Pro-Life Basics

Sharing Options

Introduction
Faithful Christians are necessarily pro-life, by definition. But having an instinctive knowledge that God’s gift of life should be respected is not necessarily the same thing as being equipped to explain from the Bible why this is so, or being able to answer some of the standard objections that may be raised.

And speaking frankly, I think that must have been the best day I ever had . . .
And speaking frankly, I think that must have been the best day I ever had . . .

1. What is the pro-life position?
This view is that from the moment a human sperm fertilizes a human egg, a unique human being comes into existence. Prior to that moment, we do not have someone who will live forever, and from that moment on, we do. Consequently, love for our neighbor requires that this unique person be treated with dignity, respect, hospitality and kindness, as much as it is possible with us. That is the position.

2. What are the biblical reasons for believing this?
You will not find abortion listed by name as a sin in the Bible, meaning that the word is not used. But a number of things are said in Scripture that mean that abortion must be considered a sin — and a very grievous one. This is why Christians have been pro-life from the very beginning. For example, the early church document The Didache, prohibits the murder of a child, whether born or unborn.

We begin by noting that mankind bears the image of God, and the image of God is passed on from generation to generation.

“So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.” (Genesis 1:27, ESV)

When the first child was born, Eve speaks of him as exhibiting full continuity with his parents. “Now Adam knew Eve his wife, and she conceived and bore Cain, saying, “I have gotten a man with the help of the Lord”” (Gen. 4:1, ESV). Descendants of Adam and Eve also bear the image of God (Gen. 9:6, 1 Cor. 11:7). We have no indication in the text of Scripture anywhere that this image of God ever disappears as we move from one generation to the next. It is not as though we ever have the image of God > inert substance > image of God again.

Here is a description from the psalmist of his formation in the womb.

“For you formed my inward parts; you knitted me together in my mother’s womb. I praise you, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made. Wonderful are your works; my soul knows it very well. My frame was not hidden from you, when I was being made in secret, intricately woven in the depths of the earth. Your eyes saw my unformed substance; in your book were written, every one of them, the days that were formed for me, when as yet there was none of them.” (Psalm 139:13–16, ESV).

There are two things to note here. Who is the craftsman, the artisan? Who is doing what is being done in the womb? He would be an insolent and arrogant man who is willing to interrupt such a marvelous work of God — and all for the sake of personal convenience, and on the basis of a false doctrine of man.

Second, it is very important to note the personal pronouns in use here. You formed my inward parts. Knitted me together. My mother’s womb. I am fearfully and wonderfully made. My unformed substance. Speaking of his time of formation in the womb, the psalmist uses personal pronouns the same way you would when speaking of a human being of any other age.

Another example of great respect for unborn life is found in the case law of Exodus.

““When men strive together and hit a pregnant woman, so that her children come out, but there is no harm, the one who hit her shall surely be fined, as the woman’s husband shall impose on him, and he shall pay as the judges determine. But if there is harm, then you shall pay life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.” (Ex. 21:22–25, ESV).

The law concerns what to do when two men are fighting and they accidentally cause a pregnant woman to miscarry. When this happens, and there is no harm to the child, then the one who hit the woman will pay a fine. But if the child is damaged, then the penalty that is applied is lex talionis — eye for eye, etc. This is the same penalty that is applied when the victim is an adult (Lev. 24:20). For those who want to argue that this simply refers to the woman being hurt or wounded, this makes no sense — in that case why would it be necessary to mention that she was pregnant at all?

And last, consider the greeting that the New Testament records the first meeting of the John the Baptist and the Lord Jesus. They were both of them in the womb at the time. John, who later would say, “Behold, the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world,” in this first instance acted like he was in the presence of the Lamb of God.

“For behold, when the sound of your greeting came to my ears, the baby in my womb leaped for joy” (Luke 1:44, ESV).

In short, we have no scriptural basis for treating an unborn child as a lump of tissue, and we have compelling reasons not to do so.

3. What does right reason tell us about abortion?

You cannot “not know” in one limited area of your life what you know in every other area of your life. You would not crush the eggs of a bald eagle and try to defend yourself in court by saying that it wasn’t an eagle, but rather an egg.

