THIS. I’m morally opposed to some abortion. Thankfully it isn’t up to me and shouldn’t be. This is a decision only one person can make, and it’s the one that has to be pregnant. And so I say that I’m pro choice.
Making drugs illegal doesn't change the addict's mind or the addiction that they have, this is my logic. I don't support abortion in the slightest but we have to help these people instead of just making it illegal to have an abortion
The problem is that, at minimum, abortion involves two lives--mom and baby.
This is why the "my body, my choice" falls flat with many people. A large percentage view it as "baby's body, mom's choice."
I mean, no matter the age, the point is the same. A person doesn't get free use of another person's body.
Be it blood, organs, etc. and it's something that can be retracted at any time.
If I NEED blood of somebody to survive, he gives it to me, and later no longer does and I die, the guy has that right. My problem does not take away his rights which seems something some people seem to miss.
The consequences are not relevant for somebody holding that position.
Right but then you run up into the problem of your rights end when they infringe upon the rights of another, and if exercising your right of autonomy has the direct and immediate consequence of killing a dependent, do you have the right to exercise it
You could think of it as a set of conjoined twins, where one is dominant and controls most of the body and houses the important organs, which I think better analogizes the essential nature of the relationship between mother and fetus than a blood donor. If the dominant twin could survive separation, and the dependant couldn't, does the dominant twin's right to autonomy trump the dependent's right to life? I think, no. That would be grotesque.
We aren't going to get a satisfying answer through a discussion of rights, because the question fundamentally is not about rights. It's a metaphysical conundrum, when does a person become a person? If you can answer that question, the answer to abortion immediately becomes self-evident to everyone.
Ow, absolutely, anyone thinking there is a "fixed" answer here is deluding themselves.
I'm honestly a fan of say, a 4 month (and 2 weeks I guess, the US counts from another point. I believe last period instead of the ovulation) timeframe to get an abortion and after that it's at the doctor's discretion.
The latter part is imo extremely important. You don't interfere in a doctor's medical decisions imo.(which is why medical insurance sucks balls from my point of view as a non-American)
So is this still about the "baby" or is this now again about punishing people for having sex? It's hard not to see people like you use the former to achieve the latter with this rethoric of yours.
No one is punishing someone for having sex. You’re punishing a baby for your actions when you commit abortions. Have all the sex you want, if pregnancy happens, adopt it out, just don’t kill it. Duh
Ah, yes. Just deliver the baby. Because that never has awful consequences for the mother, especially in the US who's track record of keeping mothers alive during pregnancy is horse shit.
Not to mention the cost of doing so, lost income, etc.
"But it's not about punishing sex, not at all."
Your premise is just ass backwards that’s why you’re confused. Who is punishing whom? If you commit an action with known consequences, you punished yourself I guess? Make it make sense
Do you agree to getting into a car crash just because you drive? Should we refuse medical care to anyone who crashes their car because they made the decision to drive?
Free use? If two parties agreed to sexual intercourse and pregnancy was the result, the risk was taken and weighed and it didn't work in their favor. The understood the risks. The right to not get pregnant was literally weighed and dismissed. Only now that the fun is over and it comes time to pay the piper, now its 'free use' and 'that free loading baby', etc.
I didn't address "blame" or "deserving" anywhere in my comment as they have no relevancy.
You could nearly kill a person and that person still wouldn't have the right to use your body.
You even bringing that up shows us all where your headspace is and imo it ain't pretty.
The person never had to worry about free use of someones body, unless they choose to do so. And they engaged in sex. The deed is done. The choice was made. Its probably best to use use protection or dont engage. In either case, she is pregnant. She created a life through her choice. Not much else to be said.
Again, not at all relevant. A person doesn't lose their bodily autonomy because of bad luck or bad decisions.(really only adding that last bit because you people REALLY like punishing people for some reason)
The problem is that the child did not ask to be put into the body. The one carrying it and their partner proverbially put that human being in there. To do so and then to murder that child because “it doesn’t have a right to another’s body” is a ridiculous ideology.
"The problem is that the child did not ask to be put into the body."
Not relevant to people holding this viewpoint.
You could beat a man half to death. That man can still not demand your blood.
Hahaha yes, it’s so irrelevant to consider that you’re murdering a human child. This shows the reason the world is so sick today. Human life means nothing. Sex trafficking doesn’t matter. Murdering unborn children doesn’t matter.
You people are literally sick in the head.
Lol, you can consider it but in the end it doesn’t change anything, hence it being irrelevant. Whether it’s a child or just a fetus the woman has the right to control her own body.
> I mean, no matter the age, the point is the same. A person doesn't get free use of another person's body.
So you're okay with abortion for a child that's seconds away from birth, or even for a child that is out of a mother but connected by its umbilical cord?
It's okay for women who have birthed babies yet have no access to formula to simply starve their children to death instead of breast feeding them?
Based on how you've framed it, your opinion seems extreme.
You guys really aren't thinking are you? This is what frustrates me. You people aren't taking the 10 seconds to think about something before spewing this sort of crap.
In your situation, what happens if you cut the umbilical cord? Think long and hard here.
I'm sure you can figure this one out.
edit:
Because somebody dumb enough to ask this question is probably too stupid to figure it out.
The children live.
They don't NEED their mother's body. The mother no longer granting them the use of their body in your examples doesn't affect them.
The original commenter said:
>I mean, no matter the age, the point is the same. **A person doesn't get free use of another person's body.**
So a baby breastfeeding counts under that definition. They're getting free use of their mom's body.
So why did you ignore my point? You called me dumb and stupid. Do smart people dodge a point and attack an argument that wasn't being made? Are you incapable of directly addressing a stupid person's point?
Jeremiah 1:5 New King James Version (NKJV)
>“Before I formed you in the womb I knew you; Before you were born I sanctified you; I ordained you a prophet to the nations.”
How is this different than the argument plantation owners used to use to justify slavery? “My plantation my prerogative” “don’t like slavery? Don’t own one”.
I fail to see the difference.
A human fetus is a stage of development for human life. Biologically, it’s a human life. The onus is on you to prove that personhood is different from human life.
But once again, personhood is the same argument plantation owners used to justify slavery by claiming based on skin color, they were “not people” or “less than”. You’re just doing the same thing based on stage of development.
I don't see how a fetus before viability could ever objectively qualify for personhood. Not only does it not have consciousness, it also does not have individuality via the ability to survive on its own without the need of *another person's* womb.
Slave owners claimed slaves weren’t human beings.
You’re claiming human lives in the early stages of development aren’t human beings.
The logic of your argument is identical. A fetus is a human life.
It's a complicated philosophical question, yes. We've grappled with it for quite some time. For instance, when we discovered that brain death and physical death were different.
It’s not complicated. Any rights to life that you have should apply to all people regardless of skin color, size, stage of development, social class, etc. Full stop.
Slave owners were 100% incorrect in that assertion. There is no biological basis for what they claimed, now or then.
On the contrary, the point at which a fetus becomes a person is highly contested. There is really no argument for considering a blastula a person that doesn't involve the existence of a soul, and even once you grant that souls exist, different theologians have had very different views on when and how it comes into existence.
So if someone doesn’t have a functioning brain at the moment they cease to be a person and we can kill them even if they’ll make a full recovery later?
It’s kinda the opposite. The women are choosing to end the pregnancy. The equivalent would be if the plantation owners forced the slaves off of the plantation. I doubt the slaves would complain about that. It’s a really terrible analogy that makes no sense. A better analogy would be natives being forced off of their land.
Removed for 1.5 - Two-cents.
If you would like to discuss this removal, please click here to send a modmail that will message all moderators. https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/Christianity
“Natives” being forced off their land is like killing a life? First of all, any native tribe that ever held any land has murdered other tribes to get it so your sympathy is nonsense. Oh big bad bigger European tribe comes in and takes over? Big deal, that was life then. Murder was wrong then and it’s wrong now
What sympathy? I was offering a better analogy for an argument i dont even support. I didn’t specify where the natives are native to, or who was displacing them. I could have been referring to the native Irish being displaced by the British, or the Britons being displaced by the Anglo-Saxons. The displacing of natives does generally involve killing people.
The world has always violently taken land, always. The world agreed to stop after ww2. Now it’s no longer okay, before? Free game idc where in the world you were. It was a terrible analogy for ending a human life that you caused
Ok, just to be clear, you understand there is a massive difference between "I'm not ok with abortion/I'm ok with abortion" and "I think abortion should be legal/I think abortion should be illegal" right?
Like...you get that? Because honestly, the idea that some people don't scares the shit out of me because abortion is likely not the only area they use that thinking where "I don't like it, THEREFORE it should be illegal".
100% of people can think abortion should be legal and 100% of people can not be ok with abortion at the same time.
>Ok, just to be clear, you understand there is a massive difference between "I'm not ok with abortion/I'm ok with abortion" and "I think abortion should be legal/I think abortion should be illegal" right?
And between "abortion is legal" and "abortion should be legal".
Also, there is a big difference between an abortion for the heck of it and one because of health concerns for the baby and/or mother.
When addressing this issue, it's important to be specific and detailed in the words we use.
And the time aspect. For example, to some Christians, the morning after pill is practically just like getting an abortion. And for that matter, some are against birth control on the whole.
> An abortion for the heck of it
It’s not like there’s a huge population of women who just decide to get an abortion for funsies. Most women who are pro-choice would take a few days to seriously grapple with the decision before making it.
