951753

This Site Is No Longer Active

Check out RESTITUTIO.org for new blog entries and podcasts. Feel free to browse through our content here, but we are no longer adding new posts.


Common Sense About Abortion

  

A big problem with the “hot button” social issues that get debated endlessly is that you often have people on both sides of the debate who misunderstand, oversimplify, or in some cases even misrepresent the opposing view.  The video I have linked here (I couldn’t get it to embed) gives a good, common sense, look at the abortion issue.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h4W6GqzuxZY

Probably the best line in it was, “If your views on abortion can fit on a bumper sticker, you haven’t thought it through hard enough.”  I think this can also be said for all of the “hot button” social issues.  When I took a course on Ethics in college, the biggest thing I learned was that there are no simple answers.

Some other good quotes from the video:

“The question is not, ‘Should abortion be legal or illegal,’ the question is, ‘What can we do to eliminate the need for abortions?'”

“In a perfect world there would be no abortions.”

“Abortion itself is not the problem.  It is a symptom of many societal problems.”

“If reducing the number of abortions is what we want, we need to change the way we look at the issue entirely.  Not ‘pro-choice,’ not ‘pro-life,’ just ‘pro-common-sense.'”

(BTW, the guy in this video is not a theologian or scholar of any kind.  He’s just a guy who makes video blogs on YouTube.  But I think he did a great job of putting the issue in perspective.)

81 Responses to “Common Sense About Abortion”

  1. on 31 Aug 2010 at 5:25 pmDoubting Thomas

    Mark C
    Thanks for the great article. I liked the video link so much that I emailed it to everyone on my mailing list. I love it when someone is able to take a subject which is inherently complicated and hard to understand, and explains it in a way that is so simple, that just about anyone can easily understand it. It’s not that he gives us a simple and easy answer, but he does force us to look beyond the well known rhetoric and instead focus on what’s really important…

  2. on 01 Sep 2010 at 8:07 amBrian K

    Doubting Thomas,

    I watched the video as well. You say: “he does force us to look beyond the well known rhetoric and instead focus on what’s really important.” Since there was nothing in his discussion that mentions God, Jesus, the Scriptures, etc. it’s hard for me to agree with your assessment.

    I don’t want to sound “hard line” here. but unless we are going to bring the Biblical perspective into this this discussion, it seems like we’ve missed the boat, especially on a blog that is about “promoting the gospel of the kingdom and the creed of Jesus.”

  3. on 01 Sep 2010 at 5:46 pmDoubting Thomas

    Brian K
    You are correct that this video does not bring the Biblical perspective (at least directly) into this discussion, but from my knowledge of the bible I don’t recall any scripture that deals specifically with abortion as such.

    From what I understand abortion has been around since before the time of Abraham. The most popular method in ancient times was for a women to gallop or trot bareback on a horse until the baby was induced prematurely. From what I understand there were many other methods used as well.

    The video does however force us to use our God given common sense in that it says, we should stop fighting and instead work together to reduce the number of abortions that are being performed. That’s what I meant when I said “he does force us to look beyond the well known rhetoric and instead focus on what’s really important.”

    Of course the hard core pro-life people will say that is not enough. They would say we have to stop all abortions and the only way to do that is to make all abortions under any circumstances illegal. Of course the reality is that although that would reduce abortions it would not stop abortions from happening!!! Besides such a law would not only be impractical, it would be virtually impossible to pass, because the majority of the population would never support a ban on all abortions under any and all circumstances.

    You just have to take a quick look at history to see that such a ban would not work. For many centuries most Christian countries (and many other countries around the world as well) had bans on unmarried women having babies. In most of these countries the penalty for getting pregnant before you were married was death. The most common form of execution was for the women to be stoned to death or drowned.

    Does anybody really think that during these medieval times the death penalties imposed stopped unmarried women from getting pregnant??? Of course they didn’t!!! There are all kinds of records of women being killed throughout history for getting pregnant before they were married. If you look at recent history you will see that even 50 years or so ago, when abortion was illegal, that this did not stop women from having abortions.

    From my point of view it is simply irrational and impractical for someone to say, that we can’t be satisfied until we stop all abortions that are happening in the world, or even in our own country of origin. Abortions will happen!!! The only practical thing we can do is try to work together to try to reduce the number of abortions that are happening.

    The way I see it, you have the hard core pro-choice people, who probably only make up about 10-20% of the population, that say a woman should be able to have an abortion anywhere, anytime, anyplace. Then you have the hard core pro-life people, who again probably only make up about 10-20% of the population, that say abortion should be banned under any and all circumstances.

    These two groups together probably only make up about 30% or so of the population, but make so much more noise than anyone else, they end up drowning out the majority (like Dan Brown from the video) who are somewhere in the middle between these to extreme positions.

    I agree with Dan Brown when he says, that contrary to popular belief, even the pro-choice people don’t think that an abortion is something to be celebrated. Even the extremists would rather see someone not get pregnant in the first place, than to have someone go through an otherwise unnecessary abortion.

    I agree with Dan Brown when he says, that the two sides would be much better off to put all their time, money, and resources (which they are now using to promote their individual positions) into dealing with the societal problems that are behind women turning to abortions. This would be much better, and more practical, than trying to force their extreme positions onto the majority, who would probably never agree with either of these two extreme positions anyway.

    Sorry I went on for so long. At least this is the way I see the issue…

  4. on 01 Sep 2010 at 7:05 pmRay

    How’s this for a bumper sticker?

    If you are not absolutely sure when life begins
    you wouldn’t go ahead with an abortion, would you?

    What went wrong with Roe v. Wade is when the judges decided they didn’ t have to answer the question, “When does a life begin?”

  5. on 01 Sep 2010 at 7:12 pmrobert

    Thomas
    I agree with you 100%. The way i see it is Any Moral issue whether biblically approached or not should be a topic on ALL christian blogs and forums and definitely should at any christian gathering.
    I have held the view for many years that if someone choses to get an abortion, that getting their tubes tied should be done at that point since they have shown they didnt want children by chosing to get an abortion.
    Now there could be some exceptions for medical and rape reasons.

  6. on 01 Sep 2010 at 8:24 pmDoubting Thomas

    Robert
    I agree with you about forcing some women to get their tubes tied. I understand some women get 3-5 or more abortions in their lifetime. They don’t seem to have any consideration or empathy/sympathy for the baby (which they like to say is not a baby but a fetus) and seem to treat abortion like it is just another form of birth control.

    I also agree abortions should be allowed in certain circumstances (Medical, incest, and rape for instance). My buddy Tim is totally against abortion at any time. He says it is not the baby’s fault that the Father committed a criminal offense. I emailed him the above video and he responded with a very angry email which he ended with the words, “standard pro-choice tripe.”

    Of course he is entitled to his opinion, but I think what Dan Brown is saying is just common sense. At least from my point of view…

  7. on 02 Sep 2010 at 1:29 amMark C.

    What went wrong with Roe v. Wade is when the judges decided they didn’ t have to answer the question, “When does a life begin?”

    How can they, when there is no consensus, even in the religious arena? When I looked into this awhile back, I was surprised to find that not all religious groups assume abortion is murder, due to differences of opinion on when life and/or personhood begin. The political right tends to portray it that way, as if it were a foregone conclusion and those who disagree are simply evil and ungodly. Here are two links that show the differences of opinion among religious groups.

    http://www.religioustolerance.org/abo_hist1.htm

    http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1442381/posts

  8. on 02 Sep 2010 at 7:54 amJaco

    This is, as are many other issues, rather complex.

    The fact remains that, according to the Creator, life of an unborn baby is equal to that of any other human:

    Ex 21:22, 23 “And in case men should struggle with each other and they really hurt a pregnant woman and her children do come out but no fatal accident occurs, he is to have damages imposed upon him without fail according to what the owner of the woman may lay upon him; and he must give it through the justices. But if a fatal accident should occur, then you must give soul for soul.”

    I think this is clear from a Scriptural point of view. But, as the article shows, there are indeed very serious complications with even this issue.

    Psychology of Sexuality also had me assume a more empathetic approach toward deviant sexual behaviour. I shall never condone what Scripture condemns. It nevertheless enabled me to view with compassion the broken and maladapted and appreciate their need for healing and salvation.

    Jaco

  9. on 02 Sep 2010 at 10:02 amBrian K

    It seems that we have become so accustomed to having certain topics be political, that we can’t see outside of that box. Abortion is one of those topics. As soon as it is mentioned, everybody goes and puts on their political hats and starts talking about whether it is right for the government to make laws about it.

    I’m pretty sure we would all agree that there is no time soon that abortions will be “banned” in this country, let alone around the world.

    I am more concerned about what we as Christians should think about abortion from a Biblical point of view. For quite a while I was someone who believed that one did not become a human being until one took one’s “first breath.” I no longer hold to this belief. It seems to me that unless you can make an ironclad case from the Scriptures that one becomes a human being at some other time than conception, we need to take that as the accepted position. If that is the case, then the Scripture has much to say in respect to what actions would or would not be acceptable (not sinful.) If a baby is as much a human being in the womb as outside the womb, then it seems to me that any action that is considered unacceptable towards a new born should apply to a baby in the womb. It is because we make it more complicated than this , that we end up with so much confusion. I can’t help but think that those who say “it’s complex” aren’t just looking for a way to justify their own attitudes.

    As a side note, I have learned that many times common sense is a very good thing. The only problem is that as fallen and sin-prone people, many times what seems common to us is unacceptable to God. Only when our “consciences are captive to the Word of God” will our common sense be right.

