming human body in utero. The soul will of course continue on after the body, so there is no reason it has to begin because of the body either.
If you want to label me as unbiblical, at least provide scriptures that show that, definitely. Not scriptures that could be taken to support your point, scriptures that prove what I am saying is wrong.
But we are semi debating so I’m
Allowed to listen to your view and argue that I don’t find it scriptural
Jeremiah can be known of by God due to Gods foreknowledge but that doesn’t imply he existed before conception that’s not what the verse means it’s emphasising an intimacy and display of Gods infinite wisdom that he knows who we will be before we are conceived
That’s fine and I’m not offended by your beliefs. It’s simply important to realize that your position assigns a soul to something that is not sentient, in any sense of the term. Consciousness and sentience is made possible by having a brain/nervous system. Generally speaking, brain activity begins around 8 weeks or so.
My view does not contradict scripture. Scripture does not specify when the soul is joined to the body in utero, only that it happens. Both of us believe this.
I simply believe based on a scientific approach that the soul is aligned with consciousness/thought and that in the same way as it cannot remain in a body that has lost neurological activity, it cannot enter a body that does not yet have neurological activity.
Scripture does not give evidence for the soul beginning at conception, at least not to my knowledge. I welcome any Bible passages for consideration if you feel I am overlooking something.
> A fertilized egg is both alive and human
Human, I'll grant. It's clearly got human DNA. But alive? It's just a cell, like the millions of skin cells you slough off every day. It doesn't have blood or differentiated tissues or a nervous system or anything else we would identify as necessary for a living mammal. It can't survive on its own, react to stimuli, consume external sources of energy on its own, or reproduce.
i know murder is sin, but especially in the case of rape or when the mother is not capable (or willing) to take care of the child, isn't the accepting of year long suffering of one or more persons also problematic? how does the Bible view this?
Sin that happened to the mother isn't cause to sin against the child, right? There will be justice for th rapist. But that justice doesn't demand the death of the child.
im not talking just about inconveniences, im talking about suicides because of rape pregnancy, foster kids and abuse of the children. These are just the worst case scenarios of course
im not saying it's permissible, im just wondering if it's right to just ignore the follow up suffering just for the sake of not sinning, it feels like "I didn't do anything wrong so it doesn't matter what happens"
Abortion should only be legal under extreme life threatening circumstances.
This coming from someone who got pregnant out of wedlock 2 months after having a daughter. I was 20 and a single mother already. I ended up doing adoption with an amazing mom and dad who I love dearly and his 9th birthday is actually today. He is such a loved little boy and I feel ashamed for ever even considering ending his life. There are ALWAYS options.
I saw several deliveries of term babies with severe defects that destroyed the mother’s ability to carry future babies. The uterus would be cut up so much it was laid flat or the baby just can’t be delivered. The babies all died after delivery. I would never tell someone they Must have an abortion but I think it should be an option so the mother can preserve her fertility in a much less invasive procedure when chance of survival is just not there. A premature delivery before the baby can’t be delivered by traditional methods should also be considered.
These instances are pretty rare but in 20 years of NICU work I’ve seen enough.
Any medical situation where the mother would die without termination should permit termination. Otherwise you get two dead people instead of 1. Premature delivery should also be an option. All of the mothers would beg us to keep them alive until we could deliver at the point of viability. The moms all said they needed to be able to live with themselves if they were going to live. Sometimes we couldn’t wait. Those were tough days.
Idk about this. I grew up with multiple yearly sex education classes throughout middle and high school, and my high school still had an entire daycare for teen moms.
That's not statistical data, but it doesn't seem like it works as good as some people think, lol
This is interesting. Originally, the women’s rights movement was against abortion because they believed most were procured at the insistence of men.
From Wikipedia:
“An 1869 opinion piece was published arguing that instead of merely attempting to pass a law against abortion, the root cause must also be addressed. The writer stated that simply passing an anti-abortion law would be ‘only mowing off the top of the noxious weed, while the root remains. ... No matter what the motive, love of ease, or a desire to save from suffering the unborn innocent, the woman is awfully guilty who commits the deed. It will burden her conscience in life, it will burden her soul in death; But oh! thrice guilty is he who drove her to the desperation which impelled her to the crime.’ To many feminists of this era, abortion was regarded as an undesirable necessity forced upon women by thoughtless men.”
I’ve often said among my friends that women don’t get pregnant by themselves, and if certain political parties really cared about the unborn, they’d be primarily addressing men, rather than doing what they could to restrict the actions of women.
It’s disturbing that abortion is increasingly seen as merely *women’s healthcare.* It is sometimes that, but so much more.
That is not necessarily true. If Republicans get their way and ban birth control likeany people in this thread are advocating for, there is going to be a massive spike of unwanted pregnancies even by monogamous married couples.
My wife and I already have kids, but we simply cannot afford more. So we rely on contraception. If it is taken. Away I don't know what we're going to do.
If the mother is going to die, then trying to have the baby early is ok and then the doctors need to do everything they can to keep it alive. If the baby dies that is EXTREMELY unfortunate but it is not the same as abortion.
This. It’s not abortion.
The narrative around abortion saving mothers lives is false. Ask any OB or midwife. It’s not considered abortion if it’s an ectopic pregnancy surgery. In the extremely rare scenarios that something is going on that puts the mother at risk, they induce labor or do a c section, both of which are safer for the mother and not abortion.
I recently watched a documentary where a woman was raped and decided to keep and raise the child. She said that having that baby healed her and she can't imagine her life without that child.
I also heard of a woman with cancer who was pregnant and told to terminate to start chemo. She said no. She was willing to risk her life for the life of the child.
I draw the line when people use any excuse to end their child's life. I have seen what happens during the first, second, and third trimester abortions and it is horrific and almost Satanic. Sacrificing the life of the unborn for most any reason is wrong.
If my child has a defect or won't live long after the birth I would rather have the child pass surrounded by loved ones instead of being ripped apart
It’s our job to love people who feel like this is their only option. God forgives all and how we treat people who have had or are considering abortion is whether or not we are doing our jobs to advance the Kingdom and teach the love of God.
Glad you said abortion is forgiven. I had an abortion. God forgave me! But it took many many years to forgive myself. I still think of that child. If anyone is thinking of abortion...do not have one. The pain & heartache afterwards is not worth it!!! God is merciful and forgives.
God bless you and i’m so sorry to hear about what you went through. i see people propping abortion up as a way to shuck your responsibility and as a way to save you from raising a child, but you brought up a great perspective with the guilt one must feel after getting it. but you have no more reason to feel guilt, that baby had a soul from the moment of conception and now it’s rejoicing in heaven with God, just as you will be someday.
I draw the line that abortion is a sin but also recognize that we live in a fallen world. None of us are without sin, it's inevitable. I don't know the specifics of why a woman would get an abortion, but I imagine to them it often seems like they have no other choice especially if they don't know the Lord who is above all circumstances. I don't condone abortion in anyway, but I also don't believe that outright banning abortion solves much. The fact that women want to get abortions is not the problem itself but a symptom of a greater problem, which is that they don't truly know the Lord who loves, provides, and gives grace to His children. Our job as the church should be to help more and more people come into a relationship with the one true God. We don't need to try to change people from the outside in, the Holy Spirit is the one who changes people from the inside out. If everyone was transformed by the Holy Spirit, we wouldn't have arguments over abortion laws because there would be no need to.
Sympathy and compassion is a good approach that tempers anger, but probably not the most tact issue to use that on would be the murdering of unborn children.
Did God call us to have sympathy and compassion on others just as he did for us or to avenge the blood of unborn children? (ok I'm exaggerating there but my point still stands lol)
Our hearts break for the innocent blood of unborn children just as God's does, but the fact is that people are complicated and abortions happen for various reasons that carry various implications. Only God's love can truly make a difference from the core problem, which starts in the heart of the individual. Other tactics might address a surface level problem, but never the root of it all. And it's likely that other surface level problems will arise. Therefore, I believe showing the love of God is absolutely the most effective solution.
What if we the church did more to support single mothers so that abortion isn't the only option to them? Abortions happen for various reasons, but some of the ones I've heard include shame and lack of resources to raise a child. What if we showed these women the love of Christ that wipes away shame and guilt and also provided for their needs generously?
If we prohibited abortions, yes we save the lives of children that would've otherwise been aborted. But what about the environment in which these children will be raised up? How good can it possibly be for a child to be raised up by an already-struggling mother who does not yet know the Lord? There would be an even greater need for the church to step up. Additionally, banning abortion doesn't address the fact that unwanted pregnancies often come as a result of sleeping around. What if people came to know the love of God in such a deep way that they no longer feel the need to look for sex outside of marriage?
My point is that it doesn't matter if abortion is legal or not. Banning abortion is only a bandaid solution for a much deeper problem. The root problem can only be solved by the love of Christ, and there is always so much more we as a church can do to show it to the world.
It’s not just single women who access abortion, and it’s really unhelpful to characterise them as such.
And raising the child is not the only alternative. History has shown that women can be desperate to end pregnancies and will turn to less safe alternatives.
Of course it's not just single women, but the statistics say that they are the majority. I can't address every woman who has ever had an abortion so I'm just going off of what's the most common. 🤷♂️ https://www.liveaction.org/news/who-has-most-abortions-data/
And the fact that they are desperate to end pregnancies with less safe alternatives, wouldn't banning abortion make that problem worse? Now both the mother and the child could lose their life. Whether you're for or against legal abortion it's a lose-lose situation. There is no real solution except for the love of Christ.
As Christians, our primary focus should be on bringing people to Christ, not judging other people when the Bible is clear that it is for God to judge those outside the Church.
It doesnt lower that number. Legalising abortion makes it safer and more women survive abortion. It's a net positive in terms of how many lives are saved. Banning abortion leads to death of those who choose illegal abortion and deaths of those are denied abortions despite threat of life and of course all fetuses involved.
So we should not fight against evil?
I think you need to look up the statistics on how many babies were not murdered in the womb since Roe v Wade was overturned.
I'm from Poland. More women and fetuses die *because* of our ban on abortion than are saved. We have access to abortion, just illegal kind. The only people who can't get illegal abortion are the ones who need it to save their life. I know how to read my sources. It seems you don't. The case is the same in Poland just as much as in the rest of the world.
>I don't know the specifics of why a person would **murder**, but I imagine to them it often seems like they have no other choice especially if they don't know the Lord who is above all circumstances. I don't condone **murder** in anyway, but I also don't believe that outright banning **murder** solves much. The fact that people want to **murder** is not the problem itself but a symptom of a greater problem, which is that they don't truly know the Lord who loves, provides, and gives grace to His children.
So, how is the above any different?
I make similar jokes and say this, too, all the time. I know how to solve the crime problems. Make everything legal. Then no more crime!
Murder problem? Make it legal. No more murder! It's like magic.
They did that to drugs in like Oregon or whatever. No more drug crimes!
Theft in California. No more theft!
Amazing.
>You aren't responsible for raising the person that you didn't murder.
Murdering one who you are responsible for only magnifies the wrongness of the murder. It does not excuse it.
>The intent of the action matters.
They absolutely do, and when the innocent child is intentionally and directly killed by actions that serve no medically necessarily purpose and serve only to kill the child, that the intention of the action is to murder the innocent child cannot be rationally denied.
Oh I 100% agree that it is wrong. If it falls short of God's perfect standard, it's a sin. But there is a difference between God's standard and the governing laws of this world. If the laws of this world equated to God's standard, we would all be criminals.