This means that the first order of business is to determine what an unborn human being is. When we have done so, many of the other (so-called) complicated questions resolve themselves. We don’t reason from difficult situations (the standard ones being rape and incest) to what we would like the unborn child to more conveniently be.

4. So what about rape and incest?

In the case of rape, we have three people involved. The mother, the rapist, and the child. Two of them are innocent, and one is guilty. What kind of moral sense does it make to execute one of the innocent parties for the crime of the one guilty party? What would you say if someone proposed that we fix the problem by executing the mother? You would say, “Are you crazy? She’s a person . . .” Oh.

With regard to incest, the concern has to do with the increased probability of birth defects. But this operates as a hidden premise, and reveals that many politicians do not know what they are talking about. They would not say that we ought to execute unborn children with birth defects, but they are willing to say that we can perform abortions when the pregnancy is the result of incest. And why? Because there might be birth defects.

The issue is always this — does the unborn child bear the image of God? If so, respect it. If not, then don’t. But do not pretend there is a middle way — for if the unborn child does not bear the image of God, then neither do you. If the unborn child has no rights, then neither do you.

5. You Christian pro-lifers are just trying to impose your morality on the rest of us.

Yes, we are. That is quite right. But even this acknowledge is important to place in context. It is not as though we are doing that while nobody else is. No, all law, by definition, is an imposition of morality. The only question is which morality it is, and who will be the person it is imposed on.

I do want Christian morality to be imposed, against their will, contrary to their consent, on doctors who are willing to perform abortions, and on mothers who are willing to have abortions. I want this stopped by force of law. I want this morality to be imposed.

This makes me a bad person, right? Going around imposing my morality on those who don’t share it. But this is actually inescapable. Everyone does this. It is not whether, but which. Not whether we impose morality, but which morality will be imposed. And this relates to Lenin’s famous two questions — who? whom?

I would rather have a morality prohibiting murder imposed on murderers than to have the morality of murderers imposed on children. Our choice here is whether we impose a godly morality on abortionists or whether they impose an ungodly morality on little boys and girls. There is no human society anywhere where nobody imposes on anybody.

The best thing we can do for little children in this instance is face the facts, and follow the argument.

Subscribe
Notify of
guest
84 Comments
Oldest
Newest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
jigawatt
jigawatt
5 years ago

Amen, and amen, to every word.

KarenJo12
KarenJo12
5 years ago

How much prison time should a woman who seeks or has an abortion do?

Rob Steele
Rob Steele
5 years ago
Reply to  KarenJo12

Hmm, how about whatever the sentence is for second degree murder? That seems about right for the woman who actually obtains an abortion. Merely seeking one should be roughly equivalent to conspiracy to commit murder, ditto for the man pushing her. The “doctor” performing abortions is doing something closer to first degree murder.

Gary
Gary
5 years ago
Reply to  KarenJo12

There’s some interesting experiments with prostitution law that makes sex work illegal for the pimps and the johns, but not for the worker herself. The idea being that with the right support and counseling, most prostitutes will realize they do not want to be a prostitute. I would think that, practically speaking, for abortion, something similar would need to happen. An increase in support for the women, and criminalization of the doctor, but not the women. Yes yes, I know morally speaking the woman bears guilt in her own way as much as the doctor, I’m just thinking aloud in… Read more »

Jonathan
Jonathan
5 years ago
Reply to  Gary

I do believe that this doesn’t get enough serious discussion in Christian circles. I am against abortion, in all circumstances. I’ve counselled a church member to not do it even in a very difficult circumstance. I would advise church members to not do it and to give counsel to others to not do it, in all circumstances, either. But that’s different than the legal status. For one, the vast majority of women who have an abortion don’t know that they’re committing murder. Can it even be 1st-degree or 2nd-degree murder if you don’t know what you’re doing is murder? F… Read more »

jigawatt
jigawatt
5 years ago
Reply to  Jonathan

the vast majority of women who have an abortion don’t know that they’re committing murder.

