[Christians ONLY] Can Christians be prochoice?

[sealchan]

So I am a prochoice Christian, and I want to debate Christians about whether I am a contradiction or not. I believe personhood and rights becin when the fetus first has brainwaves.

I see the appeal of wanting to define when a being has some level of consciousness in this context. But I think that what this issue is really about is understanding the rights and responsibilities of having free will and in this case the opportunity of balancing those two aspects of free will satisfactorily is most difficult.

Making and having an informed choice given time to consider and having thorough knowledge of all aspects seems to be of the highest value. Perhaps our standards for public education should include the study of such choices and all of their ramifications rather than simple yes or no answers.

 

[sealchan]

Apparently that one way to translate it. It says specifically not to kill a child just born, however some translators feel it is against aborting a fetus.
Notes From The Didache On The Early Christian View Of Abortion

Contrary to what this article says Pro Choice does not mean believing abortion is good. It means believing it should not be a matter for law enforcement or a criminal act. Many things that are not good should not be made criminal. Too many Christians are too quick to illegalize sin, thinking that making something illegal is always good. The pro choice position is about the law not a vote for abortion.

There is something profoundly self referential in the decision of an individual to abort a pregnancy...making a choice in good conscience in this high stakes context is difficult to not want to legislate, but perhaps it needs substantial study and contemplation through science and the spiritual arts.

 

[sealchan]

Why brainwaves?
Isn't that rather arbitrary?

I avoid the word "personhood" in discussions about abortion. It's just too subjective.

I oppose human beings choosing death for other human beings. That includes everything from environmental degradation to capital punishment to pre-emptive war to elective abortion.

I am, however, extremely pro-choice. I firmly support everybody's right to choose not to engage in behavior that could result in pregnancy, if they don't want to become a parent.
Tom

I think that as a society we should do more to educate our children about all things leading up to and coming out of the advent of a pregnancy. The best time to decide about having an abortion or not is before it comes to that.

 

[Mister Emu]

Apparently that one way to translate it. It says specifically not to kill a child just born

As your link notes, there are two clauses. The second one is a prohibition on infanticide, and the first is against abortion.

Too many Christians are too quick to illegalize sin, thinking that making something illegal is always good. The pro choice position is about the law not a vote for abortion.

I understand the discussion on when to legislate and when to hold back. That is necessary. I just don't see how the need can apply to abortion, because of what abortion is; the conscious decision to end a life.

When and where abortion violates moral law it is murder, and murder must be proscribed. Similarly, if some quality of the child means that its life does not deserve protection, it is such that the action of killing it is not a wrongful act.

Simply put, I don't see how the position of "I think that you are wrongfully killing a human, but I think the law should allow it" is anything but confused.

 

[Brickjectivity]

I understand the discussion on when to legislate and when to hold back. That is necessary. I just don't see how the need can apply to abortion, because of what abortion is; the conscious decision to end a life.

A mother is in a unique position, and there must be a reason that there is no law in the Bible forbidding mothers from ending their child's life. Some things ought not to be coded into human laws as they are outside of the domain of criminal offenses. The only law that touches abortion relegates it to a civil, monetary dispute. That is the one that says eye for eye etc. That is because the mother decides.

When and where abortion violates moral law it is murder, and murder must be proscribed. Similarly, if some quality of the child means that its life does not deserve protection, it is such that the action of killing it is not a wrongful act.

I can't agree with you about it being murder from a Biblical stance, because the Torah specifically classifies it as a civil matter not one involving the avenger of blood. It is also in the Bible in the domain of the parents. Its not considered good, and any form of contraception is disallowed including spilling semen. That does not mean we should criminalize a woman who has an abortion. Its the wrong pill for the disease and makes it worse.

Simply put, I don't see how the position of "I think that you are wrongfully killing a human, but I think the law should allow it" is anything but confused.

I am told this that when it is illegal nothing changes, except that its worse for women. I think this is because not all things ought to be handled with criminalization. Often cities try to criminalize poverty. Poverty is not good after all, so why not criminalize it? If we criminalize abortion we place the law in too high of a position, too close to God. Women have this power over the unborn, not the military or the police. That is the order of things.

 

[Kenny]

"And the Lord did lay forth a line upon the table, and his disciples did raise their spoons on high and partake, one followed by the other, until they were all thoroughly convinced of the truth of the matter, whatever that was." 4 Jn. 1:25

The Gospel of the Windwalker.

