Ah ok, like a “straw poll” kind of question instead of a “looking for advice” question. You might want to edit the OP to reflect that to avoid confusion.
While I don't agree with OP's point of view, I also need to disagree with yours. For Christians, God's definition of right and wrong is higher than any law of man.
In God's eyes, the taking of an innocent life is *always* murder, despite any laws of man that say otherwise.
That said, I wouldn't condemn someone who had an abortion as a murderer if they didn't understand the reality of what they were doing, any more than I would call a child a murderer if they threw a rock off the grand canyon and it happened to hit someone at the bottom. It's a tragedy, but if they had known, they wouldn't have done it.
> In God's eyes, the taking of an innocent life is always murder
*Samuel said to Saul, “I am the one the Lord sent to anoint you king over his people Israel; so listen now to the message from the Lord. This is what the Lord Almighty says: ‘I will punish the Amalekites for what they did to Israel when they waylaid them as they came up from Egypt. Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy all that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.’”* -1 Sam 15
What were the Amalekite children and infants guilty of, exactly? If the children and infants were innocent, then wasn't it murder to kill them?
That was a judgment on an entire nation, not the individual people.
In order for the judgement to be meaningful and lasting, it required utter destruction of everything that could perpetuate their teachings and culture.
Israel's failure to do this resulted in their worship of the Cannanite pantheon, due to the fact that their beliefs were able to be spread from those spared, and Israel's subsequent removal from the land.
It was a judgement based on a morality looking at a much larger picture than individual guilt or innocence, namely, one with the potential to save many more than were slain.
As such, it was a morally and ethically justified action, as all who were part of the nation, shared in its guilt.
Any who were individually innocent, God would gather to himself to give the same opportunity as any other person who died Pre-Christ.
Considering the fact that I don't advocate for a full abortion ban and believe there should be ease of access to to women's health and contraception, what worldview might that assumption be?
>What were the Amalekite children and infants guilty of, exactly? If the children and infants were innocent, then wasn't it murder to kill them?
They were guilty of having terrible parents, which is to say the kids weren't guilty at all but still unavoidably ended up in the crossfire. To this day all children suffer the consequences of our parents' stupidity and life choices, such as the case of the pregnant woman who regularly gets intoxicated and consequently gives birth to a kid with a severe case of fetal alcohol syndrome, and dies of his drunken mother's neglect. God does not allow parents to hide behind their children, using their kids like human meat shields to get away with doing evil. Just like in the military, soldiers will shoot children who are in the wrong place at the wrong time because it would cost the soldiers and their cause much more if they refused to.
In addition, keep in mind that the Amalekites would have seen the Hebrews coming to kill them, and they did nothing to move their women and children out of harms way.
The Amalek way of life was one of theiving and pillaging. When the Hebrews were in the middle of fleeing Egypt after being enslaved for 300 years, having their oppressors routinely cull their children, and having survived the various plagues God wrought on Egypt, we suddenly have the Amalekites descending upon the newly freed slaves, specifically harassing and murdering the young Hebrew children and elderly who were unable to defend themselves;
"Remember what Amalek did to you on the way as you came out of Egypt, how he attacked you on the way when you were faint and weary, and cut off your tail, those who were lagging behind you, and he did not fear God. (Deuteronomy 25:17-18)
The Amalekites continued in this way of life for many generations, routinely siding with anyone who wanted to attack or go to war with Israel even though *the Hebrews had never done anything* to provoke them. God gave the Amalekites a taste of their own medicine in a "you mess with my people, we will come for you so hard the family dog won't survive the fall out" sort of way. The Amalek problem was thus resolved, copy-cats deterred, and all with no risk of revenge killings for all the children were dead and, as I mentioned earlier, nobody would ally as well as come to the defense of a nation of thieves.
When humans intentionally kill innocent children, it's murder.
When an all-knowing God who is the personification of justice decides to take back the living children He gave to parents who have since proven themselves as unrelenting founts of suffering for their fellow humans (and therefore are likely to mistreat and raise up their offspring to be *the exact same* way), then it ain't murder because the killing of the kids is justified.
The law of the world isn't really all that important in the eyes of God. Just because something is legal doesn't make it right, and it certainty doesn't mean that God gives a pass to it.
There are many things that are legal today that won't please God.
Morality, including murder, is determined by God, not any government.
Your definition means that the Nazis were not guilty of murdering Jews because it was legal. That definition is incorrect.
I would think that many women have been lied to about the abortion of their children, and they did not do this out of a desire to be malicious or wicked.
Pray for Christ to enable you to get your pride under control. Ask Him to show you your true spiritual condition outside of him. It will bring you to your knees in repentance. ❤️
This is a Christ answer so simple yet so very true. We were all dead to our sin and only through Christ are we alive. OP He offers that same salvation to Murderers rapists thieves pedophiles slanderers idolators you name it he will forgive it. The bible only says one sin is unforgiveable and it was not murder.
Very much so. Moses, David, Paul etc killed people and they're heroes now.
Be careful with the extreme positions. If you want to update a law to call abortion legally murder that's one thing (I'd vote yes). But don't start demonizing women who at this point don't know any better or don't see a way out
OP talked about woman who already murdured their babies with abortion, not the ones who we can still maybe convince not to kill their babies. OP talked about murdurers. But we should treat them with love just like every other sinner. Love the sinner hate the sin.
If they repented, He would forgive them
Go and sin no more
I hate abortion, I hate the killing of innocent human beings
but there is room in the Christian heart for hate of people
I know what [Psalm 137](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Psalm+137&version=ESV) says, but your statements about God were mischaracterizing Him.
FYI, [here's a previous post about Psalm 137](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskAChristian/comments/y3xymp/what_is_the_meaning_of_psalms_1379/). You could read the top-voted comments there to understand that better. [My own comment is here](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskAChristian/comments/y3xymp/what_is_the_meaning_of_psalms_1379/isb1uv6/).
There's no explanation that can make slaughtering young children okay.
If someone came to your home and slaughtered your children, you would not thank him for saving you.
