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

Should non-Christians be bound to adhere to a Christian conservative hermeneutic? If so, in the US context is this an entanglement between church and state?

8 Likes

Definitely, yes. It is a violation of the wall between state and church.

8 Likes

Oh no ?? Well, what about David, him having the veiw that God as “by his hands” (-I take Job and Jesaias and Jeremias words) in the womb ? - And Men of God, chosen long before their birth for a special prophetic mission , by his spirit ???

No “persons” - These human individuals with their absolute uniqueness ( ! ) , very specific with their heritage and their gender and the date and the epigenetic treasure ? (So everyone of us !!)

Yes, not a “persdonhood” under US Government. That is “The State”. Well, since when do you place a constitution - and all the constitutions worldwide ccame out of the spirit of Enlightenment ! - above the worldview of the Bible ?

An undeveloped human ? - Well, yes, but Man is not fully developed through quite some years of developing after birth . And the Kananites as well as the Spartans simply killed their - nonfit or nonwanted - babes by sacrifice - also for population control - -

1 Like

You are scoping all of this to a giant continuum fallacy. Government regulation has little to do with broader moral considerations.

By your logic we can prove that a Jewish person living in Nazi concentration camps isn’t really human, etc. You have to appeal to more than circular “government says” to make viable arguments for or against.

Continuum fallacy is in generic avoidance of abortion proponents to answer when someone is a person on a continuum of human development. The problem is that IT IS a continuum. When is the definitive time a “fetus” stops being a fetus? Fetus is a “snapshot” classification of human development, much like an infant, child, or an adult is. Personhood as a government construct has nothing at all to circularly contribute to this conversation. Personhood is an abstract identity concept.

The biggest problem with abortion is that it robs a human fetus of opportunity to become a person, much like a murder robs a person of an opportunity to further experience life.

2 Likes

Actually, you are mistaken. The Bible does speak about abortion, although not, perhaps, in the way you would imagine. If you look up Numbers 5:11-31, you will see a strange ritual procedure to be employed when a husband believes his wife is pregnant by another man. The woman is to be brought to the priest, who then required her to drink water with dirt put into it, and if she has been unfaithful, she will experience a spontaneous abortion. While this might appeal to the husband, it doesn’t speak very well to the value of the life of the child.

5 Likes

Thank you for the Numbers reference. As you point out it does refer to abortion, an attempt by a priest to induce an abortion at the request of a suspicious husband. Agreed there is not much respect here for the fetus - nor the poor accused woman

4 Likes

I have been waiting for someone to use this chapter as an example of the one place the procedure of abortion is used. I am not sure the ceremony was to induce an abortion as much as it was to render the guilty woman of ever bearing children again (in that society one of the deepest shames to have), but if the guilty woman was pregnant, it would indeed induce an abortion, hence indirectly it is a biblical statement at a minimum on the procedure of abortion. The ceremony was pro woman in giving her the right or opportunity to prove her innocence against a jealous husband (who held all the legal and societal cards). In a patriarchal world God made at least two laws that favored women and their best interests that I can recall off the top of my head: bill of divorcement, and this rite that exposes a husband’s nefarious views about a cheating wife (perhaps a precursor to a divorce in the man’s mind) unless of course she lies about an affair, and the disastrous curse comes upon her.

2 Likes

People can be anti-abortion who are not religious, that is they can argue against abortion legally without dogma in mind. The law doesn’t necessarily imply the force of a religious dogma. But your point is well taken, because this Court is showing itself very pro religious freedom that could be, and may well be, tending to the establishment of religion in the process! (And in principle I think you are right. It is a religious dogma driven decision in the Court.)

The Kennedy case decided today in favor of the state employed coach praying on the 50-yard line post football games, is an example. The Maine state money to schools through parents is another. The Maine case coming after Trinity a few years back that basically gutted Blaine amendments (state constitutional barriers in which state money could not go to sectarian entities) is another example of the trend in this Court giving nearly singular focus on freedom of religion without due consideration of establishment questions.

2 Likes

So true- we are all in the process of development by God’s love and grace. Infanticide is wrong.

Yes, an embryo is a live person in the earliest stages of development.

Yes, an abortion ends the chance of someone possibly getting to experience life.

In the tragic cases of women who have severe alcoholism the fetus may develop severe FAS in a way that they will experience life differently than if they didn’t have it.

A certain number of pregnancies end in miscarriage, often due to chromosomal defects. Studies show that the woman’s mmune system can play a role in inducing miscarriage. How Chromosomal Abnormalities Cause Miscarriage

If medical treatments were available that would stop the process of all miscarriage regardless of the state of the fetus, should pregnant women be obliged to take these treatments?

Also, if a girl/ woman aborts two fetuses within a five month period how many possilities of life did she stop?

1 Like

Dear SurprisedByGrace…I honestly had not thought of this passage as being pro-woman, but your perspective gives me food for thought. And you are right…this was an era when women were essentially property of their fathers and then their husbands.

But of course, the essential point, is that there was no value place on the unborn fetus.

2 Likes

Spontaneous abortions like miscarriages and stillbirth are in a different category. Invoking these is an attempt to muddy the water.

