Abortion Fixation

[JusticeMachine]

I was trying research the history of abortion, because I want to know if it existed in through the OT & NT eras. Was it primarily regional, as the Chinese seem to practice in before Jesus was born, but I wonder if it was present in the Middle east during the OT & NT and if so how prevelent was it?

If it did exist, is it ever mentioned in the Bible or eluded to?

If it did exist, but was never eluded to, then why do we focus so much on it now, nearly to the exclusion of any other sin the, like this is some how the worst sin that has been or ever could be.

The tunnel vision that the pro-life crowd (and for that matter the pro-choice crowd) has is astonishing to me, especially when it comes election time.

I am a middle of the road, mainstream type of person. In my view, abortion is much worse on a social level, as it cheapens life and appeals to man's base nature of selfishness. Is it a sin? Yes. Is it the worse sin? No. It confuses me that this issue is such a defining character issue for people.

In Mathew it says:

The Greatest Commandment
34Hearing that Jesus had silenced the Sadducees, the Pharisees got together. 35One of them, an expert in the law, tested him with this question:
36"Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?" 37Jesus replied: " 'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.'[b] 38This is the first and greatest commandment. 39And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.'[c] 40All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments."


Not thou shall not murder.


That said, I am opposed to abortion on many many levels, but no more that I am opposed to any other sinful behaviour.

If abortion is such a huge issue, did it exist in the time of Jesus, and if so, why is it not mentioned even once?

[Jme]

I believe it is because they view abortion as an attack on the most innocent and defenseless of people.

[Glenn P]

Exactly Jme. Killing the elderly is not specifically mentioned either, even though it happened. The same applies to the killing of 37 year olds.

[JusticeMachine]

I believe it is because they view abortion as an attack on the most innocent and defenseless of people.


I guess it is the pure emotional response, devoid of logic, that I can't grasp.

I feel abortion is wrong on many levels, but I am not so blinded that I can't see the other side of the argument. I understand that if abortions stopped today, that children would be coming into homes where they are unwanted, or worse yet, are hostile to the child.

We just had a case here in AZ, in the past couple of weeks, where a mother left here 18 month old child, in the car all day, while she worked, and the child died. It has been found out that the mother had been complaining to co-workers and the father of the child that she can't handle being a mother and wish she didn't have the responsibility. She will be prosecuted, of course, but would it have been better for that child not to have been born or been aborted when it was a couple 100 or so cells large?

Of course hind site is 20/20 and we can't fairly make that judgment after the fact, but I do understand the suffering that occurs for children in unwanted homes. That situation would be enormously aggravated if all abortion stopped, with no existing viable plan of how to care for the resulting unwanted children.

I see this and am still opposed to abortion, but understand that abortion for convenience is a symptom of a much worse problem existing in America, and that is a culture of narcissism and objectification of others, coupled with a decline in conventional family values.

Getting rid of abortion will not fix the root cause and that is where, if anywhere, our focus should be.

[Little Shepherd]

Getting rid of abortion will not fix the root cause and that is where, if anywhere, our focus should be.I hate to be the one to tell you this, but this argument is crap. You wouldn't use this line of reasoning to justify not prosecuting any other crime. Just look at the following examples.

"You shouldn't prosecute murder. It won't fix the root cause, and that is where our focus should be."
"You shouldn't prosecute rape. It won't fix the root cause, and that is where our focus should be."
"You shouldn't prosecute theft. It won't fix the root cause, and that is where our focus should be."

Immediately, you can tell that this line of reasoning -- in any situation -- is flawed. Just because there are factors that make engaging in abortion more tempting for some people doesn't mean we shouldn't hold those who do morally culpable. Nothing you mentioned in any way absolves a person who has an abortion of moral culpability, and our laws should reflect that fact.

You also denigrate the efforts of millions of people who do put their money where their mouth is. There are more crisis pregnancy centers in the US than there are abortion clinics. There are numerous adoption agencies that work with mothers who believe they cannot properly care for their babies -- many of which actually specialize in such cases -- who will even help with medical bills in order to ensure babies are delivered safely, and who will provide aid to the new mother if she later chooses to keep her child. There are preachers, counselors, ethicists, and people in many other professions who are attempting to curb the trends you spoke of as the "root cause" of abortion.

