Questions on Abortion

Discussion in 'General Baptist Discussions' started by Zaac, Mar 27, 2015.

  1. Zaac

    Zaac
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2012
    Messages:
    13,757
    Likes Received:
    220
    It's often said that we shouldn't try to legislate morality. So if GOD has given us all the freedom to choose and goes so far as to say 12 All things are lawful for me, but all things are not helpful. All things are lawful for me, but I will not be brought under the power of any. 1 Cor.6:12, why do Christians attempt to get abortion outlawed?

    I'm probably more pro-life than the majority of you from what I've seen. I don't believe God wants us killing another human being PERIOD.

    But the secular world has legislated that people can. Should we, from a GOD perspective attempt to take away by law the right God says people have to choose?

    Why does society think it's okay to murder a baby in the womb, but you get arrested if you walk up and murder another person on the street?

    this has the potential to go several different directions. But let's see.:1_grouphug::godisgood::jesus:
     
  2. annsni

    annsni
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    May 30, 2006
    Messages:
    20,198
    Likes Received:
    376
    Every person has the right to choose to speed if they want even though it is agains the law. Every person has the right to choose to be involved in prostitution even though it is against the law in most places. Making abortion illegal is not taking away the choice but instead, it makes the wrong choice harder.
     
  3. Darrell C

    Darrell C
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2010
    Messages:
    6,249
    Likes Received:
    118

    We have to be careful not to make a Biblical Statement go outside of the bounds of the collective teachings is Scripture. For example, because Paul wrote the above he never intended to negate other principles which will never change such as "You shall not murder." He does not negate his disapproval of brother going to law against brother. He does not endorse that which he lists here:


    1 Corinthians 6

    King James Version (KJV)

    9 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,

    10 Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.



    He is not both saying "I can do whatever I want" as well as saying those who practice the above will never inherit the Kingdom of God.

    What he does say is...


    11 And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God.

    12 All things are lawful unto me, but all things are not expedient: all things are lawful for me, but I will not be brought under the power of any.



    His point is that they are not to act according to the world, and in view that has to do with appealing to the world for judgment among them.

    In regards to what they are doing he states...



    6 But brother goeth to law with brother, and that before the unbelievers.

    7 Now therefore there is utterly a fault among you, because ye go to law one with another. Why do ye not rather take wrong? why do ye not rather suffer yourselves to be defrauded?


    8 Nay, ye do wrong, and defraud, and that your brethren.



    Does he make this following lawful...


    13 Meats for the belly, and the belly for meats: but God shall destroy both it and them. Now the body is not for fornication, but for the Lord; and the Lord for the body.


    ...? No.

    In view would be rather, when it comes to the Law and judgment between believers, it should be an internal matter among believers rather than a public matter before unbelievers. Paul does not with this statement create a principle that believers can do whatever they want, or that they have liberty to step outside of principles that have remained constant throughout God's Word. It is not lawful for a believer to murder, or, to take the life of another.

    That would include abortion, which is taking the life of another human being, and is correctly identified as murder.

    It is interesting to note that secular law, in a number of states, recognizes a fetus as a human being once they reach a certain age. I believe New York puts that age as either 24 or 25 weeks in the womb. If the infant is killed during the commission of a crime the guilty party is held responsible for homicide.

    The question I have for anyone that places an "age of accountability," so to speak, meaning at a particular age the offender is held guilty, is this: if it is okay for a woman to have the right to kill her child at 23 weeks before birth, why then does she not have the right to kill her child 23 weeks...after birth.

    Exactly what is the difference?

    None.

    I guess we should be glad for those states that prosecute offenders who murder infants in the womb during the commission of a crime. That is at least an assent to the fact that a baby is a human being before delivery.


    We do it all the time. Let someone walk down the street nude, or relieve themselves, or expose themselves in public...and see what happens.

    The sad fact is that politics and social direction form how far we go to legislate morality. The Law often looks at the actions of criminals and determines they have transgressed what is considered moral. What Court of Law would not view spousal abuse as immoral? Child abuse?

    We do, and should legislate morality.



    Consider Paul's teaching here:


    Romans 13

    King James Version (KJV)

    1 Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.

    2 Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation.

    3 For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same:

    4 For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.



    Secular Government has it's place, but going back to Paul's statement in 1 Corinthians 6 we see that two entirely different issues are involved. Paul is not granting license to sin, but deals with the internal affairs of the Body of Christ. In that scenario we are not going to find issues that violate the principles that have maintained a constancy throughout Biblical History. When a man was sleeping with his father's wife it was not to a court of law that Paul suggested, but that the Body herself should excommunicate him. If a "believer" committed murder, for example, then it would fall under the above teaching with regards to secular government, we do not have teaching concerning how we deal with murderers among us, because it should be a given that a believer...is not going to murder.