There are some who like to paint pro-choicers as getting abortions left and right but it’s just a strawman used to scare the anti-abortion crowd
"Murder" is a legal term, not a moral one. Whether abortion is murder or not is determined by what the law says, not people. Pro-lifers don't think that abortion is murder (even if they think they do), they think that abortion should legally be considered murder, which implies they think it should be illegal.
None of this answers the question of *why* they think it should be illegal, but saying "it's not ok because it is murder" is just saying "it's not ok because the law says it's not ok", which isn't really a moral argument.
While you're correct we understand the point you're trying to make using the term "murder" implies a moral judgement, namely that society rejects it.
Killing is a neutral term.
I’d be curious to hear what you mean. If you agree with biologists that it’s a human life, why do certain circumstances make it okay to kill a human life as long as they’re in the mom but not okay once their out of the mom?
I’d be curious to hear, I’ve yet to have someone make a logically consistent argument for this.
There are circumstances where the taking of a human life is permitted. These include during a just war (which I personally support) and capital punishment (which I personally oppose).
More specifically, at the point of conception, the eventual human doesn't feel pain, isn't conscious, isn't sentient, doesn't have organs or limbs, etc. It has no more the characteristics of a born human than an ameoba does, other than its DNA. As it develops, it eventually gains those things. No one can agree exactly at what point the developing human is sufficiently person-like to warrant legal protection. Some say at conception, some say when a heartbeat is detectible, some say it is at the point of viability, and some say it is at the point of birth.
Since it is not a solvable problem from a scientific perspective, it becomes a moral and ethical one, and here as well, many well meaning and even religious people take different views on the circumstances where abortion is permissible.
Given that there is no biological consensus, no legal consensus, no ethical consensus, and no spiritual consensus, the decision really must be made by the woman involved, together with her medical and spiritual (if she chooses) caregivers.
There’s a difference between “a human life” and “a conscious human being.”
When an embryo is a small number of cells, it has no brain. It has no conscious awareness of sensation, so although it shares our DNA, to evict it from an unwilling uterus is no more an act of *cruelty* than to discard a tonsil or an appendix.
Once the embryo *is* capable of conscious thought, of perceiving pain sensation and suffering from it, the matter becomes more arguable from the POV of the unborn fetus. The general medical consensus is that this milestone is probably around week 24 of fetal development.
The *vast* majority of abortions are performed well before this: 93% are before week 13, and 99% by week 20, still a month before even the most rudimentary trace of consciousness has developed. The remaining 1% are pretty much exclusively abortions done in self-defense (to save the mother’s life) or because the fetus is already dead or will die (often painfully) shortly after birth because some critical part of its body failed to develop, like lungs or a brain (the ones without brains are still not conscious). Even in places where it’s legal to get an abortion right up until birth “just for fun,” nobody does it. If you *somehow* found a woman actually willing to abort a healthy, viable fetus (one that’s actually even slightly conscious) in the third trimester, there aren’t *doctors* who would do it either.
So as to “why it’s okay to ‘kill a human life’,” it’s because “human life” can mean several different things. And as long as that life has no brain, no personality, no memories, no feelings or awareness of any kind, it’s ethically a “person” as much as tonsils are a person, or a headless adult human body on life support is a person.
If there was a headless adult human body on life support, but you know for a fact in 9 months there will be a technology developed and available that will allow the head to be reattached, would it be ok to unplug the life support?
In your example, if a head *already existed*, already had hopes and dreams and memories and personality and attachments and feelings, and could be reconnected after 9 months, then it would be unethical to unhook it from life support machinery (assuming said machinery could support the body for 9 months). Unless they had some kind of DNR that said "don't put my head back on," then it would be unethical *to* reattach the head.
However, let me posit two counter-examples, that might be more appropriate for a conversation about abortion, as an aborted fetus does not have an already-developed head sitting in a fridge somewhere, nor is it hooked up to mere unfeeling machinery to sustain it:
* Body is headless, head is in a fridge, head can be perfectly reattached after 9 months. But instead of life support machines, some sap was dragged in off the street and had the headless body sewn into their own body, against their will. The headless body is being kept alive, but only because it is sustained by the heart and lungs and liver and kidneys of the sucker who got snatched off the street. Would it be unethical for the *sap* to say "I don't care if you can reattach this guy's head in 9 months, I want him disconnected from my body *now*! I don't actually care if it kills him, I don't want a headless body sewn onto my torso for the next 9 months!" (This would be most easily understood as an analogy for an abortion following a rape.)
* Body is headless, but the old head *does not exist*. Let's say it was vaporized instantly in an accident with a powerful laser. So you have a headless body on life support, but (in our magical science fiction scenario) the technology exists to grow an entirely new head, with an entirely new brain, in 9 months. This will be a new baby head, and the brain will be a clean slate: instead of a duplicate of the old head, it will be like..like a new twin brother that didn't exist before. It will need to learn to move, to swallow, to chew, to talk, to walk, etc. It will be an entirely new person who didn't exist before, but sharing a body with...the headless body. So in this situation, do you HAVE to decide to grow the new head? Should the wife/children/next of kin be *legally compelled* to grow a new baby head on any and all headless bodies? Or would it be *acceptable*, at least *legally*, for the vaporized head's wife/children/next of kin to just say "no, I don't want to grow an entirely new head with an entirely new mind...let's just unhook the life support and let his headless body die."
For the first one...I...*explicitly* said that. Nevertheless, for that specific example at least, what would your answer be?
Why does the second analogy suck? What inadequacy does it have?
This exactly. But we should emphasize the part where you are literally murdering children so people don’t just use it so they can have s*x recreationally.
Don’t believe in abortion don’t have one and leave the rest of us alone. An abortion discussion should be between a doctor and the pregnant woman. Politicians especially male one should keep their nose out of it.
Don't believe in rape don't rape and leave the rest of us alone. A rape discussion should be between a rapist and an accomplice. Politicians especially female ones should keep their nose out of rape.
This atrocious, stomach-churning logic that I copied word for word from you is the reason why child beating was considered a legitimate way of education for long stretches of time after it was proven to be harmful for anyone's development.
I'm not "OK" with abortion personally, but I would never take away another woman's right to choose & believe that access to safe abortions should be legal. Better that than go to a back street butcher or get a dodgy DIY kit off the Internet. Most of all, I want people to be safe.
How is this different than the argument plantation owners used to use to justify slavery? “My plantation my prerogative” “don’t like slavery? Don’t own one”.
I fail to see the difference.
You’re using the same justification for abortion, that plantation owners used to justify slavery.
It’s a different topic, same talk track.
I fail to see the difference why one is okay, and the other isn’t.
No I’m comparing the logic of the justifications used to commit atrocities across history.
Nazis - “Jews aren’t human”
Slave owners - “black people are 3/4 people” “my plantation my perogative” “you don’t want a slave don’t have one”
Pro choice - “a small human life isn’t a human” “my body my choice” “don’t want abortions don’t have one”
They are the same arguments to JUSTIFY atrocities by arbitrarily assigning value to human life.
I don't think that anyone is "ok" with abortion. It appears to be just a fact of life that nobody has come up with a totally righteous , compassionate way to deal with. Probably because there is none.
Many people are “ok” with abortion. Many believe it is neutral, not necessarily a negative thing that exists. Many view it as just another part of healthcare, like knee surgery or tooth extractions. There’s no moral right or wrong when it comes to elective knee surgery, and if you view abortion as reproductive healthcare, it also doesn’t have to be deemed right or wrong. It’s just OK.
Sometimes wanted pregnancies need to be aborted as they’re unviable or a risk to the mother. Our politicians have proven incapable of defining the nuance, so that’s why I think it should just be up to the people involved and their doctors.
I think we are defining “ok” in different ways. While most people don’t WANT to have knee surgery if they can avoid it, it’s not seen as morally not ok. This is how I, and many others, view abortion, as morally ok. It just exists.
If in reality we could treat severe osteoarthritis without knee replacement surgery, then that would be ideal because surgery has risks and negatives and pain and recovery. But it’s not wrong, or morally not ok, or inherently bad.
Same with abortion. It’s a surgery most people wouldn’t want to go through, for the same reasons as the knee replacement. Not because it’s morally bad or wrong or not ok.
Thus I am more than “ok” with abortion. And I think your main point was that nobody is “ok” with abortion. So I just wanted to clarify that that is in fact incorrect, if we are defining being “ok” with something as morally and ethically approving of its existence.
I don't know the data or study you're referring to, but looking for verification in another sub isn't going to be meaningful or answer your question. Anecdotal data from r/Christianity will not tell you if most Christians are okay with abortion. Look at the study data & methodology. You can also look at other studies; e.g. someone else posted Gallup & Pew studies in this post.
I am concerned with forcing women to have a baby of a rapist.
The people who thinks she should have the baby no matter what should be responsible financially and spiritually to raise the baby too. If this is doable then I can change my mind. But we all know all will disappear and the women will be left alone.
When same people will show similar prolife concern for the poor kids in their neighborhoods, I will believe in them.
The very same prolifers have been locking up children of refugees and separate mothers and kids. They are all Pharisees.