I’m sure some don’t, but I’d question if it’s the vast majority. In any case, penalties should not be assesed ex post facto, at least not on the truly ignorant. And God will one day deal justly with us all.

I would think that that should be the 90% of the conversation that we lead with, with the judgement as a footnote.

Comments on a blog post are effectively footnotes. And it was KarenJo12 who started this particular thread on penalties by asking about them.

ME
ME
5 years ago
Reply to  jigawatt

“And God will one day deal justly with us all.”

Well, not to put too fine of a point on it, but I certainly hope not! Many of us are counting on grace and the sacrifice Christ made for us instead. I don’t know about anyone else, but I certainly don’t wish to be dealt with justly. ;)

Dunsworth
Dunsworth
5 years ago
Reply to  ME

Well, it depends on how you look at it. In light of Christ’s sacrifice, justice for those who participate in it through grace, is acquittal.

RFB
RFB
5 years ago
Reply to  ME

Think of the word parakletos in a forensic judicial sense.

Dunsworth
Dunsworth
5 years ago
Reply to  Jonathan

Do you not think that the law saying “This is murder” would have some effect on whether people thought it was murder?

It is most likely the case that most of the people who believe it is not murder, believe so primarily because the law says otherwise. (I am not speaking of the activists, but of the sort of mother you speak of, who doesn’t even realize what she’s doing when she contemplates abortion.) Why shouldn’t it work the other way?

jigawatt
jigawatt
5 years ago
Reply to  KarenJo12

How much prison time should a woman who seeks or has an abortion do?

How much prison time should a woman who seeks to have or has her 2 year old killed do?

Malachi
Malachi
5 years ago
Reply to  jigawatt

And the answer is…zero prison time, only a quick trip to the gas chamber.* For both of them. Remove them from the assembly.

But of course, in a godly society, we would have already executed all the abortionists, so the likelihood of another abortion even happening is approaching nil…and those who do it anyway (back alley hangers or whatever) should most certainly be executed as well.

*…for actually murdering the child, of course. If only seeking an abortion, penalties should accrue as they currently do for those who hire other types of assassins.

KarenJo12
KarenJo12
5 years ago
Reply to  Malachi

What about negligence? If a woman does something that causes her to miscarry when she didn’t know she was pregnant, what is her liability?

Also, what about insurance contracts? Would you support suits against, say, ski resorts, by miscarried embryos? (I am genuinely interested in your reply.)

Dunsworth
Dunsworth
5 years ago
Reply to  KarenJo12

How did it work when abortion was illegal for a thousand years before forty years ago?

KarenJo12
KarenJo12
5 years ago
Reply to  Dunsworth

Nothing happened, but then for most of those thousand years we didn’t know enough to make a determination. Remember that until the end of the 19th Century, respectable medical opinion didn’t know egg cells existed and thought women simply provided the soil for the male seed to grow.

Dunsworth
Dunsworth
5 years ago
Reply to  KarenJo12

I’m not sure how that’s at all relevant.

No other crime or tort is addressed by assuming that any time something happens that could be that crime or tort, it must be disproven.

Well, except for offenses against the IRS, but I don’t know too many pro-life people who are fans of the IRS way of doing things.

Malachi
Malachi
5 years ago
Reply to  KarenJo12

When we recognize the unborn child as a human being with all right appertaining thereunto, we will discover that these questions are already answered. We already have all the laws we need for capital murder, manslaughter, negligent homicide, reckless endangerment, accidental homicide, etc.

Also, miscarriage is not the same thing as abortion.

KarenJo12
KarenJo12
5 years ago
Reply to  Malachi

So how does that work? Breastfeeding thins the uterine lining so that a fertilized zygote can’t implant and grow. Is it negligence for a woman who is breastfeeding one baby to have sex with her husband and possibly create a zygote that can’t implant?

PerfectHold
PerfectHold
5 years ago
Reply to  KarenJo12

Are you saying that breastfeeding is abortifacient, and therefore Christian mamas who feed their kiddos this way whilst doing the onetwo are taking the risk of killing the new crop?