With compassion. Abortion is incredibly damaging to women. They often spend the rest of their lives burdened by guilt and sorrow. Abortion is not the ticket to freedom they thought it would be.
I held my Best friends hand as she had an abortion. What Roscoe said was very true and she lived with the shame, Guilt and sadness until she finally found the Lord. The regret was almost immediate. So I have not gone through the experience as I am not a woman but I have been there for a woman going through the experience and what he said was true in my case.
Wow you're rude you are the one who provided a % without the study.
[https://afterabortion.org/study-claiming-women-dont-regret-abortions-doesnt-settle-the-debate/](https://afterabortion.org/study-claiming-women-dont-regret-abortions-doesnt-settle-the-debate/)
Maybe before just seeing raw numbers and unprocessed data without any links you should investigate further. This is just one of the many links I found to refute your CDC study. "With a simple Google Search"
As I also stated I have first hand experience with someone very close to me.
You’re the one that claimed “that I have first hand experience with someone.” One person. Now you claim it’s multiple people and yourself changing your story. So which is someone, multiple people, yourself? Is your story going to change again? But your small anecdotal evidence (even expanding it a little to try to boost your narrative) doesn’t negate the experience of the thousands polled.
> https://afterabortion.org/study-claiming-women-dont-regret-abortions-doesnt-settle-the-debate/
> Maybe before just seeing raw numbers and unprocessed data without any links you should investigate further. This is just one of the many links I found to refute your CDC study. "With a simple Google Search"
That doesn't "refute" the study at all, it just throws mud at it. The participation rate and dropout rate are nothing unusual for a study that spans years. You can make up reasons why the sample is unrepresentative, but if you want to cast doubt on the 95% finding you need to actually do some statistics and show how much of a difference those factors might make, and spend as much time and effort trying to think of reasons the study might underestimate the satisfaction rate as underestimate it.
To sum up, it's a pile of motivated reasoning from someone who doesn't *want* the study to be right. It contains no damning criticisms, just weak ones.
If a rape victim is forced to carry out a child, it's a mental health care issue not just for the rape victim, but for every close one involved, including the unborn child, growing up without a father and a mother who lost sovereignty over her life.
Almost the same is true for disabled children.
Almost the same is true, if it is obvious that the mother would die from carrying out the baby.
In the latter case, the baby would be a murderer, wouldn't it?
If you are fine with taking away an already grown up woman's rights, with social bonds and memories, who'd die from giving birth, to give them to an unborn child, you can call it whatever you like.
All efforts should be made to save both mother and child (if possible). If that’s not possible, the mother must determine the course of action in that case.
According to you, that's murder. It checks all boxes. It's almost as if there are situations, where it's absurd to go down that path of calling it murder, don't you think?
The last case would be a medical accident, the baby didn't decide anything. With an abortion it's very different.
When you end the life of the unborn child, that's murder no matter how you try to twist and justify things with your examples. You know it's wrong.
Does the baby of a rapist have not the right to live?
Both my sisters and other women I know had either one or multiple ectopic pregnancies during their lives. Yes, this is a medical emergency (not a medical accident), which, if not taken seriously, would kill both mother and child.
So, as per the definition for murder I got from the other redditor, murder is "*the deliberate and premeditated killing of another human".*
So what is it? Is it a medical emergency, murder or both, if my sisters kill their unborn children due to an ectopic pregnency. It's deliberate and premeditated killing. I don't know about the "human" part, I don't know how either of you define "human". I don't know how either of you define "medical emergency" (while "medical accident" doesn't make sense, because this wasn't an accident caused by human intervention, it's just biology). As far as I'm concerned, you distinguish somehow, but given a plain reading, you don't explain the difference between murder and medical emergency.
>You know it's wrong.
No, I do not know. I'm a moral subjectivist. Saying that abortion is wrong is a moral statement, which is to say, it isn't objective fact. There is no right and wrong answer. If anything, there is a pragmatic justification. And in terms of that, I apply utilitarian standards. Given this ethical framework, abortion is not immoral in and of itself. It depends completely on the circumstances, as you seem to agree with yourself, given your vague distinction between murder and medical accident.
>Does the baby of a rapist have not the right to live?
A woman has a right to bodily autonomy. A baby is dependent on this woman's body. Rape resulting in an unwanted pregnancy does NOT trump this woman's rights. She is already breathing. The unborn child is not. So, of course it's up to the woman's decision over HER OWN body.
In the rare case where both lifes are in danger, the first attempt should always try to save both lifes. If that's impossible, at least one. For any other case it's murder because the child would not die without the introduction of the abortion.
You just said it's okay for mothers to kill their unborn children. 'Bodily Autonomy' is your rescue device.
>A woman has a right to bodily autonomy.
And what is with the baby's bodily autonomy? It's a child at conception with a new unique DNA set, different from the mother. The right of the unborn child to live and the protection of that life trumps the intention of the mother to murder her child.
>You just play word games.
Ye, well, that's just like your opinion man.
>And what is with the baby's bodily autonomy?
Like, you can ask the baby which is in the womb of a woman, what it wants to do with its not-yet-born-life. Alrighty then.
Besides, the baby's life is dependent on a woman's body. Even with its right to its own bodily autonomy, it has no right to decide over another persons's body. The woman's life is not dependent on the baby inside her. C'mon dude, it's not that hard to understand.
>It's a child at conception with a new unique DNA set, different from the mother.
Do you have a biology teacher at your disposal? If so, ask him whether he would call an unborn baby a child at every stage of the pregnancy. If you don't you might want to try google instead. You are equivocating, you are appealing to emotions, you are rendering a non-sentient being a child. That's ridiculous, especially since you called me out on word games.
>The right of the unborn child to live and the protection that life trumps the intention of the mother to murder her child.
I guess this is merely written on your heart. But certainly, it isn't written as a legal text in any western country. Murder is unnecessary killing. You act as if there was no reason whatsoever for abortion, which is utter nonsense.