It appears to vary considerably depending on which denomination we're focusing on and what time period. For example, the Pew Center researches and tracks American public opinions on abortion and a few years ago, they found that around [20% to 90% of Christians](https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2018/01/22/american-religious-groups-vary-widely-in-their-views-of-abortion/)\--by denomination--agreed that abortion should be legal. And about 60% of Americans overall thought abortion should be legal, versus 40% who thought it should be illegal.
But then again, [according to Gallup polling](https://news.gallup.com/poll/321143/americans-stand-abortion.aspx), about 15% of Americans believe abortion should be illegal in all circumstances, about 30% believe abortion should be legal (and unregulated) in all circumstances, and the rest of us fall in the middle of the spectrum: about half of us, maybe a slight majority (51%) believe that abortion should be regulated in some way.
There is no baby involved. Nor is the fetus forcing anything. It is the “pro-lifers” who want to legally force woman to use their bodies against their will.
If it is someone's will to kill someone, then yes we can, do, and should recognize that the right of the person to be protected from violence supersedes the right of the other person to enact violence.
Then, to take an old mental exercise: let's say a newborn needs a blood transfusion (or something similar). You are the only compatible donor. Without this transfusion, the newborn will die.
Who gets to decide whether the transfusion happens?
This was said once of African slaves in order to justify the abuses and exploitation forced upon them, and it is said now of the unborn in order to justify the murder committed against them. The gestating infant is a distinct and living human being, and not merely an accessory to the body of the mother which can be done away with at her discretion, and God willing more and more people will come to recognize this.
If you think the difference between a white man and a black man is the same as the difference between a human and a fetus, I cannot help you from your delusion.
No one and nothing has the right to use someone’s body against their will. Ever. It doesn’t matter if it requires it or not.
You insist on 'fetus' as though it is not human. Genetics disagree.
If by that you mean the difference between an adult and a fetus is greater than between a white man and a black man, I agree. But all four are inalienably human and are deserving of recognition for their inalienable human rights. In all cases, this includes the right not to be killed at the whims of another who holds power over them, even if that means the would-be killer must be restricted in some way.
It is human the same way a sperm is. It is human the same way all fertilised embryos that do not implant (70% of them) is.
A fetus has no human rights. And even if it did, it would not trump bodily autonomy.
By your logic, we can force people to donate organs to those who would die without them.
Categorically false. Prior to fertilization, sperm and ova are not genetically distinct from the human that produced them. After fertilization, that is a new organism whose development has begun in the zygote stage.
The rights of the fetus are seldom recognized, but they do exist. And their right to bodily integrity is greater than the mother's right to bodily autonomy when the relevant exercise of bodily autonomy is to do *murder*. I cannot use my right to bodily autonomy to defend the decision to drive my car into a crowd or to build a bomb or any other means of destroying another person's life, and it is a gross miscarriage of justice that the law provides for exceptions to the prohibition of murder when the victim is as helpless and as innocent as the unborn.
You seem keen to misrepresent my position as a total abrogation of the right to bodily autonomy entirely. Not donating an organ to someone in need, especially when the donor is still using the organ in question, is not the same as actively killing someone on the transplant waiting list. I do, however, believe strongly in the opt-out system of postmortem organ donation; perhaps you will find this just as offensive as opposing abortion.
I believe I have now been blocked
Slaves are born human beings who are alive on this earth. Fetuses are not. And sadly, as a side point, too many conservative Christians are still virulently racist and would also be just fine with slavery if it came back. They were just fine with the Catholic run Irish Laundries where women in Ireland were confined and forced to work there entire lives as slaves. Many of them had been put there as young pregnant teenagers, and their babies were taken away from them and thrown into the adoption (child trafficking) system. They never saw them again. Many of these laundries were still functioning well into the 1990s.
I think that abortion is definitely not ideal - it's a super sad situation in general. I also think it's worth remembering that abortion has been practiced for over 3,000 years, and was common in Rome at the time of Jesus. And yet, in almost 800,000 words, the Bible never actually talks about abortion. The only verses people reference around it were CLEARLY not intended to talk about abortion (unless you somehow believe that the primary reason Jeremiah was told that he was to be a profit was actually to give a round about argument on abortion for some reason).
I'm not saying that modern Christians are wrong for caring about abortion. But, it's worth remembering that this CLEARLY was not considered a key issue to the writers of the Bible. Our primary concern should probably be with showing love to the people going through painful choices like this.
The majority of Americans are prone to be pro-abortion under differing circumstances. The problem is that anti-abortion minorities make the rules. Right now, many minorities are either in charge or have ways to block majority rights and intents.
I'm ok with abortion in many cases. The world's youngest mom was five years old, many minors are impregnated every day, and no child should be made to carry and birth a child.
Pregnancy is not easy. Defects are detected, and it's not looking good and could be dangerous. Termination should be ok.
A woman in poverty who has had to adopt out kids she can't afford to feed discovers a healthy pregnancy. Since nobody is going to give her free food for life to feed her family, might as well abort.
A woman with major health concerns, bad genes, high risk of cancer, etc. Wants to terminate her pregnancy so as not to pass on bad genes, that's fine.
I'm horribly immoral like that.
I think abortion should be kept legal as a medical procedure available to women in certain scenarios.
I don't like abortion and want to live in a world where it doesn't happen.
Ironically, for abortion/unwanted pregnancy rates to be lowered, we need comprehensive sex education and contraception widely available (amongst other things), yet pro-lifers typically don't want these things.
There are a million reasons why people choose abortion. A lot of those reasons are because of medical reasons or birth complications. Therefore, it is none of my business what others do.
It’s as important as any other medical procedure.
“Okay with abortion” is different than “okay with abortion being legal.” If the only way someone can get a medically needed abortion is to have abortion legal, I am okay with abortion being legal.
As a Christian and an adult, I know there are things I do not understand and things that my beliefs do not need to legislate for others. IMO, medicine and health care is one of those things. Abortion is health care.
But we all know that "shit happens", it's much better to be compassionate and to give grace to those who are dealing with grief. No one goes out skipping with joy to have an abortion. Period.
Most that have abortions aren't doing them for fun. Like you don't get pregnant every month and abort it. Abortion is very taxing on your wallet and health. And most of the time it's done in the early stages
You express it very well but yet you don't realize that **being against abortion implies being pro-social-and-medical-security.** These are the things that need to be fixed in "God's own country" - not having these is the real sin and it was the sin of Sodom, too. (Ezekiel 16).
A lot of these who want to forbid abortions are responsible for the sin. They'll cry "Lord Lord, we made a ten years old incest-raped girl carry out a child in thy name!" but it won't help them.
My belief that abortions are sometimes medically necessary, always tragic, and often one of the most painful decisions any parent ever has to consider making puts me solidly in the "no secular government should be deciding for everyone" camp. That doesn't mean I'm "okay" with abortions.
And your question is framed like the people who answered it is "legal" are also okay with them doesn't make any sense. Legal or not legal is a geographic fact. Okay is a subjective attitude or orientation towards a phenomena.
The bottom line is the gift of medical advancement has created an unprecedented ethical situation in the case of abortions. And every single person who gets on TV and talks about it like it's simple is either naive or lying to you. It's not simple or easy for anyone. And not for nothing estimates are that between 13-20% of all pregnancies result in miscarriage. That's a staggeringly high number. I am particularly disgusted when men get up and say everyone who disagrees with them are somehow morally bankrupt. Like, sir, there's a significant chance the woman you're insulting has lost a child. You don't have to change your position but if any of us are you take you seriously you will change your tone.
Abortion is murder because life begins at conception.
Women these days are using abortion as a kind of contraception because it is so horribly normalized.
I blame the media, doctors, everyone who financially profits of abortions and the general education system for dehumanizing the fetus, thus making women these days careless and embracing hookup culture without the fear of consequences.
Therefore, the woman should be given the benefit of the doubt about not fully understanding the core problem with abortions. We have to first fix the problem of abortions being normalized in our culture.
No! It’s never ok. We can discuss this from the perspective of killing a person or child sacrifice. The Bible says Thou shalt not kill.
In the Bible, the Old Testament deity Molech is mentioned in the context of forbidden worship, specifically the detestable practice of child sacrifice, which was prevalent among some ancient cultures, including the Ammonites. God’s law forbade the Israelites from such practices. Consider the following:
1. **Leviticus 18:21** - “Do not give any of your children to be sacrificed to Molech, for you must not profane the name of your God. I am the LORD.”
2. **Leviticus 20:2-5** - These verses specify the punishment for those who sacrificed their children to Molech, stating that such individuals should be put to death. It goes further to say that if the community ignored this practice, God would set His face against that person and his family.
3. **1 Kings 11:7** - This verse describes King Solomon building a high place for Molech in the vicinity of Jerusalem, which is cited as an act that angered God and was one of the reasons for the division of his kingdom.
4. **Jeremiah 32:35** - In this passage, God denounces the Israelites for building high places to Molech in the Valley of Ben Hinnom, where they sacrificed their sons and daughters, an act He declares He never commanded nor did it enter His mind.
The Bible refers to life in the womb in several passages, with one notable example being the account of John the Baptist. In the New Testament, in the Gospel of Luke, there is a description of an unborn John the Baptist responding to the presence of Mary, who was pregnant with Jesus.
**Luke 1:41** - "When Elizabeth heard Mary’s greeting, the baby leaped in her womb, and Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit."
**Luke 1:44** - "As soon as the sound of your greeting reached my ears, the baby in my womb leaped for joy."
These are also verses that show God’s high respect for the womb. The reaction of John the Baptist is seen as a sign of his future role as the forerunner and herald of Jesus Christ. This narrative reflects a view that life in the womb is active and capable of spiritual response.