KarenJo12
KarenJo12
5 years ago
Reply to  PerfectHold

Yes

PerfectHold
PerfectHold
5 years ago
Reply to  KarenJo12

It would totally be negligence for such a woman to engage in one or the other behavior if she thought either or both would put a child at risk.

Charlie Long
Charlie Long
5 years ago
Reply to  KarenJo12

Karen, if you believe God made the world, then teleology answers this question in spite of your attempt to ask a stumper. Did God make breasts for babies? Yes. Did God make wives for husbands? Yes. Did God make stainless steel tools for men to stick them inside of women to kill their babies? No.

If you do NOT believe God made the world, then you’re in a complete teleological void, and none of your moral indignation in any direction is justified.

Malachi
Malachi
5 years ago
Reply to  KarenJo12

I will show you my second daughter, conceived while breastfeeding our firstborn, to demonstrate that it ain’t necessarily so.

But you’re not really seeking answers, are you?

Dunsworth
Dunsworth
5 years ago
Reply to  KarenJo12

I would like to see the evidence that breastfeeding thins the lining beyond the point that it suppresses ovulation, please.

KarenJo12
KarenJo12
5 years ago
Reply to  Dunsworth

Here is one easy discussion.

Dunsworth
Dunsworth
5 years ago
Reply to  KarenJo12

That didn’t answer my question at all, and that wasn’t evidence, it was an advice column.

Frank Turk
Frank Turk
5 years ago
Reply to  KarenJo12

Hi Karen – I think that anyone who provides an abortion to a woman for money should have his or her medical license revoked with no chance for reinstatement, and that they should spend 3 years in a maximum security prison, no chance for parole. Anyone providing an abortion without a license should be put in prison for 10 years, max security, no chance for parole. Both should be shamed after they come out of prison the same way we shame sex offenders. These look like lite sentences until you consider that these punishments are both life sentences which cause… Read more »

KarenJo12
KarenJo12
5 years ago
Reply to  Frank Turk

Please tell me what actions constitute “serious help and life-changing correction” for a woman who seeks an abortion?

Rob Steele
Rob Steele
5 years ago

The dispute is not really over whether a zygote is human but over what a human is.

jigawatt
jigawatt
5 years ago
Reply to  Rob Steele

The dispute is not really over whether a zygote is human

Tell that to Krychek_2.

katie
katie
5 years ago
Reply to  Rob Steele

Or which humans have value.

Bro. Steve
Bro. Steve
5 years ago

Life was given in Eden. Procreation merely continues that. Life grows and new individuals are formed, but the life you possess is still the original God gave.

theo
theo
5 years ago

Man, created in Gods’ image is, in a sense, the coin of God’s realm: “…render unto God the things that are Gods”. Therefore do not alter, mutilate, cut, deface, disfigure, perforate, or destroy him because he represents the evidence of private and public debts of love and worship, to the Divine Reserve, that shall be perpetuated forever! Abortion is the most profound fiscal issue of all time, not to mention it’s implosive ramifications to security!

PerfectHold
PerfectHold
5 years ago

“being equipped to explain from the Bible why this is so”

I’m all for the Bible study.

But your pro life apologetic might have more and wider effect if you start with natural revelation.

Kevin Bratcher
5 years ago
Reply to  PerfectHold

Natural revelation makes it obvious we’re talking about children, but supplies no value to them by itself.

I say let’s get everyone claiming to be Christian on the right side first via these arguments, and see how big of a change that makes. Bottom line is, if there were as many Christians in America as all the polls claim, our culture wouldn’t look remotely like it does now.

PerfectHold
PerfectHold
5 years ago
Reply to  Kevin Bratcher

Kevin,
Does your position that “Natural revelation … supplies no value” result from your inability to discover / see that value is displayed? Or is that a result of something you learned somewhere?

The Bible somewhere says the heavens show off the glory of God — or do you disagree that natural revelation is suitably equipped to supply the value of display of such things?