 

[Mister Emu]

A mother is in a unique position, and there must be a reason that there is no law in the Bible forbidding mothers from ending their child's life.

There are many potential reasons some action is not singled out for proscription in the Bible. We also don't have the complete teachings of Jesus in the Bible as the books themselves admit several times; I personally don't find a lack of singling out in the canon to be a decisive factor in determining whether an action violates moral law. As an example of situation where you might agree with this principle, I believe a Christian is prohibited from inflicting torture upon someone.

That is beside the point I was making though, not whether abortion is wrong, but about the discussion surrounding what wrongs should be legislated and what should not really doesn't touch on abortion, given its matter.

I can't agree with you about it being murder from a Biblical stance

Again, that is not what I said. I said that when abortion, the conscious and informed decision to terminate the life of your child, is wrong it is murder. Because that is what murder is, the wrongful willful taking of human life.

I am told this that when it is illegal nothing changes, except that its worse for women.

That first part seems against all logic and the numbers I have seen. According to "The Lily", the number of abortions jumped from 13.5 per 100,000 thousand women to 25 after Roe happened. It rather seems like there would a substantial impact on the number of abortive murders if it were made illegal.

To the second, I am a hardliner in this regard and have little concern for making it worse for murderers. Murder is evil, let it be done in the dark, with peril and fear as your companions. That applies to the "doctors" as well.

Women have this power over the unborn

And society has power over individuals. Also the idea that because someone has power over another any decision they make utilizing that power is legitimate is a philosophy I am in no way going to assent to.

 

[dianaiad]

So I am a prochoice Christian, and I want to debate Christians about whether I am a contradiction or not. I believe personhood and rights becin when the fetus first has brainwaves.

I believe that life begins at conception. I do not do so because of my religious belief system, but, believe it or not, because of medical science.

No matter how I try to figure it, the only point at which all the possibilities for being a specific human life narrow down to ONE possibility (or two/three depending upon twinning) is when the sperm enters the ovum, thus cutting off the possibility of any other DNA combination.

From that instant on, there are only two possibilities; either that conceptus becomes (eventually) a specific human adult, or it dies first.

I've never bought into the argument that this conceptus has to reach a specific 'milestone' before it becomes 'human,'...where HERE, it's not and can be killed without having ended a human life, but THERE, a whole microsecond later, it's suddenly human and must be protected to one degree or another.

To me, it's a lethal circular argument: "hurry! if this thing gets to brain waves or 'quickening' or develops pain reactions or whatever, then it is a human and we can't kill it, so let's kill it first!"

But as to whether one can be a Christian and pro-choice? Sure. Being a Christian means two things: one puts the teachings of Jesus Christ at the center of one's religious beliefs, and one claims to be Christian. I'm not going to argue against the Christianity of anyone who 'qualifies' in both areas, even if I think they are dead wrong ABOUT those beliefs.

 

[Kenny]

That's interesting, I was recently wondering if it should be at the brain level. Now I somewhat am pro-choice and if that offends you please don't read the next paragraph.

I think Christians should believe that the Mercy of Christ should apply to those who don't know better, deplorable or not. Why should I legislate what other people should have to believe when it could come back and bite me in the toosh. The Mercy of Christ applies to the innocent. I have met a woman who had no psychological repercussions for doing it and I'm pretty sure she's not Christian.

I'm a Christian and there is mercy for those who don't know better and those who did.

 

[PureX]

I believe that life begins at conception. I do not do so because of my religious belief system, but, believe it or not, because of medical science.

The issue, here, however, is not what you believe. It's whether or not you have the right to force your beliefs on those who disagree with you, when doing so permanently effects them both physically and mentally. No one thinks abortion is a good thing. But many agree that in some instances it may be a necessary thing. While many others do not. So the debate is about who decides, and why they think they have that right.

Being a Christian may well mean that one believes that abortion is wrong. But all that dictates is that they should not have an abortion should they become pregnant. There is nothing about being a Christian that dictates that Christians get to tell everyone else what they should believe or do regarding an unwanted pregnancy. So there is no reason that a Christian could not be pro-choice. Even when their own choice would be not to abort.

 

[ObjectOfMercy]

Christ said, "I have come that they may have life and that they may have it more abundantly." Christ is for life. Only the wicked God-haters love death. Devils seek to murder helpless children. The people of God contend for the truth. God is not the God of the dead, but of the living. Even to ask this question shows the depravity that mankind has inherently, passed down from Adam due to his disobedience and the subsequent curse placed on him and his posterity by God.
But God gives a new heart to those He will, and these children of His, love life, and praise God and defend the helpless. Anything else is depraved and murderous.

