How do pro-choice Protestants justify abortion biblically?

[SteveVH]

My training in ecology has given me an appreciation of the complexity of the material world. I understand how many life processes work on the planet including evolution. As for spiritual matters, I take an agnostic approach. If I am going to advocate anything, it would be toward sustainability of life processes. I am of the opinion that no life form should be exterminated for the benefit of humans. If anything needs to be fixed in this world, it is the uncontrolled domination of the planet by humans at the expense of the rest of life on this planet.

Well, it was God who gave mankind dominion over the earth. We must be good stewards of the earth but we do not have to feel guilty for living here.

So it sounds like you have some training in understanding the creation; but no understanding of the Creator. If you did, you may better understand why religious truth is so important. It will determine our eternal destiny.

Peace.

Steve

 

[nmgauss]

Well, it was God who gave mankind dominion over the earth. We must be good stewards of the earth but we do not have to feel guilty for living here.

So it sounds like you have some training in understanding the creation; but no understanding of the Creator. If you did, you may better understand why religious truth is so important. It will determine our eternal destiny.

Unless Christian churches start preaching that abuse of Earth is not OK, they are missing the point. The whole of humanity and its effect on the environment matters more than one individual. The Bible was written when humanity had a small impact on the planet, and no attention was given to resources needed to sustain human life. If all one needed to do was love Jesus and care for the poor, resources were taken for granted. One could catch fish easily, graze one’s livestock on seemingly inexhaustible grasslands, put seeds into the ground and grow your own food. Who needed to concentrate on material things when spirituality was all that mattered.

Concentrating on the results of creation is what matters in ecology. We don’t need to understand who created it. Dwelling on the creator diverts time and energy away from being concerned about the future of Earth, which depends on wise management of the basis of our existence. This means reducing the sanctity of human life in favor of Earth and its entire biosphere.

 

[JonNC]

=nmgauss;11015437]Unless Christian churches start preaching that abuse of Earth is not OK, they are missing the point. The whole of humanity and its effect on the environment matters more than one individual. The Bible was written when humanity had a small impact on the planet, and no attention was given to resources needed to sustain human life. If all one needed to do was love Jesus and care for the poor, resources were taken for granted. One could catch fish easily, graze one’s livestock on seemingly inexhaustible grasslands, put seeds into the ground and grow your own food. Who needed to concentrate on material things when spirituality was all that mattered.

Can you give me an example of a Christian communion that teaches abuse of the Earth is ok? All through my life, I have heard the message that having dominion over the Earth includes good stewardship, to care for this gift from God.

Concentrating on the results of creation is what matters in ecology. We don’t need to understand who created it. Dwelling on the creator diverts time and energy away from being concerned about the future of Earth, which depends on wise management of the basis of our existence. This means reducing the sanctity of human life in favor of Earth and its entire biosphere.

I think most intelligent, reasonably well-educated people can focus on their faith, and focus on God’s command that we be good stewards of His creation.
It is quite a dangerous proposition, ISTM, when we start speaking of reducing the sanctity life of human beings. Who makes the decision? Whose life should be held in lower regard, and for what reasons?
Some of the most vicious events in human history are the result of someone in power determining that some people are more valuable than others.

Jon

 

[nmgauss]

Can you give me an example of a Christian communion that teaches abuse of the Earth is ok? All through my life, I have heard the message that having dominion over the Earth includes good stewardship, to care for this gift from God.

I think most intelligent, reasonably well-educated people can focus on their faith, and focus on God’s command that we be good stewards of His creation.
It is quite a dangerous proposition, ISTM, when we start speaking of reducing the sanctity life of human beings. Who makes the decision? Whose life should be held in lower regard, and for what reasons?
Some of the most vicious events in human history are the result of someone in power determining that some people are more valuable than others.