People on both sides of the argument often treat the "root cause" and "moral culpability" issue as an either/or situation, when the proper view is that it's a "both/and" situation. We should both help people so they don't feel the need or desire to have an abortion and attempt to get laws passed that will treat abortion as the murder that it is and hold people who engage in it morally culpable for their actions.

[JusticeMachine]

I hate to be the one to tell you this, but this argument is crap. You wouldn't use this line of reasoning to justify not prosecuting any other crime. Just look at the following examples.

No, to focus on something does not imply excluding everything else, let me answer your questions below:


"You shouldn't prosecute murder. It won't fix the root cause, and that is where our focus should be."



"You shouldn't prosecute rape. It won't fix the root cause, and that is where our focus should be."




"You shouldn't prosecute theft. It won't fix the root cause, and that is where our focus should be."

No one said you shouldn't prosecute murders, rapist and theives, but we should focus on solveing problem at root, at the source. That doesn't mean you stop enforcing laws, or stop punishing the guilty, but you should direct social resources to curing the root cause.

If you had a tooth ache, would you just keep on taking asprin and hope it goes away? No you would go to the denists so you can get at the root of the problem, however, you would still take the asprin wouldn't you? I thought that would be self explanitory, but I guess not.




You also denigrate the efforts of millions of people who do put their money where their mouth is. There are more crisis pregnancy centers in the US than there are abortion clinics. There are numerous adoption agencies that work with mothers who believe they cannot properly care for their babies -- many of which actually specialize in such cases -- who will even help with medical bills in order to ensure babies are delivered safely, and who will provide aid to the new mother if she later chooses to keep her child. There are preachers, counselors, ethicists, and people in many other professions who are attempting to curb the trends you spoke of as the "root cause" of abortion.

I don't denigrate them, I agree with them. The child my wife and I adopted was through a crisis pregancy unit, or a christian version of one. My thread is directed at those who can't see around the blinders of abortion, they are so filled with hate, that they lose their Christianity do a degree or at least lose sight of it.


People on both sides of the argument often treat the "root cause" and "moral culpability" issue as an either/or situation, when the proper view is that it's a "both/and" situation. We should both help people so they don't feel the need or desire to have an abortion and attempt to get laws passed that will treat abortion as the murder that it is and hold people who engage in it morally culpable for their actions.

I agree. What you suggest above isn't enough. You say
We should both help people so they don't feel the need or desire to have an abortion but that is my exact point, we should help people have babies responsible, and save sex for marriage. We need to de-sexualize the culture and make sex something special, important and pure again. At least more pure that it is now, I know it won't be perfect, but what it is now is an abomination. That is what I mean by the root cause, do that and abortions will come down on their own. Will they go away entirely, no, but that is where the laws and social help comes in to fill the gaps.

I wrote the thread for those who only have the exteremist view, those who are blinded by their loathing so much that they can't see their way to help, only hinder. They don't look on those having women having an abortion in the love of Christ to a sinner doing wrong, but in the hate of a child killer and that is all they see, ever.

[Glenn P]

No one said you shouldn't prosecute murders, rapist and theives, but we should focus on solveing problem at root, at the source. That doesn't mean you stop enforcing laws, or stop punishing the guilty, but you should direct social resources to curing the root cause. OK, so we should prosecute murderers also work on the root cause.

Let's apply that to abortion too, shall we? The extremist can carry on working on getting abortion outlawed, and you can get to work on helping those in trouble. :teeth:

Seriously though, your comments about the sexualized culture seemed a little odd, because it seems to me that the "extremists" (i.e. normal conservative Christians who aren't very extreme, actually) seeking to address that in spades.