  10. on 02 Sep 2010 at 11:22 amAngela

    Excellent comment, Brian K, with which I agree wholeheartedly.

    Whether God would be pleased or displeased is at the core of this issue, not whether it should be the law in our nation or not.

    Regardless of whether you are a liberal or on the political right (as Mark C. stated), I know that no law will change people’s hearts. It is a heart issue of whether people will obey God or disobey Him.

    Instead, it should be quite evident in Scripture, that the life in a woman’s womb, no matter at what stage (1 day? 2 weeks? 3 months? 8 months?), is a precious life, a gift from God, and a child who would be born, if not for the intervention of man and his abortion techniques, no matter if it is crude and barbaric or professionally and medically advanced; legal or illegal.

    To take someone’s life or opportunity at life, is murder.

    It is written: “God has “formed my inmost being. You knit me together in my mother’s womb.” Psalm 139:13.

    It is written: “And now the LORD says–he who formed me in the womb to be his servant to bring Jacob back to him and gather Israel to himself, for I am honored in the eyes of the LORD and my God has been my strength–” Isaiah 49:5.

    It is written: “Your hands have made and fashioned me; give me understanding that I may learn your commandments.” Psalm 119:73

    It is written: “Your hands fashioned and made me altogether, And would You destroy me?” Job 10:8

    By stating abortion is murder, does that mean I am heartless and do not understand the plights of women? No. But, just because I have compassion on their troubles and may even understand why they would choose an abortion, does not change the definition of sin. Taking a life is a sin. Too often in our nation, in modern times, we sugarcoat sin. We don’t want to tell people the ugly truth of what sin is, and that perhaps, they are doing just that: sinning! We steer clear of subjects like judgment, the wrath of God, the lake of fire, and anything else that might cause them or us to squirm or feel the slightest bit uncomfortable, or perhaps even convicted!

    Have I ministered to women who have undergone abortions? Yes. It’s incredibly sad when they confess this to me. It breaks my heart and we cry together. Whether they saw it as legal, justifiable, and had their legitimate reasons for doing so at the time, their hearts ache with this choice they have made. They are heavy with guilt and burdened with sorrow. They know what they have done was wrong, and by calling it ‘right’ so that they can be eased of their guilt, is not the answer. Instead, we can offer them God’s love, grace and forgiveness! We can say, every sin, no matter how tragic or heartwrenching, can be erased clean from God’s memory! We can offer them the saving and redeeming blood of a Savior, who will not judge them for this choice, but will understand them and still offer his arms out wide to receive them. That is the beauty of God’s grace, and by changing the definition of what this sin is, we are only deceiving them further and justifying something that God abhors.

    The message shouldn’t be a harsh, unloving, judgmental one: “You are so bad because you are choosing to abort your unborn baby!” (how the political right is perceived).

    The message shouldn’t be a lie: “Go ahead and abort your baby. It’s not murder, but totally okay with God if you do.” (how the liberal left is perceived).

    But, the message should be a true one, full of God’s grace and forgiveness: “God loves you and will forgive you of any and all of your sins, no matter what they are, or what you have done, when we come to Him, in the name of Jesus.”

    One offers judgment. One offers deception. One offers the saving grace of the work done on the cross.

    Perhaps that is over-simplifying the matter, and perhaps I could place “FOR LIFE ~ that God HAS GIVEN!” on my bumper sticker, but I do so, in confidence, knowing God would be pleased. Sometimes, we need only come to the Father as a child would. To make things too complex, muddles the water and we can no longer see His clear reflection in man’s mess of things.

  11. on 02 Sep 2010 at 5:31 pmDoubting Thomas

    Brian K
    You said, “I have learned that many times common sense is a very good thing. The only problem is that as fallen and sin-prone people, many times what seems common to us is unacceptable to God. Only when our “consciences are captive to the word of God” will our common sense be right.”

    You of course correct. What your saying in your message makes a lot of sense to me. You have given me a lot to think and pray about…

    Angela

    I had no idea that there were so many scriptures dealing with this subject. You said, “Whether God would be pleased or displeased is at the core of this issue.”

    You of course are also correct. I can see what your saying is sincerely heart felt and you have also given me a lot to think and pray about…

    Jaco
    I like what you said, “I shall never condone what Scripture condemns. It nevertheless enables me to view with compassion the broken and maladapted and appreciate their need for healing and salvation.”

    Thanks to all of you for giving me so much to think and pray about…

  12. on 02 Sep 2010 at 6:50 pmRay

    Would it be right to kill someone because their father has recently committed rape or incest?

  13. on 02 Sep 2010 at 6:58 pmRay

    It’s not a difficult question to figure out whether or not a fertilized embryo is a new life that is distinct from it’s mother or father.

    Some things are evident to those God shows them to. (Romans 1:19,20)

  14. on 02 Sep 2010 at 7:25 pmrobert

    Thomas
    there is a few problems with the references Jaco and Angela provided.
    Jaco’s reference in Exodus 21 was dealing with Acts of Violence and in the verses21,22 you will see that if its your own property it is your own business considering they could sell their children into slavery.
    In Angela’s references none of them state you have received life in the womb,it just states that were you are FORMED.
    Till a baby is able to take hold of the breath of life and sustain it on their own it is very debateable that they ever had life.
    It is my morals that lead me on this subject since there is NOTHING that pertains to it in the scriptures.
    I dont like abortions and would never advise anyone to get one unless the reasons were exceptionable.
    All i can say is God will judged these acts and I know in my heart that if they have their own life at the time than God will accept them as perfect.
    I think the only verse that against abortions is be fruitful and multiply but there was never any judgement attached to that command

  15. on 02 Sep 2010 at 10:55 pmrobert

    Thomas
    I should of gave you a reference to why Angela’s Quotes are not relevent.
    Going to Genesis 2 we find Adam was not a living being till after he received the breath of life which he did not received till after His COMPLETE body was FORMED
    KJV
    : 7 And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

    NET © The Lord God formed the man from the soil of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.

    NIV ©

    biblegateway Gen 2:7
    the LORD God formed the man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.

    The way I see it is a baby is a extension of the mothers life till it receives its own at birth.
    Just to make it clear this doesnt still make it right morally But i think people claiming this is addressed in the bible hurts the effort for people to follow the morals God instlled within all humanity and probably push some to do it to spite the self proclaimed righteous because they have been already condemned by their lifestyle by the same so called christians

  16. on 02 Sep 2010 at 11:26 pmDoubting Thomas

    Robert
    Thank you for your advice. I had thought that because both the extreme pro-lifers and the extreme pro-choicers shared a common belief that it would be good if we could reduce the number of abortions, then maybe it would be possible for them to work together in this regard. But I am starting to realize that I was naive for thinking that either side would be willing to compromise their extreme positions (even if it meant accomplishing something good).

    My best friend is a non-conformist RC who, like Ray, doesn’t believe in abortion under any circumstances. Talking with him I realize there exists a strong dislike (might I even say hatred) between these two groups of people. Each apparently thinking the other is evil. I don’t think it would be humanely possible for them to reach any sort of compromise with each other.

    You and the others have given me a lot of food for thought so to speak and I will need some time to digest it all. I still think I believe that abortion would be okay under certain extraordinary circumstances. I think God is very forgiving and would understand (especially for medical abortions). Of course I, like anyone else, will have to listen to my heart, because in the end the decision I reach must feel like it is right.

    I definitely need to sleep on this one. Have a good night and may the peace of God be with you and with us all…

  17. on 03 Sep 2010 at 2:56 amMark C.

    Thank you, Robert. I completely agree with you! 🙂

  18. on 03 Sep 2010 at 8:01 amAngela

    Robert,
    You wrote, “Till a baby is able to take hold of the breath of life and sustain it on their own it is very debateable that they ever had life.”

    Tell this to a mother who is mourning the death of her prematurely born baby. Tell this to a mother who had a miscarriage even in the early stages of her pregnancy.

    As a woman who wanted and desired each pregnancy, I knew the day of conception and counted each day in such joy, as the baby grew inside of me. As a woman who does not desire her pregnancy and wishes to terminate her baby, her baby is no less of a baby than the one who is wanted. The circumstances are probably not as good, but it doesn’t change the value of that life.

    Speaking as the only woman here on this discussion who has carried five babies in my womb ~~ I must say that my children’s lives began, not when they took their own solo breath, but in my womb, when they were kicking and moving and hiccupping! God formed them, knew them, loved them, just like I loved them before they were born. To deny this fact is shocking to me, and I find it rather distasteful.

    There is a big difference between Adam taking his first breath as a created full grown man, and a baby being formed in the mother’s womb.

    What an incredibly sad commentary on a Christian blog website. 🙁

  19. on 03 Sep 2010 at 8:26 amrobert

    Angela
    I am sorry the truth wasnt more to your liking but none the less it was just that.
    I understand you emotion within this topic and feel to waste a potential life is unhuman. I wont even waste the life of an animal that way.
    I will just ignore your comment towards me because i see this is an emotional issue for you.

  20. on 03 Sep 2010 at 8:33 amMark C.

    Angela,

    You’re talking about a different concept. Of course each life is precious to God and He knew them before they were even conceived. We were chosen before the foundation of the world, according to Ephesians 1:4. And no one is saying that it isn’t tragic when a potential life doesn’t come into fruition.

    But as far as when a potential life becomes a separate life on its own, there is no simple answer. The Bible doesn’t say anything specifically about it, and various religious and philosophical points of view disagree on the matter. And it’s only because of the fallen, sinful state of man that the issue even needs to be considered. As Dan Brown, and many others, have said, in a perfect world there would be no abortions.