Why is it taught that Earth was put here for humans? Are they a blessing to Earth? Right now humanity is a scourge to Earth, polluting air and water, destroying ocean resources, and covering the land with concrete, asphalt, and trash. Killing animals and plants to serve as food for humans puts an enormous burden on those animals and plants. Besides the plants and animals were here before humans. Who cares if the consumption of fish from the oceans exceeds their ability to thrive? Who cares if clear cutting of forests to quench the thirst of wood for humans contributes to global warming. Who cares if clearing tropical rainforests so cattle can be raised there deteriorates the soil and results in species extinction?

The Bible makes no mention of animal and plant domestication. According to Genesis, cattle, sheep, and wheat were put here by God in a form readily available for harvest.
How naïve can you be?

 

[nmgauss]

Can you give me an example of a Christian communion that teaches abuse of the Earth is ok? All through my life, I have heard the message that having dominion over the Earth includes good stewardship, to care for this gift from God.

I think most intelligent, reasonably well-educated people can focus on their faith, and focus on God’s command that we be good stewards of His creation.
It is quite a dangerous proposition, ISTM, when we start speaking of reducing the sanctity life of human beings. Who makes the decision? Whose life should be held in lower regard, and for what reasons?
Some of the most vicious events in human history are the result of someone in power determining that some people are more valuable than others.

Jon

And what happens when arguments get started on how decisions are made for a nation? The Spanish Civil War, the French Revolution, and the English Civil War were disastrous events, because after breakdown of the existing hierarchy, nobody could decide who was in power. In the days when warlords ruled, and endless competition between them existed, conditions for people were miserable. Better to have a ruling power than have continuous bickering.

 

[hn160]

The irony of the whole abortion issue and the morning after pill is that Travon Martin a 17 year old while tragic is touted as child by some, but a girl child as young is touted as a young woman by the pro-abortion groups.

 

[PRmerger]

Why do you assume that my own points of view are reflected in my posts? I am merely the messenger of these words written by others. Your confusion on who said what is reflected in your posts.

The default position is to assume that what you write is your own point of view.

Usually, what people do when they are writing a POV that is not their own, they preface it with, “Some people believe…”

At any rate, as I have asked you about 4 times what your beliefs are regarding when you believe human life is worth being given the right to life, I don’t think it was really radical for me to believe that you had finally answered, with your own point of view.

 

[PRmerger]

Is your goal to point out that you are correct and I am not?

Yes.

And I am certain that when you post here your goal is to point out that you are correct and that the other poster is not.

That’s the point of most discussions on a forum, is it not?

Also, what gives you the authority to impose your beliefs on the rest of the world?

Let all persons determine their Truth that fits their beliefs. To tell others the Truth as you see it is presumptive.

That POV leaves you absolutely inutile to stop this man from professing his vile and despicable beliefs. You can only sit back and say, “Well, I can’t impose my beliefs…”

 

[PRmerger]

If you pay attention, you will notice that PR did not presume anything. She offered an explanation of your posts because you failed to elucidate your point. She then (quite charitably) ends her post with the question, “Is this a correct explication of your position, nmgauss?” This opens the door for you to either refute or support her interpretation. Had she been “presumptive” then she would simply take it for granted that her interpretation of your posts were correct.

 

[Cat]

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.

Sorry, it’s getting close to my time to leave for work, so I’m not sure if I’ll finish reading this entire interesting thread. So please forgive me if others have already posted this.

To the OP–many Protestant denominations do NOT believe in sola Scriptura. Therefore, many of the pro-choice/pro-abortion “Christians” will not use the Bible to justify their pro-choice stand.

The post that quotes the UCC statement regarding reproductive choice pretty much sums up the Protestant pro-choice stand.

Most of the Protestant denominations that tend to be pro-choice, or at best, on-the-fence, are the mainlines–the older denominations; e…g, certain synods of Lutherans, UCC, Congregationalists, Methodists, Episcopalians, Presbyterians, Reformed, etc.

You asked what other Protestants think of these denominations/Christians. I was Evangelical Protestant for 47 years. Evangelical Protestants and their churches (denominational and non-denominational), are almost entirely pro-life/anti-abortion, thanks to leaders like Dr. James Dobson who pioneered and lobbied for the pro-life stand in the Evangelical world at a time when many Evangelicals were naively unaware of the sinfulness of abortion. (When I was a teenager in the early 1970s, right before Roe vs. Wade was passed, our Conference Baptist church, an Evangelical denomination, was teaching that there are times when abortion is regrettably a woman’s only option. The church leaders didn’t really realize what abortion really meant–they certainly didn’t think it would become as common as having teeth cleaned.)

