How do pro-choice Protestants justify abortion biblically?

[JonNC]

This argument cannot be sustained without also professing that 2 yr olds also may be obliterated in the name of “one less mouth to feed”.

I’m 59. Maybe those of us over, at, or near retirement are too many mouths to feed,not to mention the health care funds we drain from society.

Jon

 

[PRmerger]

Why don’t we just nuke about half of the population. That should take care of the problem, at least for awhile.

I’m 59. Maybe those of us over, at, or near retirement are too many mouths to feed,not to mention the health care funds we drain from society.

Jon

Yep.

This is the logical conclusion of the argument being presented by nmgauss.

One cannot support his position without also supporting the above positions.

nmgauss has argued for human life being “finished products” without actually being able to tell us when this “finishing” occurs, and how it is we know that 1 second, 1 day, 1 week, 1 month prior to this “finishing” it is not a human life, but that 1 second later, it is.

If he is arguing that we become “finished products” at birth, then what exactly is the difference between a baby in the birth canal and a baby that is now in her mama’s arms? What exactly changed that conferred humanity to this life that wasn’t there in the birth canal?

If he is arguing that we become “finished products” at viability, then what is different about a baby that was “finished” at 21 weeks in 2013 and a baby that was morally permissible to abort at 21 weeks in 1950, when she clearly would never have been viable.

These are, of course, untenable positions for nmgauss to hold.

 

[SteveVH]

Yep.

This is the logical conclusion of the argument being presented by nmgauss.

One cannot support his position without also supporting the above positions.

nmgauss has argued for human life being “finished products” without actually being able to tell us when this “finishing” occurs, and how it is we know that 1 second, 1 day, 1 week, 1 month prior to this “finishing” it is not a human life, but that 1 second later, it is.

If he is arguing that we become “finished products” at birth, then what exactly is the difference between a baby in the birth canal and a baby that is now in her mama’s arms? What exactly changed that conferred humanity to this life that wasn’t there in the birth canal?

If he is arguing that we become “finished products” at viability, then what is different about a baby that was “finished” at 21 weeks in 2013 and a baby that was morally permissible to abort at 21 weeks in 1950, when she clearly would never have been viable.

These are, of course, untenable positions for nmgauss to hold.

Maybe those that hold this position should volunteer themselves to be terminated, for the good of the planet, of course.

 

[Darryl_B]

If God really cares about humanity, then I’m waiting for a revelation so that somebody gets the message. The sustainability of Earth is at stake.

There is a concept in land management called carrying capacity. The concept is used by ranchers to decide how many cattle can be enclosed in a pasture without destroying the pasture. The carrying capacity of Earth is showing its limits. If humans had as little impact on environment as the rest of all animal life on this planet combined, we would not see the ominous signs now appearing. What are these signs that would not be here if it weren’t for the impact of humanity:

1. Destruction of the Ozone Layer in which sunlight becomes dangerous.
2. Deforestation resulting in desertification
3. Overgrazing causing loss of soil and thus loss of resources to produce food
4. Global warming leading to excessively hot summers and extinction of species
5. Increasing frequency of destructive storms, i.e. hurricanes and tornadoes
6. Increasing forest fires
7. Rising sea level (Norfolk, Virginia is already experiencing permanent flooding)
8. Overfishing of oceans to the point that many fisheries have been destroyed
9. Scarcity of drinking water in Africa and India because of poor sanitation

Why is humanity good? The destructive impact of humanity on Earth is so great that some scientists have equated it with a new geological era comparable with the Ice Ages.

Who cares if the life a potential human is terminated? This is a drop in the bucket compared with the 7.5 billion humans now swarming over Earth.

If abortion is immoral, who is it immoral to? Certainly not the rest of humanity that has to find a way to feed one more mouth without doing further harm to Earth.

The earth is perfectly capable of sustaining 20 billion humans easily, it is not however capable of sustaining their consumables (and I don’t mean necessities like food and water etc I mean the things they don’t need that they place value in).