 

[shmogie]

So I am a prochoice Christian, and I want to debate Christians about whether I am a contradiction or not. I believe personhood and rights becin when the fetus first has brainwaves.

Unfortunately, scripture contradicts you. God says he knew David as he was conceived, In another place, he told a prophet that he was known to God before he was conceived ( I don´t recall the specific verses, but will get them for you). So, are these special cases, I don´t think so. If God knows us each as a person at or even before conception, killing the person God knows is no different than murdering a 30 year old person whom God also knows.

This isn´t about the principles of physiology, it is about the person that GOD says he knows, and when that person is known to Him.

 

[shmogie]

Unfortunately, when people think they are right, they also think they have the right to tell everyone else what is right. It's a fundamental form of tyranny that we need to guard ourselves against, always. Yet sadly, we have lost our sense of the importance of this, and tyranny is again on the rise in every aspect of our culture, as it always is when we do not consciously guard ourselves against it.

Because tyranny comes from within us, always masquerading as righteousness.

You are correct, my views on the issue from a religious perspective can never be imposed on anyone not willing to freely accept them.

However, I am trained in the law and a student of the Constitution.

Both apply to everyone, whether they like it or not. I cannot make the legal case that a clump of unspecialized cells are a person. However I certainly can make the case that a fully formed baby, with a beating heart and functioning brain is a person.

For now, roe v, wade is the law of the land. A study of it shows that it is a hodge podge of unenumerated rights, and a poorly constructed legal opinion. Even pro abortion legal scholars admit this. There is 150 years of legal precedent before roe that says it is wrong.

Supreme court opinions are reversed, and when the right case is brought, and the constitution as written is the measuring stick, it is likely that abortion after the first trimester will be recognized legally for what it is, the murder of a person.

 

[PureX]

You are correct, my views on the issue from a religious perspective can never be imposed on anyone not willing to freely accept them.

However, I am trained in the law and a student of the Constitution.

Both apply to everyone, whether they like it or not. I cannot make the legal case that a clump of unspecialized cells are a person. However I certainly can make the case that a fully formed baby, with a beating heart and functioning brain is a person.

For now, roe v, wade is the law of the land. A study of it shows that it is a hodge podge of unenumerated rights, and a poorly constructed legal opinion. Even pro abortion legal scholars admit this. There is 150 years of legal precedent before roe that says it is wrong.

Supreme court opinions are reversed, and when the right case is brought, and the constitution as written is the measuring stick, it is likely that abortion after the first trimester will be recognized legally for what it is, the murder of a person.

We should not be imposing laws that we cannot justify to the satisfaction of the majority of the people that those laws are being imposed upon. To do so would be a fundamental expression of tyranny. When you can convince the majority of American citizens that an unborn fetus is the equivalent of an independently functioing human being, and therefor possessing of rights independent of the person from which it originated, then you can justifiably bestow those rights and enforce them. But so far as any life form depends on another for it's existence, you will have a hard time convincing people, logically, that it warrants the same independent rights as the life forms upon which it depends for it's existential being.

This is the reasoning behind the current laws regarding abortion and fetal rights: that by the 22nd-24th weeks of gestation the fetus can survive as it's own independent being, outside the mother's womb. Thus establishing that from this point on it warrants the legal protection afforded to such independent human beings. Significant exceptions remain, however, so long as the fetus/child remains in the mother's womb, and therefor dependent upon her body for it's own survival. Which is why it is possible, under certain circumstances, for a woman to obtain an abortion after the 22-24 week period.

 

[dianaiad]

The issue, here, however, is not what you believe.

Yes it is. Read the OP. It had nothing at all to do with whether anybody has a right to force beliefs on anybody else.

It's whether or not you have the right to force your beliefs on those who disagree with you, when doing so permanently effects them both physically and mentally. No one thinks abortion is a good thing.

I'm sorry, but that is simply untrue.

I have five children. All of them were born within twelve years of the passage of Roe v. Wade.

The first two times I called to get an appointment for pre-natal care, the first sentence out of the receptionist's mouth was "we can schedule the termination of your pregnancy on...(the date was within the week)" When I said that I did not want an abortion, but I needed prenatal care, I was told that I wouldn't be able to get an appointment for three months.

When I called back and asked for help because I had severe morning sickness (and I lost fifty pounds with each pregnancy because I couldn't keep anything down, was hospitalized two or three times each pregnancy because of dehydration) I was told that an abortion would cure that, and they could schedule a 'termination' within a day or so, but other wise? No appointment for three months.