Anyway, most Evangelical Protestants do not believe that the pro-choice Christians are really Christians. That’s pretty strong judgment, but they base THAT on the Bible, which makes it clear that faith without works is dead faith.

Many of the pro-choice Protestant denominations are liberal politically and theologically, and it’s the theological that bothers Evangelical Protestants more than the political. E.g., certain mainline denominations teach that Mary was not a virgin when she had Jesus. Or that Jesus did not literally rise from the dead, but only the ideals that He taught are “alive” today. Generally speaking, there are five fundamentals of the faith that Christians all believe (including Catholic Christians), and since many of the mainline denominations do not profess these Fundamentals, it is difficult to consider them “Christians.”

As for liberal political teachings, not only are many of the mainlines pro-choice, but also pro-gay marriage and pro-gay clergy (as well as pro-female clergy). And many believe that Republicans are rich fat cats out to oppress the poor, the minorities, etc.

However…Evangelical Protestants are “bothered” in their consciences by the fact that many of the mainline Protestant churches are leaders when it comes to helping the poor, the homeless, the sick, and the disenfranchised. Many of these mainline churches are located in the downtown areas and the older areas of cities, so they are in a prime location to open thrift shoppes, free clinics, pantries, hold workshops on recovery, job searches, etc. So obviously, they CAN demonstrate their faith by their works! Uh-oh!

Meanwhile, many Evangelical Protestant churches are built in the pristine suburbs, and never go near the poor. Uh-oh! Now who has trouble demonstrating their faith with their works?

So there is some collective and individual “guilt” among Evangelicals about this. OTOH, many Evangelicals are very active in the Pregnancy Life Care Centers that help convince young women to have their babies rather than abort, and offer these women practical help.

Hope this information is helpful!

 

[JonNC]

Why is it taught that Earth was put here for humans? Are they a blessing to Earth? Right now humanity is a scourge to Earth, polluting air and water, destroying ocean resources, and covering the land with concrete, asphalt, and trash. Killing animals and plants to serve as food for humans puts an enormous burden on those animals and plants. Besides the plants and animals were here before humans. Who cares if the consumption of fish from the oceans exceeds their ability to thrive? Who cares if clear cutting of forests to quench the thirst of wood for humans contributes to global warming. Who cares if clearing tropical rainforests so cattle can be raised there deteriorates the soil and results in species extinction?

The Bible makes no mention of animal and plant domestication. According to Genesis, cattle, sheep, and wheat were put here by God in a form readily available for harvest.
How naïve can you be?

Naive? Earlier you mentioned the importance of dialogue. Dialogue works better without name calling.

Where did I say I didn’t care about these things? Where does the Church say we need not care about these things?
I will, however, point out that I rarely react to the doom and gloom environmentalists. I’ve heard and seen too many of them, from catastrophic global cooling in the 60’s and 70’s, the population bomb, and now the climate change hysterics.
Without straying any further from the topic of the thread, good Christians have. Moral obligation to be good stewards of God’s creation, which He gave us dominion over. Now, you don’t have to like that language, but it is in fact human beings that can make sure our globe is a good place to live for future generations of all creatures.

Jon

 

[ericc]

To the OP–many Protestant denominations do NOT believe in sola Scriptura. Therefore, many of the pro-choice/pro-abortion “Christians” will not use the Bible to justify their pro-choice stand.

I obviously am an idiot when it comes to Protestant churches. I read so many postings on sola scriptura by Protestants that I assumed ALL Protestants have the Bible as the basis for their faith. This is certainly news to me. So if they don’t believe in sola scriptura, on what basis does their faith stands upon? Do you think a church will arise where they pick and choose which of the 66 books they will accept, ie shrinking the Bible even more. Imagine a modern day Luther that rejects even more books. If they don’t believe in sola scriptura, then my quest for biblical support from these liberals would certainly comes to a dead stop. Probably they will yell at me to stop waving that book in front of their faces.