I cannot put in one side of a scale human life, and in the other side money. This is what you are doing, you are claiming economic cost, rather than economic worth. This is how much a person costs us, rather than how much a person is worth to us.

 

[nmgauss]

Yep.

This is the logical conclusion of the argument being presented by nmgauss.

One cannot support his position without also supporting the above positions.

nmgauss has argued for human life being “finished products” without actually being able to tell us when this “finishing” occurs, and how it is we know that 1 second, 1 day, 1 week, 1 month prior to this “finishing” it is not a human life, but that 1 second later, it is.

If he is arguing that we become “finished products” at birth, then what exactly is the difference between a baby in the birth canal and a baby that is now in her mama’s arms? What exactly changed that conferred humanity to this life that wasn’t there in the birth canal?

If he is arguing that we become “finished products” at viability, then what is different about a baby that was “finished” at 21 weeks in 2013 and a baby that was morally permissible to abort at 21 weeks in 1950, when she clearly would never have been viable.

These are, of course, untenable positions for nmgauss to hold.

Discrete entities do not necessarily exist in biology. Is a 17 yr old any different before it turns 18 than a day after? Yet the law has defined two different entities, one a child and the other an adult. When a hospital patient is brain dead, but being kept on life support systems, has that persons soul departed its body or not? When does this happen? Before an embryo starts growing, some say that it is only a living cell, but not a human being; that it becomes a human being later on in the womb. Gradually the embryo grows and at some time it becomes a fetus, but when does this occur?

 

[SteveVH]

Is a 17 yr old any different before it turns 18 than a day after? Yet the law has defined two different entities, one a child and the other an adult.

So a person reaches a certain age and has certain responsibilities and rights appurtenant to their age according to the laws of the country in which they reside. What does this have to do with their worth as a human being?

When a hospital patient is brain dead, but being kept on life support systems, has that persons soul departed its body or not?

Our soul departs our body at death. When death actually occurs may not be evident in these cases. It matters not. The souls still departs the body at death regardless of whether or not we know or recognize when that death actually occurs.

Before an embryo starts growing, some say that it is only a living cell, but not a human being; that it becomes a human being later on in the womb.

Before an embryo starts growing? When is that? An embryo starts growing at the moment of fertilization. There is not a moment when an embryo is not growing. Everything that person will be is already present at the moment of conception. To classify a living being as a person or not a person does not depend on its level of development or its surrounding environment. An embryo is not an infant. An infant is not a toddler. A toddler is not a six year old. A six year old is not a teenager. A teenager is not an adult. But they are all people with the same worth regardless of their stage in life.

Gradually the embryo grows and at some time it becomes a fetus, but when does this occur?

Who cares? The embryo is just as human as the fetus. It is just at a different stage of development.

 

[JonNC]

So a person reaches a certain age and has certain responsibilities and rights appurtenant to their age according to the laws of the country in which they reside. What does this have to do with their worth as a human being?

Our soul departs our body at death. When death actually occurs may not be evident in these cases. It matters not. The souls still departs the body at death regardless of whether or not we know or recognize when that death actually occurs.

Before an embryo starts growing? When is that? An embryo starts growing at the moment of fertilization. There is not a moment when an embryo is not growing. Everything that person will be is already present at the moment of conception. To classify a living being as a person or not a person does not depend on its level of development or its surrounding environment. An embryo is not an infant. An infant is not a toddler. A toddler is not a six year old. A six year old is not a teenager. A teenager is not an adult. But they are all people with the same worth regardless of their stage in life.

Who cares? The embryo is just as human as the fetus. It is just at a different stage of development.

Jon

 

[Dave_Noonan]

Getting back to the OP:

religion.blogs.cnn.com/2012/10/30/my-take-when-evangelicals-were-pro-choice/

at least the part of the question about how the Bible has been used by Evangelicals to justify the pro-choice position.