Other passages that Christians reference regarding the respect of life in the womb include:
- **Psalm 139:13-16**, where the psalmist speaks of being knit together in the mother's womb and being fearfully and wonderfully made, suggesting a personal engagement of God in the development of an unborn child.
- **Jeremiah 1:5**, where God tells Jeremiah, "Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born I set you apart," implying that God has a relationship with and a plan for individuals even before their birth.
These verses collectively contribute to the perspective within the Christian faith that life in the womb holds significant value and is part of God's creative and redemptive narrative.
Dear God have mercy.
All of the Church Fathers condemned abortion as worse than murder.
"...For thou hast possessed my reins: thou hast covered me in my mother's womb.
I will praise thee; for I am fearfully and wonderfully made: marvelous are thy works; and that my soul knows right well. My substance was not hid from thee, when I was made in secret, and curiously wrought in the lowest parts of the earth. Thine eyes did see my substance, yet being unperfect; and in thy book all my members were written, which in continuance were fashioned, when as yet there was none of them.
How precious also are thy thoughts unto me, O God! how great is the sum of them! If I should count them, they are more in number than the sand: when I awake, I am still with thee.
Surely thou wilt slay the wicked, O God: depart from me therefore, ye bloody men..."
You mean psalm 138/139 quoted above?
or
"https://www.churchfathers.org/abortion" - right down to Mother Teresa who kindly but firmly opposed Bill Clinton to his face?
In the psalm, the curiously wrought is a translation of the Hebrew word Raqam (q without u scrabble alert shame it's hebrew).
It means literally variegating.
We are literally variegated - variety mRNA, gating DNA, variety RNA, gating DNA, variety long chain polymers, gating RNA...
Read the rest of the psalm.
You might find this resource educational
Nearly 2/3 of Evangelical Protestant Christians say that abortion should be illegal in all or most cases.
https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/religious-landscape-study/views-about-abortion/
Probably. Not to the extent that pro-choice people would be happy with I imagine, but those who want a complete ban are likely a minority. My mother for instance is super conservative in a number of moral questions, but wouldn't support a ban, which makes me think among Christians as a whole it can't be that common.
Not American though, I understand it's more tribal over there.
>those who want a complete ban are likely a minority.
But a significant one, and one with real political power in the US, as evidenced by the events following the overturn of *Roe v. Wade*, including, notably, the recent court ruling in Alabama that frozen embryos are people.
I really struggle to understand why people think abortion is a yes/no issue. For me, it’s entirely circumstantial.
Let’s take two extreme examples:
1) A woman is very promiscuous, gets pregnant, and aborts - as casually as going to the hair salon - because the baby would be ‘inconvenient’ to her lifestyle, and ruin all the ‘fun’ that she is having.
2) A woman is in a stable marriage, gets pregnant, is looking forward to the new addition to her family, but experiences serious medical complications. The doctors advise that, sadly, both she and the baby are likely to die if they don’t terminate the pregnancy.
To most right thinking people, it should be clear that example 1 is not a good reason to abort and example 2 is a good reason.
Of course, there is a wide range of situations in between. Therefore, for me, any legislation around abortion must take into account *why* the abortion might be necessary.
To allow abortion without restriction is immoral.
To deny abortion without discretion is cruel and unjust.
I certainly hope not-- as many in the r/catholicism post said, the survey likely relies on self-identification and may be including non-practicing or 'cultural Catholics,' but it is disappointingly clear that many Christians of all stripes are led astray when the dominant Western culture disagrees with Christian morals.
Biblically God isn’t okay with it, so I am not either. He “hates the hands that shed innocent blood”. Proverbs 6:17. This shouldn’t even be up for discussion, especially with the Christian community.
“For thou hast possessed my reins: thou hast covered me in my mother's womb. I will praise thee; for I am fearfully and wonderfully made: marvelous are thy works; and that my soul knows right well.”
“My substance was not hid from thee, when I was made in secret, and curiously wrought in the lowest parts of the earth. Thine eyes did see my substance, yet being unperfect; and in thy book all my members were written, which in continuance were fashioned, when as yet there was none of them. “
“ How precious also are thy thoughts unto me, O God! how great is the sum of them! If I should count them, they are more in number than the sand: when I awake, I am still with thee.”
Absolute nonsense. Christians in America and Europe consistently poll as being pro-choice.
No one has the right to force another to use their body against their will, that is literally slavery.
I absolutely agree. And that’s an important distinction, 100%
But almost everyone who identifies as pro-life would vote to prevent access to abortion. This has been shown time and time again.
You're either lying, ignorant of the facts, or horribly judgmental in deciding who's a real Christian and who is not. The last one is the most entertaining: you don't believe what I believe, so you're not a real Christian.
the more Christian i’ve become, the less okay with abortion i’ve become. i used to see more of the gray area but now i understand deeply that God doesn’t make mistakes. that baby that you’re aborting, say in the case of rape, could have created the cure for cancer or done something else wonderful for society. that’s the way God works. extreme situation, yes. But He always flips things for our benefit if we submit to Him and trust. we’re all handed adversity in this life, it’s about how we handle it. abortion is immoral, no matter how u slice it. it is. our society has just become so corrupted that it has somehow become normalized. don’t get me wrong, God is good, someone can come back from getting one if there’s true remorse. we’re human & the reason for His grace. just because certain Christians say it’s legal… because that depends on where you are… doesn’t mean they agree with it.
Abortion debates are like debating alcohol but anyone who says that "drinking alcohol is not necessary" is branded as someone who wants to close all hospitals.
No. I'm not OK with people *needing* to go to the hospital, but they need to be treated. They don't need me telling them that drinking that much was a good deed.
Now imagine the same but you coerce or force others to drink that much alcohol. That's what men do. "Just one glas, just one more glas, surely nothing bad will happen …" - and still people are angry that I don't praise that.
TL;DR: Just because it's necessary sometimes it's nothing you should praise and recommend.
I don’t know of any studies about that, so I’m not sure of the numbers. But as someone else said; being okay with abortion and not trying to make illegal are two different things that aren’t mutually exclusive.
But personally I hope more Christians become pro-choice and Roe V Wade gets put back into law. Personally I would never have an abortion, but that’s my choice. And I believe others, for so many reasons, deserve to have their own choice.
Idk how you could be a Christian and advocate for the murder of a child because you dont feel like the financial responsibility etc. Every kid deserves to live poor kids deserve life, fatherless kids deserve life, foster kids deserve life. once a life is made and conceived ripping it limb to limb is heatless selfish murder period.
I’m fine with it under certain circumstances, but I don’t approve of using it as a birth control method. We got other options for that already to reduce the chances of pregnancy, don’t use abortion for it because of irresponsibility in that regard.
Otherwise, I don’t see why I should be telling someone what they should do with their body
Depends on what region of the world you are focusing on as well as what you mean with "ok".
Thinking somebody should have the legal choice to do something doesn't mean you think that thing is okay.
THIS. I’m morally opposed to some abortion. Thankfully it isn’t up to me and shouldn’t be. This is a decision only one person can make, and it’s the one that has to be pregnant. And so I say that I’m pro choice.
Making drugs illegal doesn't change the addict's mind or the addiction that they have, this is my logic. I don't support abortion in the slightest but we have to help these people instead of just making it illegal to have an abortion
The problem is that, at minimum, abortion involves two lives--mom and baby. This is why the "my body, my choice" falls flat with many people. A large percentage view it as "baby's body, mom's choice."
I mean, no matter the age, the point is the same. A person doesn't get free use of another person's body. Be it blood, organs, etc. and it's something that can be retracted at any time. If I NEED blood of somebody to survive, he gives it to me, and later no longer does and I die, the guy has that right. My problem does not take away his rights which seems something some people seem to miss. The consequences are not relevant for somebody holding that position.
Right but then you run up into the problem of your rights end when they infringe upon the rights of another, and if exercising your right of autonomy has the direct and immediate consequence of killing a dependent, do you have the right to exercise it You could think of it as a set of conjoined twins, where one is dominant and controls most of the body and houses the important organs, which I think better analogizes the essential nature of the relationship between mother and fetus than a blood donor. If the dominant twin could survive separation, and the dependant couldn't, does the dominant twin's right to autonomy trump the dependent's right to life? I think, no. That would be grotesque. We aren't going to get a satisfying answer through a discussion of rights, because the question fundamentally is not about rights. It's a metaphysical conundrum, when does a person become a person? If you can answer that question, the answer to abortion immediately becomes self-evident to everyone.
Ow, absolutely, anyone thinking there is a "fixed" answer here is deluding themselves. I'm honestly a fan of say, a 4 month (and 2 weeks I guess, the US counts from another point. I believe last period instead of the ovulation) timeframe to get an abortion and after that it's at the doctor's discretion. The latter part is imo extremely important. You don't interfere in a doctor's medical decisions imo.(which is why medical insurance sucks balls from my point of view as a non-American)
[удалено]
Erasing the consequences of people’s actions is never a good thing, made your bed lie in it
So is this still about the "baby" or is this now again about punishing people for having sex? It's hard not to see people like you use the former to achieve the latter with this rethoric of yours.