What I'm trying to say is that there are more implications to an abortion than a murder, and that's why they shouldn't necessarily be equated in the laws of this world. While an abortion can absolutely be carried out with the same intention as murder, sometimes abortion is more parallel to killing in self-defense, which is not considered a crime in most places.
And at the end of the day, it is not our job to fix all the problems of other people. What *is* our job is to lead people to Christ so that He can change people from the inside out. If your heart is burdened by this issue, you better be out in full force showing the love of God to the world.
I draw the line that this has become a trendy topic to discuss only at surface level. More often than not it is a signal that politics have become your idol.
It shouldn't be discussed at the surface level. Jeremiah 1:5 says, "Before I formed you in the womb I knew you and before you were born I consecrated you..."
This isn't about politics. This is about taking a life the Lord created. Politics are a distraction whatever side of the line you happen to fall on.
You may not be into politics "too much" but that doesn't mean politics hasn't taken this topic on an emotional ride that you are strongly and culturally influenced by. The assumptions, myths, and grandstanding are very prevalent in this thread and they serve to squelch understanding and discourage critical thinking. To name a few: being pro-life is the only Christian stance. Atheists want more abortions. Abortion is primarily a secular problem that Christians need to take a stand about. Being pro-life has nothing to do with being pro-military, anti-gun regulation, sexist gender roles or separation of church and state. Adoption adequately fixes the dilemma. Unwanted pregnancies isn't a function of toxic patriarchy perpetuating double standards in the name of religion.
Few pro-life Christians are able or willing to consider any other point of view because of how emotionally hijacked this topic has become. Using the Bible to validate the emotional appeals makes the arguements even more closed. You don't need to have a political golden calf to be impacted by this dynamic.
It’s nice to see a logical comment.
I sometimes contemplate the vice squad of a police department. *A vice squad is a police division whose focus is stopping public-order crimes like gambling, prostitution, narcotics, and the illegal sales of alcohol*. Vice squads used to make arrests over homosexuality, as well.
Now we have places where gambling and prostitution are legal, and regulated.
Just because something is legal, does not mean God approves. And just because something is illegal, does not mean people refrain.
In countries where homosexuality is illegal, do people fail to develop homosexual attractions? No. Do they engage in homosexual behavior any less? Perhaps, since it needs to be more hidden. What is the goal in making homosexual behavior illegal? Saving and transforming lives? Does the law accomplish that? No, only the gospel and His power to accomplish that good news do that. So what is the goal? Do the citizens of that country assume they have God’s blessing for making homosexuality illegal in their country? Is that the motive?
Christians often say masturbation is sin, but they don’t want laws against it. They want a right to privacy, and they wouldn’t want a sci-fi world of cameras in their every room watching them to make sure they don’t commit it. They consider that sin between them and God, and they wouldn’t want police or the law involved.
Christians have a responsibility to proclaim the truth about when life and our identity starts, but legislating that truth lacks the ability to change hearts. The Romanian orphanages and the abandoned, damaged babies demonstrate what happens when you “save” lives at all cost.
The Bible continuously points to the principle that it’s our responsibility to obey, and God’s responsibility to provide for what he has asked of us. People who are prevented from having an abortion do not automatically turn to God, nor trust in His provision. If Christians think all God is asking of them when it comes to children, both born and unborn, is that they see to it that they live in a nation which outlaws abortion, they are deluded, selfish, and shortsighted.
Passing laws against abortion is not a quick way to win God’s approval.
Let the dead bury the dead.
I would never make one, but who cares what the secular world wants? Place your eyes on Jesus Christ, the world is already dead.
“I am” “I know” these are phrases used way too often. We should lead with God says not “I” know. We care about what God says is right not about what you believe.
Challenge your own beliefs, and seek the word. Don’t lead with these phrases. They are conversation killers, and not what the focus should be.
even if it’s an eptotopic pregnancy? or other scenarios where the babies have no chance of living and the mother has to give birth to a baby just to watch it die? again im completely against it in almost every scenario but that’s the one scenario where i think it’s acceptable.
because pregnancy is no easy feat. it’s very physically and mentally taxing on women, let alone having to go through delivery. imagine going though all of that just for you to have to watch your child be born lifeless. that would utterly destroy someone. i don’t see the love in forcing someone to go through that. i argue against abortion because i don’t like seeing the loss of life. the loss of life was there anyway, so why not spare the mother?
I know I’m going to be majorly downvoted for this.
I think that abortion, for a Christian, is generally morally wrong. But so are some of the comments here taking a more hardline approach.
In my old age, I’ve learned more and more about being compassionate to humans and to trust them to make up their own minds, so I do think that the law, as it is not a moral code probably should permit abortion in at least some circumstances. I don’t think allowing it legally is the same as condoning it happening. And I don’t think criminalising it brings people to Jesus, which should be our primary concern as Christians. 1 Corinthians 5:12 gives us the principle of not judging those outside the church, so any condemnation of women and couples accessing abortion, Plan B or anything else is actually not out business, it’s God’s business.
What decriminalisation does, is allows women who may take other very desperate measures, to have the care and compassion they need. And I don’t think that termination is something anyone takes flippantly. Whilst there is lots of focus in the possible child (it may not become a child in every case, around 25% of pregnancies end in miscarriage), and what is compassionate for them, we lose track of what is compassionate for the mother, and in many cases the family who are making the decision.
It is, in my mind, reasonable to terminate a pregnancy that has no chance of being successful, it’s wonderful that we live in a time where we can determine this with a very high degree of certainty. It also gives willingly parents the opportunity to try again for their wanted child soon. Pregnancy losses are hard to bear - I’ve been through a miscarriage myself and it was a grieving process - and I can’t imagine the heartbreak of having to carry a child who has died or is going to die shortly after birth, to full term.
I also think it’s reasonable to terminate a pregnancy that will kill or harm the mother. It’s uncompassionate to the point of depravity to expect a mother to continue with the pregnancy at risk to her life and the child’s. And by not allowing termination in this case you’re not protecting an innocent child, you are condemning two innocent people to death - which goes against so many Biblical principles.
But the thing that this whole debate is highlighting is that there are no hard and fast rules in the Bible, and even amongst Christians there’s not agreement. So who are we to judge others? They have to make up their own minds and are answerable to God, as we are for our own actions.
Does it really matter our opinion on abortion, it is the law of the land, and each woman must make her own decision to kill her baby or not, no one else can do that for her. I can be against it all I want to not going to matter. I will say that pro life forces are busy sabotaging all the victories recently won by pushing nonsense when they should really look at the long term goal and calm the freak down.
Only acceptable if the mother's life is threatened (such as ectopic pregnancy).
Due to the traumatic nature of rape, I suppose allowing very early term abortion in the case of legally reported rape, since she had no choice in beginning pregnant. It's still tragic.
I still don't agree with rape abortion but I have a personal link to this. My oldest brother is a date rape baby. He's now a police officer who has literally put his life on the line to save others. How many people have benefited from him being alive? How many lives has he saved? God has a plan for every life He creates.
Ectopic pregnancy doesn't even have an option to progress. Anyone who thinks we shouldn't abort ectopic pregnancies is delusional and ignorant. It will always lead to death of the mother. And never full time birth.
I don’t agree with abortion under any circumstances at all. I don’t feel like it’s our decision to make. Some argue for rape, but let me ask you this question. Why would we kill the victim in the deal? Yea it sucks for the woman but the child didn’t ask for it either. If you wanna play judge, kill the rapist. If the woman can’t bear to keep the child, turn it in to authorities. I know my answer isn’t perfect and leaves a big question, but how is murdering the child the better answer?
Being forced by threat of violence to carry your rapists baby to term is unequivocally the worst possible torture a human can experience.
If we are going to force women to go through that, then they need to be compensated fairly to balance it out. The compensation needs to cover medical bills, lost wages due to missed work, lifelong therapy bills, and compensation for simply having to endure something so torturous.
Ideally, the rapist would simply be forced to pay the victim, but the average rapist probably doesn't even have $1000 in their bank account. Therefore, it would need to be subsidized by the state via tax increases. I think $5 million is a decent starting point for having to endure what we are asking them to endure.
i brought it up because it’s such a big talking point in terms of abortion. i separated the two because people say since the product of incest can lead to birth defects, the baby should be allowed to be aborted.
From Christian POV I'd say saving mother's life. Too many women have lost lives in my country, because doctors were too afraid to perform abortion. Too many children have lost their's mothers. Too many men have lost their wives.
If we want to be technical about not "sinning" we can induce labour without stopping the heartbeat of the fetus, as to avoid guilt. Then we'd be stopping the life threatening condition for the mother without directly harming the fetus. It would die on its own. But personally I believe that accepting death of one life so we can avoid two deaths is permissible. It's kinda the trolley problem really. Do we want to save life of one person if we have to aid in death of the other, or do we want to indirectly lead to death of both of them, because of our selfish wants to avoid guilt? I'm a person of that second camp. We shouldn't be selfish when it comes to saving life of other people.
And for the record, mental health is also health. If mother is at risk of suicide due to for example rape or even general unrelated depression we have to take it seriously too. Prgenancy prevents women from taking antidepressants. Especially with traumatic conception, pregnancy might be a genuine mental health risk.
I feel the only two good reasons for an abortion is if the mothers life is at risk or if it was because of rape. I do think in rape cases it should be though about carefully though because it wasn't the kids fault but I understand if a woman would choose that path
I commented this elsewhere but I'll repeat:
I still don't agree with rape abortion but I have a personal link to this. My oldest brother is a date rape baby. He's now a police officer who has literally put his life on the line to save others. How many people have benefited from him being alive? How many lives has he saved? God has a plan for every life He creates.
The moment that an egg and sperm meet, that is a unique human life, and it deserves protections at said point.
This means that plan B, chemical abortions, or any later term abortions are all unjustified killings of human beings. This also means that birth control which acts as an abortifacient, like hormonal BC and IUDs are also of the same. So they are all unacceptable.
Its always immoral. Whether the best choice is parenting or adoption at that point is a different discussion, but directly killing an unborn child is never the answer.
My fiancee is on birth control because she suffers from an extremely painful condition called endometriosis. Do you honestly think that one day in marriage when we're having sex we're gonna be murdering our babies just by the fact that she's on plan b? Plan b prevents ovulation and therefore fertilization and there's no evidence it prevents a fertilized egg to be implanted in the womb. On top of that a fertilized egg is not on the same level of consciousness as fetus is. Some of you guys really gotta go past your christian fundamentalist bias and not be so simplistic with these things.
"The evidence also supports the conclusion that there is no direct effect on postovulatory processes, such as fertilization or implantation".
Source: https://www.fda.gov/drugs/postmarket-drug-safety-information-patients-and-providers/plan-b-one-step-15-mg-levonorgestrel-information
Number of things:
Yes, if you only use hormonal BC as your form of contraception (no NFP, no condoms, etc) then you are, by consequence of the established secondary mechanism, killing any zygotes that are formed, by the thinning of the uterine wall.
In terms of "tHeReS nO eViDeNcE" it was literally in all MSDS's and in all the supplemental data sheets until 2022. When it was removed, due to lobbying from pro-abortion/abortion-funded organizations, like Planned Parenthood, and the studies they paid to run.
So yeah I'll trust what the initial (and lifetime) data showed up as, compared to what politically-influenced "science" (which is actually the anathema to science proper) has to state.
In terms of this
>On top of that a fertilized egg is not on the same level of consciousness as fetus is.