 

[SteveVH]

Unless Christian churches start preaching that abuse of Earth is not OK, they are missing the point. The whole of humanity and its effect on the environment matters more than one individual. The Bible was written when humanity had a small impact on the planet, and no attention was given to resources needed to sustain human life. If all one needed to do was love Jesus and care for the poor, resources were taken for granted. One could catch fish easily, graze one’s livestock on seemingly inexhaustible grasslands, put seeds into the ground and grow your own food. Who needed to concentrate on material things when spirituality was all that mattered.

Concentrating on the results of creation is what matters in ecology. We don’t need to understand who created it. Dwelling on the creator diverts time and energy away from being concerned about the future of Earth, which depends on wise management of the basis of our existence. This means reducing the sanctity of human life in favor of Earth and its entire biosphere.

I have always wondered why those who profess to care so much for life on this earth do not apply the same standard to human beings, the only creatures on earth who are made in God’s image and likeness. Humans are viewed as some sort of aliens to this planet and we should hang our heads in shame for even being here. The less people, the better it is for the earth. Thus, the abortion of a human being is a good thing; one less person to screw up nature. It is hard to express the degree of my disdain for such a point of view.

 

[ltwin]

I obviously am an idiot when it comes to Protestant churches. I read so many postings on sola scriptura by Protestants that I assumed ALL Protestants have the Bible as the basis for their faith.

It started out that way, but by the 20th century many of the oldest Protestant churches had started to succumb to liberal ideas, many of which were contrary to both long held Christian beliefs and interpretations of biblical texts. It’s only gotten worse over time.

Today, there are a lot of liberal Protestants (especially clergy) who will question to some degree or other the accuracy and reliability of the Bible. Some do not believe that the Resurrection of Jesus was a physical event. They like to say that its a spiritual reality or even that its a “metaphor”.

This is certainly news to me. So if they don’t believe in sola scriptura, on what basis does their faith stands upon?

Doing a lot of social work, supporting fashionable causes like gay rights or abortion or whatever political leftists typically like. They are also big on being very interfaith (many of these churches will share worship space with Muslims if they get the chance to). They will often say that “Jesus is my way to God, but he is not everyone’s way to God”. This implies that non-Christian faiths like Islam or Buddhism are equally valid paths to salvation.

It’s a very “kumbaya” lets all hold hands kind of philosophy. That is until you want to stand up for traditional beliefs. Then the “tolerance” disappears and you will be labeled as both a heretic (ironic as it is) and a fundamentalist all at the same time.

No matter how far their views depart from traditional Christianity, they always manage to make it sound like it is the traditionalists who are really violating Christ’s teachings. It makes no sense.

 

[lynnvinc]

Can you give me an example of a Christian communion that teaches abuse of the Earth is ok? All through my life, I have heard the message that having dominion over the Earth includes good stewardship, to care for this gift from God.

I think most intelligent, reasonably well-educated people can focus on their faith, and focus on God’s command that we be good stewards of His creation.
It is quite a dangerous proposition, ISTM, when we start speaking of reducing the sanctity life of human beings. Who makes the decision? Whose life should be held in lower regard, and for what reasons?
Some of the most vicious events in human history are the result of someone in power determining that some people are more valuable than others.

Jon

I think selfish people can justify abortion (for themselves, or for others so that their own children will have more stuff), but Christians cannot justify abortion, tho they might justify not criminalizing women who have abortions.

When it comes to environmentalists (Christian or otherwise) and the issue of overpopulation and abortion, I often point out that it makes no sense to kill children in order to save the world for children. Most seem to accept my argument. For one thing there are alternatives to abortion to address overpopulation concerns, like “abstinance makes the heart grow fonder,” etc.

