Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Why a Christian Can't be Pro-Choice

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Why a Christian Can't be Pro-Choice

    Lately a lot of Christians have been coming out and saying they’re pro-choice, declaring they’re not necessarily for abortion, but they are for the right of the woman to choose. I want to look at some of the arguments for this and argue why a Christian simply cannot be pro-Choice:

    1) “We have no right to tell a woman what to do with her own body.”

    This argument has been dealt with already in another post I made concerning abortion. I argued:

    This way of thinking assumes too much - it assumes that we can do whatever we want to our bodies without having a communal consequence. However, there are times where what I do to my body will inevitably affect those around me (i.e. if I inject myself with an airborne disease, because it will harm those around me I do not have the right to do such a thing). Almost everyone would argue that if we take an action against our body that negatively affects others, that action shouldn’t be taken.

    In this case, the child in the womb is ontologically separate from the mother, though reliant. That is to say, the child really isn’t part of the mother’s body. The mother plays host to the body. If a guest comes into your house, eats your food, drinks your water, and sleeps in your bed, does that guest belong to you? Of course not - the guest, though reliant upon you, is not a part of who you are.

    The counter to the above argument is that the baby, especially early on, is made up of cells provided by the mother. This is true, but completely irrelevant. No female can spontaneously produce a child without any fertilization from a male. This means that the baby isn’t entirely made up of the mother’s cells, which would seem to indicate that the child in the womb isn’t really part of the mother’s body (in the same way an arm, heart, or lung is part of the mother’s body).

    All of this means that the child growing within the mother is really a body inside a body and not just an extension of the mother’s body. It contains foreign matter (via sperm) that is not natural to the mother’s body. If that is true, an abortion is an act that is taken out on the mother’s body that severely affects the child (through death). This would mean that abortion is highly immoral since it is a selfish action that harms an innocent party.


    In short, a baby simply isn’t a part or an extension of the mother’s body, but instead a separate being that is reliant upon the mother.

    In light of this, though we might not have a right to tell a woman what to do with her own body, we do have a right to tell her what to do with her body when her actions affect a living human being.

    2) “There are other issues that should be dealt with.”

    It is true that there are other issues that need to be dealt with, but we must ask ourselves if these other issues are on par with or above our ethical responsibility to human life. I believe there are two approaches to this view:

    I) The hierarchialist view – Under this view one accepts that there is a hierarchy of ethical conduct. Thus, there are some ethical codes that are simply higher than others. If the Nazis knock on my door and ask if I’m hiding Jews and I am, in fact, hiding Jews then most hierarchicalists would argue that protecting human life is a higher good than lying. Thus, one is allowed to suspend the ethical judgment against lying because a higher ethical calling is on the line. Another example is that of speeding. Most would agree that it is ‘ethical’ to go the speed limit (ethical in that it is obeying the law), but most would also argue that if there was a life-threatening emergency that required one speed to the hospital it would be okay to suspend the ethic of following the law in order to follow the ethic of saving a life.

    Biblically this holds some justification. Though there is nothing explicit within Scripture that says there is a hierarchy, it is implicit in some of the ethical situations presented. Without going into too much detail we can see that the Law itself holds different punishments for different offenses, with offenses and crimes against the image of God (humans) holding severe penalties. Likewise, we know it is wrong to deceive people or to tell half truths, yet we see God ordering Samuel to deceive and tell a half truth when directed by God to go anoint David as king. Jesus tells us not to deny Him while Paul tells us to follow the government and ruling authorities; the Jewish authorities told Paul to cease preaching Jesus, but he disobeyed them. Obviously, in this instance, the higher ethical value was following God rather than following an authority. The list goes on, but this should help to show that there are some ethics that are higher than others.

    With the above in mind once could argue that crimes against humanity are more severe than any other ethical violation (such as pollution or animal cruelty). Things such as homosexuality, adultery, alcoholism, drug abuse, or even child abuse – though evil in their own right – do not measure up to murder. Whereas there is still life after the previous offenses, murder is a final act.