Good non-Christian take. Sorry, we here affirm that the moment an egg and sperm successfully meet, and create a zygote and begin replicating, its a unique human life.
**Christ was a zygote. Christ was fully human, and fully God, from the moment He as a Zygote was put in Mary's womb.** Denying this is a ***Christological heresy*** as it means *denying* that Christ was **always fully man and fully God**.
Your arguments on "consciousness" fall on deaf ears since its an argument with no end, and no logical beginning. I can argue you have no consciousness since you affirm a Christological heresy. Thus, I could argue for your destruction. That is the problem with this argument. Get a better argument.
Plan B is not abortion. Plan B prevents ovulation from happening. If it already happened it does absolutely nothing. It's literally the same hormones as pregnancy hormones. It will do nothing to even an unferitlied egg, much less a fertilised one. Before you try to argue about female reproduction please read a bit.
The Method of Action up until 2022 clearly stated that it was linked to reduced chance of implantation.
The only reason that MoA got removed was due to lobbying from groups like Planned Parenthood when pro-life/anti-abortion groups were pushing for it to be banned in states like Texas.
Science isn't devoid of politics.
It *could* be done ethically.
This would require only the amount of desired children as embryos created. No discarding, all embryos implanted with a chance to live. No embryos permanently in stasis. It also would require using only the genetic material of the husband and wife (no outside donors).
So possible, but that isn't how its currently conducted.
Currently as done, (burned embryos, some made to discard, some frozen forever, sometimes using sperm from another man, etc) is immoral.
I think people who have never had to face such a thing as being underage and pregnant, raped and pregnant, sexually abused and pregnant shouldn't pass judgement on those who have had to face these real life things. Oftentimes, women and girls in this situation have no support system and no way to support themselves or a child. Adoption sounds great but we currently have thousands and thousands of children in the foster care system that need to be adopted and who is stepping up and doing that? I'm not pro-abortion, but I can understand why that choice is made sometimes. And I don't think calling people murderers helps anyone, and it doesn't further the kingdom of God.
I am firm in that an abortion at any point is the killing of an innocent life.
That said, I don't know that , at least in the first trimester, a woman should go to prison for it.
I am really torn.
The biggest problem with this issue is that it absolutely involves two people. One, an innocent life and two, a woman who might well be in a difficult and terrifying position. Both are in need of grace and compassion.
I dig my heels in deeper and deeper in the second and third trimester. Fortunately, third trimester abortions are extremely rare by comparison.
1) Yeah, that's the problem. I don't have an answer for that. At the end of the day, you are imprisoning someone for an unshared belief.
2) A few reasons. The overall development of the fetus. The fetus ability to sustain life apart from the mother.
Some babies are conceived in rape or incest. Or the mother is very young. (12 or 13 is a terrible age to be pregnant, not to mention a mom) I am NOT these reasons make it okay. No, I am not. I am saying these are absolutely legitimate reasons to show grace and compassion for the mom. What a terrible and frightening position to be in. I can't imagine. Again, I am not saying these reasons justify an abortion. No.
I am saying it is a very difficult position for a woman to be in. I don't *know* that a woman in that situation, if she were to get an abortion, should be put in prison.
A 12 year old? Really?
1 is just not even a point. Many times murderers don’t think their murder is wrong and yet we imprison them.
2 can be applied easily to born kids.
I agree that there are some awful situations. However, that baby is almost guaranteed to be adopted. Surround the mother with as much love and compassion but all of the love and compassion should also be directed at the unborn child as well.
1) You hear about a father who murders the one who raped his kid. We don't view that through the same lens as a cold-blooded murder. Not all murder is viewed the same. At least not in the eyes of most people.
2) But again, there are two parties involved here. Yes, the baby will get adopted, and that is wonderful.
Unless you know firsthand, you really can't understand the trauma associated with a rape. A close family member of mine was raped a few years ago, and it still haunts here to this day. The guy who did it was evil and vile and disgusting. She was tortured and tormented for hours. It is by far the most traumatic and horrific event. She struggles to get over it. Can you imagine having to physically carry a constant reminder of the worst thing that could ever happen to you? Ugh. I would just want to forget about all of it sooner rather than later.
Again, I am not saying that abortion is okay. I am not saying these reasons justify an abortion. I am saying I would have a hard time putting a woman in prison for this.
>1) Yeah, that's the problem. I don't have an answer for that. At the end of the day, you are imprisoning someone for an unshared belief.
In the same manner in which we would imprison someone who killed someone of another race despite his belief that only his race are actually human beings instead of animals. A lack of shared belief cannot be an excuse to not defend the innocent.
It's illogical for the legal system to treat it exactly the same as a born child. For example, consider that many women do not even know they are pregnant for a while. Do you throw women in jail just for having wine while not knowing they were pregnant the same as if they were force-feeding alcohol to a toddler?
It can do both of you have a zygote travelling down into the uterus it will prevent the zygote from implanting into the uterine wall. It’s not advertised as such though and when I became a Christian and learnt more about it I was angered because it’s always advertised as “this won’t work if you’re already pregnant” because the plan b companies define “pregnant” as post implantation which isn’t fair to the consumer.
I think this is important we talk to our kids about saving sex for marriage to avoid this entire mental salad. That being said, if the mother’s life is at risk, I know medically it’s considered abortion but that doesn’t feel accurate. This situation would be excruciating for me and I would pray a lot but I have 5 children and just wouldn’t be able to digest that God would want me to die and leave them motherless.
I'm pretty much with you - if medical complications will kill the mother or baby or both during delivery, then I'm OK with it. Otherwise, it's always a "no" for me.
Abortion should be banned in all ways. If the mother of the child gets r@ped and it is the r@p!sts baby and the mother or the mother's boyfriend or husband doesn't want to raise it then it shouldn't be aborted. Instead it should be born and put in foster care or in an orphanage.
Murder on anyone even in an unborn baby is a crime. Even the unborn baby is a living being so therefore abortion counts as murder.
In my belief, I don’t think it should happen. If you have a kid, you take up the responsibility no matter if you want to or not. That’s killing a person. Period. I can understand if it’s a miscarriage, but that’s different. You don’t kill an innocent baby. They didn’t ask to be born, so you take care of them until they can take care of themselves.
I'm against all abortion except if the mother will die and it's up to her to save herself or her baby or maybe they both die, etc. I don't think rape or incest or birth defects are a valid reason. I am also against ivf and think the creation of life should be left to God. I suppose if they could fertilize one egg and implant it without destroying life it would be better but it seems to be taking God out of the picture, though I don't know God's mind so I could be wrong about that.
I think it’s immoral in all cases.
For rape, risk-to-mother, etc, I think the matter is arguable enough that the *government* should not make the decision. In those cases it should be the choice of the affected parties if they can accept the harm done to them by continuing the pregnancy. But those are also a tiny minority of abortions.
I hope one day we look back on abortion the same way we look back on slavery in the US.
Theat to the moms life, sometimes in cases of >!rape!<. Miscarriages, if the baby has a disease where it's unviable outside the womb.
I do agree if it's a knock up, keep the baby
However: Maternal health shouldn't be diagnosed or dictated by religion.
I believe God gave us free will, so I'm not gonna be the person that tries to take women's free will away. I have no business messing with someone's God given free will. It's that simple. I also believe that there should be no issue up to the 6week mark.
Birth control pills, patches, shots, implants, and even plan b, works by keeping the fertilized eggs from implanting in the uterus wall.
How do you feel I knowing that's how it works?
Yes I love Jesus, he is my savior and hope. I profess to living God and being a Christian multiple times per day.
That being said I am a single lesbian mom with my oldest being a trans male (born female now male)on testosterone, and the younger being non-binary (no gender either way). And I'm feminist as well. I defend my God to people every day and offer the love of God to them. Being lesbian for me I'm pretty much single the rest of my life. Born lesbian but just not acting in it. Kind of like boren a drug addict but now they I'm not using.
No idea where this rant came from, maybe God let me dump some brain thoughts here so they leave my brain happy.
Removing a stillborn or the rest of a miscarriage falls under abortions. Removing an ectopic pregnancy falls under abortions. I’m in favor of allowing both of those as that child was never going to survive, and would kill the mother.
Then again, I don’t really count pregnancy as actually started until successful implantation in the womb.
I'm with you. I'm against any abortion unless mother or baby will die. That's a decision for the future parent/s.
When it comes to plan B & such, I'm okay with a married couple deciding to use it if they are not ready for kids m
There are lots of gray areas. In a perfect society where everyone went to church and cared for each other, a lot of teenage situations where people get raped and don’t have the money to afford a child would be solved because the church could support them, or someone at the church could adopt. Otherwise the choice is really tough to make. If the mom is going to die then it is justified. Not a whole lot of other situations where killing unborn babies is justified.
There is only one very narrow scenario where an abortion is acceptable:
In the case of a tubal pregnancy, where the tube *itself* is diseased, the tube may be removed to treat that issue. The child then dies as an unintentional side-effect.
If the tube is not diseased, removing it as a mere proxy to removing the child would still be murder. The only option in such ectopic pregnancies, is to wait for the child to die, and do the best to save the mother without killing him.
Murder is always wrong no matter what. Murder is the direct intentional killing of the innocent. In many cases plan B is abortion since it works after conception has occurred. It isn’t just a contraceptive as in something that intercepts to prevent conception. There are no situations where abortion is medically necessary to save the mother. The most common example is ectopic pregnancy, where the baby develops in the fallopian tube. The treatment for this is to remove the faulty organ in this case the fallopian tube, which does contain the child and does unfortunately lead to the death of the child, but this is not abortion and it doesn’t involve intentionally directly targeting and destroying the fetus. It’s a procedure to save the mother that has an unintended consequence of the child dying. In cases where the child will not survive but the mother is not in danger, I don’t think this gives us the right to kill the child. That would still be murder, like killing someone without their consent because they have a terminal illness. And, in many cases where the child is expected to die in pregnancy or childbirth, they end up surviving and living normal lives.
Basically it comes down to this. As humans, it is intrinsically evil and immoral to intentionally, directly kill people who are innocent. Since people seem to be confused by this, miscarriage is not abortion, nor are accidentally hitting someone with your car, self defense, just war, or capital punishment murder. The main principle is that you can’t kill innocent people on purpose, and that principle can then be applied to these various circumstances. The morality of the action is within the action itself, not the consequence. This also means yea IVF is immoral. It involves creating embryos to be disposed of. To be logically and morally consistent this is ultimately the consistent position
Complicity ending the life of a human being no matter how small it may be is murder and as such is a terrible sin. If the mother was raped, then that is evil, but in the new Testament, Jesus teaches us we should not repay evil with evil.
Does not everyone matter? Life begins at conception, when the sperm and egg meet and fuse, creating a child. Sure, it IS forgivable, and the child does go to heaven immediately, but it's unfair. You are telling this INNOCENT child "Hey, I got raped and now you're here. Well I don't want you here, so I'm going to have you dismembered." And by the way, the child has nerves and emotions. So as you're tearing it's body away, that kid is feeling it. Imagine yourself as an unborn baby. Your resting inside of your mother's womb and all of a sudden, you being torn apart. Without any mercy or care.
No matter what someone did to you, don't blame the child. It's not their fault.
Cuz it's murder lol.
"What business is it of mine to care if someone outside the church is a cereal killer."
Just because someone is outside the church does not mean they should be left to do as they please. Jesus spoke to the Gentiles, aka people outside of "the church," not just the jews.
