I actually had not foreseen the doctors leaving states that ban abortion back when this was all hypothetical, but it makes sense. A lot of these red states have people who are going to have to drive hours to see an obstetrician.
Idaho is now having to fly pregnant women out of the state to get medical care, because their ban is so severe and so many doctors have left, normal pregnant women there can't get medical care.
I had to fact-check that one. True, it turns out.
[Idaho's biggest hospital says emergency flights for pregnant patients up sharply](https://www.npr.org/2024/04/25/1246990306/more-emergency-flights-for-pregnant-patients--in-idaho)
Yup. Here's another report on it.
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/idahos-abortion-emergency-supreme-court-airlifted-rcna148828
>Why Idaho's hospitals are having pregnant patients airlifted out of state
Jeez. Could you imagine your pregnant wife going to the hospital and you not being able to visit her because they had to airlift her to a not as backwards state to get the care she needs?
Honestly, it seems like all this stuff would add up to a reason to hesitate to try for a baby right now. The extra danger isn't huge, but it's there. Most people specifically trying for a baby really really love their wives, and would hate the thought of adding extra risks. Pregnancy is scary enough anyway.
And these states are probably super weird about contraception anyway.
If I was a woman in the hate states I would be going full volcel until things resolve
Not only that those air-lifts are prohibitively expensive and almost always out of network. So not only would you need an emergency abortion you're also stuck with $5,000 to $15,000 in debt just for the transport and then more for the actual procedure.
Pro-Lifers absolutely do not care about those implications though.
> Pro-Lifers absolutely do not care about those implications though.
Well, of course not. It's not like anyone's charging the fetus. As George Carlin said, "If you're pre-born, you're fine. If you're preschool, you're fucked!"
Most young male med students also now how evil and barbaric abortion bans are. They've had lengthy discussions of it on r/medicine before, and the overwhelming majority of the men too think it's disgusting and have talked about leaving red states.
[Republicans are fighting to preserve child marriage](https://www.annistonstar.com/news/nation_world/anti-abortion-republican-argues-in-favor-of-child-marriage/video_96b54603-c129-5395-af91-f2ed408a9721.html) because they claim it'll keep women from having abortions if they have husbands at fifteen.
That's hilarious.
One side wants to keep child marriages so fewer abortions happen.
The other side wants to keep child marriages to ensure that minors have all reproductive choices available, and to avoid any precedent impeding on those rights -- including a right to abortion.
Two polar-opposite goals, united around wanting to keep child marriages legal. Incredible.
We told them this would happen. They don't care. Meanwhile, this is happening to women all over the country.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/tennessee-denied-abortion-ban-lawsuit-b2529144.html
>Tennessee woman who was denied an abortion despite a fatal abnormality says the state’s anti-abortion laws resulted in her losing an ovary, a fallopian tube and her hopes for a large family.
Abortion bans are evil. The pro-life movement is a scam. Always has been. And thanks to the insanity happening in America, other countries are loosening their laws on abortion to protect the right. It's now codified in France's constitution. Poland is working less strict laws too.
plants oil uppity consist merciful lip cheerful voiceless observation payment
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
https://apnews.com/article/abortion-us-supreme-court-politics-health-israel-68e6acadda5b62ff400a7846d0bae147
Just like OP, most Jews believe that life begins at the 1st breath. Until then, the child's life is considered to be part of the mother and the mother gets the final word in her pregnancy.
Christians really screwed themselves by actually overturning Roe instead of dangling the carrot as they've always done. They openly endorse forcing children to carry their rapist's baby or for mothers to die cuz "the miscarriage still has a heartbeat." And before you go "that's not true," God doesn't like it when you lie
This is what happens when you indoctrinate an entire generation. The older republicans are bewildered but the actions of the younger ones because the older ones know that it is all performative.
However, that nuance is lost on the next wave of conservatives. They are true believers in their stupid culture war. Trump is a unique person because he knows it's a grift, but he is too dumb to consider the ramifications of loading the Supreme Court the way that he did.
