Why Christianity? discussion

21 views
Minor topics > Is it right for a christian to punish a woman who chose to abort her baby?

Comments Showing 1-50 of 67 (67 new)    post a comment »
« previous 1

message 1: by Marcusss (new)

Marcusss | 21 comments “Is it wrong to abort?” Is an easy question for me but when i ask myself if it is ok to forcefully take money from that person or to put that person in a cage (jail) because of her choosing to abort her baby I hesitate.

Just because something is immoral doesn’t mean it should be outlawed.


message 2: by Robert (new)

Robert Core | 303 comments Marcusss - whom among us isn't immoral? We all fall short in the eyes of God. Secular laws are a poor substitute for the Natural Law because they are generally instituted to calm the most strident special interest groups.


message 3: by Charlet (new)

Charlet | 3 comments Robert---If somebody murders somebody should we not lock them up? Do we lock them up because they did something wrong or because they are dangerous? A woman who aborts her child murders her child the world does not see that woman as dangerous even though she is a murderer.... Nobody has answered this question with a yes or no yet...


message 4: by Marcusss (new)

Marcusss | 21 comments Lets say me and my friend sits in my house during a blizzard. I know that he will die if I kick him out. Lets say I decide to kick him out and he dies. Is it then moral to lock me up somewhere?

I think this situation is at least similar to the abortion debate.


message 5: by Robert (new)

Robert Core | 303 comments Charlet, Marcuss - once again, we are exposing the dichotomy between the Natural Law and secular law. From a secular sense, until an infant is actually born and inhales it's first breath, it can have no rights. Otherwise you'd have countless lawsuits claiming that because the mother went dancing, or entered a smoke-filled room, or took a drink, smoked a joint, or went jogging, that somehow damaged her child for life. From a religious perspective, conception is a gift from God. Well, we have to live with abortion which is at the intersection of these two realities. It does little good to beat one's breast and call abortion murder unless one lives in a theocracy. Similarly we want potential life to have more value then to be subjected to just a backup contraception plan. The only reasonable answer is either women return to a modicum of purity (doubtful) or they are driven by the Holy Spirit to consider adoption.


message 6: by Rod (new)

Rod Horncastle | 469 comments Mod
In heaven we will have perfect law. And a new nature.

I think abortion should have a serious penalty. Maybe even the death penalty. But society is evil and calls Evil things good. It's Satan's world for now.


message 7: by Rod (new)

Rod Horncastle | 469 comments Mod
Why would you kick your friend out into a storm? Bad friend. :cD


message 8: by Marcusss (new)

Marcusss | 21 comments Well what about this argument: I have a right to choose whom to allow on my property. My body is my property therefore I have a right to choose whom to allow inside my body.

No human has a right to another humans property therefore the baby has no right to the mothers body.

Therefore abortion should be legal.


message 9: by Rod (new)

Rod Horncastle | 469 comments Mod
As a Christian you have very few rights in God's universe.

Atheists can do whatever the hell they want for now.

If you ain't loving your neighbour: you may not be a Christian.


message 10: by Marcusss (new)

Marcusss | 21 comments It sounds as though you are against enforcing laws altogether.


message 11: by Rod (new)

Rod Horncastle | 469 comments Mod
Nope. We vote. And assume they are rubber bands. Ever drive 62 mph in a 60 zone?

But this isn't our kingdom. Choose your fights very carefully.


message 12: by Cherie (new)

Cherie | 18 comments Rod is spot on. This isn’t our home. We can’t expect earthly presidents/kings/etc and earthly laws to be perfect, Godly, holy, especially as they are created by unGodly ppl with ulterior motives. (If your motive isn’t God then what is it? Hmm...)


message 13: by Cherie (new)

Cherie | 18 comments Give to Ceaser what is Ceasers- give to God what is Gods.


message 14: by Rod (new)

Rod Horncastle | 469 comments Mod
I was gonna quote that verse. Thanx.


message 15: by Marcusss (new)

Marcusss | 21 comments Should rape be illegal?
Well Marcus our world is a fallen world and we cant expect complete justice from our kings.

We can give that answer to any question regarding laws. Fo me thats a cop-out, surely christians are not sinning when locking up a serial killer or a crazed rapist. Well then we can ask who else are we morally justified in locking up and what principles are we to use when figuring this out.

My question is: are we morally justifies in locking up a woman who had an abortion?