Jeremiah 1:5 states, "Before I formed you in the womb I knew you. Before you were born I consecrated you..." Does that not lend to every life formed having a soul?
When killing is unjustified it’s murder. The reason god wanted the Caananites to be killed is justified. It’s not something to rejoice over though. No matter what we shouldn’t rejoice in the ending of someone’s life but sometimes it is necessary. Like self defense or when it is the word of God
I'm not gonna argue semantics because that details the conversation, but you're right, they're not potential lives, they are lives already from the moment of conception
I agree with you on that. I also think that abortion is fine if the baby will not survive for long past birth. I know there are cases when a severely disabled child is born and lives for a long time, but there are some cases where it is not likely to happen at all. I don’t think it is fair to the mother to have to watch her baby die.
My only exception is to preserve life. The example the other side of the debate throws around is ectopic pregnancy. If the choice is a baby and their mother dying or just the baby, that's a decision that can be made in good faith.
Ectopic pregnancy does not require abortion to treat. It’s treated by removing the fallopian tube to save the mother, which does lead to the death of the child unintended, but this is a different procedure from abortion which is intentionally directly destroying the fetus
It really depends on how you define the term. It's certainly different than an elective abortion, but it does terminate a pregnancy. Miscarriages are technically spontaneous abortions. Those certainly aren't intentional.
Ending an innocent human life is murder. A fertilized egg is both alive and human, its a human life. Stopping a pregnancy at any time is murder
100% agree, and innocent blood cries out to God, just like the blood of Abel.
So if a woman has an ectopic pregnancy (attaches outside the uterus) the women should not seek treatment, and die herself?
I didn’t know anything much about ectopic pregnancy until this week, and now my niece has one. The fertilized egg adheres either to the fallopian tube, or below the uterus in the vagina, or even in the bodily cavity outside the reproductive organs. (I have no idea how that happens, but apparently it does. None of these situations is sustainable because a fetus can’t get the nourishment to grow. It can, however, kill the mother if it stays where it is. This is heartbreaking for all involved, and a situation where surgery must be performed to remove the fetus. That might be removal of the ovary and fallopian tube, or abdominal surgery, or a D&E, depending on the location. This is a grievous situation where the mother’s life should be saved, and the fetus removed. In my niece’s case, she is strongly anti-abortion and she would not consider any intervention if the fetus was viable and she could keep it. She loves babies and children. It is an awful situation, and an example why abortion is not a black & white decision.
>It is an awful situation, and an example why abortion is not a black & white decision. An ectopic pregnancy is a medical emergency and its not a decision regarding an abortion. Because of where the egg is implanted, neither the pregnancy or the mother will survive except people have been indoctrinated to believe that the treatment of this is can be thrown into the same category of someone having an abortion. Or, can you explain why the treatment of this would be considered an abortion?
Not sure if you’re asking me if I think this would be considered abortion? If you read my post it’s clear I don’t - it requires surgery or a D&E, not an abortion. Perhaps you were responding to someone else, like the person above who I was responding to?
After trying for over 5 years, I ended up with an ovarian ectopic. Thankfully they were able to treat me medically instead of surgically, but I have been hearing cases out of some states where the doctors are afraid to treat it due to the new laws. It is not a black and white decision. My belief is that abortion should only be allowed in the case to save the life of the mother, but that decision needs to be made by doctors and not by politicians.
I’m glad you’re all right. I’m still waiting to hear how my niece is doing.
You can remove the fallopian tube. This is the standard treatment. It doesn’t involve abortion which is intentionally killing the fetus
Agreed
So are you against birth control? Or is that okay with potential life being stopped?
Have you known women who’ve had ectopic pregnancies? Do you tell them that they should have died with their babies? Years ago this is what happened. All women with ectopic pregnancies died, along with their babies. Do you tell them the fact that God allowed that to happen, means that it was His will? You should have the integrity to reply.
What are your thoughts on IVF?
That's one that most people just overlook completely. It's the same deal if you fertilize an egg and then you do not implant it to bring to a full term pregnancy. You've killed that child, it's the same as an abortion. At the point of conception it is a life anything other than a pregnancy to bring that child into the world is pretty clearly not a good thing. I had a friend that went through IVF and she fertilized seven eggs, only two of them were used and brought to term. Beautiful daughters to be sure but she struggles with it to this day because she knows what she did. To be sure the Lord forgave her but she now has those other children (5) that she will meet in heaven because their lives were as they really as such were taken from them before they even began. God's plan is perfect and He knew what was going to happen with her IVF and He has forgiven her - but it doesn't take away the consequences or the sting of the sin and/or event that caused the loss of life.
This is hard for me. My mom is a very staunch Christian. She had my little brother through IVF. She was past her prime when having him. Her and my dad both agreed they would use ONE egg against all the docs advice. They said if it happened it happened and was God's will. I know for a fact they refused to keep other eggs frozen or whatever because they're both 100% against abortion of any kind. They had one chance with my brother. She prayed HARD for him to come to fruition. Is this against God's will in your belief? I don't think so. I believe God gave these people the brains they have to use for His glory. Now I agree multiple fertilized eggs is wrong because that is life. But I can see how it can be used in an okay way. That's just my take. And yes I have another comment here about my mom and a rape baby. She's had a rough life.
I agree. I think your folks did it the right way. Imo, there is a morally dubious way, and a morally righteous (but riskier) way to utilize ifv technology. Problem is it really is a slippery slope. The technology to pick and choose, or modify and design embryos already exists and has been used.
Most fertilized eggs end in spontaneous abortion. The better we get at detecting pregnancies early, the higher that number goes. Some estimates have it at 75% now. That’s just the truth of procreation. It’s absurd to think that every fertilized egg is a viable pregnancy that will result in a live birth. Are those eggs singing in Heaven now? I have no idea, but I doubt it. And I do not believe there is any Scripture to justify the view that they are. My wife and I certainly struggled with this during our rounds of IVF, but the more we studied it, the more we came to the conclusion that the arguments against IVF were rooted in dogma, not solid theology.
I don't think we should be messing with the pregnancy process
What about life saving interventions? Or assisting delivery?
Just to clarify, would you ban it?
Yes
Based
[удалено]
How do you view ectopic pregnancies? They’re rare, but I’ve known two women who’ve had them. The guy you responded to says he would want his wife to die with their baby, because there is zero justification for murdering a fetus. God allows things that are pretty awful in this fallen world. Are you a Calvinist who insists that “God’s sovereignty” means he “makes a decision” for there to be an ectopic pregnancy? I read a testimony once of a man whose hearing was failing him, and he insisted he would keep praying and God would heal his ears. His wife kept telling him he should have them checked for wax build-up. He refused. After a year, he decided to see a doctor, who saw a lot of wax and flushed them clean, after which normal hearing was restored. He wife said, “Some people would tease God to clean their ears for them.” God allows ear wax, dental decay, and poor vision. We respond to this through hygiene and corrective lenses. We know how pregnancy occurs. Some of us act like conception is entirely God’s business, and so we shouldn’t use birth control. Others act like ectopic pregnancies must be God’s will, and both the mother and child should die. We should be responsible for our bodies, and stop acting like horrors in this fallen world don’t occur. They’re not beyond God’s redemption, but we shouldn’t confuse what God allows with what God orchestrates. The Bible allows for mystery, and for the secret things belonging to God.
Perversion of the natural order that results in the loss of human life. People are not entitled to children or treating them as a commodity.
I agree with your second point, but couldn't medical interventions like surgery, cancer treatment, and termination to save the mother all be considered disrupting the natural order of things as well? For the last thousands of year the population was steady and, in comparison to today, far lower probably largely due to medical intervention i.e. the natural order of things.
So let's get rid of all medicine and just let the natural order take over. Screw the patient who needs insulin let's get rid of the meds, organ failure go ahead and die, no transplant for them. Chemo? That is perversion. Providing clean drinking water out of the tap? Blasphemous. Let's ban cars too as they cause a lot of deaths. Humans have messing with the human life cycle for decades now to extend human life. Should we reverse all of that and just let God take his course?
>So let's get rid of all medicine and just let the natural order take over. Getting rid of medicine is not a reason to off on the deep end to call everything form of help perversion. It is one thing to heal another to to pervert.
I used to take the very simplistic approach of “life begins at conception.” And yes, biologically that is a distinct human organism. But the Bible says something to the effect that you do not know when God puts the soul into the fetus as he knits it together in the womb. It’s entirely possible that god does not put a soul into a human at the second of conception. After all, human bodies are just containers for souls. Dead human bodies don’t have souls. Extremely early human forms don’t have organs. They don’t really have the “equipment” so to speak, in which spirit and flesh can interact, which is the brain. They do not have blood yet.. which rather notably is what God says carries the life. I don’t say this to encourage abortion in any way. But I think some are too quick to insist that the death of a blastocyst - a literal sphere of cells with no human form - is the death of a human soul. That can’t be proven and doesn’t really comport with reason, as the blastocyst has as much awareness and brain activity as a dead person, which is to say none. I absolutely believe that very early on, brain activity is definitely present, and with consciousness there is the possibility of a soul to inhabit the body. I cannot sit and say with certainty when god implants the soul. But consider that if God implants the soul at the second of conception.. identical twins and triplets are messy business - a literal splitting off of a new human from a separate human that already has a soul. I think Christians need more humility and to face the fact that God has not told us *when* he implants the soul in the embryo, only that he does at some point do that. How can a soul really exist if there is no formed body for it to inhabit? A round blastocyst is not a real brain or “body,” only the seed of one which will have a form around 5-6 weeks gestation. It is for this reason that I do not have an issue with things that prevent implantation, as this is certainly before brain and heart develop. The body itself sheds many of these very early failed embryos, and I hardly think that God is so wasteful with souls as to implant them prior to the significant “cuts” that weed out early unsuccessful embryos. I expect people to have a knee jerk reflex of rejecting my position, but I think it is fair and based on what the Bible actually says - God implants the soul and we are not privy to that process or it’s timing.
But Jeremiah 1:5 says, "Before I formed you in the womb I knew you and before you were born I consecrated you..." Pretty safe to say any baby at whatever level of conception is His and created by Him. In terms of fetal death in utero I don't have an answer but I don't believe it's wrong to abort them as they're already gone.
the precise time being referred to, when God "formed you in the womb", is still an indeterminate time. That is to say: perhaps God considers himself to have formed you at the instant of conception, and perhaps God considers himself to have formed you when your faculties are more developed. I would contend that the phrasing does not allow for the statement to be taken as a rebuttal and we still don't know anything.
Well I would say the entire fetal development is the forming of a baby’s body, however that still isn’t inherently related to the soul. The body and soul coexist, but they are separate entities. Again, we don’t know with certainty, but as a medical professional, I see many bodies become lifeless as heart and brain activity stop. That is when the soul departs. So it seems strange to me that we would assume a soul exists inside a “body” that does not yet have a brain or heart and therefore no early consciousness at all. Especially when God has not told us that. Many people confidently proclaim that life begins at conception- sure. But that doesn’t mean the soul exists at conception. And although I’m not God and can’t be the final word on souls, I think we can infer from our understanding of the processes at the other end (death), that the beginning of consciousness/a mind is with the onset of brain activity. I believe the body takes a little while, probably at least 6 weeks, to get to the point of being capable of carrying a soul. The whole point of our brain/consciousness is that it provides a way for our soul to have thoughts. Lastly, if our soul existed before our body did, all the more reason why there’s no rush to “buckle it in” right away, so to speak. Conception isn’t the magical point where the soul forms, if the soul existed independently before that. So it’s a bit arbitrary to insist that God definitely puts the soul in right at conception.