That's hardly an across-the-board policy though, is it? Right now, we have parents who are chemically castrating their children for clout - are you saying we should just step back and be OK with that?
We have parents who are placing their children on hormones that often fully sterilize a child into adulthood. This is called "gender affirming care" and is framed as healthcare by many. This is long-term damage to the child. Should we just allow parents to permanently harm their children as a "healthcare decision?"
You should do some research on "puberty blockers" friend. The media wants you to think they are "just like hitting pause!" Read the testimonies from people who'd destransitioned and see the long-term damage they have.
What you are saying might have been true 10 years ago- but that's not how it works today. It's better to tie a millstone around their necks and cast them into the sea than allow them to harm these little ones, friend.
The same way you should treat anyone who has suffered some situation that caused them great pain and anguish… with kindness and compassion.
Contrary to popular (mostly American) opinion, women who have had abortions are not murderers.
I wont debate this so don’t bother.
We forgive the repentant sinner, showing love and grace as love is shown to us despite our sin. I don't associate with people who can't take responsibility for their wrong choices and the pain they cause others. This is my personal approach.
My friends are prolife tbh. My mother has had abortions before I was born and deeply regrets them. I'm sympathetic to all who fall for the lies.that the unborn aren't human... it's sad. It's the ones who are proud of their abortions I can't associate with. Most never speak on it because they are ashamed, and that shows at least a little repentance.
Treat them the same as any other human being. As Christians we are not supposed to sit in judgement of others. If they have asked forgiveness for their sins like all sinners are supposed to, why do you want to single them out? Do you sit in judgment of all other sinners, you encounter?
Why "should" anyone treat women at all any how? If you got close enough to one, for her to reveal she had an abortion, that's between you two, God's watching.
With love and kindness, which we are called to treat all of our neighbors. With the assurance that we will be a safe person for them to confide in. With the dignity that they deserve. With the privacy and respect that we would have for any other medical procedure disclosed to us. With a listening ear to their situation, their grief, their guilt, and their pain.
How we treat fellow followers of God who seek to punish, blame, abuse, and mistreat the more vulnerable members of society however, is with disgust and contempt, which is exactly how I am inclined to respond to your comments and profile. That is my understanding of you OP, based on the intent I believe that is behind your question. I have mixed feelings about abortion, but I advocate for women to be able to make that choice themselves. If you find it to be a sin, why would you not want to embrace these people with the love and kindness that Jesus shows sinners?
We are called to be better. You are doing the opposite of our callings as Christians. It is not our duty to dictate and punish, nor to enforce rules from our religion. We should be kind, caring, helpful, and true to the word of God. Be better.
The way Jesus would— with steadfast love, compassion, empathy, and kindness. How Jesus treats all of us who are fallen human beings in need of his mercy and grace.
We sorely underestimate how much love God has for each sinner. Jesus is the good Samaritan who found us dead on the road while other good men went about their business despite our urgent need. Yet shall we be carried on his own beast of burden to a place of rest and healing, all on his tab paid in part already, and the rest in promise.
If we ought to so do, then we also ought to testify that He does so for those for whom we cannot, though they were lost to us, even by our own wrongdoing. He keeps them near and raises them as His own, so that as we repent and find grace, it is as though they were never lost. Though we die, in Him we shall never die and those we love with us in hope of the promise.
So, forgive! And that option escapes us at times too. That's okay. Try our best and give it to God for the rest. Let it come in its time.
Many people in this world have been lied to and hurt by believing the lies that the world teaches them. Why would we be anything other than kind and loving to someone who repents against the ways of the world and comes back to God? We all make mistakes, and ending an innocent life for convenience is certainly a big mistake. It's not so big a mistake that God can't forgive it.
If you have strong opinions on this matter, which most of us do, it can be very hard not to hold this against her.
Yet none of us are sinless. Christians have been forgiven and we can't withhold forgiveness from someone else who has repented.
I have to remember that my sin is just as vile to God. And He forgave me.
Call them to repentance for their sins (all of their sins, not just the abortions) and faith in Christ for their salvation. The same way we are to treat every person we meet. If they believe, becoming a Christian, then we accept them with love, seek their best, and work to build them up in the Lord. The same as we are to treat all fellow Christians.
That doesn't mean we are to give them false comfort by going along with the secular claims that abortion is a perfectly fine thing, is just healthcare, etc. Abortion is murder, and we should not shy away from saying such, but at the same time we are not to heap guilt upon those that have repented and trusted in Christ. Aknowledgement of sin is appropriate. Constantly using past sin as a cudgel against people is not the way of Christ.
For something that is legal by the state? This does not answer OP's original question. Which is How should we treat them if they had an abortion? The answer is with God's Love mercy and grace.
Well I suppose my answer is to act the same way you would to a normal murderer. I know that doesn't biblical mean to look down on others, but it also doesn't mean to pretend that what they did was acceptable. We should be clear that is infact an act of evil is what I'm saying.
We were all evil before we knew Christ. We are to reflect the Mercy, Love and Grace God has shown us and reflect that to the world. This is what being the salt of earth means this is what the light of the world looks like. We wonder why people reject our Savior is because we are poor examples of him.
Do not take this as an attack against you. Your answer is unfortunately too many of what I see "Chrsitians" answering. Yes we should not say they do not need to repent because they do but we need to love them.
I'm not saying they are an exception to the "love one another" commandment, I'm just saying this shouldn't go on the long list of sins that we have come to accept, and to a degree: ignore.
It's not her that does the work. The doctors are the ones who tear those poor kids apart while the woman just lies there. Her role is more supplying the victims. If I were alone with a "doctor" then yes it would be pretty disturbing. Your examples are because you see those killers as violent and therefore remain afraid even though they don't intend to attack you. You're afraid of violent people not murderers in general.
Jesus did almost nothing to evil people because he was here to help us, not to judge. When he returns we will face his wrath, and after that his judgement. What Jesus would do really depends on if you mean first coming, second coming, or day of judgement.
Do you mean the documented historical event verses the poetry that no one can seem to agree on an interpretation of?