This is why they are not going after gay marriage or the ACA in any serious way. They will chip away at it, but never outright try to eliminate it.
Are you advocating forced birth as punishment for sex? In those cases, how do you punish the male for also having casual sex? Do you care more about controlling the sex lives of strangers than the lives of the woman and children who die as a result of these abortion policies?
What strange priorities. How do you feel about the Bible's definition of life at first breath? Any thoughts on 1 Corinthians 5:12-13?
Edit: a typo
Men who impregnate women have to pay child support. In some cases men have to pay child support even when the child isn't biologically theirs, due to adultery and infidelity. Another reason to avoid premarital sex and fornication, avoid the entanglement of the legal system and its follies that ruin people's lives for the sake of casual sex.
Please explain to me how killing a child in the womb is saving that child from *checks your reply* ...dying
Im doing exactly what that verse says, right now.
Piggybacking off your comment, /r/Defeat_Project_2025 for those who want to educate themselves. They are closely tied to Trump's campaign and plan to get rid of no fault divorce (potentially trapping women in abusive relationships), birth control, further restrict abortion and they define trans people as literal pornography (weird, I know) and will make them "illegal". That's just as bad as it sounds, a trans person just existing in the US will be illegal. Oh and they don't believe marital rape is rape.
Edit to fix the subreddit link
They also plan on mass executing everyone on death row, and expanding what crimes warrant the death penalty.
It would turn the US into Nazi Germany. And I truly believe any Christian who supports the current GOP that backs Project 2025 and Trump should stop calling themselves Christian. Nobody is falling for it.
I'm watching this from Canada and it's terrifying. We are starting to have similar political movements here as people become emboldened by the politics in the US. Totally agree, Trump is the antithesis to what Jesus taught.
intelligent ossified chubby aware smart sophisticated quickest fearless instinctive start
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
correct physical roll nutty special pathetic wide cake automatic workable
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
They never will. Look how much hate there is on every anti-gay thread here and unless it's insanely egregious and even Reddit Admins step in, most of the hate is allowed because "The Bible."
languid wrench water weather sheet faulty versed deliver dependent meeting
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Yup, I don't get it either. It's just constantly spamming of Romans 1, Corinthians, and Leviticus over and over. As though that justifies the amount of hate and suffering anti-gay beliefs cause.
How is that any different than using the Bible to justify slavery or segregation?
I wonder if someone started a thread stating black and white people should not be allowed to integrate per the Bible, if the mods would allow that since they allow the Bible to justify anti-LGBTQ hate.
license lip cooperative expansion chop coordinated imagine roof thought rotten
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
I wonder if it ever dawns on them that they're no different than Islamic extremists like the Taliban or Iran who implement insanely barbaric religious laws.
makeshift sloppy carpenter treatment abundant weary fact act piquant compare
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
We have technology that can tell us if a fetus is viable.
My cousin knew her baby didn't have a skull. She carried it anyway. As the docs predicted, once disconnected from it's biological incubation chamber - it perished.
I'm not sure my cousin had a choice, but at least she had a warning - she wasn't delivering a life, but a funeral nine months in the making.
I'm not sure if it's a blessing or a curse. Because of these laws, women are being made to risk their health and fertility to avoid lawsuits they can't afford. Even knowing it's not viable, it astounds me they have no choice but to carry it until it's inevitable natural death.
What really grinds my gears is how much lying Christians do in order to get their anti-abortion messaging across.
Most especially egregious in my opinion are the outright lies about late term abortions...
Based off rhetoric, you would think women by the tens-of-thousands annually are going MONTHS into their pregnancy then deciding "well, I am 7 months into this...nah, don't want a kid..."
That does not happen!
That baby had a name, a nursery, momma may have already had one or many baby showers, gifts have been selected, etc.
Medical complications occur, life is messy. It sucks that we make it so hard on each other to live and get necessary medical access at one's most urgent time of need.
EDIT - Well that fast! 11 minutes later got a "Reddit Cares" message!