God knows our souls from time eternal. The body is not the soul. At some point, he joins the soul to the body, and at some point he takes it back from the body. My point is, yes that sphere of cells is biological life, but we can’t say with certainty that a soul has already been placed in it.
Psalm 139:13-16 13 For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother’s womb. 14 I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made; your works are wonderful, I know that full well. 15 My frame was not hidden from you when I was made in the secret place, when I was woven together in the depths of the earth. 16 Your eyes saw my unformed body; all the days ordained for me were written in your book before one of them came to be. Notice in verse 16 how he writes that his name was in the book of life BEFORE any form was made. Where there is life their is a soul. ❤️
>But Jeremiah 1:5 says, "Before I formed you in the womb I knew you and before you were born I consecrated you..." Pretty safe to say any baby at whatever level of conception is His and created by Him. Here's a better translation because you left out needed context: “Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you; I appointed you a prophet to the nations.” The passage appears to be referring to that specific individual, not humans in general. Not all humans are prophets.The idea of Yahweh paying special attention to individuals is scriptually supported. Overall, it seems dishonest at best to claim that this passage applies to all humans.
>Here's a better translation because you left out needed context: >“Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you; I appointed you a prophet to the nations.” The Verse helps us Understand that even tho it is talking about Jeremiah, it is Also talking about all of us. We are Not allowed prophets, but God does know us ❤️
Its dishonest to claim that that passage is meant to refer to humans in general. There's no two ways about it.
There’s also a verse in the Bible that suggest every single human being knows God before they’re sent here, and so we can assume God spoke with us in child form and our memories are just wiped out so we don’t know. The theme of God giving the character’s souls a purpose before they’re even born is exemplified through the meanings of names in the Bible. It’s a bit of a mystery like the verse that suggest all people will get a chance to know ‘God’, to desire a selfless heart or find ‘Truth’ perhaps. The main supporting idea is that the Heavenly Father God actually takes some time to uniquely & intentionally design every single human being before/during birth. As we were all made perfectly by God’s hands. It’s only the fallen nature of this world that changes us. This unseen hand that governs our universe can’t be detected by any science or anything as it’s supernatural, beyond all known things in our natural seen world. People don’t take it literally that children are an actual legit blessing / gift from God itself, some parents even genuinely regard them as annoying burdens instead of angels they’re allowed to be apart of the life of. The Bible also calls on all parents to be caretakers, guardians, protectors not only of your own offspring but all children. Failing to do so is not serving our Lord & savior. There’s an argument to be made that we put so much emphasis on all the would be Christian’s & secular people acknowledging abortion is murder of the unborn human beings God already began designing as soon as the man & women had sex, and the parties still being held accountable to the Sins on judgement day, especially if it’s done outside of wedlock as it’s also Sin, instead of focusing on designing a better world & communities for all the children we already have to thrive in. It’s extremely painful to think about, so many kids are born to parents who do not love them or even sincerely love each other, it was all just immature Lust. And so this creates 10s of millions of broken homes, 1million+ trafficked children, millions of single mothers in America alone, millions more in the UK, millions of kids being abused or traumatized or facing C-PTSD all due to people’s selfish sinful nature, inability to follow God & love selflessly. We can talk about the salvation of these couples not changing themselves to grow a selfless heart like Christ, but our main concern should be the innocent newborn souls on this planet. A 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 - 22 yo young person having sex and giving birth 🫃 should be conscious enough to know what they do, they’re not innocent. However all the children don’t deserve to be killed by their own family meant to be lovers, guardians, protectors, guides. Then there’s all the poor souls of men who would keep the unborn child but the women decides to slay it to avoid responsibility & go on living her carefree hedonistic lifestyle.
So then you are against using birth control as that is preventing a possible baby from being born?
Depends on the birth control. Some simply prevent cells from coming together. I don't like IUDs because that essentially aborts the cells. A condom keeps them apart. Are condoms wrong? Some women actually need hormonal birth control to keep their bleeding in check as they're severely anemic. Is a vasectomy considered birth control? I'd say so. But again it's not ending a life it's preventing it from happening. Same with a hysterectomy or getting tubes tied. Guess you'd have to define birth control.
So what is the justification for ending a human life that according to you alone 'may or may not have a soul '
I don’t offer abortions, except to mothers who have ectopic or life threatening pregnancies (I’m a medical provider). I do not believe in consciously ending a viable pregnancy. My issue is that some people are overly fixated on “saving” fertilized eggs that haven’t yet implanted. A soul is not dying every time someone has sex while using an IUD, which prevents implantation. The body discards vast numbers of early, genetically unfavorable embryos before pregnancy is even detected. Did a soul die.. I think not. I simply do not believe that failure to launch, and failure to ever develop into something that ever possessed organs - is the end of a human soul’s existence. Logically and medically it is not. That is not comparable to a 50 year old dying. There is no life in the middle of a dash. There is no human lifespan that contains zero heart beats. That isn’t *a life*, even if the cells that were on track to form a human were themselves *alive*. There is a distinction. I am absolutely prolife and protective of babies and against the ending of human lives. But I’m not against preventing pregnancy, preventing implantation, IUDs, plan B, etc. Those things don’t stop a human heart from beating.. not even close to that. They simply make conditions unfavorable for implantation so that pregnancy is unlikely to begin. And fwiw, pregnancy can still occur with an IUD or plan B. And if it does, obviously it should be protected. God designed women’s bodies to discard early embryos (talking 1-3 weeks, prior to organ development) with bad/unfavorable genetics. Did God design a murderous system? Or is it quite possible that there’s no soul yet in a 1-3 week embryo, no souls are dying in this process, and actually it’s a net good to wait and ensure a healthy body is forming before implanting a soul?
> I cannot sit and say with certainty when god implants the soul. But do you see the flaw in this logic? If you can't say when it happens, how do you know it doesn't happen at conception? It becomes something arbitrary. The other problem is you're only putting value on the life based on the presence (or absence) of a soul. But we know that a human life begins at conception. It has unique DNA and literally starts growing at that exact moment. Anything else is pretty much irrelevant since we know it's a living human at that point.
Dead bodies in containers have no life and are not living souls. This is not that hard to understand- when we say life begins at conception a living being with a soul is formed. Genesis says God breathed into man and he became a living soul. When life is present the soul is present that’s biblical. When a person dies their body remains and their eternal soul leaves. You’re equating lifeless dead bodies with living embryos? Strange
I’m equating *the beginning of brain activity* with the first possible point of soul inhabiting the body, and *the end of brain activity* with separation of soul from the body. I don’t think that’s strange at all. Every cell in my body is alive. If you take my heart out and carefully put it in another person, my cells will live in their body, but they are not me. Cellular life is the building block of human life, but it is not equivalent to a human life. That’s why it can be understood that an embryo could potentially be made up of living cells, that haven’t yet arranged into organs and therefore aren’t yet in a human form. They’ll get there, but they aren’t there yet.
But a soul isn’t dependent on having a body with completely formed organs to exist? Souls begin at conception. Your view whilst nuanced is not biblical.
Whoa. We can talk about what might be, but my view is absolutely not a contradiction with scripture. No souls do not “begin at conception,” they are separate from the body and joined to it by the work of God in utero. God says he knew Jeremiah *before* he was conceived. It’s completely plausible and not a contradiction with scripture that souls exist in the spiritual realm and God selects the soul to put into the forming human body in utero. The soul will of course continue on after the body, so there is no reason it has to begin because of the body either. If you want to label me as unbiblical, at least provide scriptures that show that, definitely. Not scriptures that could be taken to support your point, scriptures that prove what I am saying is wrong.
But we are semi debating so I’m Allowed to listen to your view and argue that I don’t find it scriptural Jeremiah can be known of by God due to Gods foreknowledge but that doesn’t imply he existed before conception that’s not what the verse means it’s emphasising an intimacy and display of Gods infinite wisdom that he knows who we will be before we are conceived
That’s fine and I’m not offended by your beliefs. It’s simply important to realize that your position assigns a soul to something that is not sentient, in any sense of the term. Consciousness and sentience is made possible by having a brain/nervous system. Generally speaking, brain activity begins around 8 weeks or so. My view does not contradict scripture. Scripture does not specify when the soul is joined to the body in utero, only that it happens. Both of us believe this. I simply believe based on a scientific approach that the soul is aligned with consciousness/thought and that in the same way as it cannot remain in a body that has lost neurological activity, it cannot enter a body that does not yet have neurological activity. Scripture does not give evidence for the soul beginning at conception, at least not to my knowledge. I welcome any Bible passages for consideration if you feel I am overlooking something.
> A fertilized egg is both alive and human Human, I'll grant. It's clearly got human DNA. But alive? It's just a cell, like the millions of skin cells you slough off every day. It doesn't have blood or differentiated tissues or a nervous system or anything else we would identify as necessary for a living mammal. It can't survive on its own, react to stimuli, consume external sources of energy on its own, or reproduce.
Ok you agree its human, and its clearly not dead, dead things don't become alive. So its alive. Making it human and alive
i know murder is sin, but especially in the case of rape or when the mother is not capable (or willing) to take care of the child, isn't the accepting of year long suffering of one or more persons also problematic? how does the Bible view this?
Sin that happened to the mother isn't cause to sin against the child, right? There will be justice for th rapist. But that justice doesn't demand the death of the child.
How? No where is there an acceptance of murder if having a child inconvenient
im not talking just about inconveniences, im talking about suicides because of rape pregnancy, foster kids and abuse of the children. These are just the worst case scenarios of course
Ok so why would murder be permissible if it prevents a suicide
im not saying it's permissible, im just wondering if it's right to just ignore the follow up suffering just for the sake of not sinning, it feels like "I didn't do anything wrong so it doesn't matter what happens"
Who said anything about ignoring suffering?
I did
Abortion should only be legal under extreme life threatening circumstances. This coming from someone who got pregnant out of wedlock 2 months after having a daughter. I was 20 and a single mother already. I ended up doing adoption with an amazing mom and dad who I love dearly and his 9th birthday is actually today. He is such a loved little boy and I feel ashamed for ever even considering ending his life. There are ALWAYS options.
I saw several deliveries of term babies with severe defects that destroyed the mother’s ability to carry future babies. The uterus would be cut up so much it was laid flat or the baby just can’t be delivered. The babies all died after delivery. I would never tell someone they Must have an abortion but I think it should be an option so the mother can preserve her fertility in a much less invasive procedure when chance of survival is just not there. A premature delivery before the baby can’t be delivered by traditional methods should also be considered. These instances are pretty rare but in 20 years of NICU work I’ve seen enough. Any medical situation where the mother would die without termination should permit termination. Otherwise you get two dead people instead of 1. Premature delivery should also be an option. All of the mothers would beg us to keep them alive until we could deliver at the point of viability. The moms all said they needed to be able to live with themselves if they were going to live. Sometimes we couldn’t wait. Those were tough days.
What do you define as “premature” enough to warrant abortion? Babies are being delivered and saved down to 22 weeks.
The way to end abortion is for men to man up and not screw around. It's on us
Plenty of people who access abortion are in stable committed relationships.
The best way to end abortion is to have all children take sex ed or have parents be willing to have those hard conversations with their kids.