Jude2425
Jude2425
5 years ago
Reply to  PerfectHold

Natural revelation tells us that God exists (Rom 1) and the heavens declare his glory, but Gen 1-2 tells us that Man was created in God’s image, and that while he is a creature, he is different than the other life on this planet.

PerfectHold
PerfectHold
5 years ago
Reply to  Jude2425

Jude2425,
Your position = natural revelation does not inform us that we were created in God’s image — we needed Scripture to enlighten us to that fact?

Jude2425
Jude2425
5 years ago
Reply to  PerfectHold

Yes. I guess I could be mistaken, but I would need to see Scripture that tells me that all men know they are created in God’s image. I believe the imago dei as such is a part of special revelation.

This isn’t to say that those w/o special revelation don’t know that human life is valuable and that murder is wrong.

I’m open to correction on this point if some texts can be shown. Thanks for the pushback.

PerfectHold
PerfectHold
5 years ago
Reply to  Jude2425

So you seem to be saying that when humans have no experience or contact with an immediate or direct form of revelation (verbal language from God), then men are necessarily ignorant regarding their fundamental nature?

Jude2425
Jude2425
5 years ago
Reply to  PerfectHold

Would you like to make a counter argument?

PerfectHold
PerfectHold
5 years ago
Reply to  Jude2425

If one were to cite an acceptable (to you) authority on the subject of natural revelation’s attestation of man’s nature as uniquely carrying God’s image, would that encourage you to consider that nature shows the same things exactly as what the Bible shows on these matters?

But before I refer you to His Holiness the above mentioned authority, do you yourself observe that every creature here below is cared for by God? Do you see that with your own eyes? Or did natural revelation not show you this?

Jude2425
Jude2425
5 years ago
Reply to  PerfectHold

In the way that God gives sun and rain on the wicked and the righteous alike? Sure, I can see that with my own eyes. In the way that God has given us all “life and breath and everything”? Yeah, I can see that too. Being cared for by God and being made in his image are two different things. Being cared for by God can point us in the direction that life matters, but it cannot tell us that God’s image is found in all of us. Also, by “His Holiness,” are you referring to God the Father, or… Read more »

PerfectHold
PerfectHold
5 years ago
Reply to  Jude2425

Jude2425, I would like to make that counter argument — that’s man’s having been made in the likeness & image of God has been clearly shown by nature from the beginning. (BTW, the Psalmist, Moses, Paul, & Jesus — His Holiness Himself — all attest to this fact). You would argue that the image of God is something quite imperceptible to man, without Scripture alerting him to this condition? Perhaps you have an interesting definition as to what the image of God is? If you were to include something of man’s mental capacities — being superior to the rest of… Read more »

Jude2425
Jude2425
5 years ago
Reply to  PerfectHold

You’ve made some interesting points. And, like I said earlier, I’m open to correction here. I guess what I still struggle with is whether the doctrine of the image of God is really available without special revelation. I would expect all of nature to comport with God’s special revelation. And the fact that it does, does not necessarily mean that the arrows should flow the other way and say that because we see the evidence of the truthfulness of special revelation in nature, therefore we could attain much the same content only through natural revelation. Restated: It’s one thing to… Read more »

PerfectHold
PerfectHold
5 years ago
Reply to  Jude2425

Can you put a definition to the image of God?

BTW, where’s the rub in your thinking should you stipulate that EVERYTHING that God gives us in Bible is available to see in nature? — how would that cramp things?

Jude2425
Jude2425
5 years ago
Reply to  PerfectHold

I don’t think everything is available in nature. I think some of what God reveals in Scripture gives “ripples” into nature, that when you have the full picture of special revelation you can see. This is why special revelation is necessary.

I can’t look at a tree or human interaction and come up with the hypostatic union.

Might have been a crossed wire there.