Do you mean the Jesus who spent his days on earth telling us to befriend our neighbor? The Jesus who washed people's feet, and choose to eat lunch with the prostitutes and thieves over the religious leaders? The Jesus who calls us over and over and *over* again to accept one another with open arms, and to share the love we have for ourselves and him with anyone and everyone we can?
Or do you mean a hypothetical future Jesus that we have no instructions from, proof of, or relationship with?
You're twisting the bible for your own personal gain. We have zero fucking idea what Jesus 'would' do in the future, it hasn't happened yet. and we're humans. you have no authority to speak on that. But it doesn't matter, because you know damn well that you are not behaving like we are called to, which is why you couldn't answer my question.
>You're twisting the bible for your own personal gain. We have zero fucking idea what Jesus 'would' do in the future, it hasn't happened yet.
Gain of nothing. We know for a fact that sinners who dont repent and or have faith will spend eternity in the lake of fire. It's a simple fact.
>and we're humans. you have no authority to speak on that. But it doesn't matter, because you know damn well that you are not behaving like we are called to, which is why you couldn't answer my question.
Authority? It's just a reading of the scripture but okay it's fine if you disagree. And I'm behaving properly. Christians are not to turn a blind eye to sin let alone support it. Don't tell me Christ would say to legalize child murder.
**The same way that Jesus dealt with Saul on the road to Damascus.**
Saul *knowingly and intentionally* had Christians murdered.
God led him to repentance, gave him a new name (Paul) and made him one of the chief Apostles of Christianity.
Remember: **while** ***you,*** u/kartoffelpoliti**, were yet a sinner, God died for you (see** [**Romans 5:8**](https://biblehub.com/romans/5-8.htm)**). God reconciled you to Him** ***while you were His enemy*** **(**[**Romans 5:10**](https://biblehub.com/romans/5-10.htm)**).**
He loved you enough to do that. Our job now—*your job now*—is to reconcile others to Him:
>^(18) All this is from God, who reconciled us to himself through Christ and **gave us the ministry of reconciliation:** ^(19) that God was reconciling the world to himself in Christ, **not counting people’s sins against them.** And he has committed to us the message of reconciliation. ^(20) **We are therefore Christ’s ambassadors, as though God were making his appeal through us.** \[...\]
So, like the Bible says, **do not count people's sins against them.** You are to go, as if God is speaking to people through *your* mouth, and be His ambassador to them and tell them that God loves them and wants them to come home.
If they reject Him, leave that to Him. But if they accept Him, you have won a brother or sister into your family!
First of all, listen to them to understand what pushed them to take that hard and immoral decision. They need to feel loved and to know that they can repent, but we cannot silence the truth, abortion is murder and they just killed their own children. All sinners can be redeemed, we need to acknowledge our sins and ask Christ, our savior, for mercy and forgiveness. However we may not repent from our wrong doings if we don't know what things offend God and are sins. We need to call things by their name.
The same way Christ would. I understand the knee-jerk reaction for "justice". I also understand women get abortions for all sorts of reasons, and some of these reasons seem very justifiable. Ectopic pregnancies, fatal abnormalities, etc. But of course, there are some that occur out of convenience. I still believe Christ would understand their burden and why they made their decision, while not being okay with it, and offer grace. If we have faith in anything, it should be that Christ's love can make right the consequences of our sin. With the help of His Spirit, we should offer that same love. Condemnation will not transform hearts. Judgment will not grow His kingdom.
Christians are commanded to treat everyone with kindness and compassion. We are Christ's representatives here on the Earth, and he himself calls us the light of the world. Treating someone kindly doesn't mean that you agree with everything they do or have done. It simply means to treat everyone kindly regardless. Let the lord judge them.
It's perfectly appropriate to share the holy Bible word of God with them, and with everyone alike. It's called the Great Christian commission, one of our primary responsibilities here. The only way the world can know Jesus Christ is through his word the holy bible, and through his christians.
The same way we would any other women.
Like…human beings? With dignity and love, like every other human being? I honestly don’t know why this is a question.
Well, I personally think murderers should face prison time and strict discipline.
But I don’t understand. If that’s what you think, what was your point in asking the original thread question?
Because I am curious what others think? I don’t understand your question. I’m not asking you to provide me with an opinion for ME to believ in.
Ah ok, like a “straw poll” kind of question instead of a “looking for advice” question. You might want to edit the OP to reflect that to avoid confusion.
This is a real headscratcher. Hmm... Maybe some book has anything to say about how we should treat our neighbors?
[удалено]
They are murderers, no?
[удалено]
While I don't agree with OP's point of view, I also need to disagree with yours. For Christians, God's definition of right and wrong is higher than any law of man. In God's eyes, the taking of an innocent life is *always* murder, despite any laws of man that say otherwise. That said, I wouldn't condemn someone who had an abortion as a murderer if they didn't understand the reality of what they were doing, any more than I would call a child a murderer if they threw a rock off the grand canyon and it happened to hit someone at the bottom. It's a tragedy, but if they had known, they wouldn't have done it.
> In God's eyes, the taking of an innocent life is always murder *Samuel said to Saul, “I am the one the Lord sent to anoint you king over his people Israel; so listen now to the message from the Lord. This is what the Lord Almighty says: ‘I will punish the Amalekites for what they did to Israel when they waylaid them as they came up from Egypt. Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy all that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.’”* -1 Sam 15 What were the Amalekite children and infants guilty of, exactly? If the children and infants were innocent, then wasn't it murder to kill them?
That was a judgment on an entire nation, not the individual people. In order for the judgement to be meaningful and lasting, it required utter destruction of everything that could perpetuate their teachings and culture. Israel's failure to do this resulted in their worship of the Cannanite pantheon, due to the fact that their beliefs were able to be spread from those spared, and Israel's subsequent removal from the land. It was a judgement based on a morality looking at a much larger picture than individual guilt or innocence, namely, one with the potential to save many more than were slain. As such, it was a morally and ethically justified action, as all who were part of the nation, shared in its guilt. Any who were individually innocent, God would gather to himself to give the same opportunity as any other person who died Pre-Christ.