    In light of this, though there are other acts that are important and should be dealt with, ethically speaking abortion is the greatest unethical act allowed by law, thus it should be the number one issue when going to the voting booth. This is not to say the other issues aren’t important, but simply that they are not as important as that of abortion.

    II) The Deontological view – this view would hold that all values are equal. Lying and murdering are both ethically wrong and should both be avoided, regardless of the consequences. To use an above example, even if you need to speed in order to save a life you shouldn’t speed because you would be violating an ethical principle.

    Even this view, however, would negate the above argument. Though other issues would be viewed as equal they would not be mutually exclusive to desiring to ban abortion. One could conceivably be passionate about both environmental reform and banning abortion on demand.

    3) “Why don’t you get out there and talk to the women instead of trying to pass a law against abortion?”

    For whatever reason some people are pro-choice because they believe abortions will happen no matter what we do to prevent them. Thus, they argue to forgo the law and address people on a personal level.

    Let it be said that I do support a form of this argument. Two of my previous articles deal directly with this view. I do whole-heartedly believe that on any issue we should deal with the person and realize the law will make little difference.

    That being said, I believe that abortion is a violation of natural law and should therefore be banned. Not that this will stop abortions, but it will certainly limit them and it simply is the right thing to do.

    If we apply this logic across the board it simply doesn’t work. Some men are going to rape women no matter what, so why not try to address these men on a personal level and forget about making rape illegal? What about murder, child abuse, or any other list of crimes? This is not a slippery-slope argument; this is taking the way of thinking for this one issue and applying it to other issues. When we do this it fails.

    Instead, as Christians, we should be reaching out to these women while trying to ban the practice of abortion. The two are not mutually exclusive.

    4) “It’s not my calling as a Christian to change the law or to make the lost behave like Christians.”

    There might be some merit to this argument, but this still wouldn’t support a Christian being pro-choice. In fact, a Christian that wanted to consistently hold to this belief would simply have to cease voting or holding any opinion on politics.

    Even if we are not supposed to hold political sway we simply cannot say we are pro-choice. To say you are pro-choice is to say you believe a woman holds the right to kill her own child. Let that sink in for a bit. Should we honestly believe or teach that something is wrong, that abortion is really the act of taking a human life, but then turn around and argue that someone has a right to do this?

    Overall, I would argue that it is simply illogical for a Christian to claim Christ and the pro-choice agenda. It is inconsistent – one cannot denounce abortion as wrong (because it takes a human life), but then argue a woman has a right to have an abortion. This is a logically inconsistent view. If one wanted to be consistent then one would have to apply this to rape, murder, theft, and a host of other crimes. All of these crimes violate the rights of other people and create victims, as does abortion. Instead, Christians are called to speak out against all violent acts that unjustly end the life of a human being. We should not teach that a person has the right to have a choice when it comes to unjustly harming another human. In the end, a Christian cannot support the pro-Choice agenda.

  • #2
    Christ is pro-choice.

    You are free to accept Him, or not.

    We have been given free will by God.
    Who is anyone to take that choice away?


    I agree that abortion is wrong. It is an abomination.

    However, that should not preclude the right of any individual to make their own free choice in the matter.

    Comment


    • #3
      Our laws say it is the right of every woman to have an abortion, if she wants one.

      Just because our laws gives a person a 'right', doesn't mean that God does. We can give everyone the right to jump off buildings and fly if they want to, but natural law precludes this because we don't have wings. IF we fly we need to pay an airplane to fly us to a destination. So I do understand what you're saying - what the people who are pro-choice don't understand/acknowledge is that last step - even if we give them the right, it is still breaking a law (God's law).