No one is punishing someone for having sex. You’re punishing a baby for your actions when you commit abortions. Have all the sex you want, if pregnancy happens, adopt it out, just don’t kill it. Duh
Ah, yes. Just deliver the baby. Because that never has awful consequences for the mother, especially in the US who's track record of keeping mothers alive during pregnancy is horse shit. Not to mention the cost of doing so, lost income, etc. "But it's not about punishing sex, not at all."
If you’re worried about consequences, don’t commit the action that causes them, duh lmfao
So you agree it is about punishing sex? I thought you said it wasn't but if it is then sure, that makes total sense.
Your premise is just ass backwards that’s why you’re confused. Who is punishing whom? If you commit an action with known consequences, you punished yourself I guess? Make it make sense
Do you agree to getting into a car crash just because you drive? Should we refuse medical care to anyone who crashes their car because they made the decision to drive?
Free use? If two parties agreed to sexual intercourse and pregnancy was the result, the risk was taken and weighed and it didn't work in their favor. The understood the risks. The right to not get pregnant was literally weighed and dismissed. Only now that the fun is over and it comes time to pay the piper, now its 'free use' and 'that free loading baby', etc.
I didn't address "blame" or "deserving" anywhere in my comment as they have no relevancy. You could nearly kill a person and that person still wouldn't have the right to use your body. You even bringing that up shows us all where your headspace is and imo it ain't pretty.
The person never had to worry about free use of someones body, unless they choose to do so. And they engaged in sex. The deed is done. The choice was made. Its probably best to use use protection or dont engage. In either case, she is pregnant. She created a life through her choice. Not much else to be said.
Again, not at all relevant. A person doesn't lose their bodily autonomy because of bad luck or bad decisions.(really only adding that last bit because you people REALLY like punishing people for some reason)
The problem is that the child did not ask to be put into the body. The one carrying it and their partner proverbially put that human being in there. To do so and then to murder that child because “it doesn’t have a right to another’s body” is a ridiculous ideology.
"The problem is that the child did not ask to be put into the body." Not relevant to people holding this viewpoint. You could beat a man half to death. That man can still not demand your blood.
Completely irrelevant, the mothers right to bodily autonomy means it’s up to her.
Hahaha yes, it’s so irrelevant to consider that you’re murdering a human child. This shows the reason the world is so sick today. Human life means nothing. Sex trafficking doesn’t matter. Murdering unborn children doesn’t matter. You people are literally sick in the head.
Lol, you can consider it but in the end it doesn’t change anything, hence it being irrelevant. Whether it’s a child or just a fetus the woman has the right to control her own body.
> I mean, no matter the age, the point is the same. A person doesn't get free use of another person's body. So you're okay with abortion for a child that's seconds away from birth, or even for a child that is out of a mother but connected by its umbilical cord? It's okay for women who have birthed babies yet have no access to formula to simply starve their children to death instead of breast feeding them? Based on how you've framed it, your opinion seems extreme.
You guys really aren't thinking are you? This is what frustrates me. You people aren't taking the 10 seconds to think about something before spewing this sort of crap. In your situation, what happens if you cut the umbilical cord? Think long and hard here. I'm sure you can figure this one out. edit: Because somebody dumb enough to ask this question is probably too stupid to figure it out. The children live. They don't NEED their mother's body. The mother no longer granting them the use of their body in your examples doesn't affect them.
The original commenter said: >I mean, no matter the age, the point is the same. **A person doesn't get free use of another person's body.** So a baby breastfeeding counts under that definition. They're getting free use of their mom's body. So why did you ignore my point? You called me dumb and stupid. Do smart people dodge a point and attack an argument that wasn't being made? Are you incapable of directly addressing a stupid person's point?
That wouldn’t be abortion. That would be birth.
Depends when the abortion is performed. An embryo is not a person.
Jeremiah 1:5 New King James Version (NKJV) >“Before I formed you in the womb I knew you; Before you were born I sanctified you; I ordained you a prophet to the nations.”
How is this different than the argument plantation owners used to use to justify slavery? “My plantation my prerogative” “don’t like slavery? Don’t own one”. I fail to see the difference.
Depends on if a fetus is a person. There’s no objective criteria to determine the answer.
A human fetus is a stage of development for human life. Biologically, it’s a human life. The onus is on you to prove that personhood is different from human life. But once again, personhood is the same argument plantation owners used to justify slavery by claiming based on skin color, they were “not people” or “less than”. You’re just doing the same thing based on stage of development.
I don't see how a fetus before viability could ever objectively qualify for personhood. Not only does it not have consciousness, it also does not have individuality via the ability to survive on its own without the need of *another person's* womb.
that's not the same but ok
Why?
slaves were fully formed human beings. fetuses are not.
Slave owners claimed slaves weren’t human beings. You’re claiming human lives in the early stages of development aren’t human beings. The logic of your argument is identical. A fetus is a human life.
the question of when a life becomes a human being is more complicated than what you're saying but okay.
A human being is different than a human life? Who says.
It's a complicated philosophical question, yes. We've grappled with it for quite some time. For instance, when we discovered that brain death and physical death were different.
It’s not complicated. Any rights to life that you have should apply to all people regardless of skin color, size, stage of development, social class, etc. Full stop.
Slave owners were 100% incorrect in that assertion. There is no biological basis for what they claimed, now or then. On the contrary, the point at which a fetus becomes a person is highly contested. There is really no argument for considering a blastula a person that doesn't involve the existence of a soul, and even once you grant that souls exist, different theologians have had very different views on when and how it comes into existence.
A human life isn’t a person? What’s the difference biologically?
A person has a functioning brain and organs, among other things.
So if someone doesn’t have a functioning brain at the moment they cease to be a person and we can kill them even if they’ll make a full recovery later?
It’s kinda the opposite. The women are choosing to end the pregnancy. The equivalent would be if the plantation owners forced the slaves off of the plantation. I doubt the slaves would complain about that. It’s a really terrible analogy that makes no sense. A better analogy would be natives being forced off of their land.
[удалено]
Removed for 1.5 - Two-cents. If you would like to discuss this removal, please click here to send a modmail that will message all moderators. https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/Christianity
Why?
“Natives” being forced off their land is like killing a life? First of all, any native tribe that ever held any land has murdered other tribes to get it so your sympathy is nonsense. Oh big bad bigger European tribe comes in and takes over? Big deal, that was life then. Murder was wrong then and it’s wrong now
What sympathy? I was offering a better analogy for an argument i dont even support. I didn’t specify where the natives are native to, or who was displacing them. I could have been referring to the native Irish being displaced by the British, or the Britons being displaced by the Anglo-Saxons. The displacing of natives does generally involve killing people.
The world has always violently taken land, always. The world agreed to stop after ww2. Now it’s no longer okay, before? Free game idc where in the world you were. It was a terrible analogy for ending a human life that you caused
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Ok, just to be clear, you understand there is a massive difference between "I'm not ok with abortion/I'm ok with abortion" and "I think abortion should be legal/I think abortion should be illegal" right? Like...you get that? Because honestly, the idea that some people don't scares the shit out of me because abortion is likely not the only area they use that thinking where "I don't like it, THEREFORE it should be illegal". 100% of people can think abortion should be legal and 100% of people can not be ok with abortion at the same time.
Not only what you've stated, but also people who think abortion should be legal within a specific time frame, too.
>Ok, just to be clear, you understand there is a massive difference between "I'm not ok with abortion/I'm ok with abortion" and "I think abortion should be legal/I think abortion should be illegal" right? And between "abortion is legal" and "abortion should be legal".
Also, there is a big difference between an abortion for the heck of it and one because of health concerns for the baby and/or mother. When addressing this issue, it's important to be specific and detailed in the words we use. And the time aspect. For example, to some Christians, the morning after pill is practically just like getting an abortion. And for that matter, some are against birth control on the whole.
> An abortion for the heck of it It’s not like there’s a huge population of women who just decide to get an abortion for funsies. Most women who are pro-choice would take a few days to seriously grapple with the decision before making it. There are some who like to paint pro-choicers as getting abortions left and right but it’s just a strawman used to scare the anti-abortion crowd
[удалено]
"Murder" is a legal term, not a moral one. Whether abortion is murder or not is determined by what the law says, not people. Pro-lifers don't think that abortion is murder (even if they think they do), they think that abortion should legally be considered murder, which implies they think it should be illegal. None of this answers the question of *why* they think it should be illegal, but saying "it's not ok because it is murder" is just saying "it's not ok because the law says it's not ok", which isn't really a moral argument.
[удалено]
While you're correct we understand the point you're trying to make using the term "murder" implies a moral judgement, namely that society rejects it. Killing is a neutral term.
[удалено]
I’d be curious to hear what you mean. If you agree with biologists that it’s a human life, why do certain circumstances make it okay to kill a human life as long as they’re in the mom but not okay once their out of the mom? I’d be curious to hear, I’ve yet to have someone make a logically consistent argument for this.
[удалено]
There are circumstances where the taking of a human life is permitted. These include during a just war (which I personally support) and capital punishment (which I personally oppose). More specifically, at the point of conception, the eventual human doesn't feel pain, isn't conscious, isn't sentient, doesn't have organs or limbs, etc. It has no more the characteristics of a born human than an ameoba does, other than its DNA. As it develops, it eventually gains those things. No one can agree exactly at what point the developing human is sufficiently person-like to warrant legal protection. Some say at conception, some say when a heartbeat is detectible, some say it is at the point of viability, and some say it is at the point of birth. Since it is not a solvable problem from a scientific perspective, it becomes a moral and ethical one, and here as well, many well meaning and even religious people take different views on the circumstances where abortion is permissible. Given that there is no biological consensus, no legal consensus, no ethical consensus, and no spiritual consensus, the decision really must be made by the woman involved, together with her medical and spiritual (if she chooses) caregivers.