    That is why the question should not be whether abortion is murder (since the outlawing of murder has not eliminated it) but rather, what can we do to eliminate the need (whether perceived or actual) for abortion. Until people look at it as something we should work on together, rather than a political “hot button” issue with the usual “us vs. them” mentality, nothing will change.  Will that happen in this life, before God’s Kingdom is established on earth?  God only knows.  But when the Kingdom comes, there will be no abortions.

  21. on 03 Sep 2010 at 10:28 amBrian K

    Robert,

    You wrote to sum up your comment: “Of course I, like anyone else, will have to listen to my heart, because in the end the decision I reach must feel like it is right.” It seems to me that this is a recipe for disaster. I have learned that many times what my heart tells me and what feels right is not in agreement with what the Scriptures teach.

    Mark,

    So what does that look like we work together to eliminate the need for abortion? Who is the “we”?

  22. on 03 Sep 2010 at 11:24 amMark C.

    So what does that look like we work together to eliminate the need for abortion?

    Dan made some suggestions in the video. Many others have been made by both Christians and non-Christians. But like I said, I don’t know if it will happen this side of Christ’s return.

    Who is the “we”?

    People. Society in general.

  23. on 03 Sep 2010 at 4:51 pmDoubting Thomas

    Brian K
    Actually that was me that said, “Of course I, like everyone else, will have to listen to my heart, because in the end the decision I reach must feel like it is right” (not Robert). You said, “I have learned that many times what my heart tells me and what feels right is not in agreement with what the scriptures teach.”

    In this particular case though, I don’t believe there is a scripture that says abortion wouldn’t be acceptable to God in certain extraordinary situations. Since there is no direct scripture to guide me, I don’t think it is wrong for me to then listen to what the Holy Spirit might be saying to me, through my heart…

  24. on 03 Sep 2010 at 9:10 pmrobert

    “It seems to me that this is a recipe for disaster. I have learned that many times what my heart tells me and what feels right is not in agreement with what the Scriptures teach.”

    Brian K
    This I dont understand because whatever my heart tells me is always been right but often I go against because it was inconvenient or not popular.
    are you sure it wasnt earthly wisdom leading you?

  25. on 04 Sep 2010 at 1:10 pmBrian K

    Robert

    We must be talking about two different things when it comes to what one’s heart tells them. What I mean by one’s heart is the center of one’s will, belief and desire. This may be informed by and subject to the Scriptures or not. In fact, by my use of the phrase “my heart tells me” Jesus would have been the only one who could claim that whatever his heart told him was always right.

  26. on 04 Sep 2010 at 2:03 pmrobert

    “In fact, by my use of the phrase “my heart tells me” Jesus would have been the only one who could claim that whatever his heart told him was always right.”

    Brian K
    Again there not much understandable to me in this statement.
    The way i see it is Jesus was the only one at his time and may be only ever to date to perfectly follow what his heart was telling him.
    We just chose to not follow our heart because it isnt easy or popular.
    You are just defining your desires and wants as something of the heart.
    I can guaranty that every action you or me has ever done that there was always a choice that envolved the truth of the heart but mostly was just flat out ignored.

  27. on 04 Sep 2010 at 2:39 pmDoubting Thomas

    Brian K
    We may be talking about different things, but when I say that I have to listen to my heart in these things, it is always informed by, and subject to, what I understand of the Scriptures. Of course listening to your heart is not a guarantee, but if your not sure, or if it is a big (important) decision, then you should always consult with 2 or 3 other Christians. Yeshua/Jesus said that when 2 or more of you are gathered in his name, that he would be there among us (I believe he meant he would be guiding us).

    I like to think that all of us here on this website are gathered together in his name and that Yeshua/Jesus is guiding us…

  28. on 07 Sep 2010 at 10:15 pmJoseph

    Angela,

    Good points. It’s nice to hear this point of view coming from a Woman who actually has to carry that life inside her for a period of time. I can see how men are numb to this aspect of the child’s life as all we know is that the baby is growing inside the Mother’s womb. I think that many who doubt life in the womb in this group would be in no doubt hardcore pro-lifers if they had to experience that child in a womb of their own.

    It’s a no brainer for those that question when life begins at a breath or at conception. C’mon guys!, is this even a debatable issue? Have any of you actually seen abortion pictures? I tried to and couldn’t get through the first one. It will make your stomach turn and fill your head with emotion that your top will blow.

    Mark,

    The Bible doesn’t have to say anything about abortion. The Bible tells us that life is a blessing from God, and ripping babies out of wombs is just plain stupid and a contradiction to the blessing of life that God gives us. I see what you are tying to do though. You want to make a middle ground that in hope will bring a resolution to stop abortion. The problem is, there is no middle ground. This is why you are either for abortion or against it. No amount of word juggling will hide that fact from ones view.

    I can read through these comments right now and write out a list of those who are 100% against abortion and those who are aren’t. It’s not that hard to distinguish.

  29. on 07 Sep 2010 at 10:33 pmrobert

    “I can read through these comments right now and write out a list of those who are 100% against abortion and those who are aren’t. It’s not that hard to distinguish. ”

    Joseph
    let whom is without sin cast first stone, the issues discussed were whether this was dealt with in the bible not whether we were for or against.
    I for one am against abortion with a very slight exception but as for those that have abortions JUDGEMENT IS GODS because there is NOTHING that adresses when life begins that could give humankind this right to judge.
    So save your judgement for issues that you have all the answers for.

  30. on 07 Sep 2010 at 10:56 pmJoseph

    Robert,

    Looks like I don’t need to write the list, you just come right out and admit it.

    It’s not about casting a stone, and I never said that I’m without faults, which is why you are blind to the common sense and the fragility of life.

    So based upon your view of abortion, would you be willing to perform a abortion yourself based upon this exception?

  31. on 07 Sep 2010 at 11:03 pmrobert

    Joseph
    As to what i would consider an exception Like the life of the Mother ,Absolutely Yes because Her life has been defined by the breath of life BIBLICALLY

  32. on 07 Sep 2010 at 11:22 pmJoseph

    Robert,

    “Give me children, or else I die” (Genesis 30:1). Jacob in anger replied, “Am I in God’s stead, who hath withheld from thee the fruit of the womb?” It wasn’t until the Lord opened her womb that she bore Joseph and Benjamin. She died giving birth to Benjamin.

    Do you think at any moment that Jacob thought to abort Benjamin to spare the life of Rachel? Every child has a purpose greater than it’s parent.

    Let’s just assume that they didn’t know whether the birth would kill Rachel. What makes you think that we know 100% percent today that a pregnancy will kill the Mother? I don’t think one doctor would be willing to say with 100% certainty. I’m sure there are many accounts of Women going through a risk pregnancy and it being successful.

    If you were a Women pregnant and was given a choice to die and have a healthy baby, or, to live and have your baby aborted, what would you choose? I would choose to have the baby, but that’s because I understand that life from God is a gift and should be taken as a blessing.

    How many of us with grown children now would give their life for their child if given a choice?

    Robert, would you be willing to make the decision to kill the baby or not based upon your assumption that the Mother will die? That’s toying with fire, brother.

  33. on 07 Sep 2010 at 11:52 pmrobert

    Joseph
    It would not be an assumption it would be a conviction using all the info that i could get my hands on.
    But thats still not the point of this discussion, this is obiviously to emotional of an issue to you to see the biblical points of the discussion here.

  34. on 08 Sep 2010 at 6:41 pmDoubting Thomas

    Joseph
    I can tell you that I personally am not 100% against abortion and can see certain situations (especially where the young mother’s life in danger) that would probably be acceptable to God (in my humble opinion anywaze). I also will readily admit that I don’t know for sure, when life begins. I don’t know if you noticed or not but both Mark C and Dan Brown did not say anything about when they thought that life began.

    Whenever people discuss this issue, the subject of when does life begins, always seems to be thrown into the conversation. To me this is just a red herring which distracts us from talking about what is really the important issue here, trying our best to reduce the number of unnecessary abortions, which it seems is exactly the message that both Dan Brown and Mark C are trying to convey to the rest of us.

    If I were to say that I could reduce the number of murders that took place in the world, but that I couldn’t completely eliminate them, everybody and their Uncle would support me. But if I were to say that I could reduce the number of unnecessary abortions, but that I couldn’t completely eliminate them, apparently all the hard-line Pro-Lifers would fight to stop me.

    Mark C presented a few basic facts in the article and in the links he provided.

    1. We will never agree on when life begins. The above comments show that even Christians can’t agree on this issue. You are certainly not going to get the majority of people in the world (most of which are not Christian) to agree on this issue either.

    2. We do not live in a perfect world. This is a fallen/sinful world. In a perfect world (like the coming Kingdom of God) there would be no abortions.

    3. Christians groups and organizations cannot even agree amongst themselves if abortions should be completely banned, or if partially banned under what situations would it be permissible. It is therefore a fantasy (I think) for the hard-line Pro-Lifers to think that a majority of people would ever agree to a complete ban on abortions, under any and all circumstances.

    It might be a nice philosophical position (to say – no babies murdered), but practically it serves no purpose whatsoever since it can never be implemented in the real world. I think the main point Dan Brown and Mark C are trying to make is that when you look at it logically the hard-line Pro-Lifers and the hard-line Pro-Choicers have something in common. Neither side wants to see any woman have an abortion unnecessary (just for the sake of having an abortion).

    I don’t know if it’s humanely possible to limit the emotions regarding this issue so that these two sides could work together on actually reducing the number of abortions that are taking place. But I think, as Christians who care about the life of these unborn babies, we should at least give it a try.