We either are or we are not regardless of this being a fallen world.


message 16: by Rod (new)

Rod Horncastle | 469 comments Mod
Daddy's with shotguns can get around a rape issue in the courts. Satan's world or not.

I'm betting pedophilia will be legal in a few years. As will polygamy and beastiality. We can try and vote - but mostly we just look after our own families. The world is damned already. But there's good days...


message 17: by Rod (new)

Rod Horncastle | 469 comments Mod
We peasants don't get to lock people up.

Our problem isn't the Law: but salvation. And that's mostly God's problem as well.


message 18: by Robert (new)

Robert Core | 303 comments Rod - how about necrophilia? Most of the women I consort with act half-dead anyway!


message 19: by Chad (new)

Chad (chadjohnson) | 63 comments Marcusss wrote: "“Is it wrong to abort?” Is an easy question for me but when i ask myself if it is ok to forcefully take money from that person or to put that person in a cage (jail) because of her choosing to abor..."

You might as well ask, "Is it right to punish people for sin?"

The OP goes from asking a question about Christians handing out punishment, to suggesting that "Just because something is immoral doesn’t mean it should be outlawed."

There are many things that are immoral that are NOT outlawed. And, there many things that are immoral that ARE outlawed.
There are some things that ARE MORAL but they are illegal.

Murder is one of those things that is immoral and IS outlawed. However, our messed up world has decided that killing babies is not murder.

Christians are NOT typically in the position of handing out punishments for crimes unless they sit on a bench in the position of a Judge.

Governments decide what the laws of the land are, and Christians are instructed to follow those laws. And if a law is unjust or immoral, we are instructed to personally follow God's commandments instead and fight against injustice.


message 20: by Marcusss (new)

Marcusss | 21 comments Should christians be in favor of/ vote for candidates who will make abortion illegal?


message 21: by Marcusss (new)

Marcusss | 21 comments I made a mistake writing the title. I see why I was confused by some of the answers hehe.

Maybe the best way to frame it is my previous comment.


message 22: by Robert (new)

Robert Core | 303 comments Chad - killing babies is a phrase one uses to thoroughly annoy one's secular, pro-choice opponents. On a Christian site it's needlessly hyperbolic. Surely you know the difference between a fetus and an actual baby.


message 23: by Rod (new)

Rod Horncastle | 469 comments Mod
Abortion is evil. Simple as that.


message 24: by Chad (new)

Chad (chadjohnson) | 63 comments Enlighten me Oh Robert the Wise... at what point does a fetus become a human baby? At what point does a soul enter the body? How many weeks into the pregnancy precisely?


message 25: by Rod (new)

Rod Horncastle | 469 comments Mod
I don't think any candidate can make abortion illegal again. Same as reversing gay marriage. The secular world has spoken.


message 26: by Robert (new)

Robert Core | 303 comments Chad - when you can answer your own questions, you tell me, but unless you want interminable lawsuits about how women "damaged" their "baby" forever by some action they took during pregnancy, it would be wise to define "alive" as after birth.


message 27: by Chad (new)

Chad (chadjohnson) | 63 comments Robert wrote: "Chad - when you can answer your own questions, you tell me, but unless you want interminable lawsuits about how women "damaged" their "baby" forever by some action they took during pregnancy, it wo..."

By your definition of alive Robert, it seems it would be okay to dispose of human fetuses at any point from conception to just before birth as long as you make sure it won't take a breath when it comes out of the womb. Is that what you are saying?

And, am I also to understand that a fetus doesn't "become" a baby until after birth?


message 28: by Rod (new)

Rod Horncastle | 469 comments Mod
If only children could abort their parents.

If the child cries "oppressed victim" loud enough that the liberal democrats can hear it. The mother can be removed off of the child's exterior.


message 29: by Robert (new)

Robert Core | 303 comments Chad - I am talking legally expedient. We don't live in a Christian ruled country. The law is designed for all citizens, even atheists. Theology-wise, I agree with Rod - abortion is evil.


message 30: by Chad (new)

Chad (chadjohnson) | 63 comments Robert wrote: "Chad - I am talking legally expedient. We don't live in a Christian ruled country. The law is designed for all citizens, even atheists. Theology-wise, I agree with Rod - abortion is evil."

So should we just sit back and be silent?