PerfectHold
PerfectHold
5 years ago
Reply to  Jude2425

When we posit that everything which God gives us in the Bible is also available in nature — we include in nature our mind’s capacity to nogginate on such things. The hypostatic union for example. If you were standing next to a ONE who has been so unionized, you wouldn’t need Scripture to learn what you could know about Him. I dare say, your natural condition will give you MORE information than what Bible can about such things. The Bible can give you nubbly and sure bits and pieces, authoritative and useful, don’t get me wrong. But nothing really new… Read more »

PerfectHold
PerfectHold
5 years ago

Sola Scriptura? — side Q related to the necessity of Scripture according to the WCF1.1 and this passage: “John … acted like he was in the presence of the Lamb of God” whilst in the womb:

What’s with the joy John showed?
Does WCF1.1 require a previous or at least concurrent exposure to (hearing of) verbal, extra-natural (Scriptural) revelation for his presumed salvation to have occurred?

I mean, WCF1.1 does not allow us to think that God used the Light introduced in creation as the means by which His Spirit reconstructed the new man of JB, does it?

ashv
ashv
5 years ago

To hearken back to a previous post this highlights the weakness of rights-talk — which is a stronger place to argue from, a prohibition on abortion based on “right to life”, or based on the duty imposed by “you shall not murder”, to leave the power of life and death in God’s hands?

Chadd Whipple
Chadd Whipple
5 years ago

Pastor Wilson, some women who have miscarriages or will have one and have a d and c or even a d and e are told they had an abortion. Would you agree that either procedure is automatically an abortion? What should I say to a Christian woman convinced that she has had an abortion and now needs to be pro choice to ensure other women have this option? Thank you so much. http://www.scarymommy.com/miscarriage-abortion/?utm_source=FB

ME
ME
5 years ago
Reply to  Chadd Whipple

That is actually a valid question. My MIL had a fetus die within her and she was denied an “abortion” by our Catholic hospital. She eventually developed an infection and nearly died. They took her out of here in the back of a pick up to save her life. I have another relative that more recently lost a baby in utero and had to have a selective late term abortion. These are common sense issues to me, the child is dead, there is no debate, but the history of our unkindness and hysteria towards women caught in this predicament is… Read more »

jigawatt
jigawatt
5 years ago
Reply to  ME

Above there are people calling for the death penalty for any woman that seeks an abortion

If the baby is already dead it is not an abortion (although it may be called that on the hospital bill). If the baby is not already dead but “will die”, I’d say we’re in similar territory as the mother of a 2 year old who “will die” – we’re talking about euthanasia. Doctors are sometimes wrong big time, and we should give the child the best possible chance at life.

ME
ME
5 years ago
Reply to  jigawatt

“I’d say we’re in similar territory as the mother of a 2 year old who “will die” – we’re talking about euthanasia” That’s right, we are. But there are still certain medical situations that simply will not produce life. Do we insist the mother carry a fetus without a brain for example, until it dies of natural causes, or insist she carry it to term and deliver it naturally? Does the health of the mother have any bearing on our decisions? This is the kind sticky ethical situation we get into with abortion, because like it or not, there can… Read more »

timothy
timothy
5 years ago
Reply to  ME

Isn’t this an ‘edge cases make for bad law’ situation?

jigawatt
jigawatt
5 years ago
Reply to  timothy

Isn’t this an ‘edge cases make for bad law’ situation? It might be an edge case, but it is somewhat common, and we need to have an answer. I myself know of a couple that dealt with a similar situation. Baby had a rare genetic defect and mom was assured that the baby would either die in utereo or shortly after birth. Labor was induced early by the mom’s choice because everything she read about the disease said this was the best chance for the baby to live at least a little while. Baby was stillborn. I went to the… Read more »

Malachi
Malachi
5 years ago
Reply to  jigawatt

As with interpreting Scripture, where we let the clear passages guide our understanding of the difficult passages, we should be able to say with complete confidence and unanimity, “The unborn child is a person.”
Now, with that established, our current laws protecting the life of “persons” should kick in, full force, making illegal the premeditated murder of that child.

Can we establish that first? I think if we give the unborn person the same level of protection that the born person enjoys, most of these questions resolve themselves.

jigawatt
jigawatt
5 years ago
Reply to  Malachi

our current laws protecting the life of “persons” should kick in, full force, making illegal the premeditated murder of that child.