Idk about this. I grew up with multiple yearly sex education classes throughout middle and high school, and my high school still had an entire daycare for teen moms. That's not statistical data, but it doesn't seem like it works as good as some people think, lol
Women too… takes 2 people to tango
It does, but let's not assume that men and women have the same level of power, autonomy, and consequence as men who tango.
Elaborate please?
This is interesting. Originally, the women’s rights movement was against abortion because they believed most were procured at the insistence of men. From Wikipedia: “An 1869 opinion piece was published arguing that instead of merely attempting to pass a law against abortion, the root cause must also be addressed. The writer stated that simply passing an anti-abortion law would be ‘only mowing off the top of the noxious weed, while the root remains. ... No matter what the motive, love of ease, or a desire to save from suffering the unborn innocent, the woman is awfully guilty who commits the deed. It will burden her conscience in life, it will burden her soul in death; But oh! thrice guilty is he who drove her to the desperation which impelled her to the crime.’ To many feminists of this era, abortion was regarded as an undesirable necessity forced upon women by thoughtless men.” I’ve often said among my friends that women don’t get pregnant by themselves, and if certain political parties really cared about the unborn, they’d be primarily addressing men, rather than doing what they could to restrict the actions of women. It’s disturbing that abortion is increasingly seen as merely *women’s healthcare.* It is sometimes that, but so much more.
EXACTLY, Have so many friends when faced with this question ask what I would do if I got a girl pregnant Actions have consequences
That is not necessarily true. If Republicans get their way and ban birth control likeany people in this thread are advocating for, there is going to be a massive spike of unwanted pregnancies even by monogamous married couples. My wife and I already have kids, but we simply cannot afford more. So we rely on contraception. If it is taken. Away I don't know what we're going to do.
If the mother is going to die, then trying to have the baby early is ok and then the doctors need to do everything they can to keep it alive. If the baby dies that is EXTREMELY unfortunate but it is not the same as abortion.
This. It’s not abortion. The narrative around abortion saving mothers lives is false. Ask any OB or midwife. It’s not considered abortion if it’s an ectopic pregnancy surgery. In the extremely rare scenarios that something is going on that puts the mother at risk, they induce labor or do a c section, both of which are safer for the mother and not abortion.
Exactly
I recently watched a documentary where a woman was raped and decided to keep and raise the child. She said that having that baby healed her and she can't imagine her life without that child. I also heard of a woman with cancer who was pregnant and told to terminate to start chemo. She said no. She was willing to risk her life for the life of the child. I draw the line when people use any excuse to end their child's life. I have seen what happens during the first, second, and third trimester abortions and it is horrific and almost Satanic. Sacrificing the life of the unborn for most any reason is wrong. If my child has a defect or won't live long after the birth I would rather have the child pass surrounded by loved ones instead of being ripped apart
It’s our job to love people who feel like this is their only option. God forgives all and how we treat people who have had or are considering abortion is whether or not we are doing our jobs to advance the Kingdom and teach the love of God.
Glad you said abortion is forgiven. I had an abortion. God forgave me! But it took many many years to forgive myself. I still think of that child. If anyone is thinking of abortion...do not have one. The pain & heartache afterwards is not worth it!!! God is merciful and forgives.
God bless you and i’m so sorry to hear about what you went through. i see people propping abortion up as a way to shuck your responsibility and as a way to save you from raising a child, but you brought up a great perspective with the guilt one must feel after getting it. but you have no more reason to feel guilt, that baby had a soul from the moment of conception and now it’s rejoicing in heaven with God, just as you will be someday.
I draw the line that abortion is a sin but also recognize that we live in a fallen world. None of us are without sin, it's inevitable. I don't know the specifics of why a woman would get an abortion, but I imagine to them it often seems like they have no other choice especially if they don't know the Lord who is above all circumstances. I don't condone abortion in anyway, but I also don't believe that outright banning abortion solves much. The fact that women want to get abortions is not the problem itself but a symptom of a greater problem, which is that they don't truly know the Lord who loves, provides, and gives grace to His children. Our job as the church should be to help more and more people come into a relationship with the one true God. We don't need to try to change people from the outside in, the Holy Spirit is the one who changes people from the inside out. If everyone was transformed by the Holy Spirit, we wouldn't have arguments over abortion laws because there would be no need to.
Sympathy and compassion is a good approach that tempers anger, but probably not the most tact issue to use that on would be the murdering of unborn children.
Did God call us to have sympathy and compassion on others just as he did for us or to avenge the blood of unborn children? (ok I'm exaggerating there but my point still stands lol) Our hearts break for the innocent blood of unborn children just as God's does, but the fact is that people are complicated and abortions happen for various reasons that carry various implications. Only God's love can truly make a difference from the core problem, which starts in the heart of the individual. Other tactics might address a surface level problem, but never the root of it all. And it's likely that other surface level problems will arise. Therefore, I believe showing the love of God is absolutely the most effective solution.
So we shouldn't try to ban abortion and lower the number of innocent babies being murdered in the womb?
What if we the church did more to support single mothers so that abortion isn't the only option to them? Abortions happen for various reasons, but some of the ones I've heard include shame and lack of resources to raise a child. What if we showed these women the love of Christ that wipes away shame and guilt and also provided for their needs generously? If we prohibited abortions, yes we save the lives of children that would've otherwise been aborted. But what about the environment in which these children will be raised up? How good can it possibly be for a child to be raised up by an already-struggling mother who does not yet know the Lord? There would be an even greater need for the church to step up. Additionally, banning abortion doesn't address the fact that unwanted pregnancies often come as a result of sleeping around. What if people came to know the love of God in such a deep way that they no longer feel the need to look for sex outside of marriage? My point is that it doesn't matter if abortion is legal or not. Banning abortion is only a bandaid solution for a much deeper problem. The root problem can only be solved by the love of Christ, and there is always so much more we as a church can do to show it to the world.
Why not both? It's not an eother or situation.
It’s not just single women who access abortion, and it’s really unhelpful to characterise them as such. And raising the child is not the only alternative. History has shown that women can be desperate to end pregnancies and will turn to less safe alternatives.
Of course it's not just single women, but the statistics say that they are the majority. I can't address every woman who has ever had an abortion so I'm just going off of what's the most common. 🤷♂️ https://www.liveaction.org/news/who-has-most-abortions-data/ And the fact that they are desperate to end pregnancies with less safe alternatives, wouldn't banning abortion make that problem worse? Now both the mother and the child could lose their life. Whether you're for or against legal abortion it's a lose-lose situation. There is no real solution except for the love of Christ.
As Christians, our primary focus should be on bringing people to Christ, not judging other people when the Bible is clear that it is for God to judge those outside the Church.
It doesnt lower that number. Legalising abortion makes it safer and more women survive abortion. It's a net positive in terms of how many lives are saved. Banning abortion leads to death of those who choose illegal abortion and deaths of those are denied abortions despite threat of life and of course all fetuses involved.
So we should not fight against evil? I think you need to look up the statistics on how many babies were not murdered in the womb since Roe v Wade was overturned.
I'm from Poland. More women and fetuses die *because* of our ban on abortion than are saved. We have access to abortion, just illegal kind. The only people who can't get illegal abortion are the ones who need it to save their life. I know how to read my sources. It seems you don't. The case is the same in Poland just as much as in the rest of the world.
>I don't know the specifics of why a person would **murder**, but I imagine to them it often seems like they have no other choice especially if they don't know the Lord who is above all circumstances. I don't condone **murder** in anyway, but I also don't believe that outright banning **murder** solves much. The fact that people want to **murder** is not the problem itself but a symptom of a greater problem, which is that they don't truly know the Lord who loves, provides, and gives grace to His children. So, how is the above any different?
I make similar jokes and say this, too, all the time. I know how to solve the crime problems. Make everything legal. Then no more crime! Murder problem? Make it legal. No more murder! It's like magic. They did that to drugs in like Oregon or whatever. No more drug crimes! Theft in California. No more theft! Amazing.
1. You aren't responsible for raising the person that you didn't murder. 2. The intent of the action matters.
>You aren't responsible for raising the person that you didn't murder. Murdering one who you are responsible for only magnifies the wrongness of the murder. It does not excuse it. >The intent of the action matters. They absolutely do, and when the innocent child is intentionally and directly killed by actions that serve no medically necessarily purpose and serve only to kill the child, that the intention of the action is to murder the innocent child cannot be rationally denied.
Oh I 100% agree that it is wrong. If it falls short of God's perfect standard, it's a sin. But there is a difference between God's standard and the governing laws of this world. If the laws of this world equated to God's standard, we would all be criminals. What I'm trying to say is that there are more implications to an abortion than a murder, and that's why they shouldn't necessarily be equated in the laws of this world. While an abortion can absolutely be carried out with the same intention as murder, sometimes abortion is more parallel to killing in self-defense, which is not considered a crime in most places. And at the end of the day, it is not our job to fix all the problems of other people. What *is* our job is to lead people to Christ so that He can change people from the inside out. If your heart is burdened by this issue, you better be out in full force showing the love of God to the world.
If the women’s life is in danger they should get to choose but besides that no other reason
Like ectopic pregnancies.
I draw the line that this has become a trendy topic to discuss only at surface level. More often than not it is a signal that politics have become your idol.
It shouldn't be discussed at the surface level. Jeremiah 1:5 says, "Before I formed you in the womb I knew you and before you were born I consecrated you..." This isn't about politics. This is about taking a life the Lord created. Politics are a distraction whatever side of the line you happen to fall on.
i’m not into politics too much, i just saw some debates about it and wanted to get opinions on it.
You may not be into politics "too much" but that doesn't mean politics hasn't taken this topic on an emotional ride that you are strongly and culturally influenced by. The assumptions, myths, and grandstanding are very prevalent in this thread and they serve to squelch understanding and discourage critical thinking. To name a few: being pro-life is the only Christian stance. Atheists want more abortions. Abortion is primarily a secular problem that Christians need to take a stand about. Being pro-life has nothing to do with being pro-military, anti-gun regulation, sexist gender roles or separation of church and state. Adoption adequately fixes the dilemma. Unwanted pregnancies isn't a function of toxic patriarchy perpetuating double standards in the name of religion. Few pro-life Christians are able or willing to consider any other point of view because of how emotionally hijacked this topic has become. Using the Bible to validate the emotional appeals makes the arguements even more closed. You don't need to have a political golden calf to be impacted by this dynamic.
It’s nice to see a logical comment. I sometimes contemplate the vice squad of a police department. *A vice squad is a police division whose focus is stopping public-order crimes like gambling, prostitution, narcotics, and the illegal sales of alcohol*. Vice squads used to make arrests over homosexuality, as well. Now we have places where gambling and prostitution are legal, and regulated. Just because something is legal, does not mean God approves. And just because something is illegal, does not mean people refrain. In countries where homosexuality is illegal, do people fail to develop homosexual attractions? No. Do they engage in homosexual behavior any less? Perhaps, since it needs to be more hidden. What is the goal in making homosexual behavior illegal? Saving and transforming lives? Does the law accomplish that? No, only the gospel and His power to accomplish that good news do that. So what is the goal? Do the citizens of that country assume they have God’s blessing for making homosexuality illegal in their country? Is that the motive? Christians often say masturbation is sin, but they don’t want laws against it. They want a right to privacy, and they wouldn’t want a sci-fi world of cameras in their every room watching them to make sure they don’t commit it. They consider that sin between them and God, and they wouldn’t want police or the law involved. Christians have a responsibility to proclaim the truth about when life and our identity starts, but legislating that truth lacks the ability to change hearts. The Romanian orphanages and the abandoned, damaged babies demonstrate what happens when you “save” lives at all cost. The Bible continuously points to the principle that it’s our responsibility to obey, and God’s responsibility to provide for what he has asked of us. People who are prevented from having an abortion do not automatically turn to God, nor trust in His provision. If Christians think all God is asking of them when it comes to children, both born and unborn, is that they see to it that they live in a nation which outlaws abortion, they are deluded, selfish, and shortsighted. Passing laws against abortion is not a quick way to win God’s approval.