It is impossible for me to get thru to anti-enviornmental Christians who are against abortion, that they should also be against destroying the earth’s life-support systems, the “good” creation that God provided to sustain us. They cannot accept they might be contributing to that harm, or that the harms exist, and therefore refuse to mitigate what to them is “non-harms.”

However, there is no Christian denomination that I know of that condones trashing the planet, and most have come out with very good environmental statements that we must reduce our harms to earth, but there are plenty in the pews (at least in many denominations, including Catholic) who refuse to listen and refuse to do their part in reducing the harms. For one thing, my parish priests never ever speak anything about environmental stewardship, tho the Catholic church has wonderful writings about it.

And then there are plenty of laypersons and religious who chime “creation stewardship, creation stewardship,” but will not admit to even one single environmental problem as being real or harmful – local pollution, acid rain, global warming, etc. To them these are all hoaxes. So the upshot is being a good steward means continuing with one’s profligate lifestyle without blinking an eye, since there are no environmental problems in their mind.

And then others outside the churches find it hard to accept what these church-goers have to say about abortion bec it just does not ring true due to their anti-environmentalism; it tends to make the “unchurched” all the more think religion is just a cover-up for hypocrisy and evil.

 

[JonNC]

I think selfish people can justify abortion (for themselves, or for others so that their own children will have more stuff), but Christians cannot justify abortion, tho they might justify not criminalizing women who have abortions.

When it comes to environmentalists (Christian or otherwise) and the issue of overpopulation and abortion, I often point out that it makes no sense to kill children in order to save the world for children. Most seem to accept my argument. For one thing there are alternatives to abortion to address overpopulation concerns, like “abstinance makes the heart grow fonder,” etc.

It is impossible for me to get thru to anti-enviornmental Christians who are against abortion, that they should also be against destroying the earth’s life-support systems, the “good” creation that God provided to sustain us. They cannot accept they might be contributing to that harm, or that the harms exist, and therefore refuse to mitigate what to them is “non-harms.”

However, there is no Christian denomination that I know of that condones trashing the planet, and most have come out with very good environmental statements that we must reduce our harms to earth, but there are plenty in the pews (at least in many denominations, including Catholic) who refuse to listen and refuse to do their part in reducing the harms. For one thing, my parish priests never ever speak anything about environmental stewardship, tho the Catholic church has wonderful writings about it.

And then there are plenty of laypersons and religious who chime “creation stewardship, creation stewardship,” but will not admit to even one single environmental problem as being real or harmful – local pollution, acid rain, global warming, etc. To them these are all hoaxes. So the upshot is being a good steward means continuing with one’s profligate lifestyle without blinking an eye, since there are no environmental problems in their mind.

And then others outside the churches find it hard to accept what these church-goers have to say about abortion bec it just does not ring true due to their anti-environmentalism; it tends to make the “unchurched” all the more think religion is just a cover-up for hypocrisy and evil.

I enjoyed your post because it provides a good overview. I just want to comment on the bolded. There are lots of good reasons to question man made climate change, which I won’t go into now, but if one wants to see the effects of acid rain, come to the Great Smoky Mountains. The fact is humans do things that alter and hurt the environment, and we need to be proactive in improving the environment. We also need to recognize that we won’t always agree on the solutions. Disagreeing on solutions, however, should not be used as a axe to accuse each other of not caring. Not saying you’re doing that, but we know that happens.

Thanks, again for an excellent post.

Jon

 

[nmgauss]

I have always wondered why those who profess to care so much for life on this earth do not apply the same standard to human beings, the only creatures on earth who are made in God’s image and likeness. Humans are viewed as some sort of aliens to this planet and we should hang our heads in shame for even being here. The less people, the better it is for the earth. Thus, the abortion of a human being is a good thing; one less person to screw up nature. It is hard to express the degree of my disdain for such a point of view.

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.

 

[SteveVH]

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.

I would love to answer each of the points you made but this is not the thread topic and I would just be contributing to its derailment. You are seriously misguided and I cannot bring myself to respond in charity to a couple of your comments so I will, instead, just add you to my prayer list.

 

[PRmerger]

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.

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”.

 

[SteveVH]

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”.

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