The THIRD time I called, I didn't let the receptionist say a word before I said 'I do NOT want an abortion, but I have severe morning sickness and need to be seen soon, and I was told by my OBGYN that I needed to be seen as soon as I thought I might be pregnant, in order to deal with the morning sickness."

She still told me that she could get me in for a termination within days, but an appointment for standard prenatal care was out of the question for three months. Unless I was hospitalized.

And that is how I got to see an OBGYN before I was three months along; he had to come to the hospital to see me.

Five different obstetricians. Five different office receptionists. They all read off the same script.

I also was THERE, when the feminists were screaming about Roe v Wade and the freedom to abort. Do NOT tell me that "no one thinks that abortion is a good thing."

Because they do. They did, and they do.They hold up abortion as a rallying call...FREEDOM!!!

But you, before you start lecturing me about this, need to actually read what I wrote (and didn't write) before you start lambasting me about stuff.

there wasn't anything in there about 'forcing' people to do anything. the question was asked. I answered it. First, I explained my own beliefs about when a human becomes a human. There wasn't anything there about 'passing a law.'

Second, the question was whether a Christian could be 'pro-choice' and still be a Christian. I said yes.

But many agree that in some instances it may be a necessary thing. While many others do not. So the debate is about who decides, and why they think they have that right.

What debate? I don't think you are having the same one the OP started...

Being a Christian may well mean that one believes that abortion is wrong. But all that dictates is that they should not have an abortion should they become pregnant. There is nothing about being a Christian that dictates that Christians get to tell everyone else what they should believe or do regarding an unwanted pregnancy. So there is no reason that a Christian could not be pro-choice. Even when their own choice would be not to abort.

I have to ask you a question. I did not want to go here, but you are the one who began lecturing ME, so.....

There have been societies and cultures that did not believe that a child became a human being with rights until sometime after birth. Some put that age at two. Some at puberty. Some (the Romans, for instance) bumped it all the way up to 21. Until those kids reached that point, the parents had every right in the world to end the lives of those 'not human yet' kids.

If someone who believed this way...who was raised this way or who was converted to it...decided to exercise what s/he perceived as his/her right, and killed his/her kid, do you think you could just say 'live and let live," because if someone didn't agree with that attitude (that a child could be killed at will until...say...two) he didn't have the right to prevent that killing? That the only right s/he had was simply not to kill his/her OWN kids?

For quite a long time I tried this approach; the 'I don't want to make abortion illegal, just unthinkable' attitude. You know, 'don't change the law, change minds?" idea?

Isn't working.

More than 650,000 abortions, legal ones...have been performed in the USA ever year since 2011.

What would you do if that statistic were more than 650,000 newborns had their throats cut? What if it were more than 650,000 two year olds given lethal injections?

100,000 children die of cancer each year. That's considered to be a tragedy.
Around 2,000 children die in car crashes each year.

What would you do to prevent this, if you could?

If you honestly believed that life begins at conception...or as the OP writer said, that it begins when brain function is detectable, or at some other point during gestation, what do YOU think the moral and ethical thing to do is?

Now me, I advocate for more and better birth control (pregnancy prevention) methods, for men and women. I advocate for responsibility; that is, that people who are going to engage in sex TAKE RESPONSIBILITY for their choices, and not consider that...it's OK, I can have sex; if I get pregnant I'll just kill the kid and it'll be fine....

There ARE times when abortion is necessary. I don't want a woman who is in that situation (health, rape...) to have to justify her decision to some lawyer.

However, women who are going to get an abortion as a 'back up' birth control method, for the sake of convenience?

I'm sorry, but they are killers. Perhaps not murderers, because murder is a cultural term, but they ARE killing a human. Ending all possibility of a life, and in my view, no more moral or better than the person who takes a three month old and dashes its head against a rock because its crying is annoying.

If you don't like that idea, (shrug) sorry.....but the OP question was about whether a pro-choice person could be a Christian. In my opinion, yes. Not, again in my opinion, a good one, but there really aren't that many good Christians out there.

 

[shmogie]

We should not be imposing laws that we cannot justify to the satisfaction of the majority of the people that those laws are being imposed upon. To do so would be a fundamental expression of tyranny. When you can convince the majority of American citizens that an unborn fetus is the equivalent of an independently functioing human being, and therefor possessing of rights independent of the person from which it originated, then you can justifiably bestow those rights and enforce them. But so far as any life form depends on another for it's existence, you will have a hard time convincing people, logically, that it warrants the same independent rights as the life forms upon which it depends for it's existential being.

