How do pro-choice Protestants justify abortion biblically?

[ltwin]

Originally I assumed ALL Christians would never support abortion. However, on further reading, I was shocked to hear there are some Protestants that do support abortion.

It boggles the mind. There is an Episcopal priest who is a big abortion activist. She has chanted “abortion is a blessing and our work is not done!” Her argument seemed to be that it is more merciful to abort unwanted children than bring them into a world of poverty, oppression, and injustice.

1. Since Protestants subscribe to Bible-only doctrine, how would these pro-choice Protestants justify their stand with respect to their interpretation of the Bible? Are there any bible verses that support their stand?

The “Christians” who support abortion usually don’t appeal to Bible-only theology. They usually say something like, “The Spirit is moving us to a deeper understanding of issues like women’s rights, abortion, the environment, and the full inclusion of LGBTQACDEFGHIJKL…” Sometimes they will read into a Scriptural text their own opinions and disregard everything else the Bible says, but they are certainly in no way limited to “Bible-only” theology.

Episcopalians (many of who are liberal and support abortion rights) will say that “Reason” plays as much apart in theological formation as does the Bible.

1. How do their fellow pro-life Protestants view their pro-choice Protestants brothers/sisters?

I don’t view people who advocate for indiscriminate murder my “brothers/sisters” in Christ. I don’t believe that you can be a Christian and a racist. And I don’t believe that you can be a Christian while advocating for the legalization of abortion on demand. I don’t care what you call yourself.

Do they condemn them or does OSAS preclude any such reactions?

**Please note: Not all Protestants believe in OSAS. **

Even if they did, it would not prevent them from condemning un-Christian behavior or teaching. OSAS Protestants would just say that pro-choice Christians were never really “saved” to begin with.

There is a vibrant pro-life movement among evangelical Protestants. The liberal Protestants are generally anathema to us anyway.

I do not visit Protestant forums, so it would be enlightening to hear from Protestants on this divisive topic.

It’s pretty simple. Conservative Protestants=anti-abortion. Liberal Protestants=pro-abortion. Conservative Protestants can’t stand Liberal Protestants, and Liberal Protestants can’t stand Conservative Protestants.

 

[arcangel49]

How do they do it?

Wrongly. Thats how they do it

 

[Dave_Noonan]

Originally I assumed ALL Christians would never support abortion. However, on further reading, I was shocked to hear there are some Protestants that do support abortion.

1. Since Protestants subscribe to Bible-only doctrine, how would these pro-choice Protestants justify their stand with respect to their interpretation of the Bible? Are there any bible verses that support their stand?

Most would rely on Genesis 2:7 (the argument that humans do not become “living beings” until they draw their first breath) and/or Numbers 5:11-29 (the argument that God would not command a legal procedure that results in miscarriage if it such an act were inherently immoral). Sometimes Exodus 21:22 is used to show that a fetus is not legally treated as being of equal value to an adult.

I’m sure there are numerous threads here on all of these passages.

 

[Arizona_Samson]

Originally I assumed ALL Christians would never support abortion. However, on further reading, I was shocked to hear there are some Protestants that do support abortion.

1. Since Protestants subscribe to Bible-only doctrine, how would these pro-choice Protestants justify their stand with respect to their interpretation of the Bible? Are there any bible verses that support their stand?
2. How do their fellow pro-life Protestants view their pro-choice Protestants brothers/sisters? Do they condemn them or does OSAS preclude any such reactions? I do not visit Protestant forums, so it would be enlightening to hear from Protestants on this divisive topic.

I would imagine they justify it in much the same the same way pro-choice Catholics do:

catholicsforchoice.org/

 

[ericc]

I would imagine they justify it in much the same the same way pro-choice Catholics do:

catholicsforchoice.org/

I guess you didn’t read my reply to pocohombre post #32. Let me reproduce it for you:

"They couldn’t, it is against Church teaching. Is the answer the same for liberal Protestants ie against their churches teachings? If it is not against their churches teachings, then there must be a biblical source to justify the churches stand? Otherwise it falls down to man made traditions? I am interested to know how these liberal churches are able to biblically support abortion.