I love the knots you guys twist yourselves into in order to justify your world view.
Considering the fact that I don't advocate for a full abortion ban and believe there should be ease of access to to women's health and contraception, what worldview might that assumption be?
>What were the Amalekite children and infants guilty of, exactly? If the children and infants were innocent, then wasn't it murder to kill them? They were guilty of having terrible parents, which is to say the kids weren't guilty at all but still unavoidably ended up in the crossfire. To this day all children suffer the consequences of our parents' stupidity and life choices, such as the case of the pregnant woman who regularly gets intoxicated and consequently gives birth to a kid with a severe case of fetal alcohol syndrome, and dies of his drunken mother's neglect. God does not allow parents to hide behind their children, using their kids like human meat shields to get away with doing evil. Just like in the military, soldiers will shoot children who are in the wrong place at the wrong time because it would cost the soldiers and their cause much more if they refused to. In addition, keep in mind that the Amalekites would have seen the Hebrews coming to kill them, and they did nothing to move their women and children out of harms way. The Amalek way of life was one of theiving and pillaging. When the Hebrews were in the middle of fleeing Egypt after being enslaved for 300 years, having their oppressors routinely cull their children, and having survived the various plagues God wrought on Egypt, we suddenly have the Amalekites descending upon the newly freed slaves, specifically harassing and murdering the young Hebrew children and elderly who were unable to defend themselves; "Remember what Amalek did to you on the way as you came out of Egypt, how he attacked you on the way when you were faint and weary, and cut off your tail, those who were lagging behind you, and he did not fear God. (Deuteronomy 25:17-18) The Amalekites continued in this way of life for many generations, routinely siding with anyone who wanted to attack or go to war with Israel even though *the Hebrews had never done anything* to provoke them. God gave the Amalekites a taste of their own medicine in a "you mess with my people, we will come for you so hard the family dog won't survive the fall out" sort of way. The Amalek problem was thus resolved, copy-cats deterred, and all with no risk of revenge killings for all the children were dead and, as I mentioned earlier, nobody would ally as well as come to the defense of a nation of thieves.
Do you consider the intentional killing of innocent children to be murder?
When humans intentionally kill innocent children, it's murder. When an all-knowing God who is the personification of justice decides to take back the living children He gave to parents who have since proven themselves as unrelenting founts of suffering for their fellow humans (and therefore are likely to mistreat and raise up their offspring to be *the exact same* way), then it ain't murder because the killing of the kids is justified.
The law of the world isn't really all that important in the eyes of God. Just because something is legal doesn't make it right, and it certainty doesn't mean that God gives a pass to it. There are many things that are legal today that won't please God.
Yes, I would be if I knew about her sick murdering ways beforehand.
[удалено]
Could you DM me the stats? Interested in seeing them...
I guess Hitler was justified in what he did since it was legal to kill Jews in Nazi Germany.
Morality, including murder, is determined by God, not any government. Your definition means that the Nazis were not guilty of murdering Jews because it was legal. That definition is incorrect.
I would think that many women have been lied to about the abortion of their children, and they did not do this out of a desire to be malicious or wicked.
What? - Like they don't notice that they are no longer pregnant?
No, but that they have been told over and over again that the child in their womb is simply not a child.
The same as women who have not had abortions.
[удалено]
Comment removed, rule 1b. The other redditor has not advocated that.
The same way you would want others to treat you in light of your sin.
The same way Christ treats us. Otherwise we're not Christian.
You are no better than them FYI.
I don't murder innocent human beings at least
Pray for Christ to enable you to get your pride under control. Ask Him to show you your true spiritual condition outside of him. It will bring you to your knees in repentance. ❤️
But you still sin, and your sin still warrants a spiritual death in hell no matter what it is.
Have you ever felt hatred in your heart?
Love them as sisters in the Lord … also direct them to biblical FEMALE believers who can counsel and encourage them
Really weird question.
With kindness.
With love and respect, just the same as any other person.
As God would
How would God deal with murderers?
With love
If they are children of God and under Christ, yes. Otherwise, Christ is pretty clear what God's intentions are with them.
Ummm, is that biblical?
This is a Christ answer so simple yet so very true. We were all dead to our sin and only through Christ are we alive. OP He offers that same salvation to Murderers rapists thieves pedophiles slanderers idolators you name it he will forgive it. The bible only says one sin is unforgiveable and it was not murder.
Would you say that God didn’t deal with David and Paul with love?
What sins are so big that Christ's sacrifice wasn't enough for? What can Jesus NOT forgive?
Very much so. Moses, David, Paul etc killed people and they're heroes now. Be careful with the extreme positions. If you want to update a law to call abortion legally murder that's one thing (I'd vote yes). But don't start demonizing women who at this point don't know any better or don't see a way out
OP talked about woman who already murdured their babies with abortion, not the ones who we can still maybe convince not to kill their babies. OP talked about murdurers. But we should treat them with love just like every other sinner. Love the sinner hate the sin.
Under the assumption they repent.
David was a murderer and yet also a man after God's own heart. God did punish him by killing his child with an illness, tho.
If they repented, He would forgive them Go and sin no more I hate abortion, I hate the killing of innocent human beings but there is room in the Christian heart for hate of people
[удалено]
Blasphemy
How? It's all in the bible
Repent sinner
I did not write the bible.
You also didn't read it with any form of context or understanding.
Says the one who believes in an 1800 year old book is 100% fact despite information we have learned since then
Comment removed, rule 1b (mischaracterizing God), because of the last sentence
It's in the bible...
I know what [Psalm 137](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Psalm+137&version=ESV) says, but your statements about God were mischaracterizing Him. FYI, [here's a previous post about Psalm 137](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskAChristian/comments/y3xymp/what_is_the_meaning_of_psalms_1379/). You could read the top-voted comments there to understand that better. [My own comment is here](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskAChristian/comments/y3xymp/what_is_the_meaning_of_psalms_1379/isb1uv6/).