    Of course this will mean that the hard-line Pro-Lifers will have to give up their extreme (and I would say unrealistic) position that says, no abortions, anytime, anywhere, and any place. I don’t know if this is possible. It seems there will always be some who would just want to continue the age old philosophical discussion of what a nice world it would be if there were no abortions, instead of actually trying to do something practical that might reduce the number of abortions that occur everyday around the world.

    The people who hold these extreme views (Pro-Life or Pro-Choice) only make up a minority of perhaps 30% or so of the population. But because both sides are so entrenched, active and loud (just boiling over with emotions), no politician wants to touch the issue.
    In Canada we have this strange situation where there is no law whatsoever limiting when or how an abortion can be done.

    No politician in his right mind wants to touch it, because he knows if he comes up with some sort of compromise between the two well known extreme positions, that he will be severely attacked from both sides (Pro-Lifers and Pro-Choicers). To any politician it is a loose/loose situation. They cannot win unless one of the two sides (or both) give up their extreme positions and agrees to support something in the middle.

    The fact is most people in the world want some sort of law restricting abortion, that are somewhere in the middle between the two extremes. If Christians really want to actually do something to reduce the number of abortions being performed around the world they should push for some sort of practical compromise that the majority of people could readily support.

    Of course the extreme Pro-Choicers will always fight any and all restrictions on a woman’s right to choose and the exreme Pro-lifers will always fight any rights for a women to have an abortion (no matter how limited). But if the majority of Christians could come up with a compromise that the majority of the population (non-Christian included) could agree with, we might actually be able to have some success at reducing the number of abortions actually being performed.

    And like the Dan Brown said, if the extremists on both sides spent their time, money and energy trying to eliminate the societal problems that lead to young women having abortions, this could have a major impact as well. I didn’t mean to go on for so long, but I just wanted to try to explain the way I see this situation. Maybe I’m naive thinking that both sides could work together, but someone has to try.

    “Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called the sons of God”…

  35. on 08 Sep 2010 at 7:18 pmAngela

    Just a few points to consider about this discussion:

    1. I’ve heard a few people talk about some who have commented that ‘we’ are just being ‘too emotional’ about it, insinuating, that if we feel strongly and passionately about this subject, than we are not thinking objectively, but emotionally. I beg to differ. Here is a Scriptural example of God ‘boiling over with HIS emotions: “Now then, let Me alone, that My anger may burn against them, and that I may destroy them; and I will make of you a great nation.” Exodus 32:10. Obviously, God felt pretty strongly and passionately about seeing sin going on and His emotions were obviously involved. Perhaps that is the problem: we no longer are passionate about the sin we see in the world around us and we have become callous and cold (not that I am insinuating that you commenters are….just sayin’ in general.) Perhaps when one sees a life being unnecessarily taken, it should upset us a little more than it does.

    2. This discussion, which I totally could have missed and could be wrong here…, but I thought it was about whether God would approve of abortion or not. Since this blog is a Christian site, and the web designers specifically asked us to write on articles that had to do with Scripture, the topic would naturally be: Is abortion a sin? It’s not about if it should be a law in our nation (or Canada) or not (political), or whether if it is ever a possibility to change it (with God, nothing is impossible), but whether God sees a baby as a life and whether it is a sin to prevent that life from being born. I think the answer is very evident, but definitely something worth searching Scripture for and discussing in a forum such as this, even if your opinion and findings are in direction opposition to my findings and feelings on the topic.

    3. And my final point is this: compromise. Perhaps that is the writer of this topic’s point and of the video producer, and perhaps even necessary as a politician. One must give a little to get a little, to make anything happen on Capital Hill, and perhaps what we must do in the political world. But as a follower of Christ? I think we need to be very, very careful of what we are justifying and compromising on. God’s truth is absolute. God’s definition of sin is much more black and white. I believe compromise has it’s place in the world in getting along with others and for making laws, but in my personal Christian beliefs, there is no compromise in sin. Compromise in sin is a slippery slope. There is no place for compromise, in deciding whether abortion is right or wrong. If you see pro-lifers as hard-nosed about this, it’s based not on their politics, but on their God….believing that their God has allowed for that baby to be begotten in the mother’s womb, and that the baby has a right to be born and to live, without a doctor prohibiting it by damaging it unnaturally.

    Just a few thoughts on the discussion. 🙂

  36. on 08 Sep 2010 at 8:22 pmDoubting Thomas

    Angela
    You said, “There is no place for compromise, in deciding whether abortion is right or wrong.”

    I agree that abortion is wrong and that we should try to our best to reduce the number being performed. I just don’t think it can ever be completely stopped, and I’m also saying that I can see certain circumstances where God would understand us making some exceptions. Especially if the end result is fewer abortions being performed then there otherwise would be.

    I apologize if I offended any Pro-Lifers. That was not my intention…

  37. on 08 Sep 2010 at 8:29 pmRay

    Roe v. Wade opened a can of worms.

  38. on 08 Sep 2010 at 8:50 pmAngela

    Thomas,
    I understand where you are coming up, and I agree w/you that abortion will probably never be completely stopped, this side of Jesus’ return to the earth to set up a LOT more just, righteous world. However, I think some may see it as compromising and justifying a practice that would be abhorrent to God.

    I don’t think it’s a matter of offense – you certainly didn’t offend me – but I just wanted to point out that sometimes we can get caught up in our intellectual, scholarly debates and discussions on Theology, and sometimes the emotions of our God can be removed and forgotten, when He is a very real, personal God who feels the gamut of emotions, from anger at sin to rejoicing and being pleased when someone turns from their sinful life to follow Jesus. Sometimes, and not all the time, but we want to stay so very clear in our understanding of how we define God and His Son, that we almost eliminate the Spirit of God – the very presence, power, mind and word of God – that dwells inside each believer, which will get us outraged at the sin that outrages God! That when we feel passionate and purposeful about the kingdom, that feeling is the zeal that caused the Apostle Paul to keep going, when down, beaten and imprisoned. The Spirit must be present in us and stir us up to act and speak on the behalf of our God. We should fan into flame this zeal for right and wrong… not to judge, but to be the salt in a world that has lost its saltiness. I suppose I am just concerned that some of the previous comments were more Lawry’s seasoning or lemon pepper, rather than salt. 😉

    I would just rather see the topic be discussed through more Scripture, that’s all…. but, that’s just my obsession with the word of God!

  39. on 09 Sep 2010 at 3:19 amJoseph

    Thomas,

    I can tell you that I personally am not 100% against abortion and can see certain situations (especially where the young mother’s life in danger) that would probably be acceptable to God (in my humble opinion anywaze). I also will readily admit that I don’t know for sure, when life begins. I don’t know if you noticed or not but both Mark C and Dan Brown did not say anything about when they thought that life began.

    The problem is as I brought up before, how do you know exactly how much danger the Mother is in? Even if you did know 100%, which I doubt no honest Doctor would profess, purposely killing the child so ensure the life of the Mother is gambling with what could be a different outcome. As I said before, suppose if Benjamin wasn’t born to Rachel, and Rachel lived instead of her son? 12 Tribes? Every child, no matter how small, has a greater purpose than the parent. I have a 1 year old daughter and I would give my life to save hers at any time. What is the difference between the age of 1 or before she was born? She is still the same child, right? It’s easy to make opinions based upon the things we don’t understand with our touch and vision. That’s were as the article says, common sense on abortion.

    Whenever people discuss this issue, the subject of when does life begins, always seems to be thrown into the conversation. To me this is just a red herring which distracts us from talking about what is really the important issue here, trying our best to reduce the number of unnecessary abortions, which it seems is exactly the message that both Dan Brown and Mark C are trying to convey to the rest of us.

    Compromise on abortion will only lead to more abortions. It’s like saying, let’s compromise with murderers on how many people they can kill. They have already committed a major sin and broke God’s law, so what makes you think that there is a moral ground to compromise on?

  40. on 09 Sep 2010 at 7:20 amDoubting Thomas

    Joseph
    You said, “The problem is….how do you know exactly how much danger the mother is in?”

    Of course it would be up to each individual mother to decide, based on the advice from doctors and of course her conscience.

    You also said, “…suppose if Benjamin wasn’t born to Rachel…..12 tribes?”

    There is always the problem of extraordinary situations, which is why in certain situations it is best for the parents/mother to decide. What if a young mother had 3 or 4 young children (under 10) and the doctor told her she most likely would die if she carried her baby thru to full term?

    The mother (and father) need to weigh the potential situation of having 4 or 5 young children (under 10) with no mother to raise them. They would have to decide which would be worse, taking into consideration all the children, and the poor father who would be left to care for them. Is preventing one child from being born something that God could not forgive in extenuating circumstances?

    In my opinion the psychological well being of the mother is just as important as the health of the child when it comes to cases of rape and incest. From what I understand, I am not alone in my beliefs. Many Christian groups/organizations agree with me that abortion should be allowed for many of the above mentioned reasons.

    If you can’t even get the majority of Christians to agree that all abortions in all situations should be banned, how do you think you will ever get the majority of people to agree to such a ban??? Is this just an intellectual exercise for you (since you know your position will never be accepted by the majority), or do you want to actually do something that could change the world???

    You also said, “So what makes you think that there is a moral ground to compromise on?”

    Right now we have this ridiculous (and sickening) situation where some women get 3-5 or sometimes more abortions during their lifetime. Some people (in Canada anywaze) are using abortion like it was a form of birth control. In the 1970’s the Supreme Court struck down our abortion laws, saying they were unconstitutional.

    For almost a generation now, we have had no laws in Canada regarding abortion. It is a free for all. Like I said no politician wants to touch it, because it is such an emotional issue, and there are such strong feelings (on both sides), that it is a loose/loose situation, no matter what kind of compromise they try to propose.