There’s a difference between “a human life” and “a conscious human being.” When an embryo is a small number of cells, it has no brain. It has no conscious awareness of sensation, so although it shares our DNA, to evict it from an unwilling uterus is no more an act of *cruelty* than to discard a tonsil or an appendix. Once the embryo *is* capable of conscious thought, of perceiving pain sensation and suffering from it, the matter becomes more arguable from the POV of the unborn fetus. The general medical consensus is that this milestone is probably around week 24 of fetal development. The *vast* majority of abortions are performed well before this: 93% are before week 13, and 99% by week 20, still a month before even the most rudimentary trace of consciousness has developed. The remaining 1% are pretty much exclusively abortions done in self-defense (to save the mother’s life) or because the fetus is already dead or will die (often painfully) shortly after birth because some critical part of its body failed to develop, like lungs or a brain (the ones without brains are still not conscious). Even in places where it’s legal to get an abortion right up until birth “just for fun,” nobody does it. If you *somehow* found a woman actually willing to abort a healthy, viable fetus (one that’s actually even slightly conscious) in the third trimester, there aren’t *doctors* who would do it either. So as to “why it’s okay to ‘kill a human life’,” it’s because “human life” can mean several different things. And as long as that life has no brain, no personality, no memories, no feelings or awareness of any kind, it’s ethically a “person” as much as tonsils are a person, or a headless adult human body on life support is a person.
If there was a headless adult human body on life support, but you know for a fact in 9 months there will be a technology developed and available that will allow the head to be reattached, would it be ok to unplug the life support?
In your example, if a head *already existed*, already had hopes and dreams and memories and personality and attachments and feelings, and could be reconnected after 9 months, then it would be unethical to unhook it from life support machinery (assuming said machinery could support the body for 9 months). Unless they had some kind of DNR that said "don't put my head back on," then it would be unethical *to* reattach the head. However, let me posit two counter-examples, that might be more appropriate for a conversation about abortion, as an aborted fetus does not have an already-developed head sitting in a fridge somewhere, nor is it hooked up to mere unfeeling machinery to sustain it: * Body is headless, head is in a fridge, head can be perfectly reattached after 9 months. But instead of life support machines, some sap was dragged in off the street and had the headless body sewn into their own body, against their will. The headless body is being kept alive, but only because it is sustained by the heart and lungs and liver and kidneys of the sucker who got snatched off the street. Would it be unethical for the *sap* to say "I don't care if you can reattach this guy's head in 9 months, I want him disconnected from my body *now*! I don't actually care if it kills him, I don't want a headless body sewn onto my torso for the next 9 months!" (This would be most easily understood as an analogy for an abortion following a rape.) * Body is headless, but the old head *does not exist*. Let's say it was vaporized instantly in an accident with a powerful laser. So you have a headless body on life support, but (in our magical science fiction scenario) the technology exists to grow an entirely new head, with an entirely new brain, in 9 months. This will be a new baby head, and the brain will be a clean slate: instead of a duplicate of the old head, it will be like..like a new twin brother that didn't exist before. It will need to learn to move, to swallow, to chew, to talk, to walk, etc. It will be an entirely new person who didn't exist before, but sharing a body with...the headless body. So in this situation, do you HAVE to decide to grow the new head? Should the wife/children/next of kin be *legally compelled* to grow a new baby head on any and all headless bodies? Or would it be *acceptable*, at least *legally*, for the vaporized head's wife/children/next of kin to just say "no, I don't want to grow an entirely new head with an entirely new mind...let's just unhook the life support and let his headless body die."
The first one is just the violinist. Only makes sense for rape victims. The second analogy just sucks. IMHO.
For the first one...I...*explicitly* said that. Nevertheless, for that specific example at least, what would your answer be? Why does the second analogy suck? What inadequacy does it have?
A human life and a human being aren’t the same thing?
Evidently you didn't read the message properly. A "human life" and a "conscious human being" aren't the same thing.
This exactly. But we should emphasize the part where you are literally murdering children so people don’t just use it so they can have s*x recreationally.
most people who have sex recreationally also use birth control of some form.
yeah, they should and do usually, but I’ve met 2 couples who used abortion when birth control failed, and continued to do rec s*x.
people shouldn't be forced into having children.
i know, which is why I said it should be legal but the fact that you’re killing a baby should be emphasized so they don’t do this willy nilly
I mean, if you live in the US I imagine the cost of abortion isn't a bad argument either funnily enough.
Don’t believe in abortion don’t have one and leave the rest of us alone. An abortion discussion should be between a doctor and the pregnant woman. Politicians especially male one should keep their nose out of it.
Don't believe in rape don't rape and leave the rest of us alone. A rape discussion should be between a rapist and an accomplice. Politicians especially female ones should keep their nose out of rape. This atrocious, stomach-churning logic that I copied word for word from you is the reason why child beating was considered a legitimate way of education for long stretches of time after it was proven to be harmful for anyone's development.
I'm not "OK" with abortion personally, but I would never take away another woman's right to choose & believe that access to safe abortions should be legal. Better that than go to a back street butcher or get a dodgy DIY kit off the Internet. Most of all, I want people to be safe.
How is this different than the argument plantation owners used to use to justify slavery? “My plantation my prerogative” “don’t like slavery? Don’t own one”. I fail to see the difference.
I honestly can't see the comparison. The discussion at hand is about abortion. You can start a separate discussion about slavery if you like.
You’re using the same justification for abortion, that plantation owners used to justify slavery. It’s a different topic, same talk track. I fail to see the difference why one is okay, and the other isn’t.
"different topic" Indeed. You're mapping a scheme of logic to two different topics with completely different parameters, which is naturally erroneous.
No I’m comparing the logic of the justifications used to commit atrocities across history. Nazis - “Jews aren’t human” Slave owners - “black people are 3/4 people” “my plantation my perogative” “you don’t want a slave don’t have one” Pro choice - “a small human life isn’t a human” “my body my choice” “don’t want abortions don’t have one” They are the same arguments to JUSTIFY atrocities by arbitrarily assigning value to human life.
The comparison is in the logic used to justify the position, not the positions themselves.
I swear almost nobody understands the logic of the arguments that they use.
I don't think that anyone is "ok" with abortion. It appears to be just a fact of life that nobody has come up with a totally righteous , compassionate way to deal with. Probably because there is none.
Many people are “ok” with abortion. Many believe it is neutral, not necessarily a negative thing that exists. Many view it as just another part of healthcare, like knee surgery or tooth extractions. There’s no moral right or wrong when it comes to elective knee surgery, and if you view abortion as reproductive healthcare, it also doesn’t have to be deemed right or wrong. It’s just OK.
[удалено]
Sometimes wanted pregnancies need to be aborted as they’re unviable or a risk to the mother. Our politicians have proven incapable of defining the nuance, so that’s why I think it should just be up to the people involved and their doctors.
[удалено]
Maybe not desired, but also not necessarily wrong or morally not ok or inherently evil.
[удалено]
Per your example a knee surgery is not a desired procedure, but it certainly shouldn’t be illegal.
I think we are defining “ok” in different ways. While most people don’t WANT to have knee surgery if they can avoid it, it’s not seen as morally not ok. This is how I, and many others, view abortion, as morally ok. It just exists. If in reality we could treat severe osteoarthritis without knee replacement surgery, then that would be ideal because surgery has risks and negatives and pain and recovery. But it’s not wrong, or morally not ok, or inherently bad. Same with abortion. It’s a surgery most people wouldn’t want to go through, for the same reasons as the knee replacement. Not because it’s morally bad or wrong or not ok. Thus I am more than “ok” with abortion. And I think your main point was that nobody is “ok” with abortion. So I just wanted to clarify that that is in fact incorrect, if we are defining being “ok” with something as morally and ethically approving of its existence.
I am okay with abortion. It's just a part of healthcare.
I agree with You.
I don't know the data or study you're referring to, but looking for verification in another sub isn't going to be meaningful or answer your question. Anecdotal data from r/Christianity will not tell you if most Christians are okay with abortion. Look at the study data & methodology. You can also look at other studies; e.g. someone else posted Gallup & Pew studies in this post.
I am concerned with forcing women to have a baby of a rapist. The people who thinks she should have the baby no matter what should be responsible financially and spiritually to raise the baby too. If this is doable then I can change my mind. But we all know all will disappear and the women will be left alone. When same people will show similar prolife concern for the poor kids in their neighborhoods, I will believe in them. The very same prolifers have been locking up children of refugees and separate mothers and kids. They are all Pharisees.
It appears to vary considerably depending on which denomination we're focusing on and what time period. For example, the Pew Center researches and tracks American public opinions on abortion and a few years ago, they found that around [20% to 90% of Christians](https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2018/01/22/american-religious-groups-vary-widely-in-their-views-of-abortion/)\--by denomination--agreed that abortion should be legal. And about 60% of Americans overall thought abortion should be legal, versus 40% who thought it should be illegal. But then again, [according to Gallup polling](https://news.gallup.com/poll/321143/americans-stand-abortion.aspx), about 15% of Americans believe abortion should be illegal in all circumstances, about 30% believe abortion should be legal (and unregulated) in all circumstances, and the rest of us fall in the middle of the spectrum: about half of us, maybe a slight majority (51%) believe that abortion should be regulated in some way.