I think the highly unusual “edge case” of a dying baby who is also killing the mother is the only time that an abortion could seriously be considered. It’s a situation unique to pregnancy so we can’t apply it to a born person. In this case we still affirm that the dying baby, like the mother, is a human person, bearing the Image of God.

Malachi
Malachi
5 years ago
Reply to  jigawatt

There are plenty of situations where we have to choose between a dying born child and a dying mother–housefires, car wrecks, disease–and no one is ever charged with murder for making the excruciating decision of choosing between the two. I am simply making the point, repetitively, that we already have laws on the books that will handle everything we can posit IF we would simply regard the unborn as a person with the same rights as a born person.

timothy
timothy
5 years ago
Reply to  jigawatt

You chose to act in furtherance of life. That is good.

RC Sproul Jr.
5 years ago
Reply to  jigawatt

Inducing early labor to save the baby and having it not work out is not abortion.

jigawatt
jigawatt
5 years ago
Reply to  RC Sproul Jr.

Inducing early labor to save the baby and having it not work out is not abortion.

That’s right. I tell the story to show that I do understand that these situations do happen [i.e “you’re baby is going to die”] and that they are difficult. In my friend’s case, she absolutely made the right decision.

Jude2425
Jude2425
5 years ago
Reply to  ME

Could it be possible that God has a purpose in those trials? I say this as a man who has watched one child die and has said his goodbyes to a second, only to see a miraculous turn around.

These aren’t sticky ethical issues, this is life. God is sovereign. Life is hard. Life that is pleasing to God is really hard, but he provides for us, day by day.

jillybean
jillybean
5 years ago
Reply to  ME

I think that calling for the death penalty, however justified that might be biblically, is ensuring that most people will not vote to make abortion illegal.

ME
ME
5 years ago
Reply to  jillybean

Absolutely Jilly. I wouldn’t even vote to make it illegal if that was the penalty.

What concerns me more however, is the continued lack of empathy and failure to understand the depth of issues going on around abortion. That is the same kind of black and white thinking that led to the rebellion that created so many vocal pro-abortionists in the first place.

“I’m pro-life…..I think we should execute people,” is an argument lost before it has even begun.

jigawatt
jigawatt
5 years ago
Reply to  ME

What concerns me more however, is the continued lack of empathy and failure to understand the depth of issues going on around abortion. The year is 2023. Single mom has a two year old. She just lost her job and wants to go to community college, but she can’t afford it, what with child care costs and all. Her kid is keeping her up at night and now she also can’t can’t afford her own medicine. Everybody around her is saying she should kill the child, including the kid’s deadbeat dad. She feels that she has no other option and… Read more »

Malachi
Malachi
5 years ago
Reply to  jigawatt

Well, if it’s “perfectly legal” then she committed no crime; thus, no penalty. But we all know that the list of sins and the list of crimes don’t necessarily line up one-to-one.

In your scenario, a Christian can only say she committed the sin of murder, which lamentably does not line up as a crime in the statutes.
But, if killing her 2-yr-old was ILLEGAL, she should fry. Purge her from the assembly. That is justice.

jigawatt
jigawatt
5 years ago
Reply to  Malachi

Well, if it’s “perfectly legal” then she committed no crime; thus, no penalty. Yes, but I’m assuming that ME would agree with me that the act SHOULD be illegal, and SHOULD carry a penalty. ME would, I hope, go online and cry out for justice on behalf of the dead child. But then ME might just be accused of having no empathy for the mother. Some folks seem to think that if one believes abortion should be made illegal, and appropriate penalties assigned, that person doesn’t care at all about the scared mothers and the terrible situations that they find… Read more »

Malachi
Malachi
5 years ago
Reply to  jigawatt

Agreed.
Christians should call out sin for what it is, regardless of the legal status of said sin. We should also exhibit an extraordinary compassion for the sinner.
But…if our judicial system is to dispense justice, then the mother who, for whatever reason, commits the atrocity of murdering her unborn child should be charged and penalized for the crime along the same lines as the murderer of a born child. If the just penalty is execution, then so be it. If the just penalty, because of extenuating circumstances is less than execution, then so be it.