    But let me just say this in regards to abortion: I believe that due to worldly influence it is possible for a believing woman to be deceived and to fall into this sin. That doesn't mean we punish that woman or girl, but we should view that just as we would for those that fall into adultery or some other sin. The world makes some very convincing arguments that those weak in the faith and young can fall into. Our duty to them is to instruct them as they grow up and prepare them for the lies the world has to offer. Our arguments against abortion should always be rational and not an emotional response to the issue. We can discuss the issue and take the moral position because only our side...has a moral position on this issue. Doesn't mean we browbeat those who disagree as that will likely only settle their resolve on the issue.

    A woman or girl has freedoms, but those freedoms fall within the confines of Christian morality which does not grant freedom to transgress that which God has commanded. Before the discussion of whether a woman has "freedom" concerning her body even comes up...there is the issue of obligation to God to behave in a manner which does not violate that which has been commanded.

    Where is a woman granted freedom to have pre-marital relations, for example?

    But, we also look to the obligation of parents to train their children up in the way they should go. If parents fail to properly teach their children (which is not a guarantee of course), don't be surprised when things go awry. The question is what do we do after the fact? It is my belief that compassion both before and after is essential, and we will do more good through sound instruction than simply ranting about the issue (not saying the OP does this just making the statement).

    God bless.
     
  4. Darrell C

    Darrell C
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2010
    Messages:
    6,249
    Likes Received:
    118
    Making abortion illegal is not the only other option. What is needed is to hold people accountable for their actions, which is something we have failed to do...and it is only getting worse.

    What I mean by that is that there should be consequences for having children without properly recognizing the responsibility that comes with that. Because there are currently very little consequences we have an epidemic of unwed mothers and absent fathers. Child support is one way to bring accountability, but...this usually applies to the absent father and does not necessarily impact the mother who may go on to have more "fatherless" children which burden translates directly to others.

    In other words this issue is something where the actions of one person has consequences for others without their approval.

    And the biggest victim is the child. Especially when the child is aborted.

    It is amazing that I can be penalized for not having health insurance but woman that bear children receive a monthly check.

    Are we "legislating morality" by saying "No, it is not okay to go out and be sexually promiscuous without consequences being considered?"

    Are the health problems that mothers who have abortions and the cost to cover those problems something that is personal and involves the woman "exercising her rights?"

    Not hardly.

    So if the government can mandate health insurance...why don't they direct some attention to this issue?

    How about mandating personal responsibility?


    God bless.
     
  5. Don

    Don
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2000
    Messages:
    10,550
    Likes Received:
    213
    Because there's a difference between what that scripture was talking about, and the subject of abortion.

    Consider: "All things are lawful." The context is in terms of following the law to be saved--which we know isn't the way to be saved. The ceremonial laws, for example, may be lawful; but they aren't expedient to the true spiritual condition. In fact, placing an emphasis on them is not helpful at all.

    The same God that gave us Deuteronomy and Leviticus, which outline laws to stone and/or put to death His people for certain transgressions?

    Where does God say that we have a right to choose murder? In fact, didn't He place a system of judges over the people to hear and determine such matters?

    Because society has made the same mistake they attribute to soldiers in Viet Nam and other conflicts. Soldiers "de-humanize" the enemy by coming up with names like "Charley," "Nazi," "haji," and others. This makes it easier to think of the enemy as something other than human.

    Same with abortion. They label the baby in the womb as a fetus, a blob of tissue, anything that helps them think of it as something other than human; which makes it easier to kill it.

     
  6. blessedwife318

    blessedwife318
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2014
    Messages:
    1,873
    Likes Received:
    326
    While this is often said I think this is a totally wrong statement, because any legislation or lack of legislation is morality. The question is who's morality? When I am told I can only buy this kind of light bulb, that is environmentalists morality being enforced. When I am told I can't have a pop that is more then X oz, that is nanny state morality being enforced.
    So living in a country that gives me the ability to vote and voice my support, I'm going to put that toward laws that support Biblical morality including protecting the most innocent of life.
     
    #6 blessedwife318, Mar 27, 2015
    Last edited by a moderator: Mar 27, 2015
  7. Darrell C

    Darrell C
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2010
    Messages:
    6,249
    Likes Received:
    118
    It is hard for those of us who have not been in combat to understand the impact it has on the soldiers themselves who I would say are justified in not ascribing a human quality to people who commit heinous acts against other humans. We would not give a notion of humanity, for example, to encouraging young children to sacrifice themselves with a bomb strapped to their chest, nor to those who slowly behead another human being for their "cause."

    Not all is fair in love and war.