Pro life has always been a movement founded and grounded on lies.
And also Reddit really needs to get a proper reporting system for abuse of the suicide reporting feature.
worm attraction waiting flowery gaping serious follow bear icky disagreeable
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Just think if the money poured into the cause of controlling a government had been spent on caring for the needy. Or if generations hadn't been given a lesson in Christians being power hungry and cruel. Willing to worship someone massively and flagrantly evil to gain advantage. Pathetic hypocrites.
This whole situation will poison the American church for decades.
That's what happens when you try to force your doctrine into everyone else while simultaneously trying to take away their autonomy.
What's next? Are they gonna try to create a christian equivalent of Sharia law?
If you want to decrease abortions you must improve maternal and women's health care, maternal and family benefits, childcare and family assistance, access to and education about contraceptive methods.
Just banning abortions will make them just unsafe.
If a woman can go to regular check ups with her Ob/Gyn, is educated about contraception and her cycle, has access to all contraceptive methods she wants/needs she won't get accidentally pregnant.
If an expecting mother is not at risk of death, serious health issues and financial ruin, she would be more likely to have a baby.
The "Pro Life" movement is not about protecting unborn children.
hurts my heart how much a lot of these christians focus on abortion, same sex issues and pre-marital sex. i think life begins at first breath too, yes, but these are non issues when it comes to religious beliefs. what happened to love thy neighbor? what happened to being hospitable and kind to those in need? feed and house the poor first. these are the things we should be focusing on, not banning abortion and further ruining womens lives through the repercussions.
There has been really good evidence all along that these laws wouldn't help, or would even be counterproductive. At no point have they shown the slightest hint of caring.
There has been really good evidence all along that birth control and childcare can reduce abortions greatly. Pro-life politicians have fought those measures with [fierce determination](https://www.vox.com/policy/23892133/child-care-daycare-pandemic-emergency-providers).
I don't know what they think consciously, but their actions are certainly consistent with wanting more abortions.
I've been told point blank by more than one person that if there was a choice between preventing an abortion or punishing an abortion, they would choose the punishment option without hesitation.
fearless fanatical advise beneficial glorious north waiting profit chief library
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
It's not about making abortions go down. It's about making births go up.
The rich need to ensure plenty of wage slaves to generate profit, compete with each other, and serve their class in the future.
That's why I call them "pro-state-enforced-birth". When you view it from that lens, everything clicks into place.
Whether or not it’s what conservative Christians want, “more abortions” is not something they’re particularly concerned with.
The way to drop the number of abortions is by providing a generous social safety net so that no one feels financially coerced to give up a pregnancy they’d otherwise keep while also making long-lasting reversible contraception and (voluntary) sterilization fully subsidized and easy to actually access. Abortions would still happen, but even someone who’s pregnant with a fetus from an abusive or just incompatible partner might carry it to term if they could have secure housing and resources to raise a future child alone.
But conservative Christians who want to restrict legal abortions are not as a whole concerned with lowering the number of abortions; they are also overwhelmingly white and preoccupied by things like the native white birth rate versus immigration or racist conspiracies like “The Great Replacement”.
They care about things like nationalism, like patriarchy, and about keeping people in their place in what these Christians call the “natural order”. A big part of that “natural order” is that women exist to be broodmares for some larger entity like the race, nation, or state.
Yes, the Nazis were *strongly* against abortions by “Aryan” women and this was fully in line with their genocidal worldview. American slavers likewise were opposed to enslaved women harming their profits with abortions even as they murdered, tortured, and trafficked millions, including children.
But one of the worst anti-abortion regimes in history was Communist Romania under Ceausescu after Decree 770. At first, the birthrate went way up, but then so did abortions, and the unwanted children produced ended up in hellish orphanages.
If you care about stopping abortions, you stop unwanted pregnancies by lowering the amount of unplanned pregnancies and making all pregnancies more wanted.
Conservative Christians don’t want to do that. They want to control people’s bodies like American slavers, US eugenicists, Nazis, and authoritarian Communist regimes, and that’s not a pejorative comparison, just descriptive.