Jude2425
Jude2425
5 years ago
Reply to  ME

“I’m pro death penalty for serial killers.” That’s an argument that even most liberals could get behind.

Dunsworth
Dunsworth
5 years ago
Reply to  ME

Only if you let the other side define the terms. Once you start doing that, you may as well give up on standing for anything, because you simply cannot win anything worth winning that way.

ME
ME
5 years ago
Reply to  Dunsworth

But when we say things like “abortion is murder, we should execute people for it,” we have already lost the moral argument. We have not shown that we value life and our argument is supposed to be that life has value. The other side has already won. We lost. We gave up the moral upper hand, in part by refusing to address the complexity of the issue.

Dunsworth
Dunsworth
5 years ago
Reply to  ME

But not really. Life is of such value that deliberately taking it unjustly it can only be paid for with life. To say so is not to lack value for life.

This is not my idea, it is scriptural.

RFB
RFB
5 years ago
Reply to  ME

Life is not sacred. Life has dignity because we are created in His image. The act of an unwarranted killing of an image bearer is called murder. God issues specific warrants for the killing of an image bearer; absent said warrant there is no authority from the Creator, and therefore that murder is a crime against Him. An unwarranted killing (murder) of an image bearer is such a heinous offense against the Creator that He demands that the perpetrator be sent directly to the Supreme Judge for judicial proceedings. That is the argument. There is no “moral argument” that does… Read more »

BDash76
BDash76
5 years ago
Reply to  ME

yeah serial murders also talk about the complexity of their issues…
murder is murder…

ME
ME
5 years ago

It is actually against the law to crush those eagle eggs and you can go to jail for a long time. It still astounds me that people can be so passionate about protecting animals, but not people.

jesuguru
jesuguru
5 years ago
Reply to  ME

I think that was his point.

Frank Turk
Frank Turk
5 years ago

I have a quibble with the last point in this catechism. I object to being told I am forcing my morality on anyone because that implies that someone else will willingly commit infanticide for the sake of genocide. What my objective — and I think the objective of every person against abortion — seems to be to impose /their/ morality on them, and help them to see that they do not want to be racists and baby killers.

Nobody wants to be a racist and a baby killer, do they?

"A" dad
"A" dad
5 years ago
Reply to  Frank Turk

Well, there is isis, who don’t like infidels, especially Caucasian infidels. Isis is ok with killing their children too. So there are people who are ok with being racists and baby killers .
Here on the USA, people convince themselves that babies are not babies, so then it’s ok to abort them.
We live in a fallen world, as fallen creatures ourselves.????

Malachi
Malachi
5 years ago
Reply to  Frank Turk

Unfortunately, depravity knows no bounds, and so, yes, lots of people DO want to be racists and baby killers.

Not that these two are ANYWHERE near each other on the spectrum of “Bad Things to Be”…

Rob Steele
Rob Steele
5 years ago

Just noticed that the picture accompanying this post is more than a little gruesome if it’s real. If those are actual human sex cells then some scientist harvested them and introduced them to each other in a controlled environment where he could spy on them. What do you think he did with the resulting zygote once he got his photos? How many did he have to go through to finally get a good picture? If he’s using an electron microscope the mere act of taking the picture would destroy the zygote, wouldn’t it?

Dunsworth
Dunsworth
5 years ago
Reply to  Rob Steele

That would be unfortunate. However, my guess is this is a textbook picture which was probably created with non-human cells. You couldn’t get human cells for something like this without consent, and I don’t guess people are lining up to donate their eggs or sperm for no more exciting purpose than having destructive microscope photos taken of them.

"A" dad
"A" dad
5 years ago
Reply to  Rob Steele

You are right Rob, this one from the Far Side would have been better! ; – )

comment image

timothy
timothy
5 years ago

They (Christians) marry, like everyone else, and they have children, but they do not destroy their offspring.

From Chapter 5 of Letter to Diognetus

http://www.christian-history.org/letter-to-diognetus.html

The pro-life movement has a long history indeed.