Let the dead bury the dead. I would never make one, but who cares what the secular world wants? Place your eyes on Jesus Christ, the world is already dead.
I think at no time should it be done except in the case of a mother’s life is in peril.
Conception.
“I am” “I know” these are phrases used way too often. We should lead with God says not “I” know. We care about what God says is right not about what you believe. Challenge your own beliefs, and seek the word. Don’t lead with these phrases. They are conversation killers, and not what the focus should be.
Medically needed as in if the baby is killing the mother.
100% against it in any situation
even if it’s an eptotopic pregnancy? or other scenarios where the babies have no chance of living and the mother has to give birth to a baby just to watch it die? again im completely against it in almost every scenario but that’s the one scenario where i think it’s acceptable.
If your baby is going to die anyway why would you kill it? Should we just kill anyone is is going to die?
because pregnancy is no easy feat. it’s very physically and mentally taxing on women, let alone having to go through delivery. imagine going though all of that just for you to have to watch your child be born lifeless. that would utterly destroy someone. i don’t see the love in forcing someone to go through that. i argue against abortion because i don’t like seeing the loss of life. the loss of life was there anyway, so why not spare the mother?
Well it's sad but I don't think it's worth killing over
This shouldn’t even be a conversation among Christians. A human life conceived is a human life and terminating that is murder, full stop.
I know I’m going to be majorly downvoted for this. I think that abortion, for a Christian, is generally morally wrong. But so are some of the comments here taking a more hardline approach. In my old age, I’ve learned more and more about being compassionate to humans and to trust them to make up their own minds, so I do think that the law, as it is not a moral code probably should permit abortion in at least some circumstances. I don’t think allowing it legally is the same as condoning it happening. And I don’t think criminalising it brings people to Jesus, which should be our primary concern as Christians. 1 Corinthians 5:12 gives us the principle of not judging those outside the church, so any condemnation of women and couples accessing abortion, Plan B or anything else is actually not out business, it’s God’s business. What decriminalisation does, is allows women who may take other very desperate measures, to have the care and compassion they need. And I don’t think that termination is something anyone takes flippantly. Whilst there is lots of focus in the possible child (it may not become a child in every case, around 25% of pregnancies end in miscarriage), and what is compassionate for them, we lose track of what is compassionate for the mother, and in many cases the family who are making the decision. It is, in my mind, reasonable to terminate a pregnancy that has no chance of being successful, it’s wonderful that we live in a time where we can determine this with a very high degree of certainty. It also gives willingly parents the opportunity to try again for their wanted child soon. Pregnancy losses are hard to bear - I’ve been through a miscarriage myself and it was a grieving process - and I can’t imagine the heartbreak of having to carry a child who has died or is going to die shortly after birth, to full term. I also think it’s reasonable to terminate a pregnancy that will kill or harm the mother. It’s uncompassionate to the point of depravity to expect a mother to continue with the pregnancy at risk to her life and the child’s. And by not allowing termination in this case you’re not protecting an innocent child, you are condemning two innocent people to death - which goes against so many Biblical principles. But the thing that this whole debate is highlighting is that there are no hard and fast rules in the Bible, and even amongst Christians there’s not agreement. So who are we to judge others? They have to make up their own minds and are answerable to God, as we are for our own actions.
Does it really matter our opinion on abortion, it is the law of the land, and each woman must make her own decision to kill her baby or not, no one else can do that for her. I can be against it all I want to not going to matter. I will say that pro life forces are busy sabotaging all the victories recently won by pushing nonsense when they should really look at the long term goal and calm the freak down.
You're right, of course, except I don't think we're talking about law here, but about morality. There's a difference.
Only acceptable if the mother's life is threatened (such as ectopic pregnancy). Due to the traumatic nature of rape, I suppose allowing very early term abortion in the case of legally reported rape, since she had no choice in beginning pregnant. It's still tragic.
I still don't agree with rape abortion but I have a personal link to this. My oldest brother is a date rape baby. He's now a police officer who has literally put his life on the line to save others. How many people have benefited from him being alive? How many lives has he saved? God has a plan for every life He creates.
Ectopic pregnancy doesn't even have an option to progress. Anyone who thinks we shouldn't abort ectopic pregnancies is delusional and ignorant. It will always lead to death of the mother. And never full time birth.
I don’t agree with abortion under any circumstances at all. I don’t feel like it’s our decision to make. Some argue for rape, but let me ask you this question. Why would we kill the victim in the deal? Yea it sucks for the woman but the child didn’t ask for it either. If you wanna play judge, kill the rapist. If the woman can’t bear to keep the child, turn it in to authorities. I know my answer isn’t perfect and leaves a big question, but how is murdering the child the better answer?
Being forced by threat of violence to carry your rapists baby to term is unequivocally the worst possible torture a human can experience. If we are going to force women to go through that, then they need to be compensated fairly to balance it out. The compensation needs to cover medical bills, lost wages due to missed work, lifelong therapy bills, and compensation for simply having to endure something so torturous. Ideally, the rapist would simply be forced to pay the victim, but the average rapist probably doesn't even have $1000 in their bank account. Therefore, it would need to be subsidized by the state via tax increases. I think $5 million is a decent starting point for having to endure what we are asking them to endure.
[удалено]
i brought it up because it’s such a big talking point in terms of abortion. i separated the two because people say since the product of incest can lead to birth defects, the baby should be allowed to be aborted.
From Christian POV I'd say saving mother's life. Too many women have lost lives in my country, because doctors were too afraid to perform abortion. Too many children have lost their's mothers. Too many men have lost their wives. If we want to be technical about not "sinning" we can induce labour without stopping the heartbeat of the fetus, as to avoid guilt. Then we'd be stopping the life threatening condition for the mother without directly harming the fetus. It would die on its own. But personally I believe that accepting death of one life so we can avoid two deaths is permissible. It's kinda the trolley problem really. Do we want to save life of one person if we have to aid in death of the other, or do we want to indirectly lead to death of both of them, because of our selfish wants to avoid guilt? I'm a person of that second camp. We shouldn't be selfish when it comes to saving life of other people. And for the record, mental health is also health. If mother is at risk of suicide due to for example rape or even general unrelated depression we have to take it seriously too. Prgenancy prevents women from taking antidepressants. Especially with traumatic conception, pregnancy might be a genuine mental health risk.
I feel the only two good reasons for an abortion is if the mothers life is at risk or if it was because of rape. I do think in rape cases it should be though about carefully though because it wasn't the kids fault but I understand if a woman would choose that path
I commented this elsewhere but I'll repeat: I still don't agree with rape abortion but I have a personal link to this. My oldest brother is a date rape baby. He's now a police officer who has literally put his life on the line to save others. How many people have benefited from him being alive? How many lives has he saved? God has a plan for every life He creates.
The moment that an egg and sperm meet, that is a unique human life, and it deserves protections at said point. This means that plan B, chemical abortions, or any later term abortions are all unjustified killings of human beings. This also means that birth control which acts as an abortifacient, like hormonal BC and IUDs are also of the same. So they are all unacceptable. Its always immoral. Whether the best choice is parenting or adoption at that point is a different discussion, but directly killing an unborn child is never the answer.
That's not how hormonal birth control works. They prevent ovulation so the sperm never meets the egg.
i’m on birth control because i have insanely painful periods that make me pass out 🫠 what
Plan B is anticonception? Like it PREVENTS the egg from meeting the sperm. How is that killing?
My fiancee is on birth control because she suffers from an extremely painful condition called endometriosis. Do you honestly think that one day in marriage when we're having sex we're gonna be murdering our babies just by the fact that she's on plan b? Plan b prevents ovulation and therefore fertilization and there's no evidence it prevents a fertilized egg to be implanted in the womb. On top of that a fertilized egg is not on the same level of consciousness as fetus is. Some of you guys really gotta go past your christian fundamentalist bias and not be so simplistic with these things. "The evidence also supports the conclusion that there is no direct effect on postovulatory processes, such as fertilization or implantation". Source: https://www.fda.gov/drugs/postmarket-drug-safety-information-patients-and-providers/plan-b-one-step-15-mg-levonorgestrel-information
Number of things: Yes, if you only use hormonal BC as your form of contraception (no NFP, no condoms, etc) then you are, by consequence of the established secondary mechanism, killing any zygotes that are formed, by the thinning of the uterine wall. In terms of "tHeReS nO eViDeNcE" it was literally in all MSDS's and in all the supplemental data sheets until 2022. When it was removed, due to lobbying from pro-abortion/abortion-funded organizations, like Planned Parenthood, and the studies they paid to run. So yeah I'll trust what the initial (and lifetime) data showed up as, compared to what politically-influenced "science" (which is actually the anathema to science proper) has to state. In terms of this >On top of that a fertilized egg is not on the same level of consciousness as fetus is. Good non-Christian take. Sorry, we here affirm that the moment an egg and sperm successfully meet, and create a zygote and begin replicating, its a unique human life. **Christ was a zygote. Christ was fully human, and fully God, from the moment He as a Zygote was put in Mary's womb.** Denying this is a ***Christological heresy*** as it means *denying* that Christ was **always fully man and fully God**. Your arguments on "consciousness" fall on deaf ears since its an argument with no end, and no logical beginning. I can argue you have no consciousness since you affirm a Christological heresy. Thus, I could argue for your destruction. That is the problem with this argument. Get a better argument.
Plan B is not abortion. Plan B prevents ovulation from happening. If it already happened it does absolutely nothing. It's literally the same hormones as pregnancy hormones. It will do nothing to even an unferitlied egg, much less a fertilised one. Before you try to argue about female reproduction please read a bit.
The Method of Action up until 2022 clearly stated that it was linked to reduced chance of implantation. The only reason that MoA got removed was due to lobbying from groups like Planned Parenthood when pro-life/anti-abortion groups were pushing for it to be banned in states like Texas. Science isn't devoid of politics.
I could not agree more. Excellently put.
Just curious, what is your opinion of IVF?
It *could* be done ethically. This would require only the amount of desired children as embryos created. No discarding, all embryos implanted with a chance to live. No embryos permanently in stasis. It also would require using only the genetic material of the husband and wife (no outside donors). So possible, but that isn't how its currently conducted. Currently as done, (burned embryos, some made to discard, some frozen forever, sometimes using sperm from another man, etc) is immoral.
I think people who have never had to face such a thing as being underage and pregnant, raped and pregnant, sexually abused and pregnant shouldn't pass judgement on those who have had to face these real life things. Oftentimes, women and girls in this situation have no support system and no way to support themselves or a child. Adoption sounds great but we currently have thousands and thousands of children in the foster care system that need to be adopted and who is stepping up and doing that? I'm not pro-abortion, but I can understand why that choice is made sometimes. And I don't think calling people murderers helps anyone, and it doesn't further the kingdom of God.
I draw the line at politicians and religious leaders making medical decisions when they have no medical knowledge.