So far, only BeProfOSX has commented on Jewish interpretations of OT. One of which appears more applicable to unintentional miscarriage eg injuring a pregnant woman causing a miscarriage. I checked on Muslim views on abortion last night. Interestingly, they have a cut off date of 4 months after which it is not permissible. Even a child of rape is subject to the 4 months rule, that is, not permissible after 4 mths.

All I am looking for is biblical justification for abortion from a Protestant viewpoint. The Catholic Church does not permit abortion. So please do not ask me why liberal Catholics do that. It is akin to asking why they sin, which is NOT the topic of this post. "

The website you have provided I believe is not Church sanctioned. All you have is a bunch of people who have decided to do things not permitted by the Catholic Church. Participating in abortion is an excommunicable offense. I am more interested in Protestant churches biblical stand on abortion rather than on individual Protestants since individual actions may not reflect the official stance of that particular church.

 

[adf417]

I guess you didn’t read my reply to pocohombre post #32. Let me reproduce it for you:

ericc, sadly I think you will have to continue posting this clarification till all understand the same definition of “church” the way you understand it and the way Christ meant it. When most protestants hear you ask these sorts of questions it is understandable why the answers are directed the way they are. Most of them have no concept of there being an visible entity holding the fullness of truth and this entity is the “one” John speaks of in chapter 17.

I see a lot of these discussions geared toward the Catholic church in what it teaches or doesn’t teach and if its teachings are right or wrong. When the discussion moves to the Protestant perspective it is no longer about teaching, which is what I think you are getting at, but their beliefs. A total disconnect from my perspective and why it is so difficult for dialogue.

Peace!!!

 

[ericc]

Most would rely on Genesis 2:7 (the argument that humans do not become “living beings” until they draw their first breath) and/or Numbers 5:11-29 (the argument that God would not command a legal procedure that results in miscarriage if it such an act were inherently immoral). Sometimes Exodus 21:22 is used to show that a fetus is not legally treated as being of equal value to an adult.

I’m sure there are numerous threads here on all of these passages.

Genesis 2:7 is so remote from justifying abortion. God breathing into Adam is life creation of our very first Parent, not life destruction. All subsequent births after Adam(actually Adam wasn’t born, but created so he needed that Breath of Life) do not directly require God to breath into our nostrils to give us life, right? He will give the fetus a soul too. He said he knits us while we are still in our mother’s womb. I just can not understand how one can find justification to snuff out God’s creation while he is still knitting us in there.

Numbers 5:11-29 describe actions to be taken for women suspected of adultery. It is a curse prescription basically. If she is guilty, may she be cursed with certain indicators and if she is not guilty, she is free and shall conceive children. No reasonable reader can conclude this is a pro-abortion verse.

Yes, the Jews do view fetus to have lesser value than an adult but that does not in anyway justifying abortion at all where the mothers life is not in danger. In their view, killing a fetus is still a wrong although less wrong compared to killing an adult.

 

[ericc]

ericc, sadly I think you will have to continue posting this clarification till all understand the same definition of “church” the way you understand it and the way Christ meant it. When most protestants hear you ask these sorts of questions it is understandable why the answers are directed the way they are. Most of them have no concept of there being an visible entity holding the fullness of truth and this entity is the “one” John speaks of in chapter 17.

I see a lot of these discussions geared toward the Catholic church in what it teaches or doesn’t teach and if its teachings are right or wrong. When the discussion moves to the Protestant perspective it is no longer about teaching, which is what I think you are getting at, but their beliefs. A total disconnect from my perspective and why it is so difficult for dialogue.

Peace!!!

Hi adf417,

It is ok. I half expected that this being a Catholic website. However, I hope they will read the rest of the posts as many other posters could contribute enlightening comments and some may have provided the answers they need already. I am glad to see pro-lifers Protestants confirming Catholic’s view on abortion here but we need to understand from pro-choice Protestants to see where their church is coming from doctrine-wise. If we can turn even one away from pro-choice to pro-life, I think we should hear rejoicing in heaven! Many devoted Christians, when properly enlightened, will seek the truth. If their church is silent or promoting man-made traditions or poor biblical interpretations, we can be that voice of reason or just simple discussion to spark that 1st step towards life and not death.