      I spent some time manning a Right to Life booth at the fair this last week, our theme this year was Civil rights - and our question to get people to think was: When do babies get their civil rights? (I was told that the presidential candidates were just asked this question recently, did anyone happen to see it? or hear it? we liked the question and so incorporated it into our spiel). This year I was surprised more young teenagers (13 - 15 year olds) came into the booth to talk to us. And most were willing to hear what we were saying.
      "He comforts us in all our trouble, so that we may be able to comfort those who are in every trouble, through the comfort with which we ourselves are comforted by God." 2 Cor 1:4

      "forgetting those things which are behind and reaching forward to those things which are ahead," Phil 3:13


      "For our citizenship is in heaven, ..." Phil 3:20

      Click here if you were wounded spiritually after abortion.
      Click here if you are pregnant and need help.
      Click here if you have been raped and are looking for help

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Duane Morse View Post
        Christ is pro-choice.

        You are free to accept Him, or not.

        We have been given free will by God.
        Who is anyone to take that choice away?


        I agree that abortion is wrong. It is an abomination.

        However, that should not preclude the right of any individual to make their own free choice in the matter.
        This is over-spiritualizing the issue. Though God allows us to either follow Him or not follow Him, the Government must put certain laws up.

        As stated in the article (which you ignore), there are certain things that must also be allowed under your line of thinking.

        Let me ask you - should we do away with all laws since they create a prohibition on a certain act?

        DDmor,

        I spent some time manning a Right to Life booth at the fair this last week, our theme this year was Civil rights - and our question to get people to think was: When do babies get their civil rights? (I was told that the presidential candidates were just asked this question recently, did anyone happen to see it? or hear it? we liked the question and so incorporated it into our spiel). This year I was surprised more young teenagers (13 - 15 year olds) came into the booth to talk to us. And most were willing to hear what we were saying.
        The big trend in Hollywood right now is to create pro-life themed movies (generally comedies, but Bella was pretty legitimate). I think this is (hopefully) affecting the younger culture.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Duane Morse View Post
          Christ is pro-choice.

          You are free to accept Him, or not.

          We have been given free will by God.
          Who is anyone to take that choice away?


          I agree that abortion is wrong. It is an abomination.

          However, that should not preclude the right of any individual to make their own free choice in the matter.
          Do you feel the same way about other laws? Should any individual make their own free choice as to wether they kill their neighbor? Or should the law afford some protection and consequenses to the act?
          How about killing born babies? Is it okay for the mother to take a sharp instrument and stab the baby in the back of the head, should she have her "own free choice in the matter"?

          This is the question no "pro-choice" Christian is ever willing to answer....NOT EVER.
          I wonder why.

          Comment


          • #6
            apothanein kerdos said,

            In light of this, though there are other acts that are important and should be dealt with, ethically speaking abortion is the greatest unethical act allowed by law, thus it should be the number one issue when going to the voting booth. This is not to say the other issues aren’t important, but simply that they are not as important as that of abortion.
            As Christians, we should be able to walk and chew gum, as it were. Other issues are important, but if life isn't the number one issue, I can't understand why the others should matter. Even the founding fathers new that all rights has to start with "life"; "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness".


            Overall, I would argue that it is simply illogical for a Christian to claim Christ and the pro-choice agenda. It is inconsistent – one cannot denounce abortion as wrong (because it takes a human life), but then argue a woman has a right to have an abortion. This is a logically inconsistent view. If one wanted to be consistent then one would have to apply this to rape, murder, theft, and a host of other crimes. All of these crimes violate the rights of other people and create victims, as does abortion. Instead, Christians are called to speak out against all violent acts that unjustly end the life of a human being. We should not teach that a person has the right to have a choice when it comes to unjustly harming another human. In the end, a Christian cannot support the pro-Choice agenda.


            How will Jesus view our stand? This is what motivates me, how does the Lord view abortion?
            Did God not create the womb for His purposes? Does the word not say that our bodies are not our own?
            All human beings are created in HIS IMAGE.
            How that escapes the minds of some is beyond my understanding.

            Great post, AK and a timely reminder with the upcoming elections.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by ddmor
              Our laws say it is the right of every woman to have an abortion, if she wants one.

