Should Abortion Be Legal, Safe, and Rare? One Christian Perspective

The right of privacy was found in the due process clause, coupled with “unenumerated rights” described in the ninth amendment. At the same time the right was not absolute, most rights aren’t, and the Court stated there had to be a balance between woman’s health and prenatal health, and the first trimester when abortion would be allowed, became a standard cutoff. Up until the mid to late 1800’s abortion was legal until “quickening” the time when a woman can feel the child move (at about or around four months), a complete ban came after the AMA (American Medical Association) for a variety of reasons, but mostly due to competition from midwives, etc. The AMA seeking criminalization came at a time when fear of losing a “white protestant” majority (due to large influx of Irish Catholics and others because of immigration). Several things came together that led to laws banning abortion. Few know that abortion was legal at one time in this nation up until the third or forth month of pregnancy.

7 Likes

OK, I don’t know what I am. Certainly the woman’s physical life comes first and sometimes the psychological life as well; but then what about the baby’s right to “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness”. I know I don’t agree with partial-birth abortion - and that’s where it’s heading already in some places.

How ever we feel about it, I don’t see a need to burn down what was left from last summers hysteria.

2 Likes

The reversal of Roe vs Wade is not about protecting or preserving life. It’s about power and control. It was never and never is about life.

8 Likes

I have 5 children and 12 grand babies…I do understand the biology part… LIFE should have NOTHING to do with POLITICS. This is a MORAL, not a POLITICAL issue.

1 Like

So you really do believe TWO WRONGS make a RIGHT? How does killing the Baby fix the RAPE or INCEST? No one says the mother has to keep the Baby. There are many options for adoption out there.

1 Like

Hello Alice, I know the opinion varies from no abortion under any circumstances to abortion on demand up to the point of delivery. I personally would agree with abortion in cases of rape or incest. But as I mentioned in my post…the vast majority of abortions have nothing to do with rape. Less than 1% from the various sources I’ve researched. So to determine policy for all circumstances based on the worst possible scenario doesn’t make sense to me.

Whatever you have been through in your life…I’m very sorry. This world has so many horrible scenarios and unfair circumstances . However, the hard facts remain, almost all abortions are a result of consensual sex and are for economic reasons.

Last, you mention that a government shouldn’t be allowed to determine what we can do with out bodies, however, in practice it does this all the time! They tell us what medicine we can use, what substances we can use, I can’t go into a hospital and say, amputate my arm please because it’s my body. This may seem crazy, but there are people who have almost unstoppable urges to remove a limb, and they can’t have a doctor do that legally.

Lastly, this time for real, there are over 1 million abortions in the United States every year. We can say we want it to be “rare” reality is that it is anything but rare.

1 Like

I think you are gaslighting me; you have no way of knowing the nuances of my beliefs and my positions.

I saw a cartoon recently. On one side, the Court said, “give me your gun.” The woman said, “Over my cold dead body.” On the other side a court said, “let me control your uterus.” The woman said, “Sure, ok.”

As I said earlier, only the woman, her family, and her physician know the whole story behind the choice. Besides, I would like the woman to be able to repent later if she chooses to rather than die from an unsafe abortion. God is in charge of the baby’s eternal salvation, and He is the righteous judge for all involved.

While I think abortion is an abysmal method of birth control, there are reasonable estimates that abortion was just as common before Roe v. Wade. Your family physician might even do a D&C for “menstrual irregularities.” But making it a criminal act isn’t fair to anyone.

6 Likes

In fact it can. The science of genetics says they are the same. Science says that clump of cells is both human, and alive. That’s not opinion, that’s objective fact. Around 7 weeks, that clump of cells passes all of the medical tests that say a person is alive and thus has rights post-birth. The difference between a fetus towards the end of their first trimester, and a newborn baby, is simply how you view them. If I’m wrong, what test is it you are claiming that you would pass, a child born yesterday would pass, but a fetus at 12 weeks would not? Your opinion says they don’t count as a person, do you have anything more to offer than that? Because around half the country says they do count as a person. Just like with black people in the 1860s, because science says they do.