    That other terms are used to describe the infant in the womb wouldn't equate to the dehumanization of an opponent in war, though I agree your point is well taken and agreed with. Let's just remember that just as the child that straps on a bomb or detonates a hand grenade has been deceived and does not know better, even so many (or it might be better to say most (some just don't care, I'm sure)) woman/girls who get abortions have also be deceived and deserve compassion, even as we should exhibit compassion on anyone who is lost (not implying all who have abortions are lost, simply making a comparison).

    The solution is to be better teachers than the Liberals that prolong a majority view that refuses any option other than full freedom to have an abortion. Again, demanding that responsibility for their actions both before and after abortion is an option doesn't have to be an unreasonable goal.

    I'm not sure what kind of parent it is that wouldn't and doesn't teach their child moral responsibility, but the truth is that defense of easy abortion encourages irresponsibility. I just cannot imagine teaching a child "safe" sex before first teaching them about the dangers and consequences.

    When is the last time you heard a "pro-choice" spokesman speak about the possibility of miscarriage with the next attempt at pregnancy that might be "wanted?" How about mental anguish suffered by those who have abortions? When they sell their agenda...are they revealing these issues?

    Or do they simply focus on the so called "positive" reasons that women retain their "rights?"

    We should be careful not to replicate their approach, but have a broad understanding of this issue which will help us combat this plague.


    God bless.
     
  8. Revmitchell

    Revmitchell
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2006
    Messages:
    38,386
    Likes Received:
    790
    Should we take away the choice of an individual to walk up to random people and kill them in the streets because they have inconvenienced them?
     
  9. timf

    timf
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2012
    Messages:
    46
    Likes Received:
    0
    It's often said that we shouldn't try to legislate morality.

    I think if more deeply considered, you really can't do anything but legislate morality. Even telling someone where they have to park their car is a type of imposition of what one feels is a superior view on another.

    But the secular world has legislated that people can.

    Actually in the US no one has ever voted to approve abortion. It was a "right" discovered by judges and imposed on us. This is not to say that given the chance now, most would probably vote for it. However, we in the US have not be given the opportunity.

    In a democracy you should have the freedom to try to convince your fellow citizens to support whatever legislation you feel would be a good idea. They should have the freedom to ignore you if they wish. Even if abortion became a law through it being voted in, does not mean that people should not work to have the law overturned if they still feel it is a bad idea.

    I think the number of abortions in the US is about 300,000 per year. More significant would be the number of embryonic abortions that result from the failure of oral contraceptives to prevent ovulation 25-35% of the time.

    We should ask ourselves if we are "Babylon"

    Revelation 18:24 And in her was found the blood of prophets, and of saints, and of all that were slain upon the earth.
     
  10. HAMel

    HAMel
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2009
    Messages:
    2,048
    Likes Received:
    83
    From Zaac..., "...why do Christians attempt to get abortion outlawed?"

    Good question. If these aborted children had made it to realize birth they would have probably suffered a worse fate being subjected to parents who didn't want them to begin with. They would be left to the mercy of the streets of which, there isn't any. For each child that's been aborted that's another resident of eternal life through Jesus. Praise the Lord. Had the child lived it might have ended up in eternal torment.

    Striving to "outlaw" abortion(s) will never fly and for those who are earnestly seeking such, they are but spinning their wheels. Abortion is not the root problem here. If you want to remove a weed from your yard you have to pluck up the root. If you desire to end abortion you're going to have to focus on the root of the problem but, you can tell people but you can't tell 'em much. Our Lord has to do the work.

    Believers need to focus on and expound on the reality of being born into sin; The effects of that sin; the ultimate result of that sin; and provide/show the way to escape the curse of sin. Through the "foolishness of preaching" is the only way out. Praise God for the men and woman to advocate Salvation!

    I have often pondered why the Lord called me. Why I responded. Out of a clear blue sky He touched my heart, mind and soul one day and it was like nothing I'd ever experienced before. Why me? I am so glad He did..., Praise the Lord.

    Why hasn't He touched the heart of the one pondering an abortion? Maybe He did. But if He did touch her heart how did she escape? The conviction on me was so strongly applied I couldn't escape. I had to seek relieve and Praise the Lord..., my neighbor was a Missionary Baptist Preacher. As such, I was lead to that saving knowledge of Jesus.

    Christian leaders need to refocus on their ministry. There's nothing wrong with church social functions and happy times, good times, feeding the flock, etc., but exposing "sin" and the way of salvation should be priority number 1. Sadly, way too many so-called leaders are only focused on their specific belief's. You know, all those silly little doctrinal issues that rage on daily on such mediums as this forum.