              Just because our laws gives a person a 'right', doesn't mean that God does. We can give everyone the right to jump off buildings and fly if they want to, but natural law precludes this because we don't have wings. IF we fly we need to pay an airplane to fly us to a destination. So I do understand what you're saying - what the people who are pro-choice don't understand/acknowledge is that last step - even if we give them the right, it is still breaking a law (God's law).
              But is it the right of any government to legislate any individual's interpretation of God's law?
              We've already seen what trying to legislate morality does in America (see Prohibition), so why do people still try to get their personal interpretations of scripture and Christian traditions passed into law?

              Originally posted by redeemedbyhim
              Do you feel the same way about other laws? Should any individual make their own free choice as to wether they kill their neighbor? Or should the law afford some protection and consequenses to the act?
              How about killing born babies? Is it okay for the mother to take a sharp instrument and stab the baby in the back of the head, should she have her "own free choice in the matter"?

              This is the question no "pro-choice" Christian is ever willing to answer....NOT EVER.
              I wonder why.
              Your question is inadequate.
              Your examples cite killing autonomous creatures residing outside the individual's body.

              Also, the CURRENT law gives the right to choose, so your insinuation that having an abortion ignores the law for the sake of convenience falls through.

              A pro-choice Christian just answered your question willingly.
              Always give God credit first.

              "Dost thou think because thou art virtuous there shall be no more cakes and ale?"
              -Sir Toby, Twelfth Night by William Shakespeare

              James 1:19

              Comment


              • #8
                I think everyone is missing a crucial point here. There is no current law against abortion. There are laws against killing, what the world terms, infants. There are laws against rape, etc.

                Work to change the law. Work to supply viable options to these women.

                However, I do have a question - everyone is hyped up on the President and his appointments to the Supreme Court. I understand that. But how long will it take to GET to the Supreme Court? Does anyone know whether or not the lesser courts will even hear an argument regarding Roe v. Wade?

                I don't know the answers to these questions. I am sincerely asking.
                I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.
                - Mahatma Gandhi



                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Buzzword View Post
                  But is it the right of any government to legislate any individual's interpretation of God's law?
                  We've already seen what trying to legislate morality does in America (see Prohibition), so why do people still try to get their personal interpretations of scripture and Christian traditions passed into law?
                  But, we all ready do legislate morality and have been for hundreds of years.
                  Thou shall not murder, steal, etc...are laws on the books.
                  Perhaps those aren't moral issues to you?



                  Your question is inadequate.
                  Your examples cite killing autonomous creatures residing outside the individual's body.
                  No sir, the question is not inadequate, since when is "location" any criteria for allowable murder?
                  And your statement ignores that all are created in the image of God and that our bodies are not our own.

                  Also, the CURRENT law gives the right to choose, so your insinuation that having an abortion ignores the law for the sake of convenience falls through.
                  No one is arguing what the current law says, only that the current law is mis-guided to say the least.

                  A pro-choice Christian just answered your question willingly.
                  Thank you. You're the first.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Ok.... not to underanalyze this subject....but lets look at something here.....

                    Lets analyze the criteria for being a Christian.....

                    1. Believe in the following:

                    a. The earthly ministry of Jesus Christ
                    b. That Christ was persecuted
                    c. That Christ was crucified for our sins
                    d. That three days later He rose again defeating death.

                    Notice nowhere in there does it say that we have to be "pro" anything......

                    The ONLY requirement is that we believe in Jesus Christ......

                    Now since we have discovered the requirements of faith.....

                    Anything beyond believing that Christ truly was the Messiah is PERSONAL beliefs/theology.

                    Its just like choosing which denomination you choose to worship at. (Im not making light Im just making a comparison.)

                    Christ states that the ONLY way to the Father is THROUGH Him....no where does He state that we have to support or condone anything.

                    The point Im trying to make is that yes you can be a Christian and be pro-CHOICE....... notice I didnt use the term pro-abortion.

