I just posted this thought on another thread, but I thought it might be appropriate to open a new one on this topic.
If you are a Christian and you believe in the concept of a soul and an afterlife, how can you support abortion? How do you know when the soul comes into being?
Let me make it clear that I have no religious affiliation. But I was raised Christian, and understand the concepts pretty well. If I believed in a soul, I would not be able to support abortion. But clearly there are many Christians out there who do support abortion. How is this rationalized?
On a secondary note, if you only support abortion in the case of rape or incest, how is this rationalized from the standpoint of the baby? If the fetus has a soul and you use that to justify a ban on elective abortion, why is it then OK to terminate the soul of a fetus just because it came into being due to rape?
The same way they could support the death penalty. If a Christian doesn’t support abortion then they should also be against the death penalty right? Same logic in both cases.
For what it’s worth, “spirit” and “breath” are the same word in the New Testament: [symbol]pneuma[/symbol]. It is not inconsistent for a Christian to believe that a human life begins with the first breath.
This is assuming that, not having the chance to accept Jesus Christ as it’s personal savior, the soul of the embryo or fetus goes straight to hell at the moment of abortion, right?
Point of clarification: are you explicitly referring to breath outside the womb? Contextually, I would assume so, but my understanding is that feal children do breathe, but through a differnent mechanism (I forget if it’s through the umbilical cord or some other form.)
And in the OT, too, IIRC, Lib – I believe the word is nephesh (and I’ll wait for Zev or Izzy’s correction if I’m in error in this).
John, it would not be inconsistent to believe, as I do, that whatever may be how God views that developing life in the womb, the decision on whether to devote one’s body to carrying it to term is an individual moral one, to be made by the woman whose body it is, and not mandated on her by law. YMMV, of course, but I hope you can grasp the internal consistency of that position.
Christians are like anyone else, and can draw conclusions for themselves from personal experinces.
Why? Are you saying that abortion is the Death Penalty? That we have judged and condemned aborted babies to die based upon their actions? I am against abortions as the Supreme Courts allows it, and support the death penalty as the SC allows it. I find it odd how you can systematically compare the two.
I can’t say all Christians, but I know some believe that God does not judge or condemn children. Innocence and all that.
If various groups of Christians can justify refusing their children blood transfusions or reaching into a box of venomous snakes, supporting abortion isn’t that wild of an idea. Let alone when one is reading a Bible full of the murders of millions of fully grown children and adults. There are plenty of Christians who support abortion, i.e. this guy: http://www.elroy.net/ehr/abortion.html
As he points out, many Christians adorn their protest signs with verses like “Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee (Jeremiah 1:4)” taken out of context. God is speaking to Jeremiah, specifically.
Then there’s that whole bit in Exodus 21 about how, if someone causes a woman to miscarry, it’s a civil, not criminal, matter. (the NIV version translates
the Hebrew “lose her offspring” into “gives birth prematurely.” But this was at a time when premature birth basically equalled death).
For a list of Christian groups that “agree that the bible does not condemn abortion and that abortion should continue to be legal,” including the YWCA, Catholics for Free Choice, and Quakers, go here:
Then there’s the incident in Numbers 5"11-31 where a woman is given “bitter water” to see if she’s been unfaithful: “27_When he has made her drink the water, then it shall be, if she has defiled herself and behaved unfaithfully toward her husband, that the water that brings a curse will enter her and become bitter, and her belly will swell, her thigh will rot” which some have interpreted to mean a forced miscarriage aka abortion
I know a billion Christians could quote scripture to oppose these, but I’m just giving one viewpoint. Like I said, interpretation is everything.
—It is not inconsistent for a Christian to believe that a human life begins with the first breath.—
And in the OT, there’s Adam’s body (fully formed) not being anything until God breathes his spirit in through his nostril.
There’s also millenia of non-Biblical Christian thought that the spirit enters during either “quickening” (though this moment has no biological significance, there’s no reason why it couldn’t be of spiritual significance) or birth. No one before the 19th century even knew that there was such things as an egg, sperm, zygotes. All they knew was that at some point after sex, a baby would start forming inside the mother. At some point, it began to move. Now, abortions have been performed throughout history, without much complaint if they took place before quickening. Had they truly been travesty, why wouldn’t God have informed people who sincerely prayed over the issue that it had been going on? If it’s wrong, and really constitutes a horrendous crime of ongoing mass murder, why is it not mentioned either in the Bible or by God to anyone prior to the 19th century (when our views about reproduction radically changed due to scientific findings)? God certainly found time to mention lesser crimes and purity offenses, like mensturating on someone, or men having long hair, etc.
The main OT passage seeming suggesting against abortion is when God tells someone (can’t remember which) that he knew them in womb. Of course, God doesn’t say WHEN in womb (could have meant after quickening), and more importantly, God says in the same book that he knew you BEFORE that as well, before you were even concieved.
—Contextually, I would assume so, but my understanding is that feal children do breathe, but through a differnent mechanism—
Obviously, they get oxygen through their umbilical blood. But to equate this to “breathing” is a stretch, and certainly no Biblical writer would have known anything about this sort of “breathing,” or meant it.