 

[Dave_Noonan]

Getting back to the OP:

religion.blogs.cnn.com/2012/10/30/my-take-when-evangelicals-were-pro-choice/

at least the part of the question about how the Bible has been used by Evangelicals to justify the pro-choice position.

 

[ltwin]

Getting back to the OP:

religion.blogs.cnn.com/2012/10/30/my-take-when-evangelicals-were-pro-choice/

at least the part of the question about how the Bible has been used by Evangelicals to justify the pro-choice position.

Well, Christianity Today has an article that gives more perspective on Jonathan Dudley’s historical narrative. The whole thing is worth a look because it shows that evangelical views in the 1960s and 1970s were complex and not so easily simplified as “evangelicals used to be pro-choice.”

But he’s mischaracterized Bruce Waltke’s views. Waltke was writing about Old Testament views on contraception. The Old Testament does, in fact, seem to make a distinction between the life of a child and the life of a fetus (it never extracts a “fetus for a fetus” principle, for example). But as Waltke notes, the Old Testament nonetheless “protects the fetus,” And “while the Old Testament does not equate the fetus with a living person, it places great value upon it.” He also concludes regarding contraception (quoting another CT author) that “The burden of proof rests, then, on the couple who wish to restrict the size of their family.”
In the article following in the CT issue Dudley notes, Fuller Seminary Theologian Paul Jewett looked at the theological, historical, psychiatric, and sociological dimensions of the abortion issue. He concludes that “there are difficulties … moral theology faces in justifying abortion.” And “It seems the Christian answer to the control of human reproduction must be found principally in the prevention of contraception, rather than the prevention of birth.”​

So, it seems that Dudley’s claim that the original evangelical position was a “pro-choice” one is overstated.

(I’m just pointing this out so people don’t assume that evangelicals pre-Roe v. Wade were raging pro-abortionists because they were not. However, there were evangelical leaders who thought it should be legal under certain circumstances.)

 

[PRmerger]

Discrete entities do not necessarily exist in biology. Is a 17 yr old any different before it turns 18 than a day after? Yet the law has defined two different entities, one a child and the other an adult.

As I said already, we are not talking law here. We are talking about morality and philosophical arguments.

And reason.

You have to tell us here what you believe constitutes a “finished product”, and when this occurs.

You have, thus far, been unable to articulate your beliefs and to justify your position.

I think that this is a question you need to ponder the answer to.

When a hospital patient is brain dead, but being kept on life support systems, has that persons soul departed its body or not?

Yes, nmgauss. This person is indeed dead. Brain dead = plain dead.

When does this happen? Before an embryo starts growing, some say that it is only a living cell, but not a human being; that it becomes a human being later on in the womb. Gradually the embryo grows and at some time it becomes a fetus, but when does this occur?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embryo

And again, nmgauss, when do you believe that we become “finished products”? At birth? At viability? At the age of reason?

 

[Dave_Noonan]

Well, Christianity Today has an article that gives more perspective on Jonathan Dudley’s historical narrative. The whole thing is worth a look because it shows that evangelical views in the 1960s and 1970s were complex and not so easily simplified as “evangelicals used to be pro-choice.”

But he’s mischaracterized Bruce Waltke’s views. Waltke was writing about Old Testament views on contraception. The Old Testament does, in fact, seem to make a distinction between the life of a child and the life of a fetus (it never extracts a “fetus for a fetus” principle, for example). But as Waltke notes, the Old Testament nonetheless “protects the fetus,” And “while the Old Testament does not equate the fetus with a living person, it places great value upon it.” He also concludes regarding contraception (quoting another CT author) that “The burden of proof rests, then, on the couple who wish to restrict the size of their family.”
In the article following in the CT issue Dudley notes, Fuller Seminary Theologian Paul Jewett looked at the theological, historical, psychiatric, and sociological dimensions of the abortion issue. He concludes that “there are difficulties … moral theology faces in justifying abortion.” And “It seems the Christian answer to the control of human reproduction must be found principally in the prevention of contraception, rather than the prevention of birth.”​

So, it seems that Dudley’s claim that the original evangelical position was a “pro-choice” one is overstated.