"The greatest destroyer of peace today is the cry of the innocent unborn child. For if a mother can murder her own child in her womb, what is left for you and for me to kill each other? Even in the scripture it is written: Even if mother could forget her child – I will not forget you – I have carved you in the palm of my hand. Even if mother could forget, but today millions of unborn children are being killed. And we say nothing. In the newspapers you read numbers of this one and that one being killed, this being destroyed, but nobody speaks of the millions of little ones who have been conceived to the same life as you and I, to the life of God, and we say nothing, we allow it. To me the nations who have legalized abortion, they are the poorest nations. They are afraid of the little one, they are afraid of the unborn child, and the child must die because they don’t want to feed one more child, to educate one more child, the child must die.

And here I ask you, in the name of these little ones, for it was that unborn child that recognized the presence of Jesus when Mary came to visit Elizabeth, her cousin. As we read in the gospel, the moment Mary came into the house, the little one in the womb of his mother, lift with joy, recognized the Prince of Peace."
-- Mother Teresa, 1979 Nobel Peace Prize Acceptance Speech


What do you say Robert? I'm curious what you think. When does a fetus become a human baby?


message 31: by Robert (new)

Robert Core | 303 comments Chad - Do you have trouble reading? I've told you that for legal purposes it's at birth and for theological concerns it's at conception. In a nontheocracy, like the United States, majority, or at least the best organized minority, rules. Spelling out Scripture is just preaching to the choir - if you're really up in arms on this issue and want to make a difference, don't just whine, become an activist. Don't look to me for support, I'm a Republican and we don't have causes. We marry majorettes then drink and play golf at the country club for the rest of our lives.


message 32: by Isabella (new)

Isabella Johansson (1sabe11aa) | 3 comments I think it is really problematic to say that countries should outlaw abortion. It has extremely dramatic consequences in for example Argentina or Equador, where the estimated ratio of illegal, unsafe and life-threatening abortions is as high as the average ratios for safe and legal abortions in countries where it is legal. I think this point just kills all philosophical arguments, because it's a matter of life and death - and not an argument that can merely be based in some philosophical conundrum.

Education is always key and I don't think putting women who have had an abortion in prison, or increasing the amount of unsafe, illegal abortions is a particularly attractive alternative.

I think abortion is morally wrong, I really, really do. But I wish nothing more than support and education for all these people. We're all sinners in the end, but there is no point in making people suffer even more due to a law that is based on morality. Somethings are morally right, some things are morally wrong but we need to get people to realise what is what in a different way. Not by punishment or criminalisation in my opinion.


message 33: by Robert (new)

Robert Core | 303 comments Isabella - in 3rd world countries like Argentina and Ecuador you can die from a cut just as fast as from an unsafe abortion. Either their sorry political class can take lessons from industrialized nations and develop an economy that can support the economy, or the birth rate has to go down (having kids for the benefit of the Pope's Catholicism just guarantees poverty). Innovation that increases a nation's productivity beats liberal education any day.


message 34: by Isabella (new)

Isabella Johansson (1sabe11aa) | 3 comments Yes, I agree that innovation is important - but it also sounds pretty colonialist to say that these countries have to look like the affluent ones. Also, the birth rate cannot just go down from one minute to the next - and I don't fully know how to make it go down on a structural level.

'Develop an economy that can support the economy?', sorry can you rewrite that or explain?

Nonetheless, I think it's really cruel to punish and criminalise abortion in countries where the structure of abortion makes people have super unsafe abortions and it kills and injures a lot of women, and not only physically. And sorry, but you don't die from a cut just as fast as from an unsafe abortion in these countries. I've been there and people aren't always suffering, people don't always have a crappy health care and everything is not extremely filthy.. Unsafe abortion is a structural problem in these countries, little infected cuts are accidental mishaps in my eyes..


message 35: by Robert (new)

Robert Core | 303 comments Isabella - unfortunately pregnancies are also "accidental mishaps" not only in the aforementioned countries but worldwide - thus they have no more meaning than little cuts and have little to do with structure. Yes, my one sentence is meaningless as written - the second economy should have read population.


message 36: by Ned (new)

Ned | 50 comments It is incumbent on Christians to have a biblical epistemology, not one based on pragmatism or consequentialism, or secularism. To the OP, Christians aren't in the business of punishing anyone. That's the role of government. Christians are to exercise discipline within the body of Christ only, with the aim of keeping the church pure bringing the rebellious to repentance. Abortion advocates have no place in church, therefore, if that body is obedient to Christ. Civil law is a different issue.