                    You dont HAVE to be in support of abortion to be pro choice.

                    All we are saying is that (as Duane Morse stated) God allows us free will and we are allowed to make our own decisions. Now understanding that if a person chooses to have an abortion in the end that is between them and God....not us.
                    "I love you, O LORD, my strength. The LORD is my rock, my fortress and my deliverer; my God is my rock, in whom I take refuge. He is my shield and the horn of my salvation, my stronghold."
                    -- (Psalm 18:1-2)

                    "Those who wait on the Lord will gain new strength; they will mount up with wings like eagles, they will run and not get tired, they will walk ant not be weary" -- (Isaiah 40:31)

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Vhayes View Post
                      I think everyone is missing a crucial point here. There is no current law against abortion. There are laws against killing, what the world terms, infants. There are laws against rape, etc.

                      Work to change the law. Work to supply viable options to these women.

                      However, I do have a question - everyone is hyped up on the President and his appointments to the Supreme Court. I understand that. But how long will it take to GET to the Supreme Court? Does anyone know whether or not the lesser courts will even hear an argument regarding Roe v. Wade?

                      I don't know the answers to these questions. I am sincerely asking.
                      Thank you Brother! You hit the nail on the head......

                      Thats the problem people. It is almost next to impossible for the average American family to adopt a child today. Im not sure of the cost but Im positive it is beyond anything that the common middle class american family could afford.

                      That is the first thing that needs to be worked on. Making it so that a loving couple who may not have a LOT of money but would be a great set of parents are able to adopt a child.

                      Another option is giving some sort of added assistance to a family that adopts an older child.

                      Why is it that there is outrage over abortion (whilch I am against by the way.....Im just for the choice being left with the responsible party....not you and I when we arent involved at all...) and yet no outrage over the thousands (possibly millions?) of children in orphanages today that have no chance of a life that involves a family?

                      Let me ask all of you something....all of you that are against abortion that is......

                      Would you right now be willing to adopt the child that would be aborted if the personal cost to you was say$200,000? Would you pay that money to be able to adopt that child?

                      I know I sure couldnt afford that payment...... so that being said if I can't truly do anything to actually fix the situation (and not sit here and scream about how abortion should just be made illegal) I cant in my right mind tell someone else that they are not allowed to do what they feel in their heart is the right thing to do in their circumstance. We dont live these people's lives so who are we to condemn them and not try to actually fix the system that causes them to have an abortion?
                      "I love you, O LORD, my strength. The LORD is my rock, my fortress and my deliverer; my God is my rock, in whom I take refuge. He is my shield and the horn of my salvation, my stronghold."
                      -- (Psalm 18:1-2)

                      "Those who wait on the Lord will gain new strength; they will mount up with wings like eagles, they will run and not get tired, they will walk ant not be weary" -- (Isaiah 40:31)

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by redeemedbyhim View Post
                        Do you feel the same way about other laws? Should any individual make their own free choice as to wether they kill their neighbor? Or should the law afford some protection and consequenses to the act?
                        How about killing born babies? Is it okay for the mother to take a sharp instrument and stab the baby in the back of the head, should she have her "own free choice in the matter"?

                        This is the question no "pro-choice" Christian is ever willing to answer....NOT EVER.
                        I wonder why.
                        People DO have the right to make the choices you listed about my friend.

                        This is the part of the argument that I think is being forgot.....

                        On sunday I will have my son...... Now using your example I could choose to stab him in the back of the head and end his life......

                        But.....I would also have to live with the consequences of my choice.

                        I could go out tonite and get comepletely smashed and drive home and possibly kill many people...... again I would have to live with the consequences of my desicion.

                        Guess what???? These wo things are illegal under US law.....BUT I CAN STILL CHOOSE TO DO THEM.....