This is the reasoning behind the current laws regarding abortion and fetal rights: that by the 22nd-24th weeks of gestation the fetus can survive as it's own independent being, outside the mother's womb. Thus establishing that from this point on it warrants the legal protection afforded to such independent human beings. Significant exceptions remain, however, so long as the fetus/child remains in the mother's womb, and therefor dependent upon her body for it's own survival. Which is why it is possible, under certain circumstances, for a woman to obtain an abortion after the 22-24 week period.

First, your stated view is based upon a bit of a f
allacy. A person in a nursing home can be totally dependent upon another for survival, I know you aren´t contending that someone can decide this person should be eliminated.ls about them.

80% of Americans do not support late term abortion, yet they occur commonly. Nevertheless, that is irrelevant. We aren´t a democracy, where the majority view rules. We are a Constitutional Republic, where rights are guaranteed regardless of how the majority feels.

Roe doesn´t address viability, under roe, a past full term unborn baby can be killed, provided a physician says it is for ¨
health reasons¨, health reasons, like, depression, or anxiety. Further, roe established the unenumerated right of privacy, that is a screen between what is decided between a woman and physician, and subsequent action related to abortion. It cannot be ¨seen¨.

Some states have laws with viability restrictions, yet federal law trumps state laws.

 

[shmogie]

I'm a Christian and there is mercy for those who don't know better and those who did.

Legislate is the operative word you used. Legislate means making law. Law is based on the Constitution and the rights granted therein, nt religious views, Persons have those rights. A strong legal case can be made that at some point an unborn child is a person, and thus has those guaranteed rights. When the right case comes before the Supreme court, this will be established, and unborn persons X number of months into pregnancy, cannot be killed.

 

[PureX]

First, your stated view is based upon a bit of a f
allacy. A person in a nursing home can be totally dependent upon another for survival, I know you aren´t contending that someone can decide this person should be eliminated.ls about them.

I meant dependent on another person's physical body for it's own physical existence. This is the factor that the courts have used to determine legal autonomy.

80% of Americans do not support late term abortion, yet they occur commonly. Nevertheless, that is irrelevant. We aren´t a democracy, where the majority view rules. We are a Constitutional Republic, where rights are guaranteed regardless of how the majority feels.

Late term abortions are based on the exception that the fetus is still physically dependent upon the mother's body and is posing an existential threat to her body because of it.

Our constitution does not define when or by what reasoning a fetus becomes an autonomous being. It only speaks to our rights AS autonomous beings. So it is of no use in resolving this dilemma. However, the whole point of our having established this government to begin with was to establish and protect individual freedom within the context of social function and necessity. Which means that individual freedom of choice trumps society's and government's desire to impose it's moral opinions. The purpose of the law is to protect us from each other, not to enable a moral majority to impose their morality on everyone else. Laws are not written to enforce morality. They are written to protect individual security and autonomy within the context of a functional society. The question of when this individual autonomy occurs has been determined by the courts (and by popular opinion) by the viability of the fetus apart from the host's body. It's a crude and inexact demarcation, but it's all we have, for now. The morality of this demarcation is NOT RELEVANT because it is not the purpose of the law to enforce morality.

 

[Kenny]

Late term abortions are based on the exception that the fetus is still physically dependent upon the mother's body and is posing an existential threat to her body because of it.

A one day old baby is still physically dependent on the mother body to feed him/her - or somebody's body. And will be an existential threat to her body because if she neglects the baby, she will be in jail.

It is ludicrous to think that somehow a baby in the womb at 8 months is a not a person so we call it a "fetus" to assuage our conscience but a born 8 month and 1 minute fetus is somehow metamorphosed into a baby.

The morality of this demarcation is NOT RELEVANT because it is not the purpose of the law to enforce morality.

I think this is false unless you can explain. If on the books it say robbery is a punishable offense, it would seem to me it is to enforce a position of morality. You may not change the heart but it is enforcing morality--it is the purpose of law.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

Since I believe that life begins at conception, there is no reason to define life as brainwaves. What about heartbeat?

When does God believe that life begins......? It's his process, so when does it begin in his eyes? How can it not be at conception?

How do you come to your conclusion?

LIFE begins at conception, and I doubt anyone w9uld disagree. OP, however, sa8d PERSONHOOD begins with brainwaves, which is a very different claim.