    The majority (like myself) want a law that is somewhere in the middle between these two extreme positions. But we are the silent majority, who are not well organized, not very loud, not very active, and as a result completely ignored by the people in power…

  41. on 09 Sep 2010 at 7:59 amrobert

    Joseph
    So your are saying you would be against the reduction of abortions which has a possibility if we all work together to achieve it because its all or nothing.
    How many millions of babies would a 25% decrease be?
    can you live with their deaths because you are not willing to compromise?
    I cant!

  42. on 09 Sep 2010 at 8:34 amMark C.

    Compromise on abortion will only lead to more abortions. It’s like saying, let’s compromise with murderers on how many people they can kill. They have already committed a major sin and broke God’s law, so what makes you think that there is a moral ground to compromise on?

    The difference is that God’s law is clear – “Thou shalt not murder.” But there is no law that says “Thou shalt not commit abortion.” Whether or not abortion is murder is not agreed upon and so, as you say, “It’s easy to make opinions based upon the things we don’t understand with our touch and vision.” This is why the whole point that I was making is that it’s not a simple, black and white issue. The extremists on both sides just argue and nothing gets done to actually solve the problem. As Dan Brown said, we need to change the way we look at the issue entirely. It’s not compromising, it’s attempting to work together to find a solution. As Thomas quoted, “Blessed are the peacemakers.”

    The Spirit must be present in us and stir us up to act and speak on the behalf of our God.

    Unfortunately, there are so many who have passion and zeal that is not stirred up by God’s spirit, even among those who think they are speaking for God. It must be balanced by rational examination of the Scriptures, and common sense.

    I would just rather see the topic be discussed through more Scripture, that’s all…. but, that’s just my obsession with the word of God!

    That’s hard to do, since the Scriptures don’t talk about abortion. But again, it does say, “Blessed are the peacemakers.”

  43. on 09 Sep 2010 at 8:54 amJaco

    Mark,

    But there is no law that says “Thou shalt not commit abortion.”

    What do you make of Ex 21:22, 23? “And in case men should struggle with each other and they really hurt a pregnant woman and her children do come out but no fatal accident occurs, he is to have damages imposed upon him without fail according to what the owner of the woman may lay upon him; and he must give it through the justices. But if a fatal accident should occur, then you must give soul for soul.”

    It’s been observed, and even became standard Psychological practice in some circles – even without formal hypnotic induction – that subjects experienced flashbacks of events in womb. What makes this so facinating, even to skeptics, is that these events could later be confirmed. The claim by many humanists that the foetus does not have any consciousness is very reductionistic, and simply an oversimplification of reality.

    Realising one’s consciousness in the womb, and even experiencing it, could change anybody’s take on abortion!

    Jaco

  44. on 09 Sep 2010 at 10:26 amMark C.

    Jaco,

    The crucial phrase in Ex. 21:22 is translated in various ways. The version you quote (what version was that, btw?) says “her children do come out.” Other versions render it as follows:

    KJV “her fruit depart from her”
    NKJV “her fruit depart from her”
    DOUAY “she miscarry indeed”
    English Translation of the LXX “her child be born imperfectly formed”
    NAS “she has a miscarriage”
    NAS95 “she gives birth prematurely”
    NIV “she gives birth prematurely”
    NLT “she gives birth prematurely”
    NRSV “there is a miscarriage”
    YLT “her children have come out”

    So there is no consensus as to whether this is talking about a premature birth or a miscarriage, i.e. whether the baby is alive or not. Further, the phrase “if a fatal accident should occur” could be referring to either the mother or the child. Different versions have it differently:

    KJV “if any mischief follow”
    DOUAY “if her death ensue thereupon”
    NKJV “if any misfortune follow”
    English Translation of the LXX “if it be perfectly formed”
    NAS “if there is any further injury”
    NAS95 “if there is any further injury”
    NIV “if there is serious injury”
    NLT “if there is further injury”
    NRSV “If any harm follows”
    YLT “if there is mischief”

    In either case, the Bible does not unequivocally state that causing the death of an unborn fetus is murder in the same degree as murdering someone who has been born. Does that mean abortion is OK? Of course not (although there are some who use this verse to prove just that).

    Realising one’s consciousness in the womb, and even experiencing it, could change anybody’s take on abortion!

    The “take” that needs to be changed is not about whether abortion is good or bad. There is no question that even if abortion is not flat-out murder, it is still not a good thing. But arguing about whether it is murder or not and whether it should be punished as murder is not going to solve anything. The “take” on abortion that needs to be changed is, regardless of whether it’s murder or not, what can be done about it? God is always more interested in the motivations of the heart than in the specific actions. (Jesus taught that even thinking evil of someone is as bad as murder.) People need to be educated about avoiding the need for abortions in the first place. That would eliminate far more abortions than any political or moral arguments.

  45. on 09 Sep 2010 at 8:45 pmJoseph

    Robert,

    So your are saying you would be against the reduction of abortions which has a possibility if we all work together to achieve it because its all or nothing.
    How many millions of babies would a 25% decrease be?
    can you live with their deaths because you are not willing to compromise?
    I cant!

    I’m glad you asked this as a question because you have clearly misunderstood me and borderline to putting words in my mouth. I said that compromise will only lead to more abortions. Obviously I’m for the reduction/extinction of abortions, I just take a more hard-line approach at how that should get done.

  46. on 09 Sep 2010 at 9:00 pmJoseph

    Mark,

    The difference is that God’s law is clear – “Thou shalt not murder.” But there is no law that says “Thou shalt not commit abortion.” Whether or not abortion is murder is not agreed upon and so, as you say, “It’s easy to make opinions based upon the things we don’t understand with our touch and vision.” This is why the whole point that I was making is that it’s not a simple, black and white issue. The extremists on both sides just argue and nothing gets done to actually solve the problem.

    Would you agree that intentionally killing a life against it’s own will is murder? Do you suppose that Jesus would have aborted a baby?… Again, common sense, some just don’t have it, but that doesn’t mean one must compromise with their ignorance.

    This was also part of my point that the reason nothing ever gets compromised between the both sides… If one agrees with abortion, or aborts a baby, then where is the moral ground in which to base the discussion on? It’s like I said, how do you compromise with someone that has already killed a living being?

  47. on 09 Sep 2010 at 9:21 pmrobert

    Joseph
    i think i made a fair overview of what you have stated so far.
    The question is are you willing to compromise or are you going to demand all or nothing. there is no way the compromise mentioned sofar in this discussions could in anyway every increase abortions,the whole discussion is about what we can do to reduce which is something that has to happen first before we could ever bring it to extinction.
    I am not against extinction of any unnecessary loss of a potential life,the fact is I wish is didnt exist at all but know a all or nothing attitude wont acheive it.

  48. on 10 Sep 2010 at 1:55 amDavid

    I don’t believe in it, not after having my beautiful son. I could not imagine life without him.

  49. on 10 Sep 2010 at 1:58 amRay

    Ex 21:22 looks similar to me with something called manslaughter, which in simple terms could be described as doing something careless or stupid which results in the loss of a life.

    When dealing with a child in the womb, one never knows for sure if it will be born, though today the birth rate is quite high in places where there are so many hospitals and modern facilities.

    I can suppose a man might think it to be a bit unfair if he is punished for murder if he caused a pregnancy to be aborted since there is always the possibility that the child might not have made it to birth anyway.

    One thing the law teaches is just weights and such. By it we learn to know the difference between one thing and another and this is beneficial.

  50. on 10 Sep 2010 at 5:52 pmJoseph

    Robert,

    The question is are you willing to compromise or are you going to demand all or nothing. there is no way the compromise mentioned sofar in this discussions could in anyway every increase abortions,the whole discussion is about what we can do to reduce which is something that has to happen first before we could ever bring it to extinction.

    This isn’t the question at all. You are trying to turn this into a all or nothing result as if my decision against aborting babies would be the responsibility behind it… ?!? You would first have to prove that compromise would reduce the amount of abortions, which is contradictory to begin with. Because, compromise only allows more abortions based upon your ideology that babies will still continued to be killed. It also goes against the commandments from God to love your neighbor and not murder. When someone kills a life/is killing lives, I’m suppose to be against that behavior and never compromise with sin at any level. It is not compromising and standing on high moral ground that will send a signal to others that abortion is plain wrong. This will reduce the number of abortions, not compromise with killing.

    Would you ever compromise with a hostage taker on the amount of hostages you will allow him to kill if he let’s a few go?

  51. on 10 Sep 2010 at 5:58 pmJoseph

    Ray,

    I can suppose a man might think it to be a bit unfair if he is punished for murder if he caused a pregnancy to be aborted since there is always the possibility that the child might not have made it to birth anyway.

    This is the same as saying that it’s unfair to try a man for murder because the person he killed may of died of a heart attack anyway.

    Where is the faith? I’m I still in a Christian forum?!?

  52. on 10 Sep 2010 at 6:52 pmrobert

    Joseph
    I made the statement that if a woman has an abortion there should be a requirement that her tubes be tied.
    Just how many abortions every year would be reduced from this requirement?
    considering last year 34% of abortions were repeat abortions and there was 43 million last year worldwide it would equate to about 14 million less abortions everyyear.
    Now are you willing to let 14 million abortions happen that wouldnt of because you want all abortion stopped with no compromise.
    I would say 95% of the general public would vote yes on making this a law but the all or nothing attitude prevents this from happening.
    If you feel that life begins before birth than if you wont compromise than the 14 million abortions that could of been prevented are part of your doings too.
    So dont tell me nothing is acheived by compromise

  53. on 10 Sep 2010 at 7:10 pmDoubting Thomas

    Joseph
    You said, “You would first have to prove that compromise would reduce the number of abortions, which is contradictory to begin with.”