    ...the only thing a lost sinner needs to know up front and in their face is that Jesus Saves!!! In the meantime stop with the nonsense! When someone does come to that saving Knowledge of Jesus just let it happen. Don't then try to twist and turn them into what you want them to be and how you want them to believe. Give the Lord an opportunity to work in their lives before hammering into them that this is way Grandpa Amos did things back in '41 when the church started.

    It just seems to me the only and best way to combat/outlaw abortion is our Lord.
     
    #10 HAMel, Mar 28, 2015
    Last edited by a moderator: Mar 28, 2015
  11. Rebel

    Rebel
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2014
    Messages:
    1,011
    Likes Received:
    3
    So, according to your logic, all the Jewish children that Hitler killed were better off because had they lived to adulthood they would have gone to hell when they died. Nice!
     
  12. HAMel

    HAMel
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2009
    Messages:
    2,048
    Likes Received:
    83
    Rebel..., you said, So, according to your logic,

    My logic?

    Go back and read what I provided...

    In the meantime stop with the nonsense!
     
  13. Darrell C

    Darrell C
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2010
    Messages:
    6,249
    Likes Received:
    118
    It might sound horrendous but there is an element of grace in events where we see children die during God's intervention in the affairs of men.

    But I would not equate this with abortion as a corresponding issue.

    The Flood for example saw the deaths of all the children of the world, and atheists use this as an excuse for their hatred for God, touting themselves as morally superior to God because, after all...they would not have "murdered" all of the children of the world.

    The fact is that had these children grown up it is a certainty that they would have fallen under condemnation even as their parents were condemned for their actions. Only Noah and certain of his family escaped this destruction which is due to God's judgment:


    Genesis 6

    King James Version (KJV)

    5 And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.



    This makes it clear that that "day" consisted of an entirely wicked humanity which if left alone would continue. When the children died they were in fact spared growing up to replicate the sins of their fathers, thus we can see the grace of God toward an entire generation of children.

    But again, I wouldn't correspond this with the acts of men, which the Holocaust and abortion certainly fall under. That doesn't mean we dogmatically deny the Lord's involvement because historically He has used oppression to draw the hearts of people to Himself before, and we can at least speculate that this too was used of Him. He is said to be the One that places men in power in Government.

    Abortion is the result of sin, beginning first most of the time with sexual sin, and that sin is ascribed to the individual, not God. That God allows atrocities to happen does not mean He does not care. While the atheist points the finger at God and blames Him, you and I both know that God did not lead the first woman/girl to commit sexual sin, this was a decision made by the individual, not God. God does not cause people to sin, and what all of us as born again believers can be thankful for, personally, is God's intervention in our lives which led to our salvation. God withholding the solution the atheist feels they deserve overlooks their own responsibilities for the consequences of their sin.


    God bless.
     
  14. righteousdude2

    righteousdude2
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2007
    Messages:
    10,468
    Likes Received:
    138
    Wow! I'm sorry, but how can anyone even expect to debate another who thinks so HIGHLY of themselves?

    You can't begin to believe that YOU hold the mountain top all alone, or do you?

    The majority of the time, NO MATTER what the subject may be, your little mind thinks the majority of us can't come close to your far superior wisdom. And the problem is according to how you SEE it through your narcissistic spirit.

    How sad, because if you gave any of us a half a chance, we might all think more kindly and fondly toward yoy, because you'd be a half way decent guy.

    You could be more receptive towards others opinions, and less judgmental, like you statement points to, and there'd be less tension on the board when you are involved.
     
  15. InTheLight

    InTheLight
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2010
    Messages:
    16,272
    Likes Received:
    620
    It is well known that Zaac is anti-abortion and opposes the death penalty. So it's not a stretch for him to say he's more pro-life than BBers that are anti-abortion but favor the death penalty. Remarkably simple concept.

     
  16. Darrell C

    Darrell C
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2010
    Messages:
    6,249
    Likes Received:
    118
    Perhaps not so simple, in regards to the death penalty.

    The question might be, who's life is in view. If one opposes the death penalty because they feel the person that has taken the life of another has the "right to life" despite their actions, does this not speak against the right to life which has already been forfeit by the actions of the murderer?

    It could be viewed as the lesser of two evils (the right of the innocent over the right of the guilty), but, clearly God has spoken concerning what is to befall those who intentionally take the life of another.

    The "right to life" can only be maintained when it is clear that applies to everyone, and if violated forfeits the life of the transgressor. The disregard for life has always been an issue for mankind and if left to his own...men will take the life of another if conditions deem it necessary (to them).

    In other words, it seems denying the death penalty is a vote for the "right to take life." If one does not have a consequence of loss of life for intentional murder we would without question see a return to the Wild West.

    Our Law, I believe, should correspond to God's.

    God bless.
     

Share This Page

Loading...