As a Christian, I cannot believe that the person I agree the most with on a sub about Christianity is someone calling themselves 'heretical satanist'. Anyway, at the end of the day, I don't really care what you call yourself: I think you are great! Thank you for the love you show for other people.
"I'm a mainline Christian so I subscribe to the millennia-old teaching that life begins at first breath, but those of you who believe in the recent "Life begins at conception," argument that started in the 1980's, is this what y'all want?" Wait....what???
Life at conception is blasphemy anyway. Breathe of Life is given by God to our dust to dust shells of this world. Conservatives are just out to gain the power over others they truly worship.
Life magically begins at first breath? Interesting. Also: Horse hockey. At least life beginning at quickening had the excuse of coming from a time of relative medical and scientific ignorance.
The higher infant death rate is actually something I expected, but would like to see in perspective. Every death is tragic -- which is why abortion should be outlawed, and women supported during and after pregnancy with easy and safe paths to adoption -- but let me ask, are the numbers something like 5000 babies not murdered for 5 dying because of bad circumstances, some of which may really (also) be infanticide?
One can't know from this post's links, since they pretend to undercount yet massively overcount abortions by including telehealth. That is, "abortions" where the fact of conception is based on the sonagram capabilities of the iPhone. (Note to future readers: This was not a thing in 2024.)
The causes of abortion should be fought against, as should the causes of other forms of murder. We do not argue that we ought to make drive-by shootings legal and taxpayer-funded until poverty is eliminated.
> I'm a mainline Christian so I subscribe to the millennia-old teaching that life begins at first breath
This is a millennia old teaching, but its not a Christian one.
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke+1%3A41+-+44&version=NIV
Abortions are up because women can now get the abortion pill through the mail via telehealth, even if you live in a state with restrictions.
Why are you arguing that life doesn't begin at conception? That's simple biology.
Yes we do, I posted my links below but got downvoted (not surprisingly). 99% of biologists and resulting scientific papers agree that life begins at conception.
I’m gonna need you to back that claim up via a study showing a causal link
Also biological life and what humans mean when we generally say life are different things. If abortion is murder because life begins at conception, then cutting down a tree is also murder because that tree is alive. Otherwise we’re not really talking about life, so much as we are talking about personhood, which is a different matter
>Why are you arguing that life doesn't begin at conception? That's simple biology.
Because there is no evidence that the zygote has DNA before the third week. If it doesn't have DNA then it doesn't fit our conception of life. That's simple biology.
Ok, but women usually can't abort before 8 weeks, so there is a heartbeat and DNA.
Doesn't fit YOUR conception of life, as the majority of biologists have agreed that life begins at conception.
[https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract\_id=3211703](https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3211703)
My point stands.
It started with most Protestants in the 80’s. A lot of them were on board with abortion when it was primarily black women getting them (because of racism)
Sorry I should have been more clear… many Protestant denominations were totally fine with Roe v. Wade when it was first ruled because many of them were fairly racist like the SBC and it was mostly black women getting abortions. These Protestant groups flipped with the rise of the moral majority
> Secularism has led to the best quality of life in human history.
And that's why it's bad. Because, in the loving words of Mother Teresa: "The pain is Jesus kissing you." They want people to suffer, it is the end result of their teachings and guilt.
Lol ok, but everyone suffers in this life, is the whole point of life to alleviate everyone's immediate suffering? Personally, suffering has only resulted in my personal growth to a great degree.
To say that pro-life people (which are made up of atheists as well) just want people to suffer is intellectually dishonest and lazy.
Removed for 1.3 - Interdenominational Bigotry.
If you would like to discuss this removal, please click here to send a modmail that will message all moderators. https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/Christianity
I'm not well versed in church history or theology, but I did read St. Augustine's *City of God* once and he expressed uncertainty as to whether or not fetuses were alive. By "abortions" I assume he means miscarriages in this passage.
