Board index ‹ Abortion

[A Dad]

Do you believe in a literal great flood that destroyed the entire world?

And if so, why do you think God was right to kill all the newborn babies? Also what about all the animals in the entire world who suffered a horrible death, through no fault of their own. Puppies and kittens, baby fawns, all dead for the sins of some humans.

[jimwalton]

I do not. I believe the Flood was a large regional flood.

And I'm wondering if your next question ("why do you think God was right to kill all the newborn babies?") is a bit disingenuous. I'm curious: do you advocate for abortion? I'm serious in asking: Do you think it's OK to kill babies in the womb—suffering a horrible death through no fault of their own? You answer my question, and I'll be glad to answer yours.

[A Dad]

I believe in abortions because the fetus is causing harm to the pregnant person. The pregnant person no longer wishes to use her organs to support the life of another, or risk her health and safety continuing the pregnancy.

Also pregnancies aborted before 25 weeks don’t suffer a horrible death, because the brain structure for self awareness hasn’t developed yet.

Once a fetus had exited the womb and is using its own organs to live I believe reasonable measures should be taken to preserve its life.

I have answered your question, so do go on about killing all the animals except 2, even if not globally, only regionally, isn’t horrible and cruel.

[jimwalton]

> The pregnant person no longer wishes to use her organs to support the life of another, or risk her health and safety continuing the pregnancy.

"No longer wish" becomes justification for killing? With that as a standard, you have opened the door to tremendous mayhem.

> I believe in abortions because the fetus is causing harm to the pregnant person.

I'd question your definition of "harm" that justifies killing an innocent baby. For some women, pregnancy is the "best time of my life!" For most women, pregnancy is difficult but rewarding, and they would never characterize it as "harm."

So on to answer your question. I believe God was justified because the people were causing harm to society. The Bible says the motivation for the flood was because the people were the epitome of evil.

It seems to me that if society is justified in abortion on the basis of what I consider to be a flimsy definition of harm, God is certainly justified in His actions when the description is the epitome of evil.

It sounds like you consider God to be horrible and cruel for His action in the Flood. But when we play God and determine whether a child within a mother's womb should live, we argue for that as a moral right. So when human beings are given the privilege of playing God, it's called a moral right. When God plays God, we call it an immoral act. Can you justify this for me?

> Also pregnancies aborted before 25 weeks don’t suffer a horrible death, because the brain structure for self awareness hasn’t developed yet.

It's my consideration that you can't know this. Does a fetus need self-awareness to suffer?

[Dead Flowers]

There is room for speculation about whether or not god cares about abortion. The Old Testament gives a prescription for it when a woman was suspected of adultery. When a pregnant woman was murdered or accidentally killed, the only penalty was for her life, not her unborn fetus. If she suffered the loss of her fetus, the perpetrator was fined, not executed as was called for if the woman died. It’s also interesting that around the 70’s, when abortion was becoming a hot button issue, is when the verbiage started to change in the various translations to imply that the fetus was equal to the mother. Abortion is simply a wedge issue to keep Christians voting for one party. If it wasn’t abortion, it would be some other culture war issue like desegregation was in the past. Btw, abortion would perhaps be less prevalent if there were support systems in place for women AFTER the baby is born.

[jimwalton]

> There is room for speculation about whether or not god cares about abortion

Not much.

1. God invested humans with His image. That is what characterized people as living beings. They bear this image from conception on (Ps. 51.5; 58.3). Also in the New Testament: James 3.9; Rom. 8.29; 2 Cor. 3.18; Eph. 4.24; Col. 3.10; 2 Pet. 1.4; 1 Jn. 3.2.

2. Conception is considered a co-creative process involving a man, a woman, and God. Humankind is granted a share in the joyous task of creation.

3. The OT law sought to protect the life of the mother and of the fetus (Ex. 21.22-25). A high value was placed on both. The fetus is given both “image of God” (Gn. 9.6) and nephesh status (see also Lev. 24.17-18). Furthermore, the fetus was not considered “a potential life or person.” From the perspective of Heb. 7.11, “potential life” is in the loins of the father. See also Amos 1.13b.

4. The Old Testament elevates human life as a precious gift from God. Ps. 139.13-18.

5. There are several passages that express condemnation of infanticide (Mt. 2.16-18; Acts 7.17-19). The NT paints a picture of the value of babies and children (Mt. 11.25; 19.13-15; 21.16). Luke, a doctor, uses the same Greek word, brephos, of the fetus in the womb (Lk. 1.41, 44) as he does of the newborn child (Lk. 2.12, 16; Acts 7.19; cf. 1 Pet. 2.2).

6. Conception is seen as a blessing (Mt. 1.20; Lk. 1.24-25, 30. 31; Jn. 16.21; 1 Tim. 2.15; 5.14). Pregnancy is viewed in a positive light.

7. The NT teaches personal continuity from womb to grave.

8. The woman does not have exclusive rights over the developing human inside of her body. Theologically, that life inside her is a gift and a trust from God. It is inappropriate to set up the issue as a conflict of “rights”: the rights of the woman vs. the rights of the unborn child. In Scripture, there is no “right to life.” Life is a gift from God and a sign of grace. No one has a presumptive claim on it. See also 1 Cor. 6.19-20.

9. The destruction of human life in any form is the antithesis of God’s primary purpose in creation. Satan is perceived as the destroyer of life; God is the giver of life.

10. The Bible speaks strongly against the shedding of innocent blood. (Gn. 4.10; Ex. 23.7; Dt. 21.8; Prov. 1.10-11, 15-16; 18-19; 6.16-19; 28.17; Joel 3.19; 2 Ki. 24.3-4.)

> The Old Testament gives a prescription for it when a woman was suspected of adultery. When a pregnant woman was murdered or accidentally killed, the only penalty was for her life, not her unborn fetus. If she suffered the loss of her fetus, the perpetrator was fined, not executed as was called for if the woman died.

If you're in Exodus 21.22-25, you are mistaken. Exodus 21 doesn't speak directly to the issue of abortion, though it seems to lead in the direction that an unborn life was still considered life, not "tissue." The text is more about personal liability in the event of injury than it is making a statement about the unborn or about what we know to be abortion. They are primarily concerned with legal status, not with personhood.

Let me offer a few quotes:

Richard Hays:

The passage does not in any way deal with intentional abortion. The Septuagint’s translation puts a very different spin on the text, however. According to its rendering, the determining factor for liability is not whether the woman suffers injury but whether the miscarried children is “formed”—that is, whether it is sufficiently developed to bear the appearance of human form. If not, the monetary penalty applies; if so, the lex talionis. This gives the already “formed” unborn child the same legal protection as any other person. The deformed or not-yet-formed fetus, however, is not reckoned as possessing the legal status of personhood.

Paul Copan:

This text supports the value of unborn human life.

Russell Fuller:

The argument that the fetus is not a human being or a person simply because of Ex. 21.22 is defective, since the passage envisions a negligent, unintentional assault on a pregnant woman, not an intentional assault on the fetus, as in a modern abortion. If the woman died, the ruling was not manslaughter but negligent homicide, and the assailant was executed. But if the mother survived and only the fetus died, a fine was levied, since the legal standing of the fetus differed from that of the mother.

> It’s also interesting that around the 70’s, when abortion was becoming a hot button issue, is when the verbiage started to change in the various translations to imply that the fetus was equal to the mother.

This is not true. You'd have to prove it to me. I have some Bibles that were published pre-1970s, and what you're saying doesn't hold.