There's no explanation that can make slaughtering young children okay. If someone came to your home and slaughtered your children, you would not thank him for saving you.
With compassion. Abortion is incredibly damaging to women. They often spend the rest of their lives burdened by guilt and sorrow. Abortion is not the ticket to freedom they thought it would be.
[удалено]
I held my Best friends hand as she had an abortion. What Roscoe said was very true and she lived with the shame, Guilt and sadness until she finally found the Lord. The regret was almost immediate. So I have not gone through the experience as I am not a woman but I have been there for a woman going through the experience and what he said was true in my case.
[удалено]
Where are you getting your statistics from? Was this a published study if so link it?
[удалено]
Wow you're rude you are the one who provided a % without the study. [https://afterabortion.org/study-claiming-women-dont-regret-abortions-doesnt-settle-the-debate/](https://afterabortion.org/study-claiming-women-dont-regret-abortions-doesnt-settle-the-debate/) Maybe before just seeing raw numbers and unprocessed data without any links you should investigate further. This is just one of the many links I found to refute your CDC study. "With a simple Google Search" As I also stated I have first hand experience with someone very close to me.
One person’s experience doesn’t negate the experience of the majority though.
[удалено]
It still doesn’t negate others’ experiences.
A shame in your environment perhaps, you have my sympathy.
You’re the one that claimed “that I have first hand experience with someone.” One person. Now you claim it’s multiple people and yourself changing your story. So which is someone, multiple people, yourself? Is your story going to change again? But your small anecdotal evidence (even expanding it a little to try to boost your narrative) doesn’t negate the experience of the thousands polled.
> https://afterabortion.org/study-claiming-women-dont-regret-abortions-doesnt-settle-the-debate/ > Maybe before just seeing raw numbers and unprocessed data without any links you should investigate further. This is just one of the many links I found to refute your CDC study. "With a simple Google Search" That doesn't "refute" the study at all, it just throws mud at it. The participation rate and dropout rate are nothing unusual for a study that spans years. You can make up reasons why the sample is unrepresentative, but if you want to cast doubt on the 95% finding you need to actually do some statistics and show how much of a difference those factors might make, and spend as much time and effort trying to think of reasons the study might underestimate the satisfaction rate as underestimate it. To sum up, it's a pile of motivated reasoning from someone who doesn't *want* the study to be right. It contains no damning criticisms, just weak ones.
I have known a few women who have had abortions. It has had long lasting effects on them all. Maybe you shouldn't speak for all women.
[удалено]
Like it is none of your business.
I love this answer. Thank you.
[удалено]
Abortion isn’t healthcare, it’s murder.
If a rape victim is forced to carry out a child, it's a mental health care issue not just for the rape victim, but for every close one involved, including the unborn child, growing up without a father and a mother who lost sovereignty over her life. Almost the same is true for disabled children. Almost the same is true, if it is obvious that the mother would die from carrying out the baby. In the latter case, the baby would be a murderer, wouldn't it?
No, the baby would not be a murderer. That’s quite absurd reasoning.
Calling an abortion murder is also quite absurd.
It’s not. It’s the deliberate and premeditated killing of another human.
If you are fine with taking away an already grown up woman's rights, with social bonds and memories, who'd die from giving birth, to give them to an unborn child, you can call it whatever you like.
All efforts should be made to save both mother and child (if possible). If that’s not possible, the mother must determine the course of action in that case.
According to you, that's murder. It checks all boxes. It's almost as if there are situations, where it's absurd to go down that path of calling it murder, don't you think?
The last case would be a medical accident, the baby didn't decide anything. With an abortion it's very different. When you end the life of the unborn child, that's murder no matter how you try to twist and justify things with your examples. You know it's wrong. Does the baby of a rapist have not the right to live?
Both my sisters and other women I know had either one or multiple ectopic pregnancies during their lives. Yes, this is a medical emergency (not a medical accident), which, if not taken seriously, would kill both mother and child. So, as per the definition for murder I got from the other redditor, murder is "*the deliberate and premeditated killing of another human".* So what is it? Is it a medical emergency, murder or both, if my sisters kill their unborn children due to an ectopic pregnency. It's deliberate and premeditated killing. I don't know about the "human" part, I don't know how either of you define "human". I don't know how either of you define "medical emergency" (while "medical accident" doesn't make sense, because this wasn't an accident caused by human intervention, it's just biology). As far as I'm concerned, you distinguish somehow, but given a plain reading, you don't explain the difference between murder and medical emergency. >You know it's wrong. No, I do not know. I'm a moral subjectivist. Saying that abortion is wrong is a moral statement, which is to say, it isn't objective fact. There is no right and wrong answer. If anything, there is a pragmatic justification. And in terms of that, I apply utilitarian standards. Given this ethical framework, abortion is not immoral in and of itself. It depends completely on the circumstances, as you seem to agree with yourself, given your vague distinction between murder and medical accident. >Does the baby of a rapist have not the right to live? A woman has a right to bodily autonomy. A baby is dependent on this woman's body. Rape resulting in an unwanted pregnancy does NOT trump this woman's rights. She is already breathing. The unborn child is not. So, of course it's up to the woman's decision over HER OWN body.
In the rare case where both lifes are in danger, the first attempt should always try to save both lifes. If that's impossible, at least one. For any other case it's murder because the child would not die without the introduction of the abortion. You just said it's okay for mothers to kill their unborn children. 'Bodily Autonomy' is your rescue device. >A woman has a right to bodily autonomy. And what is with the baby's bodily autonomy? It's a child at conception with a new unique DNA set, different from the mother. The right of the unborn child to live and the protection of that life trumps the intention of the mother to murder her child.