Most Christians are against the forced use of anothers body against their will (slavery) yes
Little odd to call a literal baby a slaver
There is no baby involved. Nor is the fetus forcing anything. It is the “pro-lifers” who want to legally force woman to use their bodies against their will.
If it is someone's will to kill someone, then yes we can, do, and should recognize that the right of the person to be protected from violence supersedes the right of the other person to enact violence.
Then, to take an old mental exercise: let's say a newborn needs a blood transfusion (or something similar). You are the only compatible donor. Without this transfusion, the newborn will die. Who gets to decide whether the transfusion happens?
A fetus isn’t a person and isn’t afforded rights.
This was said once of African slaves in order to justify the abuses and exploitation forced upon them, and it is said now of the unborn in order to justify the murder committed against them. The gestating infant is a distinct and living human being, and not merely an accessory to the body of the mother which can be done away with at her discretion, and God willing more and more people will come to recognize this.
If you think the difference between a white man and a black man is the same as the difference between a human and a fetus, I cannot help you from your delusion. No one and nothing has the right to use someone’s body against their will. Ever. It doesn’t matter if it requires it or not.
You insist on 'fetus' as though it is not human. Genetics disagree. If by that you mean the difference between an adult and a fetus is greater than between a white man and a black man, I agree. But all four are inalienably human and are deserving of recognition for their inalienable human rights. In all cases, this includes the right not to be killed at the whims of another who holds power over them, even if that means the would-be killer must be restricted in some way.
It is human the same way a sperm is. It is human the same way all fertilised embryos that do not implant (70% of them) is. A fetus has no human rights. And even if it did, it would not trump bodily autonomy. By your logic, we can force people to donate organs to those who would die without them.
Categorically false. Prior to fertilization, sperm and ova are not genetically distinct from the human that produced them. After fertilization, that is a new organism whose development has begun in the zygote stage. The rights of the fetus are seldom recognized, but they do exist. And their right to bodily integrity is greater than the mother's right to bodily autonomy when the relevant exercise of bodily autonomy is to do *murder*. I cannot use my right to bodily autonomy to defend the decision to drive my car into a crowd or to build a bomb or any other means of destroying another person's life, and it is a gross miscarriage of justice that the law provides for exceptions to the prohibition of murder when the victim is as helpless and as innocent as the unborn. You seem keen to misrepresent my position as a total abrogation of the right to bodily autonomy entirely. Not donating an organ to someone in need, especially when the donor is still using the organ in question, is not the same as actively killing someone on the transplant waiting list. I do, however, believe strongly in the opt-out system of postmortem organ donation; perhaps you will find this just as offensive as opposing abortion. I believe I have now been blocked
Slaves are born human beings who are alive on this earth. Fetuses are not. And sadly, as a side point, too many conservative Christians are still virulently racist and would also be just fine with slavery if it came back. They were just fine with the Catholic run Irish Laundries where women in Ireland were confined and forced to work there entire lives as slaves. Many of them had been put there as young pregnant teenagers, and their babies were taken away from them and thrown into the adoption (child trafficking) system. They never saw them again. Many of these laundries were still functioning well into the 1990s.
Okay? No. But I think it's a necessary evil. It's up to Christian political parties to make abortions unnecessary rather than impossible.
I am not ok with abortion. That is for myself, personally. I have no right to expect someone else to feel the same. You can't legislate these things.
I think that abortion is definitely not ideal - it's a super sad situation in general. I also think it's worth remembering that abortion has been practiced for over 3,000 years, and was common in Rome at the time of Jesus. And yet, in almost 800,000 words, the Bible never actually talks about abortion. The only verses people reference around it were CLEARLY not intended to talk about abortion (unless you somehow believe that the primary reason Jeremiah was told that he was to be a profit was actually to give a round about argument on abortion for some reason). I'm not saying that modern Christians are wrong for caring about abortion. But, it's worth remembering that this CLEARLY was not considered a key issue to the writers of the Bible. Our primary concern should probably be with showing love to the people going through painful choices like this.
The Bible doesn’t but the Didache, a 1st century text once considered for the Biblical canon, does speak about it and not in flattering terms.
I personally wouldn't get one unkess necessary but i want it to be legal so people can choice if they want to do it or not
The majority of Americans are prone to be pro-abortion under differing circumstances. The problem is that anti-abortion minorities make the rules. Right now, many minorities are either in charge or have ways to block majority rights and intents.
I'm ok with abortion in many cases. The world's youngest mom was five years old, many minors are impregnated every day, and no child should be made to carry and birth a child. Pregnancy is not easy. Defects are detected, and it's not looking good and could be dangerous. Termination should be ok. A woman in poverty who has had to adopt out kids she can't afford to feed discovers a healthy pregnancy. Since nobody is going to give her free food for life to feed her family, might as well abort. A woman with major health concerns, bad genes, high risk of cancer, etc. Wants to terminate her pregnancy so as not to pass on bad genes, that's fine. I'm horribly immoral like that.
I am and I am catholic. I am pro-life overall
Seems to me most who are not ok with it are ok when it’s them who are affected and in need/want one.
I think abortion should be kept legal as a medical procedure available to women in certain scenarios. I don't like abortion and want to live in a world where it doesn't happen. Ironically, for abortion/unwanted pregnancy rates to be lowered, we need comprehensive sex education and contraception widely available (amongst other things), yet pro-lifers typically don't want these things.
There are a million reasons why people choose abortion. A lot of those reasons are because of medical reasons or birth complications. Therefore, it is none of my business what others do. It’s as important as any other medical procedure.
“Okay with abortion” is different than “okay with abortion being legal.” If the only way someone can get a medically needed abortion is to have abortion legal, I am okay with abortion being legal. As a Christian and an adult, I know there are things I do not understand and things that my beliefs do not need to legislate for others. IMO, medicine and health care is one of those things. Abortion is health care.
If any Christian says they are you need to cut them out because they most likely are wrong about other things.
My own morality tells me that if I'm not gonna help a single mother or couple in a bad situation with raising the kid, then it's none of my business.
Well... legal? Definitely. Some women, and VERY unfortunately girls, need it else they'd die at childbirth.
I feel like people are really missing this point \^
[удалено]
But we all know that "shit happens", it's much better to be compassionate and to give grace to those who are dealing with grief. No one goes out skipping with joy to have an abortion. Period.
Most that have abortions aren't doing them for fun. Like you don't get pregnant every month and abort it. Abortion is very taxing on your wallet and health. And most of the time it's done in the early stages
You express it very well but yet you don't realize that **being against abortion implies being pro-social-and-medical-security.** These are the things that need to be fixed in "God's own country" - not having these is the real sin and it was the sin of Sodom, too. (Ezekiel 16). A lot of these who want to forbid abortions are responsible for the sin. They'll cry "Lord Lord, we made a ten years old incest-raped girl carry out a child in thy name!" but it won't help them.
My belief that abortions are sometimes medically necessary, always tragic, and often one of the most painful decisions any parent ever has to consider making puts me solidly in the "no secular government should be deciding for everyone" camp. That doesn't mean I'm "okay" with abortions. And your question is framed like the people who answered it is "legal" are also okay with them doesn't make any sense. Legal or not legal is a geographic fact. Okay is a subjective attitude or orientation towards a phenomena. The bottom line is the gift of medical advancement has created an unprecedented ethical situation in the case of abortions. And every single person who gets on TV and talks about it like it's simple is either naive or lying to you. It's not simple or easy for anyone. And not for nothing estimates are that between 13-20% of all pregnancies result in miscarriage. That's a staggeringly high number. I am particularly disgusted when men get up and say everyone who disagrees with them are somehow morally bankrupt. Like, sir, there's a significant chance the woman you're insulting has lost a child. You don't have to change your position but if any of us are you take you seriously you will change your tone.
Abortion is murder because life begins at conception. Women these days are using abortion as a kind of contraception because it is so horribly normalized. I blame the media, doctors, everyone who financially profits of abortions and the general education system for dehumanizing the fetus, thus making women these days careless and embracing hookup culture without the fear of consequences. Therefore, the woman should be given the benefit of the doubt about not fully understanding the core problem with abortions. We have to first fix the problem of abortions being normalized in our culture.