    I am not familiar with the unique situation, regarding laws and such, that a person experiences living in Israel. I just know that I am embarrassed that I live in one of the few countries in the world that has no laws whatsoever concerning abortion. I have explained in my messages above why this situation has been going on for the last 30 years or so up here in Canada.

    The way I see it any law that restricts abortions is better than having no law at all. If the radical Pro-Lifers in my country would agree to compromise and allow abortions in certain extenuating circumstances then maybe a law could finally be passed. Right now it’s a free for all where anything goes, as long as you can find a doctor that’s willing to do it.

    By insisting that no abortions be performed at all, under any circumstances, these people (in my country anywaze) are just ensuring that the status quo will continue on and on. Several months ago I watched a show where the lady being interviewed didn’t feel the least bit guilty that she had undergone 5 abortions. She said it was her legal right to have as many abortions as she wanted to.

    Technically she is right, since we have no laws restricting or limiting abortions in my country. I can only speak for myself but I am sure that if my country passed a law that only allowed abortions under certain (well defined) extenuating circumstances, then the number of abortions would drop dramatically. Right now we have a whole generation growing up thinking that it is their legal right to have an abortion anytime, anyplace, and as often as they want.

    You also said, “Am I still in a Christian forum?!?”

    I don’t think that is fair considering everyone on this site wants to reduce the number of abortions being performed. We just don’t agree on the what is the best way to achieve this…

  54. on 10 Sep 2010 at 10:36 pmRay

    Joseph, in regards to your perspective in #51, how is it then that the punishment for a man who hurts a woman with child so that her fruit depart from her (see Exodus 21:22) is of a different punishment than murder?

    Wasn’t the murderer stoned?

    What do you account as the difference?

    Do you believe intentional abortion should be treated with the same punishment as murder?

    In #49 I was speaking within the context of Exodus 21:22. You do take note of scripture references, do you not?

  55. on 10 Sep 2010 at 10:44 pmRay

    Joseph, does a developing baby in a womb have the same expectancy of surviving the next 9 months as much as those that have already been born and are living? I don’t know what statistics would tell about this, but I considered that a baby in the womb might have less of a chance of living the next nine months than most living men.

    Therefore it seems to me that I ought not to agree with the logic set forth in # 51. Or am I wrong in this? If so please explain your reasons.

  56. on 11 Sep 2010 at 11:07 amMark C.

    Joseph,

    Would you agree that intentionally killing a life against it’s own will is murder?

    The key term there is “a life” since, as has been pointed out, there is no consensus as to when a new life becomes separate from the mother.

    Do you suppose that Jesus would have aborted a baby?…

    No. But then, do you suppose he would have picketed an abortion clinic if they existed?

    Again, common sense, some just don’t have it, but that doesn’t mean one must compromise with their ignorance.

    You seem to have missed the point of the article and video. The “common sense” referred to is not about whether abortion is wrong, but about what can be done to eliminate the need for them. Taking the stance that those who hold different opinions are “ignorant” is counter-productive.

    This was also part of my point that the reason nothing ever gets compromised between the both sides… If one agrees with abortion, or aborts a baby, then where is the moral ground in which to base the discussion on? It’s like I said, how do you compromise with someone that has already killed a living being?

    Again, it’s not about whether one agrees with abortion, nor is it about what laws should be in place. Arguing about when life begins and whether abortion is murder is fruitless. The point is, whether it’s murder or some “lesser sin,” we can all agree that abortion is something that we’d like to see eliminated. And the solution is to address the underlying problems, of which abortion is one symptom. As Jesus taught, it’s the heart and motivation that are key to changing behavior.

  57. on 16 Sep 2010 at 2:39 pmMargaret Collier

    I have just read through this thread – for the second time. I found it both illuminating and gut-wrenching. I am a woman (like Angela), but not a mother. I am an 81 year old spinster. (No; I’m not whining. My life has been full and satisfying. It just hasn’t included marriage, pregnancy, or abortions.)

    Angela has already pointed out that most women who have abortions suffer from feelings of guilt. It’s bad. I think we all agree on that.

    At the same time, I agree with Thomas that there are situations (e.g. rape, incest, etc.) where abortion may seem like the only way out – particularly to someone who does not know the God of the universe. And Mark’s arguments regarding the scriptures are both impressive and reasonable.

    I also appreciate Jaco’s distinction between condoning what Scripture condemns, and showing compassion to those who need healing and salvation.

    So – is there any way that we can work together to reduce the number of abortions, without compromising our own convictions?

    Angela has already mentioned COUNSELLING. That is an individual thing, and I’m glad she’s doing it. Young girls who are pregnant and don’t know what to do can be given some options – like putting their child up for adoption. Angela will know more about the options than I do. And maybe there are some organizations that are available for this.

    The video mentioned EDUCATION.

    I’m not sure that compulsory sex education has much merit, but maybe there is room for something approaching common sense here. If all those interested in reducing abortions were willing to compare possible strategies for educating young people (without condoning premarital sex) maybe some good could be done. And maybe not.

    Perhaps a law requiring tubal ligation in the case of someone who is having a second abortion MIGHT be useful, but there are always ways to get around laws.

    All in all, it’s a depressing situation. But thank you all for the opportunity to read so many different points of view.

  58. on 17 Sep 2010 at 3:41 pmJoseph

    Robert,

    I made the statement that if a woman has an abortion there should be a requirement that her tubes be tied.
    Just how many abortions every year would be reduced from this requirement?

    I would be careful with forcing someone into infertility, the problem isn’t the reproductive organs of the woman, it is her actions and willingness to carry out an abortion. Also, the problem will arise because many young women are coaxed into a abortion from influence of family or friends.

    considering last year 34% of abortions were repeat abortions and there was 43 million last year worldwide it would equate to about 14 million less abortions everyyear.

    And those people will be judged on what they did. But what about the women who has an abortion, and regrets it, and then goes on to have a family? Tying tubes isn’t a solution. This is what I was talking about having faith in God and fighting abortion through example and prayer, not by mutilating someones reproductive system.

    Now are you willing to let 14 million abortions happen that wouldnt of because you want all abortion stopped with no compromise.

    I’m not letting anything happen. What makes you think that Women wouldn’t now have more abortions so that they can get their tubes tied for free in the process? You are accusing my position based upon your assumptions, not a good way to debate an issue.

    Rather, I’m always against abortion no matter what kind, because I understand the gift of life that we receive from God. The life that we receive should always be put above our own. That is why earlier I asked the question if anyone with children in this forum would give their life for their 1 year old child. And then what makes it any different if the child is only a few months in the womb? It’s still the same child, right?

    If you feel that life begins before birth than if you wont compromise than the 14 million abortions that could of been prevented are part of your doings too.
    So dont tell me nothing is acheived by compromise

    So let me get your logic straight here? You say that it is my fault that SOMEONE ELSE kills their baby because I’M AGAINST that behavior?? I think you need to re-read your comment again.

    I don’t blame you for trying to switch your position. Before you said that you would be for a Mother’s decision to kill her baby if there was a chance that she would be in danger from the pregnancy. Now you are switching your point of compromise to tying the tubes of those who get abortions. So does that mean the Mother with a complicated pregnancy should have her tubes tied also? I can see right through the double talk.

  59. on 17 Sep 2010 at 4:25 pmJoseph

    Ray,

    Joseph, in regards to your perspective in #51, how is it then that the punishment for a man who hurts a woman with child so that her fruit depart from her (see Exodus 21:22) is of a different punishment than murder?

    Wasn’t the murderer stoned?

    What do you account as the difference?

    Do you believe intentional abortion should be treated with the same punishment as murder?

    Well, you aren’t understanding the Hebrew. The Hebrew root used in this passage for “depart” or “miscarriage” however you want to put it, is “yatsa – יצא” which literally means, “going out.” This has nothing to do with defining a death of a child. That is purely assumption.

    In fact, what this passage is talking about is a premature birth of the child, not a still birth, as is clearly read in Numbers 12:12.

    Let me put it this way. If you are driving in Israel today and you are in a parking spot waiting on your wife/husband to get out of the Market and someone comes up to your car and says, “attah yotse? (masc. sing. from – yatsa)” They are asking you if you are going out from your parking spot. Now, this doesn’t imply that you will die in a car wreck while pulling out of that parking space anymore than the Hebrew implying that the baby died while “going out” of the Mother in Exodus 21:22. It is a premature birth, and a fine for a premature birth makes sense in that a premature baby requires more care. If the child or the Mother were to die then the text clearly states the death penalty, “life for a life.”

    No confusion, just reading the text like it says. 🙂

  60. on 17 Sep 2010 at 4:32 pmJoseph

    Ray,

    Joseph, does a developing baby in a womb have the same expectancy of surviving the next 9 months as much as those that have already been born and are living? I don’t know what statistics would tell about this, but I considered that a baby in the womb might have less of a chance of living the next nine months than most living men.

    Therefore it seems to me that I ought not to agree with the logic set forth in # 51. Or am I wrong in this? If so please explain your reasons.

    I’m glad you asked this, now let me answer you with a question. Is the life of a child in the Mother’s womb of less value than a child that has been out of the womb?

    Once you have time to reflect upon this question, then you will understand the value of the chance at life.

  61. on 17 Sep 2010 at 5:15 pmJoseph

    Mark,

    The key term there is “a life” since, as has been pointed out, there is no consensus as to when a new life becomes separate from the mother.