 

[nmgauss]

Sadly this is very true.

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

Carl Sagan has pointed out that life has been continuous ever since the first cell reproduced a billion years ago. Sperm cells are alive. Egg cells are alive. In Vitro fertilized embryos are alive. Fertilized eggs in the Fallopian tubes that fail to attach to the placenta are alive. Sperm cells that never fertilize an egg die. Egg cells that are never fertilized die. The multiple In Vitro embryos that are never implanted are thrown down the drain and die. In spite of all this death, life continues, and it has been continuing over a period of a billion years more or less.

So what is so catastrophic about purposely terminating pregnancy, especially if the baby is not wanted or the mother is a druggie, an alcoholic or a heavy smoker and not likely to give birth to a healthy baby nor to be able to raise a child? Once the sick or unwanted baby is born, it is too late. When that happens, the lives of the parents are permanently changed, especially if the child is so sick it will need care 24/7 for the rest of its life or will never be able to function without the aid of others. And what is so precious about a future human life of misery and suffering, especially if medical science can detect a defective baby before it is born? Some kids with cystic fibrosis are living miserably every day. What is the purpose?

 

[PRmerger]

So what is so catastrophic about purposely terminating pregnancy, especially if the baby is not wanted or the mother is a druggie, an alcoholic or a heavy smoker and not likely to give birth to a healthy baby nor to be able to raise a child?

Every question you ask above could be also applied to a 2 yr old toddler. That is, what is so catastrophic about killing a toddler, esp. if the toddler is not wanted or the mother is a druggie, an alcoholic or a heavy smoker and not likely to give this toddler a nealthy environment, nor be able to raise this toddler?

Once the sick or unwanted baby is born, it is too late.

In your estimation, why is it “too late”?

 

[ltwin]

So what is so catastrophic about purposely terminating pregnancy, especially if the baby is not wanted or the mother is a druggie, an alcoholic or a heavy smoker and not likely to give birth to a healthy baby nor to be able to raise a child? Once the sick or unwanted baby is born, it is too late. When that happens, the lives of the parents are permanently changed, especially if the child is so sick it will need care 24/7 for the rest of its life or will never be able to function without the aid of others. And what is so precious about a future human life of misery and suffering, especially if medical science can detect a defective baby before it is born? Some kids with cystic fibrosis are living miserably every day. What is the purpose?

My father has alzheimer’s disease. Much of what you have said applies to him. Should we just go ahead and put him out of his misery? What if you ever become a “non-viable” human life? Should we go ahead and end your “non-viable” life? Either human life has value because it is human or it has no more value than the stray dog or cat.

 

[nmgauss]

Every question you ask above could be also applied to a 2 yr old toddler. That is, what is so catastrophic about killing a toddler, esp. if the toddler is not wanted or the mother is a druggie, an alcoholic or a heavy smoker and not likely to give this toddler a nealthy environment, nor be able to raise this toddler?

In your estimation, why is it “too late”?

The difference is that the law prohibits killing a living breathing human. The toddler is the finished product and not the beginning of the formation of a human. Supposedly it also has a soul. If custody of the toddler remains with the unfit mother, and the child becomes a basket case because of it, wouldn’t it be better to have terminated the pregnancy rather than let a child come into the world under miserable conditions?

So far, the law says nothing about killing an embryo. Embryos are killed everyday and nobody does anything about it. A living breathing human has not yet been formed upon fertilization of an egg. Supposedly it does not yet have a soul. Also, if a fertilized egg is somehow able to thrive after it has been removed from the womb, is this an abortion? What about surrogate mothers?

Also, contraception prevents the joining of a sperm cell with an egg cell. The potential human is prevented from starting as an embryo by mechanical or chemical means. What is the difference between preventing fertilization and removing a fertilized egg?