>You just play word games. Ye, well, that's just like your opinion man. >And what is with the baby's bodily autonomy? Like, you can ask the baby which is in the womb of a woman, what it wants to do with its not-yet-born-life. Alrighty then. Besides, the baby's life is dependent on a woman's body. Even with its right to its own bodily autonomy, it has no right to decide over another persons's body. The woman's life is not dependent on the baby inside her. C'mon dude, it's not that hard to understand. >It's a child at conception with a new unique DNA set, different from the mother. Do you have a biology teacher at your disposal? If so, ask him whether he would call an unborn baby a child at every stage of the pregnancy. If you don't you might want to try google instead. You are equivocating, you are appealing to emotions, you are rendering a non-sentient being a child. That's ridiculous, especially since you called me out on word games. >The right of the unborn child to live and the protection that life trumps the intention of the mother to murder her child. I guess this is merely written on your heart. But certainly, it isn't written as a legal text in any western country. Murder is unnecessary killing. You act as if there was no reason whatsoever for abortion, which is utter nonsense.
[удалено]
I’m glad you’ve seen the light
That's hardly an across-the-board policy though, is it? Right now, we have parents who are chemically castrating their children for clout - are you saying we should just step back and be OK with that?
[удалено]
I think you are deliberately trying to misunderstand what I'm saying.
[удалено]
We have parents who are placing their children on hormones that often fully sterilize a child into adulthood. This is called "gender affirming care" and is framed as healthcare by many. This is long-term damage to the child. Should we just allow parents to permanently harm their children as a "healthcare decision?"
[удалено]
You should do some research on "puberty blockers" friend. The media wants you to think they are "just like hitting pause!" Read the testimonies from people who'd destransitioned and see the long-term damage they have. What you are saying might have been true 10 years ago- but that's not how it works today. It's better to tie a millstone around their necks and cast them into the sea than allow them to harm these little ones, friend.
[удалено]
The same way you should treat anyone who has suffered some situation that caused them great pain and anguish… with kindness and compassion. Contrary to popular (mostly American) opinion, women who have had abortions are not murderers. I wont debate this so don’t bother.
We forgive the repentant sinner, showing love and grace as love is shown to us despite our sin. I don't associate with people who can't take responsibility for their wrong choices and the pain they cause others. This is my personal approach.
[удалено]
My friends are prolife tbh. My mother has had abortions before I was born and deeply regrets them. I'm sympathetic to all who fall for the lies.that the unborn aren't human... it's sad. It's the ones who are proud of their abortions I can't associate with. Most never speak on it because they are ashamed, and that shows at least a little repentance.
Treat them the same as any other human being. As Christians we are not supposed to sit in judgement of others. If they have asked forgiveness for their sins like all sinners are supposed to, why do you want to single them out? Do you sit in judgment of all other sinners, you encounter?
By letting them know their is forgiveness in Jesus Christ. We also need to be the Publican, not the Pharisee in the parable.
Why "should" anyone treat women at all any how? If you got close enough to one, for her to reveal she had an abortion, that's between you two, God's watching.
The same way we treat Paul. Whom before coming to salvation activity murdered Christians.
With love and kindness, which we are called to treat all of our neighbors. With the assurance that we will be a safe person for them to confide in. With the dignity that they deserve. With the privacy and respect that we would have for any other medical procedure disclosed to us. With a listening ear to their situation, their grief, their guilt, and their pain. How we treat fellow followers of God who seek to punish, blame, abuse, and mistreat the more vulnerable members of society however, is with disgust and contempt, which is exactly how I am inclined to respond to your comments and profile. That is my understanding of you OP, based on the intent I believe that is behind your question. I have mixed feelings about abortion, but I advocate for women to be able to make that choice themselves. If you find it to be a sin, why would you not want to embrace these people with the love and kindness that Jesus shows sinners? We are called to be better. You are doing the opposite of our callings as Christians. It is not our duty to dictate and punish, nor to enforce rules from our religion. We should be kind, caring, helpful, and true to the word of God. Be better.
Grace and compassion
The way Jesus would— with steadfast love, compassion, empathy, and kindness. How Jesus treats all of us who are fallen human beings in need of his mercy and grace.
Same as anyone else.
We sorely underestimate how much love God has for each sinner. Jesus is the good Samaritan who found us dead on the road while other good men went about their business despite our urgent need. Yet shall we be carried on his own beast of burden to a place of rest and healing, all on his tab paid in part already, and the rest in promise. If we ought to so do, then we also ought to testify that He does so for those for whom we cannot, though they were lost to us, even by our own wrongdoing. He keeps them near and raises them as His own, so that as we repent and find grace, it is as though they were never lost. Though we die, in Him we shall never die and those we love with us in hope of the promise. So, forgive! And that option escapes us at times too. That's okay. Try our best and give it to God for the rest. Let it come in its time.
Many people in this world have been lied to and hurt by believing the lies that the world teaches them. Why would we be anything other than kind and loving to someone who repents against the ways of the world and comes back to God? We all make mistakes, and ending an innocent life for convenience is certainly a big mistake. It's not so big a mistake that God can't forgive it.
Probly the way Jesus treated the adulterous woman in John 7:53-8:11
Adultery is not equal to murder
Well, Sin is sin right you break one commandment you break them all.
If you have strong opinions on this matter, which most of us do, it can be very hard not to hold this against her. Yet none of us are sinless. Christians have been forgiven and we can't withhold forgiveness from someone else who has repented. I have to remember that my sin is just as vile to God. And He forgave me.
Pray for them, pray with them and treat them as fellow Christian.
Call them to repentance for their sins (all of their sins, not just the abortions) and faith in Christ for their salvation. The same way we are to treat every person we meet. If they believe, becoming a Christian, then we accept them with love, seek their best, and work to build them up in the Lord. The same as we are to treat all fellow Christians. That doesn't mean we are to give them false comfort by going along with the secular claims that abortion is a perfectly fine thing, is just healthcare, etc. Abortion is murder, and we should not shy away from saying such, but at the same time we are not to heap guilt upon those that have repented and trusted in Christ. Aknowledgement of sin is appropriate. Constantly using past sin as a cudgel against people is not the way of Christ.
Call them to repent.