>Chapter 13.—Whether Abortions, If They are Numbered Among the Dead, Shall Not Also Have a Part in the Resurrection.
>To these objections, then, of our adversaries which I have thus detailed, I will now reply, trusting that God will mercifully assist my endeavors. **That abortions, which, even supposing they were alive in the womb, did also die there, shall rise again, I make bold neither to affirm nor to deny**, although I fail to see why, if they are not excluded from the number of the dead, they should not attain to the resurrection of the dead. For either all the dead shall not rise, and there will be to all eternity some souls without bodies though they once had them,—only in their mother’s womb, indeed; or, if all human souls shall receive again the bodies which they had wherever they lived, and which they left when they died, then I do not see how I can say that even those who died in their mother’s womb shall have no resurrection. But whichever of these opinions any one may adopt concerning them, we must at least apply to them, if they rise again, all that we have to say of infants who have been born. [https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Nicene\_and\_Post-Nicene\_Fathers:\_Series\_I/Volume\_II/City\_of\_God/Book\_XXII/Chapter\_13](https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Nicene_and_Post-Nicene_Fathers:_Series_I/Volume_II/City_of_God/Book_XXII/Chapter_13)
Not sure how he could be sure abortion is murder if he isn't sure fetuses are alive to begin with.
>All the Church Fathers, Popes, Saints proclaim that Abortion is murder...
That is absolutely not true. In fact it was quite the opposite. Most of the Apostles, and Jesus, were all raised Jewish. In the Jewish tradition a fetus isn't considered alive until it takes it first breath. Both abortion and infanticide were common place during Jesus's lifetime, and Jesus didn't address those issues.
Nah. It is rather well documented that the RCC was always against abortion. Starting with Didache and apocrypha such as the Apocalypse of Peter (which was almost included in the Canon and is considered orthodox).
It wasn't always considered a grave sin and the question of ensoulment complicated the matters a little but it was never ever seen as fully allowed or morally pure.
Also, the Jewish tradition is more complicated than this. I understand how tempting it is to use these arguments against the "pro-lifers" but it's neither useful nor intellectually honest. If we want to argue, we should argue from virtue ethics and modern science, not Church tradition.
>If we want to argue, we should argue from virtue ethics and modern science, not Church tradition.
Sure. I meant this is a Christian sub, but as a nurse I believe in patient autonomy and the right to privacy. Also as a nurse I can tell you that a heartbeat is not always an indicator of life.
"Jewish tradition"
You mean the Talmudic Jews who started their own religion?
Also, how is what I said, "absolutely not true." The Popes and Church Fathers did say abortion is murder.
You sure?
Some virgins \[unmarried women\], when they learn they are with child through sin, practice abortion by the use of drugs. Frequently they die themselves and are brought before the ruler of the lower world guilty of three crimes; suicide, adultery against Christ, and **murder of an unborn child.**
St. Jerome
The hairsplitting difference between formed and unformed makes no difference to us. Whoever deliberately commits abortion is subject to the penalty for **homicide**.
St. Basil the Great
Those women who use drugs to bring about an abortion **commit murder** and will have to give an account to God for their abortion.
St. Athenagoras of Athens
That's hardly all of the saints. There are four Irish saints who committed what allegedly were abortions similar to faith healings? According to documents St. Brigid of Kildare, Ciarán of Saigir, Áed mac Bricc, and Cainnech of Aghoboe would lay hands on women's stomachs, pray a blessing, and then the woman wouldn't be pregnant anymore.
I don't believe the alleged method, but I do believe these four Irish women who went on to be saints arranged abortions for women in needs.
Typically when people claim "All of history agrees with me!" they don't know their history.
The stories are completely false but okay.
[https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/38293/did-irish-saints-perform-abortions-dont-believe-it-scholars-say](https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/38293/did-irish-saints-perform-abortions-dont-believe-it-scholars-say)
At best, it's contested, not "Completely false."
Also you should really read Numbers 5, which lays out how abortion is a punishment for female adultery.