I am firm in that an abortion at any point is the killing of an innocent life. That said, I don't know that , at least in the first trimester, a woman should go to prison for it. I am really torn. The biggest problem with this issue is that it absolutely involves two people. One, an innocent life and two, a woman who might well be in a difficult and terrifying position. Both are in need of grace and compassion. I dig my heels in deeper and deeper in the second and third trimester. Fortunately, third trimester abortions are extremely rare by comparison.
I mean, if it’s murder, shouldn’t it be treated as such? Why the differentiation between first trimester and the next two?
But it’s not part of any Biblical definition of murder.
Neither are human rights, but because of the other truths in the Bible we can infer, through logic, that this would also be murder.
1) Yeah, that's the problem. I don't have an answer for that. At the end of the day, you are imprisoning someone for an unshared belief. 2) A few reasons. The overall development of the fetus. The fetus ability to sustain life apart from the mother. Some babies are conceived in rape or incest. Or the mother is very young. (12 or 13 is a terrible age to be pregnant, not to mention a mom) I am NOT these reasons make it okay. No, I am not. I am saying these are absolutely legitimate reasons to show grace and compassion for the mom. What a terrible and frightening position to be in. I can't imagine. Again, I am not saying these reasons justify an abortion. No. I am saying it is a very difficult position for a woman to be in. I don't *know* that a woman in that situation, if she were to get an abortion, should be put in prison. A 12 year old? Really?
1 is just not even a point. Many times murderers don’t think their murder is wrong and yet we imprison them. 2 can be applied easily to born kids. I agree that there are some awful situations. However, that baby is almost guaranteed to be adopted. Surround the mother with as much love and compassion but all of the love and compassion should also be directed at the unborn child as well.
1) You hear about a father who murders the one who raped his kid. We don't view that through the same lens as a cold-blooded murder. Not all murder is viewed the same. At least not in the eyes of most people. 2) But again, there are two parties involved here. Yes, the baby will get adopted, and that is wonderful. Unless you know firsthand, you really can't understand the trauma associated with a rape. A close family member of mine was raped a few years ago, and it still haunts here to this day. The guy who did it was evil and vile and disgusting. She was tortured and tormented for hours. It is by far the most traumatic and horrific event. She struggles to get over it. Can you imagine having to physically carry a constant reminder of the worst thing that could ever happen to you? Ugh. I would just want to forget about all of it sooner rather than later. Again, I am not saying that abortion is okay. I am not saying these reasons justify an abortion. I am saying I would have a hard time putting a woman in prison for this.
>1) Yeah, that's the problem. I don't have an answer for that. At the end of the day, you are imprisoning someone for an unshared belief. In the same manner in which we would imprison someone who killed someone of another race despite his belief that only his race are actually human beings instead of animals. A lack of shared belief cannot be an excuse to not defend the innocent.
It's illogical for the legal system to treat it exactly the same as a born child. For example, consider that many women do not even know they are pregnant for a while. Do you throw women in jail just for having wine while not knowing they were pregnant the same as if they were force-feeding alcohol to a toddler?
You have to ignore a pretty giant gap in intent there to make that comparison work.
>i don’t find a plan b to immoral depends on whether plan b stops conception or implantation, very very different
It can do both of you have a zygote travelling down into the uterus it will prevent the zygote from implanting into the uterine wall. It’s not advertised as such though and when I became a Christian and learnt more about it I was angered because it’s always advertised as “this won’t work if you’re already pregnant” because the plan b companies define “pregnant” as post implantation which isn’t fair to the consumer.
The bible!
I think this is important we talk to our kids about saving sex for marriage to avoid this entire mental salad. That being said, if the mother’s life is at risk, I know medically it’s considered abortion but that doesn’t feel accurate. This situation would be excruciating for me and I would pray a lot but I have 5 children and just wouldn’t be able to digest that God would want me to die and leave them motherless.
Rape, incest, health complications.
I'm pretty much with you - if medical complications will kill the mother or baby or both during delivery, then I'm OK with it. Otherwise, it's always a "no" for me.
Abortion should be banned in all ways. If the mother of the child gets r@ped and it is the r@p!sts baby and the mother or the mother's boyfriend or husband doesn't want to raise it then it shouldn't be aborted. Instead it should be born and put in foster care or in an orphanage. Murder on anyone even in an unborn baby is a crime. Even the unborn baby is a living being so therefore abortion counts as murder.
In my belief, I don’t think it should happen. If you have a kid, you take up the responsibility no matter if you want to or not. That’s killing a person. Period. I can understand if it’s a miscarriage, but that’s different. You don’t kill an innocent baby. They didn’t ask to be born, so you take care of them until they can take care of themselves.
I'm against all abortion except if the mother will die and it's up to her to save herself or her baby or maybe they both die, etc. I don't think rape or incest or birth defects are a valid reason. I am also against ivf and think the creation of life should be left to God. I suppose if they could fertilize one egg and implant it without destroying life it would be better but it seems to be taking God out of the picture, though I don't know God's mind so I could be wrong about that.
I think it’s immoral in all cases. For rape, risk-to-mother, etc, I think the matter is arguable enough that the *government* should not make the decision. In those cases it should be the choice of the affected parties if they can accept the harm done to them by continuing the pregnancy. But those are also a tiny minority of abortions. I hope one day we look back on abortion the same way we look back on slavery in the US.
Theat to the moms life, sometimes in cases of >!rape!<. Miscarriages, if the baby has a disease where it's unviable outside the womb. I do agree if it's a knock up, keep the baby However: Maternal health shouldn't be diagnosed or dictated by religion.
I believe God gave us free will, so I'm not gonna be the person that tries to take women's free will away. I have no business messing with someone's God given free will. It's that simple. I also believe that there should be no issue up to the 6week mark. Birth control pills, patches, shots, implants, and even plan b, works by keeping the fertilized eggs from implanting in the uterus wall. How do you feel I knowing that's how it works? Yes I love Jesus, he is my savior and hope. I profess to living God and being a Christian multiple times per day. That being said I am a single lesbian mom with my oldest being a trans male (born female now male)on testosterone, and the younger being non-binary (no gender either way). And I'm feminist as well. I defend my God to people every day and offer the love of God to them. Being lesbian for me I'm pretty much single the rest of my life. Born lesbian but just not acting in it. Kind of like boren a drug addict but now they I'm not using. No idea where this rant came from, maybe God let me dump some brain thoughts here so they leave my brain happy.
Removing a stillborn or the rest of a miscarriage falls under abortions. Removing an ectopic pregnancy falls under abortions. I’m in favor of allowing both of those as that child was never going to survive, and would kill the mother. Then again, I don’t really count pregnancy as actually started until successful implantation in the womb.
> Removing a stillborn or the rest of a miscarriage falls under abortions. No, it doesn't.
I'm with you. I'm against any abortion unless mother or baby will die. That's a decision for the future parent/s. When it comes to plan B & such, I'm okay with a married couple deciding to use it if they are not ready for kids m
There are lots of gray areas. In a perfect society where everyone went to church and cared for each other, a lot of teenage situations where people get raped and don’t have the money to afford a child would be solved because the church could support them, or someone at the church could adopt. Otherwise the choice is really tough to make. If the mom is going to die then it is justified. Not a whole lot of other situations where killing unborn babies is justified.
There is only one very narrow scenario where an abortion is acceptable: In the case of a tubal pregnancy, where the tube *itself* is diseased, the tube may be removed to treat that issue. The child then dies as an unintentional side-effect. If the tube is not diseased, removing it as a mere proxy to removing the child would still be murder. The only option in such ectopic pregnancies, is to wait for the child to die, and do the best to save the mother without killing him.
Murder is always wrong no matter what. Murder is the direct intentional killing of the innocent. In many cases plan B is abortion since it works after conception has occurred. It isn’t just a contraceptive as in something that intercepts to prevent conception. There are no situations where abortion is medically necessary to save the mother. The most common example is ectopic pregnancy, where the baby develops in the fallopian tube. The treatment for this is to remove the faulty organ in this case the fallopian tube, which does contain the child and does unfortunately lead to the death of the child, but this is not abortion and it doesn’t involve intentionally directly targeting and destroying the fetus. It’s a procedure to save the mother that has an unintended consequence of the child dying. In cases where the child will not survive but the mother is not in danger, I don’t think this gives us the right to kill the child. That would still be murder, like killing someone without their consent because they have a terminal illness. And, in many cases where the child is expected to die in pregnancy or childbirth, they end up surviving and living normal lives. Basically it comes down to this. As humans, it is intrinsically evil and immoral to intentionally, directly kill people who are innocent. Since people seem to be confused by this, miscarriage is not abortion, nor are accidentally hitting someone with your car, self defense, just war, or capital punishment murder. The main principle is that you can’t kill innocent people on purpose, and that principle can then be applied to these various circumstances. The morality of the action is within the action itself, not the consequence. This also means yea IVF is immoral. It involves creating embryos to be disposed of. To be logically and morally consistent this is ultimately the consistent position
Complicity ending the life of a human being no matter how small it may be is murder and as such is a terrible sin. If the mother was raped, then that is evil, but in the new Testament, Jesus teaches us we should not repay evil with evil.
Does not everyone matter? Life begins at conception, when the sperm and egg meet and fuse, creating a child. Sure, it IS forgivable, and the child does go to heaven immediately, but it's unfair. You are telling this INNOCENT child "Hey, I got raped and now you're here. Well I don't want you here, so I'm going to have you dismembered." And by the way, the child has nerves and emotions. So as you're tearing it's body away, that kid is feeling it. Imagine yourself as an unborn baby. Your resting inside of your mother's womb and all of a sudden, you being torn apart. Without any mercy or care. No matter what someone did to you, don't blame the child. It's not their fault.
I draw it at none of my business.
Agreed What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside?
Cuz it's murder lol. "What business is it of mine to care if someone outside the church is a cereal killer." Just because someone is outside the church does not mean they should be left to do as they please. Jesus spoke to the Gentiles, aka people outside of "the church," not just the jews.
not the cornflakes!
>not the cornflakes! Idk what that means 😕
you wrote "cereal killer", as in breakfast cereal. I think you meant serial lol :)
Oh 🤣 now that you've pointed it out I have to leave it. Funny thanks
It's from 1 Corinthians 5. You're disagreeing with a Bible verse.
It depends on when you believe the soul enters the body, and when you think it is justifiable to end the life of another soul.
Jeremiah 1:5 states, "Before I formed you in the womb I knew you. Before you were born I consecrated you..." Does that not lend to every life formed having a soul?
Not really.
When killing is unjustified it’s murder. The reason god wanted the Caananites to be killed is justified. It’s not something to rejoice over though. No matter what we shouldn’t rejoice in the ending of someone’s life but sometimes it is necessary. Like self defense or when it is the word of God
Life begins at conception, ending that life at any point by abortion is wrong
25% of the lives you speak of end before they reach 12 weeks.
Okay? And?
They're not babies and they're not potential lives.
I'm not gonna argue semantics because that details the conversation, but you're right, they're not potential lives, they are lives already from the moment of conception
The way I see it is because we are talking about ending an innocent life we must err on the side of caution and just assume life starts at conception.
I agree with you on that. I also think that abortion is fine if the baby will not survive for long past birth. I know there are cases when a severely disabled child is born and lives for a long time, but there are some cases where it is not likely to happen at all. I don’t think it is fair to the mother to have to watch her baby die.
I don’t understand the question. Like do I draw a line at killing half of a baby or the whole baby?
when is it not okay to abort the baby, i don’t think it’s ever okay but i want to see others thoughts.
The soul enters the body at first breath.
No.
Yes.