[Little Shepherd]

I don't denigrate them, I agree with them. The child my wife and I adopted was through a crisis pregancy unit, or a christian version of one. My thread is directed at those who can't see around the blinders of abortion, they are so filled with hate, that they lose their Christianity do a degree or at least lose sight of it.Well, then your thread is directed at -- thankfully -- very, very few people. I've seen many a pro-choice person burn this particular strawman -- pointing at all those people who rail against abortion yet don't do anything to change the circumstances that make it desirable. The reason it's a strawman is that, for the most part, the people who rail against abortion do help in other ways. If they are qualified to do so, they help directly with counseling, CPCs, etc. If they're not, then they give financial and political support to help those who are. My message to such pro-choice people is that they have no room to point the finger at us as long as they keep enacting policies that cause and prolong the undesirable situations in the first place. We are doing what we can to fight it -- it's they who are undermining the effort.

There is also the problem of ascribing motive. There are rare exceptions, but by and large the people who protest abortion do not harbor hatred for parents and physicians who take part in the abortion practice. They are sad, and possibly angry at how things have turned out, but not hateful. Most of them, while they hate the practice of abortion itself, would gladly extend their arms to any of the parents or physicians who decided to turn away from the practice and embrace the truth of the infant's humanity and the dignity it entails. And yes, even if they don't realize the truth until after they've already made a horrible mistake.

[yxboom]

In Mathew it says:

The Greatest Commandment
34Hearing that Jesus had silenced the Sadducees, the Pharisees got together. 35One of them, an expert in the law, tested him with this question:
36"Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?" 37Jesus replied: " 'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.'[b] 38This is the first and greatest commandment. 39And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.'[c] 40All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments."


Not thou shall not murder.


how many people have you murdered to demonstrate your love for your neighbor? it kind of follows dont you think?


If abortion is such a huge issue, did it exist in the time of Jesus, and if so, why is it not mentioned even once?

"Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed, for God made man in his own image.


I guess it is the pure emotional response, devoid of logic, that I can't grasp.

what about murdering ones offspring is logical?


I feel abortion is wrong on many levels, but I am not so blinded that I can't see the other side of the argument. I understand that if abortions stopped today, that children would be coming into homes where they are unwanted, or worse yet, are hostile to the child.

why leave it at that? why not mandate abortions for all children born into poverty since their chances are pretty high that they will grow up to be criminals. or we could offer 153rd trimester abortions to any parent who has a teenager who doesnt want to deal with all their hormonal issues and eating everything in the home. what an inconvenience children can be.


We just had a case here in AZ, in the past couple of weeks, where a mother left here 18 month old child, in the car all day, while she worked, and the child died. It has been found out that the mother had been complaining to co-workers and the father of the child that she can't handle being a mother and wish she didn't have the responsibility. She will be prosecuted, of course, but would it have been better for that child not to have been born or been aborted when it was a couple 100 or so cells large?

of course if she is gonna murder her child may as well do it sooner than later.

what i find most devoid of logic is your (as well as most pro-aborts) attempts to compromise that murder is not really murder if the baby has less cells than another.

[JusticeMachine]

Why leave it at that? why not mandate abortions for all children born into poverty since their chances are pretty high that they will grow up to be criminals. or we could offer 153rd trimester abortions to any parent who has a teenager who doesnt want to deal with all their hormonal issues and eating everything in the home. what an inconvenience children can be.

If you had take the time to read the rest of my post and not just be reactionary, the next paragraph stated:


Of course hind site is 20/20 and we can't fairly make that judgment after the fact, but I do understand the suffering that occurs for children in unwanted homes. That situation would be enormously aggravated if all abortion stopped, with no existing viable plan of how to care for the resulting unwanted children.

I see this and am still opposed to abortion, but understand that abortion for convenience is a symptom of a much worse problem existing in America, and that is a culture of narcissism and objectification of others, coupled with a decline in conventional family values.




what i find most devoid of logic is your (as well as most pro-aborts) attempts to compromise that murder is not really murder if the baby has less cells than another.

Are all sins equal in GOD's eyes? Is bearing false witness the same as murdering someone? Is committing adultery the same as steeling?

Is what Jeffery Dahmer equivocal to what an abortion doctor does? Are there some sins that are inherently worse than others? Is a sin judged by the amount of rebellion the person heart possesses, against GOD, when committing the sin?

Is it the same if two junior high school girls make up a story about another and she get in trouble for it with her teachers as a result, would this be the same as a man stalking a woman in a parking lot, the murdering her?