    You are proving my point. If one doesn’t understand the value of life then where is the ground to compromise on? How does one compromise with someone who doesn’t understand what they should be compromising about?

    No. But then, do you suppose he would have picketed an abortion clinic if they existed?

    He would have clearly been against abortion clinics. And if picketing means going against those who are in that position in a public setting, then yes, he would have picketed. Just like he picketed the adulteress by pointed out her faults, forgave her, and told her to go and SIN NO MORE. And as he picketed the money changers desecrating the temple grounds.

    You seem to have missed the point of the article and video. The “common sense” referred to is not about whether abortion is wrong, but about what can be done to eliminate the need for them. Taking the stance that those who hold different opinions are “ignorant” is counter-productive.

    I got that. I meant ignorant as in my first point above (not understanding the value of life). I was simply expanding upon the “common sense” involved in thinking that common sense is related to the form of compromise you are suggesting. I don’t agree that the Bible teaches the type of “common sense compromise” in relation to abortion… for us to fall in line to compromise with the act of sin.

    As I said, the righteous way to compromise is to lead by example, and to always be on the right side of the line to clearly define your position in relation to the deed.

    Again, it’s not about whether one agrees with abortion, nor is it about what laws should be in place. Arguing about when life begins and whether abortion is murder is fruitless. The point is, whether it’s murder or some “lesser sin,” we can all agree that abortion is something that we’d like to see eliminated. And the solution is to address the underlying problems, of which abortion is one symptom. As Jesus taught, it’s the heart and motivation that are key to changing behavior.

    That logic is a ignoring the elephant in the room. First both parties must understand the value of life. Only once we are on that same page will compromise be fruitful. The issue that will arise and always arises is the side that doesn’t value life will not know what to compromise about. It’s like tying to speak to a homosexual about the sin of homosexuality who believes they were born genetically gay.

    We can’t force one to change their heart. The best way to help one achieve that is through prayer, and example, by showing that you take a position of unwavering righteousness, as Yeshua did. Change is turning completely away from sin.

    So instead of trying to lead a position with the title of compromise, it would be better to lead under the title of righteousness.

  62. on 17 Sep 2010 at 5:45 pmrobert

    “I would be careful with forcing someone into infertility”

    Joseph
    Tubal ligations are reverseable if they want to have children later.

    I don’t blame you for trying to switch your position.

    Joseph
    I havent changed my position in the least bit, I am against abortion when using it for birth control. I am not sure if i support it in rape or incest. But the life of the mother is defined completely as life where the life of an unborn child is uncertain when it begins because they havent received the breath of life at their birth. there is no clarity on this in the bible to allow the life of the mother to be lost.

    “So let me get your logic straight here? You say that it is my fault that SOMEONE ELSE kills their baby because I’M AGAINST that behavior??”

    Joseph
    No I am saying that if you are one of those standing in the way of a compromise that could reduce abortions by 14 million every year than the blood is on your hands as well.

  63. on 17 Sep 2010 at 11:38 pmMark C.

    Joseph,

    First of all, Jesus didn’t “picket” the adulteress or the money changers.  He addressed them as individuals in light of their specific situations. He didn’t come to start social programs or political activism.

    You are proving my point. If one doesn’t understand the value of life then where is the ground to compromise on? How does one compromise with someone who doesn’t understand what they should be compromising about?

    You in fact prove MY point by what you say. You are basing your whole argument on the assumption that people get abortions because they don’t understand the value of life. And you continue to repeat the word “compromise” which is not what I am talking about. Most people are in agreement that abortion is bad, so rather than argue about HOW bad, we need to work together to address the root causes of the problem.

  64. on 18 Sep 2010 at 8:11 amFiona

    Hi all
    I’m a bit late to enter this debate, but something struck me as the most important of all- high moral standards! If all humanity kept to God’s commands to abstain from sex outside of marriage, this would already decrease the abortion rate substantially. Not that all abortions are performed on unmarried persons (and with our very decayed moral state, even that has little influence). In the Age to come, when love abounds, and procreation and marriage will be an honour, not a burden( OK I’m speculating here, but I pray it will be so), there will be no mention of the murder of His creation.
    Fiona

  65. on 18 Sep 2010 at 9:08 amrobert

    Mark
    Please despam post 61 for me, it seems to be stuck

  66. on 20 Sep 2010 at 7:43 pmJoseph

    Mark,

    First of all, Jesus didn’t “picket” the adulteress or the money changers. He addressed them as individuals in light of their specific situations. He didn’t come to start social programs or political activism.

    I disagree, you think that Jesus addressed the moneychangers with a whisper. No, of course not. He was out on the front lines and called it out like it was. This is in a sense, a sort of picketing/protesting in his day. I’m not talking politically, you misunderstood me on that.

    You in fact prove MY point by what you say. You are basing your whole argument on the assumption that people get abortions because they don’t understand the value of life. And you continue to repeat the word “compromise” which is not what I am talking about. Most people are in agreement that abortion is bad, so rather than argue about HOW bad, we need to work together to address the root causes of the problem.

    Right, which is why I’m stating the obvious in which your logic is flawed. That is why I keep bringing up the word “compromise” because that is in fact what it is. You can wrap it up under the guise of “work together”, but in fact, if you are working together with a abortion clinic on how many babies it is ok to kill, well, that’s your compromise.

    It’s like this, would you “work together” with a hostage taker on how many hostages you will allow him to kill is he let’s a few go? No, that’s not a negotiable matter, because one hostage is of no lesser value than the other. And how do you decide on which ones would die? If the hostage taker kills all the hostages then God will judge him. Just as abortion should never be negotiable. You do agree that those involved in the Abortions are murderers/killers, right?

    We should never jeopardize our righteousness by working with the devil, because all that will do is weaken our faith, and in my opinion, displease God.

    Fiona,

    If all humanity kept to God’s commands to abstain from sex outside of marriage, this would already decrease the abortion rate substantially.

    This is what I’ve been talking about! Combating abortion with righteousness, along the terms that are written in our Bible. We are to be a light unto the world and the salt of the earth.

  67. on 25 Sep 2010 at 9:30 pmSilke

    Thinking about what God might have said – atleast indirectly – about when life starts, I was reminded of Lk 1:

    41 And it came to pass, that, when Elisabeth heard the salutation of Mary, the babe leaped in her womb; and Elisabeth was filled with the Holy Ghost:
    42 And she spake out with a loud voice, and said, Blessed art thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb.
    43 And whence is this to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?
    44 For, lo, as soon as the voice of thy salutation sounded in mine ears, the babe leaped in my womb for joy.

    Can a unborn baby – supposedly having no life – rejoyce because he hears the mother of his lord? Can anything but a living being hear at all? More over, natural hearing would not have been enough – God’s spirit was necessary to make the baby realize who was coming.

    Would you say that it took another 3 months for John to become alive?

  68. on 25 Sep 2010 at 11:26 pmrobert

    Silke
    Not very likely a newborn can even leap so this is just probably metaphoric.
    If Elisabeth was to die that very moment could of John substained life without her? NO
    Even with todays technology this is doubtful!
    Life is giving by God at your first breath!!!
    But John was spoken of differently than any other because he was filled with the Holy Ghost from conception.The things that the Holy spirit can do to human is way beyond normal.

  69. on 26 Sep 2010 at 2:00 amMark C.

    You can wrap it up under the guise of “work together”, but in fact, if you are working together with a abortion clinic on how many babies it is ok to kill, well, that’s your compromise.

    I never said anything about working together with an abortion clinic, nor did I say it was “OK to kill babies.” The fact that you got that out of what I said is a perfect example of how we need to change the way we look at the problem. As the video said, abortion is a symptom of many societal problems, which would need to be addressed to really make a difference in this society.

    You speak of “combating abortion with righteousness.” What would that consist of? Protests and demonstrations to prove how bad abortion is? That would just be “preaching to the choir.” To really change anything, we must reach people’s hearts, and address the root causes of the problem.

  70. on 26 Sep 2010 at 5:26 amsilke

    Robert

    Not very likely a newborn can even leap so this is just probably metaphoric.

    Certainly, an unborn child does not leap by pushing its feet from the ground. Yet, it is obvious that at this age it can and does make different kinds of movements that the mother can feel. This, something real, Elisabeth felt and the holy spirit explained to here why the child had done that.

    If Elisabeth was to die that very moment could of John substained life without her?

    Could he 5 days after his birth have survived without his mother? No! The only chance would have been that somebody else would have given him, what his mother used to give him. That is the same with an unborn child – its is just more complicated.

    Life is giving by God at your first breath!!!

    Is there any clear statement in the bible about that?
    Maybe, you are refering to “breath of life” or “breath” as an indicator of someone being alive. But what is meant by that? What is the crucial thing here?
    Is it about something spiritual? Than it does not depend on the activity of the lungs.
    Is it about taking in oxygen? That, the unborn child does as well.
    Is it about taking in oxygen through the nose into the lungs? That cannot be true, because fish are considered living beings or living souls (Gen. 1,20-22), although they neither have nose nor lungs.

    I do not pretend to have a definite answer from scripture by now. But your statement with 3 exclamation marks suggests a clearness for which I have found no support yet.

  71. on 26 Sep 2010 at 8:32 amDoubting Thomas

    Silke,
    I actually agree with you that life probably starts before the point where the baby takes it’s first breath, but I think you and Robert are wondering off topic, talking about when life begins. I think the point of Marc’s article is to get us to think about what is the best way for us to reduce the number of abortions being performed.