The big difference is, if I’m wrong, and a fetus is not in fact a person, then women having made the choice to risk becoming pregnant are, unfortunately, forced to accept the consequences of their actions. If you’re wrong, then the greatest mass-murder event in human history is being sanctioned and allowed. It is radically unethical to allow abortions if there is even a chance the fetus has personhood.

By the way, which states are you claiming don’t allow abortion when the life of the mother is at risk? Which states are you claiming don’t immediately give plan B pills to anyone who comes into the hospital claiming they were raped? Ignore the fear tactic hypotheticals being posted everywhere; what actual laws are in place, that you are claiming are worse than allowing the murder of millions of persons?

2 Likes

Well, the bible teaches the fetus doesn’t count as a person. So there’s that…

3 Likes

There is a lot to unpack from what you have said.

It is wonderful that you were blessed with children and that you life has apparently been without the circumstances that others find themselves in.

“Two wrongs don’t make a right”. As a general rule that makes sense however what do you do when all subsection actions make a wrong? Do you ignore all circumstances and the situation? Should we demand that arbitrary state enforced actions against the women take place?

1 Like

This might be true in a sense, but a fetus is not capable of surviving at such a stage if born prematurely.

The problem with the laws states are passing is that they block abortion after a certain point when they legally consider the fetus ‘viable’, even if that is medically questionable.

Here’s a very thoughtful article written by a neonatal doctor that explores the idea of ‘viability’ that is being used by states as they regulate abortion and sometimes require intervention for premature births:

Here’s another that laments governmental regulation that does or may conflict with medical care standards.

2 Likes

We do well, it seems to me, to use caution extrapolating from our ancient biblical texts to determine behavior in today’s world.
(Tut tut I hear the fundamentalists object)
In the matter of abortion, not addressed in the Bible, (nor by EGW directly) diametrically opposite conclusions are drawn by those who believe these books are of divine authority.
Indeed it is considered by many in the pro-life camp that their position is evidence of a greater faith, a stricter respect for scripture, life and God.
An appeal to first principles - “all are created in god’s image”, “the sanctity of all life”, is unfruitful and not guaranteed to deliver an authoritative consensus for Christians let alone believers of a multitude of other faiths (and non-faiths)

The United States was deliberately founded to keep religious faiths out of government and its laws. It may be said that the recent SCOTUS ruling was a legal not religious ruling but it is abundantly clear from the make-up of the court that their religious beliefs were at the forefront in their decision. Indeed they were placed there because of it. (a whole other story)

Here may be a pointer for Adventists. The doctrine of the The “State of the Dead” may inform us of our understanding of the “State of the Living”. The concept of an eternal soul or spirit, a long held Christian teaching (adopted from the Greeks but not the Hebrews) was rejected early on by Adventists. If there is no immortal soul that transcends death, it reasonably follows that there is no immortal soul invested at conception that must be protected at all costs. This need not free us to become radical abortionists, rather to not be caught up claiming too much for the beginnings of human life. Talk of embryos going to heaven mistakenly buys into this Greek myth.
The somewhat ambiguous term “Sanctity of Life” should be discarded for “Sanctity of Personhood” (not original with me) and that comes nine months more or less after two human cells randomly come together and proceed towards a not always successful birth and person.

Adventists would do well not to add a 29th amendment to their constitution, either in support or against this issue, rather urge a member to seek professional 21st century medical and social welfare support in coming to her personal decision.
“Legal Safe and Rare” yes indeed. Keep Ethics in and keep Morality out of it.

8 Likes

I could not agree more!

Blockquote

No, it doesn’t. For people who believe that a fetus has personhood, none of the other factors matter.