I certainly can’t speak for Christians who consider themselves to be “pro-choice” (as I assume that’s what you’re really talking about when you say ‘support abortion’). However, I do consider myself a Christian and I have a slightly different take on the abortion issue from what I see most people having.
As a Christian I personally am pro-life. I personally am against abortion. (and the death penalty, fwiw) However, I also support Roe v. Wade. How? Well, I have my own personal moral beliefs, but I don’t think I have the right to call for those beliefs to be imposed on others through law, be it legislation or the Supreme Court. So I don’t “support” abortion, but I also don’t think it’s my place to require anyone else to subscribe to my morality. I think I can be active in groups that educate or counsel about the effects of abortion, about what my beliefs of the bible and its take on abortion are, etc. as a means to reducing the number of abortions, rather than outlawing them and feeling all good that I’ve succeeded in imposing morality as a matter of law.
I think the real key is that everyone has their own take on what it means to be a Christian. As such, I don’t think it’s all that inconsistent or impossible to be “Christian” but to also be pro-choice, pro-life, or whatever. For a lot of Christians the whole basis of the faith system is faith in Jesus and that belief and faith in Him leads to salvation, without the requirement of following every letter of the Old Testament law to the “t”. A person who believes that as the basis of their Christianity might well be pro-choice.
Dunno if that helps or spurs on more debate, but …
Would a moderator be so kind as to emend this to “fetal” in Apos’s post? I reread this several times thinking that it was a typo for “real” and wondering what he was trying to say, before I realized it was a typo for “fetal.”
Concerning the death penalty, I will agree that it is pretty damn close to abortion, but at least there you can say the dondemned person is guilty of something (eye for an eye, etc.). However, I would agree that if I accepted the Christian faith, I would not be able to support the death penalty.
As for saying “I wouldn’t have an abortion because I think it’s wrong, but it’s OK for someone else”. That really puzzles me. If you really think the fetus has a soul, how can it be OK to let someone else kill it? (I wouldn’t murder someone, but far be it from me to impose my morals on someone else.)
The “breath = soul” argument is very interesting-- never heard of it before. Still, is a Christian really ABSOLUTELY sure that they are reading the orignal words correctly. After all, we’re not talking about something like when the sabath begins, but whether it’s OK to take a life.
Abortion restrictions are legal matters. While I am not nearly so trusting of government as are the many supporters of abortion control laws, I understand their desire to have all decisions made by civil authorities elected or appointed by the government.
I don’t share that view.
I don’t support abortion.
I might well be moved to support a woman who has decided to make that choice. I don’t want that choice to be made by lawyers, and judges, and politicians. They have not shown me the sensitivity and compassion I think a woman in this time of decision would need. Who that woman might choose to support her is her decision, in my view.
There is not enough concern for fetal rights in our nation to insist that prenatal diet and medical care be mandated as a right of the unborn. Once the little guy is born, he is free to live miserably in poverty and malnutrition, and no right to life groups will be clamoring for his interests then. Yet there is an overwhelming desire to have government appointed as arbiter over this particular choice for the mother. Forgive me if I doubt that concern for the unborn is the motivation. It is concern for enforced conformity to one view of morality. It is asking the State to enforce one religious point of view.
“Christian” is not specific enough. There are dozens (if not hundreds) of Christian denominations, sects and splinter groups, each with varying beliefs.
I am a Methodist, and I am in favor of safe, legal abortion being available for women. I believe that life begins at birth. I have two kids.
I’m somewhat taking liberties with the term Christian-- I know that. But I’m really just focusing on that part, which is I think common to all Christian faiths, that there is a soul which outlives the body.
So I ask you-- life begins at birth, but when does the soul come into being?
Anyway, the Bible doesn’t talk about abortion, nor does it give any un-ambiguous information on when a fetus can be considered a separate human life. So we have to thrash it out for ourselves.
I’m pro-choice myself, based in large part on the Exodus 21 passage previously mentioned. And Christian. Pro-death penalty as well. Go figure.
So yes, it is perfectly possible to be both Christian and pro-abortion.
But one could hardly take that section of Exodus and expand it to mean that one can have abortion at will.
The sitauation at hand there is a woman who accidently becomes injured in a fight and loses her child. Exodus comes to tell us that in such a case, the injurer is not subject to the death penalty for murder. However, that is a far cry from stating that one may deliberately induce an abortion at will for any reason.
Polycarp: “it would not be inconsistent to believe, as I do, that whatever may be how God views that developing life in the womb, the decision on whether to devote one’s body to carrying it to term is an individual moral one, to be made by the woman whose body it is, and not mandated on her by law. YMMV, of course, but I hope you can grasp the internal consistency of that position.”
I don’t think I understand. It sounds like you are saying God has some idea of what His law should be, but we’re free to go our own way. Are you saying that God may very well give the fetus a soul, and yet it’s OK for us to kill it?
I know that religion is rife with logical inconsistancies, but again, when life and death decision are at stake, seems like erring on the safe side would be the way to go. Other than the “breath = life = soul” argument, I haven’t seen anything yet that addresses the issue. And even that argument is pretty darn legalistic. I wouldn’t want to argue that one whilst standing at the proverbial Pearly Gates…