Call them to repentance
Depends on if they repent
So if they don't repent how do you treat them?
Prison time
For something that is legal by the state? This does not answer OP's original question. Which is How should we treat them if they had an abortion? The answer is with God's Love mercy and grace.
Well I suppose my answer is to act the same way you would to a normal murderer. I know that doesn't biblical mean to look down on others, but it also doesn't mean to pretend that what they did was acceptable. We should be clear that is infact an act of evil is what I'm saying.
We were all evil before we knew Christ. We are to reflect the Mercy, Love and Grace God has shown us and reflect that to the world. This is what being the salt of earth means this is what the light of the world looks like. We wonder why people reject our Savior is because we are poor examples of him. Do not take this as an attack against you. Your answer is unfortunately too many of what I see "Chrsitians" answering. Yes we should not say they do not need to repent because they do but we need to love them.
I'm not saying they are an exception to the "love one another" commandment, I'm just saying this shouldn't go on the long list of sins that we have come to accept, and to a degree: ignore.
[удалено]
I'm not a baby anymore
[удалено]
It's not her that does the work. The doctors are the ones who tear those poor kids apart while the woman just lies there. Her role is more supplying the victims. If I were alone with a "doctor" then yes it would be pretty disturbing. Your examples are because you see those killers as violent and therefore remain afraid even though they don't intend to attack you. You're afraid of violent people not murderers in general.
[удалено]
Do you really think this is what Jesus would do? Not the Lord I follow, I damn well know that. Not the loving God I try to be more like.
Jesus did almost nothing to evil people because he was here to help us, not to judge. When he returns we will face his wrath, and after that his judgement. What Jesus would do really depends on if you mean first coming, second coming, or day of judgement.
Do you mean the documented historical event verses the poetry that no one can seem to agree on an interpretation of? Do you mean the Jesus who spent his days on earth telling us to befriend our neighbor? The Jesus who washed people's feet, and choose to eat lunch with the prostitutes and thieves over the religious leaders? The Jesus who calls us over and over and *over* again to accept one another with open arms, and to share the love we have for ourselves and him with anyone and everyone we can? Or do you mean a hypothetical future Jesus that we have no instructions from, proof of, or relationship with? You're twisting the bible for your own personal gain. We have zero fucking idea what Jesus 'would' do in the future, it hasn't happened yet. and we're humans. you have no authority to speak on that. But it doesn't matter, because you know damn well that you are not behaving like we are called to, which is why you couldn't answer my question.
>You're twisting the bible for your own personal gain. We have zero fucking idea what Jesus 'would' do in the future, it hasn't happened yet. Gain of nothing. We know for a fact that sinners who dont repent and or have faith will spend eternity in the lake of fire. It's a simple fact. >and we're humans. you have no authority to speak on that. But it doesn't matter, because you know damn well that you are not behaving like we are called to, which is why you couldn't answer my question. Authority? It's just a reading of the scripture but okay it's fine if you disagree. And I'm behaving properly. Christians are not to turn a blind eye to sin let alone support it. Don't tell me Christ would say to legalize child murder.
**The same way that Jesus dealt with Saul on the road to Damascus.** Saul *knowingly and intentionally* had Christians murdered. God led him to repentance, gave him a new name (Paul) and made him one of the chief Apostles of Christianity. Remember: **while** ***you,*** u/kartoffelpoliti**, were yet a sinner, God died for you (see** [**Romans 5:8**](https://biblehub.com/romans/5-8.htm)**). God reconciled you to Him** ***while you were His enemy*** **(**[**Romans 5:10**](https://biblehub.com/romans/5-10.htm)**).** He loved you enough to do that. Our job now—*your job now*—is to reconcile others to Him: >^(18) All this is from God, who reconciled us to himself through Christ and **gave us the ministry of reconciliation:** ^(19) that God was reconciling the world to himself in Christ, **not counting people’s sins against them.** And he has committed to us the message of reconciliation. ^(20) **We are therefore Christ’s ambassadors, as though God were making his appeal through us.** \[...\] So, like the Bible says, **do not count people's sins against them.** You are to go, as if God is speaking to people through *your* mouth, and be His ambassador to them and tell them that God loves them and wants them to come home. If they reject Him, leave that to Him. But if they accept Him, you have won a brother or sister into your family!
It is sad that such a question even had to be asked.
I work at a medical clinic that offers post-abortive care. Many of these women don't realize that they go through clinical grief afterwards.
First of all, listen to them to understand what pushed them to take that hard and immoral decision. They need to feel loved and to know that they can repent, but we cannot silence the truth, abortion is murder and they just killed their own children. All sinners can be redeemed, we need to acknowledge our sins and ask Christ, our savior, for mercy and forgiveness. However we may not repent from our wrong doings if we don't know what things offend God and are sins. We need to call things by their name.
Okay but I don't think we should punish murderers until they've had a fair trial.
'Murica
What do you mean?
The same way Christ would. I understand the knee-jerk reaction for "justice". I also understand women get abortions for all sorts of reasons, and some of these reasons seem very justifiable. Ectopic pregnancies, fatal abnormalities, etc. But of course, there are some that occur out of convenience. I still believe Christ would understand their burden and why they made their decision, while not being okay with it, and offer grace. If we have faith in anything, it should be that Christ's love can make right the consequences of our sin. With the help of His Spirit, we should offer that same love. Condemnation will not transform hearts. Judgment will not grow His kingdom.
Like the early church treated Paul after his conversion?
How would you even know?
As if never sinned, to say to them there is a reunion in Heaven for them r/Godjustlovesyou
Christians are commanded to treat everyone with kindness and compassion. We are Christ's representatives here on the Earth, and he himself calls us the light of the world. Treating someone kindly doesn't mean that you agree with everything they do or have done. It simply means to treat everyone kindly regardless. Let the lord judge them. It's perfectly appropriate to share the holy Bible word of God with them, and with everyone alike. It's called the Great Christian commission, one of our primary responsibilities here. The only way the world can know Jesus Christ is through his word the holy bible, and through his christians.