Blockquote

In the above quote, you state “For people who believe that a fetus has personhood, none of the other factors matter.” I hear your strong belief; however, don’t you think that people with other beliefs deserve respect too?
Similar to Frank Merendino and Sirje, I’d like to point out that the SCOTUS’s decision is faulty by the very facts that first, it has no right to make law, it can only interpret it; and second, remember how ‘ferociously’ many who identify as Christians defend Religious Liberty? I still strongly believe that Government and Religion should not be intertwined.
Jesus said that we are to love our neighbor as ourselves. Therefore, as long as I am not willing or able to take care of one of those potential babies, make sure it will have adequate food, clothing, a nurturing home, and appropriate education until around 20 years old, I’m a hypocritical Christian no matter what I believe.
Isn’t it amazing that so many people consider life sacred beginning at conception but not after birth, even though they know full well that a baby cannot care for itself from birth. If you grew up in an ideal home, praise God for your parents every day; then think deeply about babies born to single mothers because their father abandoned their mother as soon as he knew she was pregnant. Think about what it would be like to be that single mother who now needs to provide adequate care for that sacred life. That care will only happen if she has well payed work.
Or imagine you are a teenage girl living in an abusive family; you get raped and impregnated by your father, older brother, or cousin or a stranger. What would you do? Where would you go? There is now no safe place. And these are only a couple among many, many examples.
I’m amazed how quickly SCOTUS overturned 1972’s SCOTUS rule embedded in the 14th amendment. Where is their fervor for adequate gun laws? Does that not also have to do with the sacredness of life? O, but that is a man’s constitutional right. Someone needs to get to work on outlawing all guns except for those they used in that period of history. Or do away with guns altogether. No more choice on abortion, no more choice guns, since they will most certainly infringe on the sacredness of life. Yes, I am angry that people in high positions in government, and consider themselves to be Christian, corrupt their power to control women’s life and thereby influence others to do the same.

7 Likes

Thank you for your points and ability to write this out so well.

1 John 20 Whoever claims to love God yet hates a brother or sister is a liar. For whoever does not love their brother and sister, whom they have seen, cannot love God, whom they have not seen. 21 And he has given us this command: Anyone who loves God must also love their brother and sister.

A fetus is also unseen by people ( except with medical imaging). People need to love people they see, the ex-fetuses. This frenzy to save fetuses doesn’t seem very loving. Some have naive and idealistic beliefs that compassionate support, financial resources and loving Christian homes will be ready for the new arrivals, but it hasn’t gone that way until now so how will it change?

There needs to be a better understanding of unplanned and unwanted pregnancies and of conditions that women face in general.
Late term abortions are done in medical emergencies, not because someone was too lazy to get an abortion earlier.
Many news articles state instances of girls and women giving birth in a bathroom and abandoning the infant. For whatever psychological/ emotional/ cognitive reason they couldn’t cope with their pregnancy.
For centuries past women have used emmenagogues to bring on their menstrual cycle and without interference from others or a fuss being made over it.
The Roe vs Wade was not an answer, it just creates more questions and possibly greater poverty.

Proverbs 14:20-The poor are shunned even by their neighbors,
but the rich have many friends.
21 It is a sin to despise one’s neighbor,
but blessed is the one who is kind to the needy.

4 Likes

By the way, are you aware that using all capital letters in a word is considered yelling or screaming? I think that violates the spirit of Spectrum–respectful conversation.

1 Like

This article states that when women are denied abortion and give birth that they rarely put the child up for adoption.

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-022-01775-z

It doesn’t say the reasons why they’d prefer to keep the baby rather than give them up for adoption. Maybe its because they’d invested their time and energy in the risky, uncomfortable and physically altering process of pregnancy and childbirth. If the pregnant women do choose for someone else to raise their baby, they would probably choose people who shared their beliefs, not the people who stand in front of health clinics holding signs with pictures of deceased fetuses and yelling like raging maniacs.

4 Likes

A human fetus is an underdeveloped human. It is not considered to have personhood under the United States government.

Proof:
Pregnant women’s lifestyles are not regulated by the government. The government has not ensured that all pregnant woman (or fetus carriers) have access to food, water and an environment that is free of teratogens. Feticide is often caused by domestic violence and the laws concerning it vary from state to state.

Also, in scripture verses Genesis 18:16-33 when Abraham is pleading on behalf of the inhabitants of Sodom, I see no mention of fetuses. There must have been at least 10 pregnant women in Sodom at the time when it was destroyed. Like many others I believe that fetuses will be made whole when Jesus returns for the new beginning. I don’t see that Abraham considered them to be counted as righteous people.

5 Likes

Church people who oppose abortion could start with the 400,000 children in the foster care system.

At my church, I’ve never heard of support for members who adopt foster kids.

They were all a featus once.

8 Likes