I don't think GOD would view the sins with the same weight, would he?

Is all murder the same then? Obviously the government says no.

Again, I am not for abortion, I have even argued against the infamous Jackie Fox.

However, things are not as black and white in my mind as they seem to be for the extremists on either side of the issue.

Where as, to the extremists on pro-choice side, the fetus has no value at all until it is born. (A premise I completely disagree with) the pro-life says it is of the exact same value as a baby that is born, I don't agree with that either.

In my view it is tiered based upon where the fetus is at during the pregnancy. I may be wrong in this view, I will admit that. I have read the above posts and tried to re-analysis where the foundation of my belief comes from. Maybe I am too much of a pragmatist?

If the fetus were of equal value, the mother should be charge for murder, in a court of law, if she, through her negligence of diet or physical activity, caused a miscarriage of her child, even if it we in the first trimester. To me that would be ridiculous, but logically, this is what would have to occur if the fetus is of equal value once conceived.


To Jackie I suggested the following:


Would all those in favor of keeping abortion viable as an option for a mother, be will to have an increasing penalty for subsequent abortion? For instance, your first abortion you need to have to take a course on the need to use protection when engaging in intercourse, your second would require completion of a counseling program focused on the person becoming a responsible for their actions and the repercussion they incur, in regard to intercourse.
Your third might involve a sort of "Betty Ford style clinic and a support group.....etc.

This might wing those with a life style prone to the need for abortion to act more responsibly.

Her response:


There's nothing "irresponsible" about having an abortion. I find the concept presented above to be reprehensible.

If a woman has no abortions, one, two, or seventeen its nobody's business but hers and the doctor's.

To me my suggestion seems to be reasonable, but to the extremists, it is silly.

I am sure those of you on the extreme pro-life end might find the above suggestion as ridiculous as well.

If a fetus is worth the same as a baby that has been born, then the people involved should go to prison, as they should if they killed a new born because they didn't want to take care of it or put it up for adoption.

[yxboom]

If you had take the time to read the rest of my post and not just be reactionary, the next paragraph stated:

Are all sins equal in GOD's eyes? Is bearing false witness the same as murdering someone? Is committing adultery the same as steeling?

Is what Jeffery Dahmer equivocal to what an abortion doctor does? Are there some sins that are inherently worse than others? Is a sin judged by the amount of rebellion the person heart possesses, against GOD, when committing the sin?

Is it the same if two junior high school girls make up a story about another and she get in trouble for it with her teachers as a result, would this be the same as a man stalking a woman in a parking lot, the murdering her?

I don't think GOD would view the sins with the same weight, would he?
i hope you werent expecting me to respond to each question but as a blanket answer no. all sins are worthy of death but not all sins are equal.


Is all murder the same then? Obviously the government says no.

yet if i were to fry up and eat an egg of a whooping crane i would be prosecuted for the life of an endangered specie. so sorry but the government does not give us our rights, they are to protect them.


Again, I am not for abortion, I have even argued against the infamous Jackie Fox.

from what ive read you are for abortions with exceptions which is still for abortions.


However, things are not as black and white in my mind as they seem to be for the extremists on either side of the issue.

i find no grey in "you shall not murder"


Where as, to the extremists on pro-choice side, the fetus has no value at all until it is born. (A premise I completely disagree with) the pro-life says it is of the exact same value as a baby that is born, I don't agree with that either.

why? at what point does a baby become of value? if God gives us our rights and our value, He should be the one to say at what point that takes place not us.


In my view it is tiered based upon where the fetus is at during the pregnancy. I may be wrong in this view, I will admit that. I have read the above posts and tried to re-analysis where the foundation of my belief comes from. Maybe I am too much of a pragmatist?

If the fetus were of equal value, the mother should be charge for murder, in a court of law, if she, through her negligence of diet or physical activity, caused a miscarriage of her child, even if it we in the first trimester. To me that would be ridiculous, but logically, this is what would have to occur if the fetus is of equal value once conceived.

i dont see where the confusion lies... murder is murder regardless if its the mother who takes the life of her child. there is no exception to murder, it is God's image she is bearing inside of her


To Jackie I suggested the following:



Her response:



To me my suggestion seems to be reasonable, but to the extremists, it is silly.