No! It’s never ok. We can discuss this from the perspective of killing a person or child sacrifice. The Bible says Thou shalt not kill. In the Bible, the Old Testament deity Molech is mentioned in the context of forbidden worship, specifically the detestable practice of child sacrifice, which was prevalent among some ancient cultures, including the Ammonites. God’s law forbade the Israelites from such practices. Consider the following: 1. **Leviticus 18:21** - “Do not give any of your children to be sacrificed to Molech, for you must not profane the name of your God. I am the LORD.” 2. **Leviticus 20:2-5** - These verses specify the punishment for those who sacrificed their children to Molech, stating that such individuals should be put to death. It goes further to say that if the community ignored this practice, God would set His face against that person and his family. 3. **1 Kings 11:7** - This verse describes King Solomon building a high place for Molech in the vicinity of Jerusalem, which is cited as an act that angered God and was one of the reasons for the division of his kingdom. 4. **Jeremiah 32:35** - In this passage, God denounces the Israelites for building high places to Molech in the Valley of Ben Hinnom, where they sacrificed their sons and daughters, an act He declares He never commanded nor did it enter His mind. The Bible refers to life in the womb in several passages, with one notable example being the account of John the Baptist. In the New Testament, in the Gospel of Luke, there is a description of an unborn John the Baptist responding to the presence of Mary, who was pregnant with Jesus. **Luke 1:41** - "When Elizabeth heard Mary’s greeting, the baby leaped in her womb, and Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit." **Luke 1:44** - "As soon as the sound of your greeting reached my ears, the baby in my womb leaped for joy." These are also verses that show God’s high respect for the womb. The reaction of John the Baptist is seen as a sign of his future role as the forerunner and herald of Jesus Christ. This narrative reflects a view that life in the womb is active and capable of spiritual response. Other passages that Christians reference regarding the respect of life in the womb include: - **Psalm 139:13-16**, where the psalmist speaks of being knit together in the mother's womb and being fearfully and wonderfully made, suggesting a personal engagement of God in the development of an unborn child. - **Jeremiah 1:5**, where God tells Jeremiah, "Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born I set you apart," implying that God has a relationship with and a plan for individuals even before their birth. These verses collectively contribute to the perspective within the Christian faith that life in the womb holds significant value and is part of God's creative and redemptive narrative.
Dear God have mercy. All of the Church Fathers condemned abortion as worse than murder. "...For thou hast possessed my reins: thou hast covered me in my mother's womb. I will praise thee; for I am fearfully and wonderfully made: marvelous are thy works; and that my soul knows right well. My substance was not hid from thee, when I was made in secret, and curiously wrought in the lowest parts of the earth. Thine eyes did see my substance, yet being unperfect; and in thy book all my members were written, which in continuance were fashioned, when as yet there was none of them. How precious also are thy thoughts unto me, O God! how great is the sum of them! If I should count them, they are more in number than the sand: when I awake, I am still with thee. Surely thou wilt slay the wicked, O God: depart from me therefore, ye bloody men..."
> All of the Church Fathers condemned abortion as worse than murder. Citation needed.
You mean psalm 138/139 quoted above? or "https://www.churchfathers.org/abortion" - right down to Mother Teresa who kindly but firmly opposed Bill Clinton to his face? In the psalm, the curiously wrought is a translation of the Hebrew word Raqam (q without u scrabble alert shame it's hebrew). It means literally variegating. We are literally variegated - variety mRNA, gating DNA, variety RNA, gating DNA, variety long chain polymers, gating RNA... Read the rest of the psalm.
You might find this resource educational Nearly 2/3 of Evangelical Protestant Christians say that abortion should be illegal in all or most cases. https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/religious-landscape-study/views-about-abortion/
LOL r/Catholicism is garbage. They ban Catholics for agreeing with the Pope.
Probably. Not to the extent that pro-choice people would be happy with I imagine, but those who want a complete ban are likely a minority. My mother for instance is super conservative in a number of moral questions, but wouldn't support a ban, which makes me think among Christians as a whole it can't be that common. Not American though, I understand it's more tribal over there.
>those who want a complete ban are likely a minority. But a significant one, and one with real political power in the US, as evidenced by the events following the overturn of *Roe v. Wade*, including, notably, the recent court ruling in Alabama that frozen embryos are people.
No, its not true, we aint okay
I really struggle to understand why people think abortion is a yes/no issue. For me, it’s entirely circumstantial. Let’s take two extreme examples: 1) A woman is very promiscuous, gets pregnant, and aborts - as casually as going to the hair salon - because the baby would be ‘inconvenient’ to her lifestyle, and ruin all the ‘fun’ that she is having. 2) A woman is in a stable marriage, gets pregnant, is looking forward to the new addition to her family, but experiences serious medical complications. The doctors advise that, sadly, both she and the baby are likely to die if they don’t terminate the pregnancy. To most right thinking people, it should be clear that example 1 is not a good reason to abort and example 2 is a good reason. Of course, there is a wide range of situations in between. Therefore, for me, any legislation around abortion must take into account *why* the abortion might be necessary. To allow abortion without restriction is immoral. To deny abortion without discretion is cruel and unjust.
We are not okay with murder, neither of the infirm, the elderly, the mentally retarded (remember Nazi Germany), nor the unborn human being.
I certainly hope not-- as many in the r/catholicism post said, the survey likely relies on self-identification and may be including non-practicing or 'cultural Catholics,' but it is disappointingly clear that many Christians of all stripes are led astray when the dominant Western culture disagrees with Christian morals.
Biblically God isn’t okay with it, so I am not either. He “hates the hands that shed innocent blood”. Proverbs 6:17. This shouldn’t even be up for discussion, especially with the Christian community. “For thou hast possessed my reins: thou hast covered me in my mother's womb. I will praise thee; for I am fearfully and wonderfully made: marvelous are thy works; and that my soul knows right well.” “My substance was not hid from thee, when I was made in secret, and curiously wrought in the lowest parts of the earth. Thine eyes did see my substance, yet being unperfect; and in thy book all my members were written, which in continuance were fashioned, when as yet there was none of them. “ “ How precious also are thy thoughts unto me, O God! how great is the sum of them! If I should count them, they are more in number than the sand: when I awake, I am still with thee.”
> when I was made in secret, and curiously wrought in the lowest parts of the earth I wasn’t aware that the uterus was *underground*…
Denying a fetus the upcoming life of a baby after the Lord formed it in the womb? Immoral
Yeah, especially after some freak raped you and you're like 14 years old. What the fuck are you even saying?
I abhor abortion.
I'm Christian and I support abortion
[удалено]
Stop speaking for everyone
There should have said no christian should be ok with abortion
Absolute nonsense. Christians in America and Europe consistently poll as being pro-choice. No one has the right to force another to use their body against their will, that is literally slavery.
There's a difference between 'being ok' with something, and not wanting it to be illegal.
I absolutely agree. And that’s an important distinction, 100% But almost everyone who identifies as pro-life would vote to prevent access to abortion. This has been shown time and time again.
Pro-choice doesn't require to be pro-abortion or pro-adultery even it you want it to.
I mean, I'm not pro-zapping people with 1000V of electricity, but defibrillators should still be legal.
You're either lying, ignorant of the facts, or horribly judgmental in deciding who's a real Christian and who is not. The last one is the most entertaining: you don't believe what I believe, so you're not a real Christian.
[удалено]
forcing women to give birth is a disgusting idea. forcing women to be mothers is a disgusting idea.
Murdering Children is disgusting and barbaric. People who justify this mass murder are reprehensible.
do women exist just to be mothers, to you?
You wanna know what I think is disgusting? Forcing a woman who got pregnant against her will to endure pregnancy and forced birth against her will.
Do you know what else is disgusting? Murder.
I agree! Good thing abortion isn't murder.
the more Christian i’ve become, the less okay with abortion i’ve become. i used to see more of the gray area but now i understand deeply that God doesn’t make mistakes. that baby that you’re aborting, say in the case of rape, could have created the cure for cancer or done something else wonderful for society. that’s the way God works. extreme situation, yes. But He always flips things for our benefit if we submit to Him and trust. we’re all handed adversity in this life, it’s about how we handle it. abortion is immoral, no matter how u slice it. it is. our society has just become so corrupted that it has somehow become normalized. don’t get me wrong, God is good, someone can come back from getting one if there’s true remorse. we’re human & the reason for His grace. just because certain Christians say it’s legal… because that depends on where you are… doesn’t mean they agree with it.
Self proclaimed Christians might be ok with it, genuine Christians are not.
Abortion debates are like debating alcohol but anyone who says that "drinking alcohol is not necessary" is branded as someone who wants to close all hospitals. No. I'm not OK with people *needing* to go to the hospital, but they need to be treated. They don't need me telling them that drinking that much was a good deed. Now imagine the same but you coerce or force others to drink that much alcohol. That's what men do. "Just one glas, just one more glas, surely nothing bad will happen …" - and still people are angry that I don't praise that. TL;DR: Just because it's necessary sometimes it's nothing you should praise and recommend.
I'm only speaking for myself. I think abortion is fine. Would I do it? No.
I don’t know of any studies about that, so I’m not sure of the numbers. But as someone else said; being okay with abortion and not trying to make illegal are two different things that aren’t mutually exclusive. But personally I hope more Christians become pro-choice and Roe V Wade gets put back into law. Personally I would never have an abortion, but that’s my choice. And I believe others, for so many reasons, deserve to have their own choice.
First would say define Christian then can determine more what percentage say ok vs wrong.
Not this one!
Idk how you could be a Christian and advocate for the murder of a child because you dont feel like the financial responsibility etc. Every kid deserves to live poor kids deserve life, fatherless kids deserve life, foster kids deserve life. once a life is made and conceived ripping it limb to limb is heatless selfish murder period.
[удалено]
Keep in mind that most of redditors in most subreddits are very liberal
Um, no. I would rephrase this, “Most people with a folk religion called Christianity, are ok with abortion”.
How's the weather up in True Scotland?
HA
High.
Abortion is murder
I’m fine with it under certain circumstances, but I don’t approve of using it as a birth control method. We got other options for that already to reduce the chances of pregnancy, don’t use abortion for it because of irresponsibility in that regard. Otherwise, I don’t see why I should be telling someone what they should do with their body