 

[nmgauss]

My father has alzheimer’s disease. Much of what you have said applies to him. Should we just go ahead and put him out of his misery? What if you ever become a “non-viable” human life? Should we go ahead and end your “non-viable” life? Either human life has value because it is human or it has no more value than the stray dog or cat.

Many people value their pets more than children, and the thought that most pets in pet shelters are never adopted and are put to death horrifies lovers of dogs and cats.

My wife has had Alzheimer’s disease for ten years. She is 75 years old and has led a full life. Even now, I treat her as a loved one, and she still enjoys life. She is not miserable and wakes up everyday with enthusiasm.

If she was in the hospital on life support and not expected to recover, I would not object to pulling the plug. The same applies to me if I was miserable and had no desire to prolong the agony. Stone Age old people are known for their volunteer deaths, when they no longer feel valuable to their families.

 

[ltwin]

Many people value their pets more than children, and the thought that most pets in pet shelters are never adopted and are put to death horrifies lovers of dogs and cats.

My wife has had Alzheimer’s disease for ten years. She is 75 years old and has led a full life. Even now, I treat her as a loved one, and she still enjoys life. She is not miserable and wakes up everyday with enthusiasm.

If she was in the hospital on life support and not expected to recover, I would not object to pulling the plug. The same applies to me if I was miserable and had no desire to prolong the agony. Stone Age old people are known for their volunteer deaths, when they no longer feel valuable to their families.

Dying with dignity is different than being murdered simply because the rest of society sees no value in your continuing to exist.

 

[Darryl_B]

Originally I assumed ALL Christians would never support abortion. However, on further reading, I was shocked to hear there are some Protestants that do support abortion.

1. Since Protestants subscribe to Bible-only doctrine, how would these pro-choice Protestants justify their stand with respect to their interpretation of the Bible? Are there any bible verses that support their stand?
2. How do their fellow pro-life Protestants view their pro-choice Protestants brothers/sisters? Do they condemn them or does OSAS preclude any such reactions? I do not visit Protestant forums, so it would be enlightening to hear from Protestants on this divisive topic.

In my days as a protestant (now I am limbo but dont want nor intend to stay there), I did not have a clear yes or no on abortion. I would drive past hospitals where I could see people with placards which were “anti-abortion” but not anti-people. However I did not have a clear cut message as a protestant about what was right and what was wrong on this matter because we did not have one. I was impartial.

It was not until I read an apologist from the Early Church Fathers who basically said “Christians are different because they dont kill their children”. I cant remember who, it might have been Justin Martyr. But that turned my world of “Umm I don’t know”, to “Oooh”. And it sunk in to the very depths of my soul. And I mourned, and I still do, for those children in the killing fields.

 

[PRmerger]

The difference is that the law prohibits killing a living breathing human.

Let’s not talk about the law, as that can be changed. Let’s talk about morality.

The toddler is the finished product and not the beginning of the formation of a human

What is “finished” about the toddler? Some might argue that we are not “finished products” until the age of reason. Or until puberty. Or until we move out of our parents’ homes.

By what criteria do you determine a human being is a “finished product”?

Supposedly it also has a soul.

Supposedly the unborn baby has a soul as well.

If custody of the toddler remains with the unfit mother, and the child becomes a basket case because of it, wouldn’t it be better to have terminated the pregnancy rather than let a child come into the world under miserable conditions?

Well, that’s my question to you: why not just kill the toddler in the situation that you are describing?

What is the difference between preventing fertilization and removing a fertilized egg?

The same difference that exists between preventing a robbery and stopping it after it has occurred.

 

[aidanbradypop]

The difference is that the law prohibits killing a living breathing human. The toddler is the finished product and not the beginning of the formation of a human. Supposedly it also has a soul. If custody of the toddler remains with the unfit mother, and the child becomes a basket case because of it, wouldn’t it be better to have terminated the pregnancy rather than let a child come into the world under miserable conditions?