I am sure those of you on the extreme pro-life end might find the above suggestion as ridiculous as well.

If a fetus is worth the same as a baby that has been born, then the people involved should go to prison, as they should if they killed a new born because they didn't want to take care of it or put it up for adoption.

prison? i recall the penalty for murder is execution. all the parties involved in the premeditated killing of an unborn child is guilty of murder. we arent dealing with a virus or a few random cells, but the very image of God that is destroyed.

[Dee Dee Warren]

i hope you werent expecting me to respond to each question but as a blanket answer no. all sins are worthy of death but not all sins are equal.

I don't know where that kind of screwey idea of all sins being the same got started in Christians circles.

[Amazing Rando]

I was trying research the history of abortion, because I want to know if it existed in through the OT & NT eras. Was it primarily regional, as the Chinese seem to practice in before Jesus was born, but I wonder if it was present in the Middle east during the OT & NT and if so how prevelent was it?

Check this (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=2069917&postcount=68) out. Abortion and infanticide were quite common in Greco-Roman society. On the whole, human life was probably a good bit more devalued back then even than it is today, and the prevalence of early Christian witness against it (the three citations I linked to are all from the first 2 centuries), is evidence of how frequent the practice was amongst the pagans of the time.

[brother vinny]

I guess it is the pure emotional response, devoid of logic, that I can't grasp.

I feel abortion is wrong on many levels, but I am not so blinded that I can't see the other side of the argument. I understand that if abortions stopped today, that children would be coming into homes where they are unwanted, or worse yet, are hostile to the child.

We just had a case here in AZ, in the past couple of weeks, where a mother left here 18 month old child, in the car all day, while she worked, and the child died. It has been found out that the mother had been complaining to co-workers and the father of the child that she can't handle being a mother and wish she didn't have the responsibility. She will be prosecuted, of course, but would it have been better for that child not to have been born or been aborted when it was a couple 100 or so cells large?

Of course hind site is 20/20 and we can't fairly make that judgment after the fact, but I do understand the suffering that occurs for children in unwanted homes. That situation would be enormously aggravated if all abortion stopped, with no existing viable plan of how to care for the resulting unwanted children.

I see this and am still opposed to abortion, but understand that abortion for convenience is a symptom of a much worse problem existing in America, and that is a culture of narcissism and objectification of others, coupled with a decline in conventional family values.

Getting rid of abortion will not fix the root cause and that is where, if anywhere, our focus should be.

The Didache, an Early Christian writing so ancient that it was up for serious consideration for canonization (and even was canonized by some local churches), has this to say:

. . .you shall not murder a child by abortion nor kill that which is born.

I think the reason the New Testament doesn't say anything about the issue is that the Church was still very close to her Jewish roots when it was written, and the issue simply wasn't a problem in Israel.

[WindowOrMirror]

Basil (a bishop in the early church in Greece. 320 -340 AD or so) fought against abortion in his areas, preaching the sanctity of life and exposing the trade of the abortionists. His efforts resulted in Justinian outlawing abortion, 4 years before Basil's death. "There is nothing new under the sun", abortion has been around a long time.

Why is there a "fixation" on abortion? Well, I suppose we could ask if there would be a "fixation" on the frequent and regular murder of 15-year olds with Down's Syndrome, the regular termination of female children, etc. Is this a "fixation" or the proper amount of attention based on the fact that you are ending a life?

For some Christians, it is because they desire that the child reach the age of accountability and be given the chance at hearing the Gospel. Give the Gospel to the mother and save the life of the child, and the chance that the child will get the Good News increases. For others, it is simply enough to advocate for those that cannot advocate for themselves. For others, it is likely that this is their "cause du jour" and their focus will wane over time.

In our center, we have three main ministries; the first is abstinence. We desire that men and women do not create the situation in the first place; the second is intervention, when a women has an unplanned pregnancy, we provide help and peer counseling, finally, when a women makes a choice for an abortion, we provide after-care and biblical counseling that helps her heal the hole in her soul from that action. Add Men's Ministry and a gospel focus at each step, and you can see that today's "CPC" does not merely focus on the "save the life of the baby" aspect, ignoring the quality of life issues for the mother.