                        Now say we make abortion illegal....... you got it! People can still CHOOSE to get them done......and have to deal with the consequences of their actions.....
                        "I love you, O LORD, my strength. The LORD is my rock, my fortress and my deliverer; my God is my rock, in whom I take refuge. He is my shield and the horn of my salvation, my stronghold."
                        -- (Psalm 18:1-2)

                        "Those who wait on the Lord will gain new strength; they will mount up with wings like eagles, they will run and not get tired, they will walk ant not be weary" -- (Isaiah 40:31)

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          “It’s not my calling as a Christian to change the law or to make the lost behave like Christians.”
                          I'm pro-life, but I think that too many pro-life Christians do not effectively sell their argument.

                          It isn't enough to outlaw abortion. First of all, it will probably never be outlawed nationwide. Women will risk a trip to Illinois or California or New York to get an abortion.

                          Single mothers must receive better government care (yeah, welfare is out of control, but it needs to be done). This is not to say crisis pregnancy centers do not care for women. They are extremely generous from what I gather. This criticism is against our policy makers. The nation with the lowest rates of abortion is, surprisingly, the Netherlands. It also has the best care for single mothers.

                          The second mistake is not promoting more birth control. Since the pro-life movement is dominated by Catholics, they will not promote birth control. It is simple- reduce conceptions, reduce abortions. Of course, Christians, Jews, Muslims, etc. should have their religious authorities teach them respect for human life and to abstain from sex. However, for those who choose to reject the Christian sexual ethic, birth control must be taught to them, because they will be the most likely to get an abortion, as well.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            I am pro-lfie and I would be willing to take in a baby today who would have otherwise been aborted. But I can't afford the $200,000 mentioned in a post above. I couldn't even afford $20,000 unless it was payments made over a vast amount of time.

                            So yes, that is a big problem here in the US. The cost of adoption is too high and the cost of abortion too low. And yet, the emotional cost is just the opposite!

                            I can't even begin to imagine what a woman must go through to feel she must make the choice of abortion. Well, yes, I suppose I can imagine because I did find myself unmarried and pregnant 6 years ago. I didn't know what I was going to do. But I also had options - I knew I had options and the option I ended up with was marrying my baby's daddy and now we are happily married with three children.

                            So, I have a hard time knowing what the answer is to this delimna. The "simple" answer would be just to outlaw abortions, but there must be an alternative. An alternative that is actually available and affordable to all the participants!!!

                            Prayer - that is the biggest thing we can do right now. Pray for the changes not only in the laws of abortion, but also in the adoption proceedings, making it more available. But even moreso, pray for a heart change in those that we personally know are contemplating such a thing.
                            Mommy to Brooke, Braden and Bristol

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Most of the arguments in opposition are actually dealt with in the article, but I'll respond anyway.

                              But is it the right of any government to legislate any individual's interpretation of God's law?
                              We've already seen what trying to legislate morality does in America (see Prohibition), so why do people still try to get their personal interpretations of scripture and Christian traditions passed into law?
                              All laws are the legislation of morality. All laws dictate that something is right or something is wrong and that if we don't do what is right or if we do what is wrong there will be consequences for it. Even menial laws are still a legislation of some form of reality. At the moment we say something is right or wrong, that people can or cannot engage in an activity, and that consequences can follow for violating an ethic, we have made a moral statement.

                              We have to understand, as Christians, that there are natural laws and spiritual laws. If a law is apparent in nature then natural man can (and should) follow it (e.g. murder is wrong, theft is wrong, rape is wrong). If it's not obvious in nature and can only be known through revelation (e.g. God is Trinity, Christ died for our sins) then we shouldn't legislate it. Yes, this becomes a sticky issue, but it doesn't negate this is the best standard.

                              Finally, why won't anyone answer the following question?

                              Why do we support legislation that prohibits rape and murder?

                              If it's not our job to legislate morality (which, of course, is redundant) then why do we support laws that prohibit certain immoral acts?

                              I really won't respond to the rest because none of them deal with the article. One of the arguments is the individual is inside the body - but this was handled in the article.

                              Not surprisingly no one has dealt with the substance of the post.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X