As to whether Christians should support the application of biblical law in society (theonomy,) I recently read a good book on the subject by a very well known apologist, Dr. Greg Bahnsen. I recommend it.

By This Standard: The Authority of God's Law Today


message 37: by Robert (new)

Robert Core | 303 comments Ned - you might want to add that any book you recommend concerning theological issues would only be of interest to the far Fundamental right. Saves the rest of us money wasted on propaganda. America was founded on the basis of religious freedom. Our country's laws must reflect that reality. Much of our law IS derived from Biblical precedent, but some is designed with fairness for a polyglot population in mind. Much as you would applaud it, I don't think we need return to stoning people for adultery.


message 38: by Rod (new)

Rod Horncastle | 469 comments Mod
That would be Judaism Robert.

I'm not a Jew (far as I know). Nor am I currently in any promised land with those laws applying.


message 39: by Ned (last edited Oct 20, 2018 08:26AM) (new)

Ned | 50 comments Robert, God is the ultimately authoritative and only source of truth and justice. The only reliable authority on God's perspective on truth and justice is the Bible, his only direct revelation. Hence, all legitimate law must have as it's foundation God's direct revelation. The one true God is the only rational defense against moral relativism, human subjectivity, and ultimately, nihilism. It is evident to me that you fancy yourself your own autonomous authority and that you have a problem subjecting yourself to the only objective ethical standard. Such is not the perspective of the Christian. Of course, people are free to choose their own rules, but to the extent they depart from the Bible, they will be wrong. I add that it is characteristic of you to reject a book in knee-jerk fashion that you have not read and which arguments you haven't even considered. Must be the careful objective evaluator of all available evidence in you.


message 40: by Robert (new)

Robert Core | 303 comments Well, Ned you're right - I don't read books by flaming liberals, either. I read one in my youth and that was enough B.S. for a lifetime as their views never vary. The same applies to Fundamentalism as you point out in msg. 39. The Bible is the ultimate authority and none may question it. This view never varies despite ample evidence that it is historically and scientifically inaccurate. I take what Jesus said literally - that's Christianity. That he spoke in parable gives us some leeway for individuality. The central theme of the Old Testament explains the abilities and self-imposed limitations of the Father. Because the Jews didn't pass muster the rest of the world may experience salvation through belief in the exploits of the Son. All else can be considered second-hand commentary as is any book concerning Scripture. Some are useful as they offer interpretation of vague but important Biblical themes, but your suggestion of a book promoting Biblical Law is unworkable and useless. Might as well promote Sharia Law.


message 41: by Ned (last edited Oct 20, 2018 02:53PM) (new)

Ned | 50 comments That the bible is historically and scientifically inaccurate is the skeptical view and you are welcome to it. You evidently don't even make a show of the sacred/secular divide as many skeptics do - claiming that the bible is at least authoritative in moral matters. The Jesus you speak of is one of your own making, not the Jesus of the bible, who said that not one jot or tittle of the law shall pass away, and cited many OT texts as authoritative.

The Bible may indeed not be questioned (successfully) because it was revealed by the only One who truly knows about ultimate reality and is the eternal standard of truth. Your position is no different from the moral relativist who simply does what is right in his own eyes, which means that there is no final arbiter and no objective moral standard. "Fundamentalism," as you like to say, is a necessary condition for truth. Truth, by definition, is exclusive.

Your position is age-old and no different from the empirical skepticism of Eave. God said one thing, and She, seeing that the fruit was "pleasing to the eye" (appealing to the senses) and "good for food" (passing reasoned scientific analysis based on sensory evidence) decided another. The Bible is an affront to all those who want to have things their own way, according to their own warped scheme of reality. Until the self is dethroned, all remains lost.

"Might as well promote Sharia Law."

By this statement you say that the Bible is a no more just standard, and worthy of no more allegiance, than the Koran. All I can say is, shame on you.


message 42: by Chad (new)

Chad (chadjohnson) | 63 comments Ned wrote: "That the bible is historically and scientifically inaccurate is the skeptical view and you are welcome to it. You evidently don't even make a show of the sacred/secular divide as many skeptics do -..."