    My own unique opinion, based on the fact that I live in one of the few countries in the world with no abortion laws, is that ANY law even if it’s not perfect, is better than having no laws whatsoever. Marc’s opinion is that is that to really change anything, we must reach people’s hearts, and address the root causes of the problem. Joseph’s opinion is that we need to be combating abortion with righteousness and not allow any abortions whatsoever, even if the Mother’s life is in danger.

    I agree with Marc’s position and disagree with Joseph’s, since in my opinion, it is impossible/unreasonable to expect to get a majority of people to agree to such an extreme position as Joseph’s. I am just curious, as one of the few woman that have posted on this thread, what do you think is the best course for us to take, in order to reduce the number of abortions being performed???

  72. on 26 Sep 2010 at 9:44 amRay

    I’ve heard from people that have talked to doctors on the matter of a mother’s life being in danger so as to perform an abortion to save it, and they say that it never happens.

    That seems to me to make sense. Don’t women usually simply abort naturaly if there is some kind of problem that threatens her life, or die giving birth to a live baby?

    I don’t know much about this but that does seem to make sense.

    I think education is key to helping people change their minds. Some centers that help pregnant women will show them ultra-sound pictures of their baby and the percentage of those that abort after seeing those pictures on a screen are very low.

    So I suppose we could ask, What happened? What changed their mind? What was of key importance?

    I think it was that they saw that there was a baby in their womb.

    If you simply asked a person, Is it right to kill a baby? Most people would be inclined to say simply NO, and then begin to think of possible reasons as to why someone would do such a thing. How could one justify doing a thing like that? Isn’t that how we begin to think and isn’t that what helps us make decisions?

    And for those who are not sure what it is, shouldn’t we say, “If you don’t know for sure, you surely would not want to go ahead with such a thing would you? What if a new life really has begun?”

    Some are working on a Life At Conception Act and I think it’s one of the best things they could be doing to change the law. How can a nation justify over 50 million abortions?

    The Roe v. Wade decision was made by judges that determined they did not have to decide when life begins to make their decision.

    I think they made a big mistake.

  73. on 26 Sep 2010 at 12:20 pmrobert

    “Could he 5 days after his birth have survived without his mother? No! ”

    Silke
    Yes and it happened all through out history the most noted is the birth of Benjamin in which Rachel died.
    But Thomas is right that this isnt even the subject of this discussion , Making an effort to reduce it is whats got to happen before it can be stopped as a use of birth control which makes up 99.99% of abortions. If they dont want to be a parent they shouldnt be able to conceive so having their tubes tied would solve that and if they had a change of heart(started following their heart) they could have the tubal reversed.
    This is a instant reduction of 14 million abortions every year at the present rate and would probably deter many from even having an abortion to start with.
    We have to get off this all or nothing attitude if we are going to accomplish anything.

  74. on 02 Oct 2010 at 6:07 pmSilke

    Thomas,
    you asked

    what do you think is the best course for us to take, in order to reduce the number of abortions being performed???

    To answer this question poperly I need to find out, when life begins! Only after that is clear to me, I have a valid basis to even try to do something against abortions.

    If life would begin only at birth, abortion would not be killing someone. Nobody can kill someone who is not alive! In that case, on what basis would I speak up against abortion or try to influence people in that direction?

    One might say: but the unborn child would have had the chance to live later on, and for the sake of that chance, abortion is wrong. But, would that same point – although to a lesser degree – not be true for any kind of birth control?

    So my answer to you, Thomas and Robert, is: As believers we should first find out, how God sees it, than pray and listen for individual direction, than try to influence people in our surrounding and than, if God calls us to do so, get involved in public actions.

    As far as I know, Jesus and his disciples talked very little, if at all, about things that went wrong in society. We are called to pray for the governments and let our light shine, but more I can’t find in the New Testament – at least not as general calling. And we all know, the Old Testament is about a theocracy and a people that made up a political and a spiritual community at the same time. So, we cannot draw from there a general commission to get involved politically.

  75. on 02 Oct 2010 at 6:29 pmrobert

    “So my answer to you, Thomas and Robert, is: As believers we should first find out, how God sees it, than pray and listen for individual direction, than try to influence people in our surrounding and than, if God calls us to do so, get involved in public actions. ”

    Silke
    I really dont care when life begins as pertained to abortion but do feel that to take a potential life is unmoral and against my very being.
    I believe God unlocks answers to people who seek it and these answers are within all of us of this earth.
    We must work together to reduce if we are to ever think about bringing it to a stop

  76. on 02 Oct 2010 at 9:23 pmMark C.

    Silke,

    The problem is, we’ll never get people to agree when life begins, even among religious people. There is no explicit, unequivocal statement about it in the Bible, and people disagree about interpretation on this subject as much as any other.

    But even if life only began at birth, abortion would still not be a good thing. Even if it wasn’t specifically murder, it would still be destroying a potential life, as Robert pointed out. You are correct that the same could be said for other forms of birth control, which is why there is no simple answer that people will agree on. And that is why we need to change the very way we look at the issue.

    You are correct, the NT says nothing about political involvement or trying to solve the problems of society, since the coming Kingdom will ultimately set right all that is wrong with our society. Until then the best way to reduce the number of abortions is the same as the best way to reduce the number of murders, assaults, robberies, corruption, abuse, etc. That is to address the root causes of these problems to the best of our ability, while preaching the gospel, which is the only thing that will change the hearts of people.

    Will this make a significant change in this society before the return of Christ? Only God knows. But trying to get everyone to agree about abortion or when life begins is certainly not a realistic goal.

  77. on 02 Oct 2010 at 9:54 pmDoubting Thomas

    Silke,
    I agree that the bible doesn’t say anything about us becoming politically active. As a matter of fact, it says we should avoid worldly things and concentrate on heavenly things. I just know that I don’t like the situation we have up here in Canada, where because of the political deadlock between pro-choicers and pro-lifers, we have the most unusual position of having no laws on abortion whatsoever.

    My best friend Tim is a lot like Joseph, in that he believes there should be no abortions at all under any circumstances, even if the mother’s life is in danger. Sure it’s nice to say that it would be a great world if there were no abortions at all, whatsoever. I think everybody would agree with that, even the pro-choicers.

    But, as the You Tube video and Mark C. pointed out, we don’t live in a perfect world. What’s the point of my friend Tim and all these other pro-lifers in Canada ranting and raving about how if anybody disagrees with them they are murderers??? Deep down inside they know they will never get the majority of people to agree to ban all abortions under any circumstances, even if the mother’s life is in danger.

    From my point of view they are just invoking divisiveness and hatred in the name of religion. Which from what I understand is the exact opposite of what a Christian should be doing. We should not be looking for impossible/impractical ideals, but should be looking for what is best for the greater good. Everybody should agree that the greater good is to do what ever we can to reduce the number of abortions that are occurring every day around us.

    But, alas no. Instead they would rather spend all their time and energy fighting for a an ideal that they know will never be accepted by the majority. I guess instead of actually doing something good (reducing the number of unnecessary abortions), it is better to just talk about doing something good (the impossible feat of eliminating all abortions).

    From my point of view, living in a country with no abortion laws, it is better to have any law (even if it’s not perfect) that restricts abortions, than to have no laws at all. I am not familiar with the laws in the states and other places, I just know how I feel about this subject…

  78. on 02 Oct 2010 at 11:07 pmMark C.

    From my point of view they are just invoking divisiveness and hatred in the name of religion. Which from what I understand is the exact opposite of what a Christian should be doing.

    EXACTLY!

  79. on 10 Jun 2012 at 6:08 pmSheryl Kauspedas

    I’m coming in very late to this discussion but I thought it might be of interest to hear from a woman who has had an abortion, had 2 miscarriages and had five living children. With any woman this is an emotional issue. As to when life begins…consider when Jesus’ life began.

    My mother had two abortions and feels no regret. I had an abortion in 1976 before I had a positive pregnancy test (I was told after the procedure that I had been pregnant.) I realize I could probably blame the clinic for not giving me a clear choice, but at the end of it all, I was at the clinic to have my period started knowing that it would eliminate a possible pregnancy. My guilt has been enormous (thank God I’ve been forgiven.) I cannot watch the video and only add my comment to this thread with great pain.

    It has been mentioned that EDUCATION is the key to reducing the amount of abortions. I agree. But how can you educate a public when you can’t even agree at which point life begins? Is this procedure removing a cyst, or ending the life of a human being? If left on its own a cyst would not grow into a sentient being. I did not feel remorse and shame when I had a breast tumor removed. By the way, no man is an island. None of us lives completely independent lives so the argument that life begins when independent of its mother’s womb is missing the point.

    I have no doubt at all that abortion is ending a life… and ending a life is typically called murder or killing. God tells us simply not to kill. I fully understand the agony an unplanned pregnancy is to a woman…which is why it’s not the issue of abortion at the real heart of the matter…but sexual sin which gets us there in the first place.

    We are called, after professing belief in Jesus’ resurrection, to prepare ourselves for eternal life in the coming Kingdom. I don’t think a member of the Kingdom community would condone abortion. As a potential member, I cannot condone it either. Especially knowing firsthand the effects of such a decision.

  80. on 10 Jun 2012 at 8:02 pmtimothy

    Dr. Ali,

    Perhaps, You, now being a Medical Doctor would give your view about when life begins.

    Timothy

  81. on 10 Jun 2012 at 9:05 pmSarah

    Sheryl,

    What a powerful testimony. Thank you for sharing some of your story here, and I couldn’t agree more with your comments. May the Lord continue the healing process in your spirit and use your testimony in the lives of others for the sake of his kingdom.

  

Leave a Reply