(I’m just pointing this out so people don’t assume that evangelicals pre-Roe v. Wade were raging pro-abortionists because they were not. However, there were evangelical leaders who thought it should be legal under certain circumstances.)

Your summary is valid, although I thought the CT article pushed the envelope too far in the other direction. Waltke’s language from that era would shock and outrage most contemporary fundamentalists.

 

[ltwin]

Your summary is valid, although I thought the CT article pushed the envelope too far in the other direction. Waltke’s language from that era would shock and outrage most contemporary fundamentalists.

Perhaps, but I would point you to this paper presented to the Evangelical Theological Society in 1975, “Reflections from the Old Testament on Abortion.” In it, Waltke admitted that he had “modified my position considerably since my earlier article.” In this paper, Waltke states that there was shock and outrage over his biblical interpretation in the earlier article. In the conclusion of his 1975 paper, Waltke stated:

We are now in a position to give a clear statement regarding the morality of induced abortion based on God’s Word. The fetus is human and therefore to be accorded the same protection to life granted every other human being. Indeed, feticide is murder, an attack against a fellow man who owes his life to God, and a violation of the commandment, “You shall not kill.” Concerning the practical application of this conclusion I would agree with Ryrie that abortion can be justified only in those cases when the fetus presents material aggression against the mother.​

So, even Waltke’s opinion evolved as he reconsidered the biblical evidence and the criticisms of his earlier interpretations.

 

[Cat]

Something that the OP and others might be interested in:

13 out of 1000 women receiving an abortion is Evangelical Protestant.
16 out of 1000 women receiving an abortion is some other religion than Christian.
23 out of 1000 women receiving an abortion is Catholic.
24 out of 1000 women receiving an abortion is Mainline Protestant.
36 out of 1000 women receiving an abortion professes no religion.

(Stats from 2011)

:crying:

For some Christian women, their pro-life teachings fly out the window when they are faced with a crisis pregnancy of some sort. It’s always easier to talk than walk.

 

[Darryl_B]

Something that the OP and others might be interested in:

13 out of 1000 women receiving an abortion is Evangelical Protestant.
16 out of 1000 women receiving an abortion is some other religion than Christian.
23 out of 1000 women receiving an abortion is Catholic.
24 out of 1000 women receiving an abortion is Mainline Protestant.
36 out of 1000 women receiving an abortion professes no religion.

(Stats from 2011)

:crying:

For some Christian women, their pro-life teachings fly out the window when they are faced with a crisis pregnancy of some sort. It’s always easier to talk than walk.

What about the other 888 of 1000 women?

 

[ericc]

Something that the OP and others might be interested in:

13 out of 1000 women receiving an abortion is Evangelical Protestant.
16 out of 1000 women receiving an abortion is some other religion than Christian.
23 out of 1000 women receiving an abortion is Catholic.
24 out of 1000 women receiving an abortion is Mainline Protestant.
36 out of 1000 women receiving an abortion professes no religion.

(Stats from 2011)

:crying:

For some Christian women, their pro-life teachings fly out the window when they are faced with a crisis pregnancy of some sort. It’s always easier to talk than walk.

The maths seem suspicious:

36 out of 1000 - no religion
16 out of 1000 - other religion than Christian
23 out of 1000 - Catholics
That means all else (1000 - 36 - 16 - 23) = 925 Christians

92.5% of abortion are committed by Christian women??? I don’t believe this data. Annual abortion is roughly 1 million per annum. So 925,000 Christian women commit abortion in 2011? Can you provide the source?

 

[MaryT777]

Sadly this is very true.

I do not believe anyone in my family is pro choice but MANY are pro contraception…ie…birth control.

High Profile Catholics may support abortion but the Church does not. That’s a lot different than Protestant Churches that believe abortion is an acceptable alternative in my opinion.