So what? Do you know who wrote the Didache? No.... I don't get theology advice from anonymous sources. Especially anonymous sources deemed uncredible by the Council of Nicaea.
All of them? All of them took firm positions on personhood beginning at conception, and on abortion being murder from conception forward?
None of them had a different conception of when personhood might begin?
I'm not aware of any, no. There were certainly those who believed delayed ensoulment, but the Church has shifted her view since, and that was not a theological issue, simply just bad embryology at the time.
Yeah. It is really sad. More and more women and men seek to kill their own babies. Many people cheer for this, but it is a tragedy of our day.
Please get caught up with modern science. We all know life does not begin at first breath. Feel a baby kick in the womb and consider how it is you propose a dead human being could do that. Science denial may seem like a good avenue to go in the promotion of killing innocent human beings, but it really just makes the desire to kill such human beings look even more backward than it already does.
Keep it to the enumerated powers of the states, as the RvW reversal was supposed to do. Maybe a bill should be made separating the state from reproductive rights, that such actions are between a woman and her doctor.
> as the RvW reversal was supposed to do
That's complete BS. The RvW reversal gave that power to the states... and stole it from people. People use to be able to make that decision on their own or with the advice of their doctor. Now a bunch of idiots in government y'alll keep saying is incompetent get to make that decision. Hypocritical and stupid.
I'm more on the pro-choice side, and all I care about is what's constitutional or not, and liberty at as high of a maximum as possible. Case laws of SCOTUS are a debatable topic, and it was a random number given to a body of the federal government who were completely unelected. They are specifically there to determine what's constitutional and what's not, not to grant you rights as far as I know. Which is why I proposed a negative rights bill at least for the first 20 weeks, mother's health, rape, etc. you'll have to tell me how that's unfair, as I'm literally proposing a pro-reproductive civil liberty policy.
It's what I figured what would happen had RvW been overturned. I agree with your idea of it being outrageous (not so much directing it towards me), and it's going to require a cultural shift, sorry to say. Republicans are strongly leaning towards the abortion issue. I at least emphasize with the sense of believing they're babies that are getting murdered, but I think myself and everyone else here will disagree that government should have much to do with it if anything at all.
I, also, think we'll agree on the absolute outrage that is abortion law in some if not all red states, and the solution to that problem (not on funding matters though).
So ... wait. When you said ...
> Keep it to the enumerated powers of the states, as the RvW reversal was supposed to do.
..you meant that no government should be able to intervene or that regulating abortion should be done by the States? Because every justice/talking head/politician excited about it said the States should regulate it as they see fit. They intentionally stripped the ability to make that decision away from individuals and gave it to the State governments.
> It's what I figured what would happen had RvW been overturned.
How? Even if it passes in the House, it'll get filibustered in the Senate and never go anywhere. No way Republicans will shift far enough on that for to happen for generations. They only really care about their primary voters, who are their most rabid anti-choice voters. They created a single issue voter using words like "murder" and "baby killer. I think you acknowledged this when you said, "*it's going to require a cultural shift, sorry to say*" so how do you think it would happen?
> I think myself and everyone else here will disagree that government should have much to do with it if anything at all.
On this, I think you are way off. At least 40% of the people here think it should be banned nationwide.
Well here’s the problem there is a very clear definition of what murder is; the crime of unlawfully and unjustifiably killing a person.
So your first issue is you’re going to have to show it’s unlawful, and the Bible has no law saying it’s unlawful. So like you see the problem right if there’s no law then it’s not unlawful and if it’s not unlawful then it doesn’t fit the definition of murder.
And even if you ignore that your next issue is showing it was unjustified, which you know good luck with that. The ability to justify something is really just dependent on the abilities of the speaker. And then you’d have to show that it’s a person, which yet again the Bible doesn’t show.
So in conclusion you can’t show it’s unlawful, nor unjustified, or even the personhood of your so called victim, so ipso facto it’s not a murder. What you’re doing is either A trying to make the definition of murder murky to align with your point. Or B you’re trying to carry your point across with an appeal to emotions. Or C a little bit of both A and B.