Yes, there are plenty of complexities surrounding this subject that become an issue, but there are also plenty issues that are fairly clear.

I’m not saying that women should be jailed for whatever grey areas these subjects fall into, but these rulings do scope our collective ideals and preferences.

The liberal conceptualization of that subject matter devolved to dehumanization of human development as a continuum. And it has a far-reaching spectrum of implications from experimentation, to growing fetuses for organ harvesting… etc, etc, etc.

At certain point the lines have to be drawn somewhere.

1 Like

At least no value in a certain monetary sense. Exodus 21:22 a favorite for those who see abortion as wrong mistake what the “injury” is referring to: The woman or the fetus? It isn’t totally clear in the grammatical sense. The law comes in the context heavily focused upon treatment of slaves. If the woman miscarriages and no further injury, in my view injury to the woman (as do most commentaries if I am not mistaken), not the fetus, a fine is to be paid. The fine is probably based upon the woman’s costs in healing and/or value of the lost fetus. In other words, the fetus was not viewed as fully vested with personal rights and privileges. This very much accords with the diminished status of slaves in society at that time.

The devaluing of slaves, fetuses, and women even though these OT passages seem to somewhat mitigate the latter, simply show that the Bible is difficult to use to prove anything definitive on either side of the modern abortion argument. It is an ancient text written for us, but not to us.

Big principles can be extrapolated that can be applied today. Detailed instruction often far less so, including this issue.

Frank

2 Likes

Agreed. It is sad to see so many so definite upon something the bible says very little about in terms of the procedure of abortion. Equally challenging is realizing that many of the statutes contained in the Mosaic canon law are found (probably carried over from) other ancient law codes of the day. In those other codes several do say something about abortion and its regulation, in some the death penalty is involved. Yet, the bible says nothing. I have theories as to why, but that fact alone should give us all pause when approaching this topic with bibles in hand and minds made up. There is a lot of imposing our views upon texts that don’t say anything about abortion or Gods’ view of it.

5 Likes

Being with the author, both in his premisses as well as his conclusions, does not relieve me of a certain uneasiness.

The amount of comments illustrates that the topic goes beyond individual ethics (my body, my choice) and ought to be discussed within a frame of social ethics.Too often the discussion is limited to the mother - child dyade, when in fact far more is involved.

This particular essay argues a lot with the “exception” (though the norm - i.e. inconvenience - is hinted at). Such a “but what if…?” argument quickly denies any rules OR requires a sophisticated casuistic model that never will accomplish it’s task of doing justice to every situation.To me this is as much a dilemma as black & white thinking.

Paradox as it may seem - discourse needs to continue, and solutions sought. The problem will not disappear - most definitely not by the latest SCOTUS ruling.

3 Likes

Quite strange : I miss one SDA favourite aspect : I Cor 6 : 19 - the body - the “naos” = temple ( sanctuary !).
Please imagine what is done with two ( ! ) of these SDA - sacred beings ! ( for a long career this was my line in dealing with patients - and also just fellows of mankind I encounter ! ) (I twice have signed the certificate for abortion, giving up the unborn human being by humbly hoping that this choice saves at least the life of the mother) (I have maintained this attitude of human life as a sacred matter in my approvals for turing off the " life""(?) saving switch - - (Question :“brain death” ?))

the text of I Corinthians continues : " You are not of your own, you are bought with a price - "

Thsi shoud be an issue of a group of Bible believers. The laws of the Statee and their interpretations by judges / a jury are out of an other sphere - we call it “The World” with “The Worldlings”.

1 Like

There’s a broader consideration to historical context and precedent that several arguments of this ruling set, which aren’t very conducive to the ideological direction of modernity.

  1. Absolute right to medical privacy
  2. Right to bodily integrity
  3. Right not to subject your body to potential harm in order to save someone else

All of these are a potential roadblock to vaccine mandates, and certain required similar treatments that may arrive along with “gene therapy” category of products that are in full swing of development now.

So, the irony of undoing RvW… IMO… is actually erasing these arguments as precedents when these cases show up in court.

NOW, the right to medical privacy and bodily integrity aren’t clearly absolute. Thus court-mandated medical treatment can become a thing of the future, which is a rather ironic outcome for hardcore Conservatives.

1 Like

The best commentary I’ve heard on this topic can be found in the video on this page: [barred from posting links]. Her argument can be boiled down to this one line in the video, which you can use in a google search string if you wish to hear the whole thing:

“We went from safe, legal, and rare to up to the moment of birth. We gave you an inch, and you took a mile. We drew the line when you decided that you should be able to murder a fully formed infant up to the moment it exits your body. You have no one to blame but yourselves.”

The really good thing about all this? At least now we as a country are back to debating abortion and the regulation of abortion on their merits. James Coffin’s piece is one you would not have likely found in a journal such as Spectrum a year ago, the issue already having been decided in favor of a women’s right to choose in all cases.

The author misses the point of the decision, which is not to outlaw abortion, but to let the people decide through their elected state representatives and other democratic means. (Has anyone else noticed, those on the left love democracy—until it doesn’t go their way?) But at least now he’s feeling the need to publicly make the argument that some abortions are wrong, while some ought to be allowed.

Let the debate begin!