Amen!


message 43: by Robert (last edited Oct 23, 2018 03:11PM) (new)

Robert Core | 303 comments Ned - I'm not skeptical at all - just a truth seeker like you claim to be. The Bible has some very narrow truths and a whole lot of hyperbole designed to dazzle the simple minded into Belief. I Believe also but arrived at it from examining the most recent findings in fields such as physics, chemistry, genetics, paleoanthropology, and cosmology. ALL data when examined logically and without bias point toward a higher intelligence serving as grand Creator. Then it becomes a question of what is the nature of this "God". Here we differ as Biblical explanations don't square with findings in the aforementioned scientific fields. If you wish to have blind faith lead your existence that's your business, but don't confuse it with truthfulness. Pursuing truth is considerably nor rigorous and requires a lot more technical skill than pouring over Scripture and it's accessory commentary. You're taking the easy way out, but if you can't even do sums, I suppose that's understandable.


message 44: by Rod (new)

Rod Horncastle | 469 comments Mod
It appears you have blind faith in the latest scientific assumptions. Aren't you skeptical at all??? Doesn't your quest for truth require you to be incredibly untrusting of the chaos and shifts in academia? Why not?


message 45: by Ned (new)

Ned | 50 comments Robert,

I take the Bible at its word. I don't arbitrarily pick and choose what to believe or disbelieve. Once you do that, there is no reason to believe anything in it and you have lost the foundation for truth. Science is no basis for truth or knowledge. Everything claimed by science is provisional and subject to later revision. By contrast, the word of God is firm, reliable, faithful, and eternal. It is the only ultimately authoritative objective truth given to mankind. The human heart is deceitful above all things, who can know it? It is agenda driven. The Bible is full of directions that seemed completely illogical and offensive to the human mind. You say I take the easy way, but I stand against every modern instinct that says to go your own way, maintain your own autonomy, and forge a god in your own image.

“In the beginning God created man in His own image, and man has been trying to repay the favor ever since.” ― Voltaire


message 46: by Robert (new)

Robert Core | 303 comments Rod - of course I'm skeptical. I've related to you in the past that much of what "science" pursues is silly or agenda driven as Ned rightfully contends. But, a high scientific apprehension coupled with a lot of research provides a solid platform from which to ascertain where the truth lies and what is fantasy. Theology has no such base. God is a spook. Much of what Ned claims is true happened before the written word originated so only was obtained by human vision that can only be recounted in fragments. Scripture tells us ALL humans lie so the Biblical authors necessarily lie. Biblical history only takes the Hebrew perspective. Science is nonexistent without even rudimentary experimentation. What I have is Faith in a divine Jesus who tells me there is a Father, however opaque. All any of us have, if truthful, is Faith. I believe Jesus is the way, truth, and life. The central tenet of the Old Testament is necessary to understand God as Creator, early overseer, unsuccessful manipulator, and currently as largely latent observer. Jesus predicts his second coming and much will be revealed. Until then the best any of us can do is accept the gift of salvation and use all venues available to reveal universal truths. Slavishly pouring over Scripture for illumination will only leave you outstandingly ignorant if that is your only source of information.


message 47: by Ned (new)

Ned | 50 comments I don't speak on my own authority. The Father who sent me has commanded me what to say and how to say it. John 12:49

No one says the Bible is the only source of information. What I claim is that it is the only authoritative source of information. In any dispute over ultimate reality, the Bible wins.


message 48: by Rod (new)

Rod Horncastle | 469 comments Mod
Robert what do you do with the Holy Spirit? And its influence OVER scripture and revealed truth?

Science often starts with a false premise and builds on that. (Not Real science of course, just the crap that contradicts scripture).


message 49: by Robert (new)

Robert Core | 303 comments Rod - OK, I believe in the Holy Trinity so I accept the Holy Spirit. I even accept that He somehow put it on the right minds to get the essential central theme necessary for Belief into the Bible. However, He did not see fit to excise extraneous storytelling inserted by Scriptural chroniclers. I don't object to this as it's fit for children without the requisite education or life experiences to reveal it as hyperbole. Just from an intensive study of recombinant DNA do I realize what an awesome God we have. Youngsters can experience the same through the exploits of Samson or Joshua, but adults should relegate these stories to the same brain cubicle they keep Santa Claus.


message 50: by Robert (new)

Robert Core | 303 comments Ned - I accept your dedication - next time I have a plague of frogs I'll quake in fear like you do.


« previous 1
back to top