[JusticeMachine]

prison? i recall the penalty for murder is execution. all the parties involved in the premeditated killing of an unborn child is guilty of murder. we arent dealing with a virus or a few random cells, but the very image of God that is destroyed.

Okay, then you advocte the death penalty for anyone who has and abortion or is directly involved in bring it about. Are you ready to cast that first stone?

How many others, who are pro-life, on this site are for the death penalty for those who have an abortion and the doctors who perform them?

[JusticeMachine]

i hope you werent expecting me to respond to each question but as a blanket answer no. all sins are worthy of death but not all sins are equal.

I don't know where that kind of screwey idea of all sins being the same got started in Christians circles.

I think it is because it only takes one sin to lead to death regardless of the sin so it would follow that: If the punishment is equal, then the value or severity of the sin must also be equal.

I disagree with all sin being equal, however it is hard to dispute that when the punishment is the same.

[Dee Dee Warren]

I think it is because it only takes one sin to lead to death regardless of the sin so it would follow that: If the punishment is equal, then the value or severity of the sin must also be equal.

I disagree with all sin being equal, however it is hard to dispute that when the punishment is the same.

The punishment is not the same. There are differing degrees of punishment in hell and in this life.

[Dee Dee Warren]

Okay, then you advocte the death penalty for anyone who has and abortion or is directly involved in bring it about.

Do you oppose the death penalty for first degree pre-meditated murder?

[JusticeMachine]

The punishment is not the same. There are differing degrees of punishment in hell and in this life.

I know that there is in this life, but I must have missed the verses in the bible that show degrees of punishment in hell. I'm not being sarcasitc, if they are there, I really don't know.

[JusticeMachine]

Do you oppose the death penalty for first degree pre-meditated murder?

Depends on the circumstance.

[Dee Dee Warren]

Depends on the circumstance.

Then why would you find it unusual that someone who believes that abortion if illegal would be first-degree premeditated murder would favour the death penalty under certain circumstances? Which in fact I do. I am in favour of abortion being illegal and legally declared to be what it already morally is - the wrongful taking of a life, i.e. murder, and be punishable as current murders are - with the varying circumstances being taken into consideration.

[Amazing Rando]

How many others, who are pro-life, on this site are for the death penalty for those who have an abortion and the doctors who perform them?

This would be a good question to ask in a poll in a new thread.

[joel]

is it ever mentioned in the Bible or eluded to?

I once heard someone suggest that this passage from Exodus chapter 1 eludes to some kind of partial-birth abortion:
15 The king of Egypt said to the Hebrew midwives, whose names were Shiphrah and Puah, 16 "When you help the Hebrew women in childbirth and observe them on the delivery stool, if it is a boy, kill him; but if it is a girl, let her live." 17 The midwives, however, feared God and did not do what the king of Egypt had told them to do; they let the boys live. 18 Then the king of Egypt summoned the midwives and asked them, "Why have you done this? Why have you let the boys live?" 19 The midwives answered Pharaoh, "Hebrew women are not like Egyptian women; they are vigorous and give birth before the midwives arrive."
I.e., "having already given birth" was an excuse to not kill the baby. So the reasoning goes that the ordered killing was some kind of partial-birth abortion--a killing in the middle of the birthing process. In the rest of the chapter, it is this obstacle that causes Pharaoh to take it up a notch and order the outright killing of born children.



If it did exist, but was never eluded to, then why do we focus so much on it now, nearly to the exclusion of any other sin the, like this is some how the worst sin that has been or ever could be.The reason abortion is focused-on in the political arena to the exclusion of more serious issues, like pride for example, is that abortion is a matter of justice among citizens, and pride is not. The government should only be involved in matters of justice, and not other moral issues (like pride). That's not to say that other moral issues are not important--just that they are not a matter for the government (i.e., not a matter in which we should use force).
As far as I can see, abortion is the number one worst viloation of justice in our country today, which is the reason it is one of my highest priorities at election time.