So far, the law says nothing about killing an embryo. Embryos are killed everyday and nobody does anything about it. A living breathing human has not yet been formed upon fertilization of an egg. Supposedly it does not yet have a soul. Also, if a fertilized egg is somehow able to thrive after it has been removed from the womb, is this an abortion? What about surrogate mothers?

Also, contraception prevents the joining of a sperm cell with an egg cell. The potential human is prevented from starting as an embryo by mechanical or chemical means. What is the difference between preventing fertilization and removing a fertilized egg?

If we find microscopic organisms on Mars, the papers will read “Life is found on Mars” yet when it comes to a beautiful creation in the womb with a beating heart, that dreams, feels pain, yawns, plays…etc, society does not call it life. SO how can sciene call microscopic cells on Mars life and ignore the unborn child?

If being an emybro is not important and it is not life, then why did God pick that avenue to enter into this world?

 

[SteveVH]

If we find microscopic organisms on Mars, the papers will read “Life is found on Mars” yet when it comes to a beautiful creation in the womb with a beating heart, that dreams, feels pain, yawns, plays…etc, society does not call it life. SO how can sciene call microscopic cells on Mars life and ignore the unborn child?

If being an emybro is not important and it is not life, then why did God pick that avenue to enter into this world?

Consider this. If I climb a tree to an eagle’s nest and begin tossing the eggs to the ground, using the argument that they are only fertilized eggs and therefore not little eagles, I will be arrested, placed in prison and fined an enormous amount of money. There would be no question that I had just killed little eagles, and they would be correct. Can you imagine anyone even debating as to whether or not it is fine and good to throw eagles’ eggs out of their nests?

So what happens when humans are involved? How is this somehow different, not to mention that we are speaking of the lives of human beings and not birds? Statistically, the most dangerous place to live is not Iraq, or Afghanistan, or Detroit, or Chicago. It is a mother’s womb. Something is very, very wrong here and I am truly amazed that any rational person with an ounce of morality would even attempt to justify this evil.

 

[Jeff77]

The difference is that the law prohibits killing a living breathing human.

I fail to see how law made by the nincompoops in Congress, and affirmed by radical justices that read things into the Constitiution that didn’t exist, matter at all when forming a theological opinion? Honestly…if they said killing up to age three was ok, would you still quote the law?

The toddler is the finished product and not the beginning of the formation of a human. Supposedly it also has a soul. If custody of the toddler remains with the unfit mother, and the child becomes a basket case because of it, wouldn’t it be better to have terminated the pregnancy rather than let a child come into the world under miserable conditions?

No…my wife and I would love to adopt a baby from such a mother.

So far, the law says nothing about killing an embryo. Embryos are killed everyday and nobody does anything about it. A living breathing human has not yet been formed upon fertilization of an egg. Supposedly it does not yet have a soul. Also, if a fertilized egg is somehow able to thrive after it has been removed from the womb, is this an abortion? What about surrogate mothers?

Humans have far overstepped their bounds in reproductive matters…these included.

 

[PRmerger]

I fail to see how law made by the nincompoops in Congress, and affirmed by radical justices that read things into the Constitiution that didn’t exist, matter at all when forming a theological opinion? Honestly…if they said killing up to age three was ok, would you still quote the law?

/QUOTE]
The toddler is the finished product and not the beginning of the formation of a human. Supposedly it also has a soul. If custody of the toddler remains with the unfit mother, and the child becomes a basket case because of it, wouldn’t it be better to have terminated the pregnancy rather than let a child come into the world under miserable conditions?
/ QUOTE]

No…my wife and I would love to adopt a baby from such a mother.

/QUOTE]So far, the law says nothing about killing an embryo. Embryos are killed everyday and nobody does anything about it. A living breathing human has not yet been formed upon fertilization of an egg. Supposedly it does not yet have a soul. Also, if a fertilized egg is somehow able to thrive after it has been removed from the womb, is this an abortion? What about surrogate mothers?

Hiya, Jeff! Welcome to the forums! :flowers:

Just a little quoting tip. I think you are adding a “/” to your first quoting function by mistake.

Your quotes need to be in between these two features:

type your comments here / QUOTE]

and it will then appear like this:

type your comments here