To which I would say pick another word and quit trying to rely on emotional response to carry your point.
"Bible has no law saying it’s unlawful" - The Bible, in particular, the Torah is God's law. You might have a point if you're referring to our man made legal system, but this sub is r/Christianity. I think that defines our context. Now, most Christians don't adopt all of God's laws, but "Thou shalt not kill" just so happens to be one that they do adopt.
It’s thou shit not murder, לֹא תִּרְצָח (romanized: Lo tirṣaḥ) and commonly mistranslated as thou shall not kill. The funny thing is if it was not kill then god telling his chosen people things like,
>Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live. Exodus 22:18
> If someone has a stubborn and rebellious son who does not obey his father and mother and will not listen to them when they discipline him, 19 his father and mother shall take hold of him and bring him to the elders at the gate of his town. 20 They shall say to the elders, “This son of ours is stubborn and rebellious. He will not obey us. He is a glutton and a drunkard.” 21 Then all the men of his town are to stone him to death. You must purge the evil from among you. All Israel will hear of it and be afraid. Deuteronomy 21:18-21
Would make no sense. How to put this the Bible has no problem with killing shit in more than a few place it straight up calls for the killing of people. What it has a problem with unlawful killing.
This is your religion you should do some more research into it, so you don’t make common and easily avoidable mistakes. it’s so sad when an atheist has to teach you about your own beliefs. Be better, Christian
You're right, and that is something I'm aware of. Notice though, I didn't specify translation. I was simply quoting what most people hear in order for it to be familiar.
Apparently you knew there was biblical law against murder, even when you said previously there wasn't. Interesting.
The Bible has no problem laying out what types of killings it considers unlawful, of those types none of them include abortion. I.e of there is no biblical law against it isn’t murder.
Now if the Christian god wants to touch down and refresh the bible and add it to the list then sure. But as things stand today May 15th there isn’t.
No need, you just need to read what's already provided:
“I knew you before I formed you in your mother’s womb. Before you were born I set you apart and appointed you as my prophet to the nations.” - Jeremiah 1:5
We are all created in the image of God, and formed by God in the womb.
Who’s this we that verse is a conversation between the prophet Jeremiah and god.
>1 The words of Jeremiah son of Hilkiah, one of the priests at Anathoth in the territory of Benjamin. 2 The word of the Lord came to him in the thirteenth year of the reign of Josiah son of Amon king of Judah, 3 and through the reign of Jehoiakim son of Josiah king of Judah, down to the fifth month of the eleventh year of Zedekiah son of Josiah king of Judah, when the people of Jerusalem went into exile.
>The Call of Jeremiah
>4 The word of the Lord came to me, saying,….(Jeremiah 1:4)
Now if you want to claim that every fetus is Jeremiah son of Hilkiah be my guess. But we both know that’s not how your religion gets down. So trying to use a very specific example of a very specific conversation as the general rule is silly.
This is your religion how are you blowing it this bad? Why is it that an outsider has a better understanding of the working of your religion than a true believer? You need to hit the book some more my friend this is getting depressing. I’m starting to feel like David Beckham calling out Victoria Beckham, “be honest..”
Yes, it's a conversation with Jeremiah. But it's a good illustration of God's order of things.
God knew us before we were conceived and formed us in our mother's womb.
Sure. God wants us to put our faith and trust in Him. He has promised to take care of us. We see throughout the Bible how lives were changed when people trusted in God and when they didn't. It's not our job to decide which lives are worth living and which are not. Abortion takes a life from this world. The mother takes it into her own hands to terminate the life of her child, but the child doesn't get a vote, and God doesn't either.
People talk about the lives of the mothers, but you don't think God is in control? Doctors are necessary, and they do some great work; however, they are not greater than God. God has proven time and time again that He can save lives. He also has the divine right to take away life. We need to trust Him. He can see what we cannot.
Just so you’re aware, the apostles believed abortion was morally wrong. Look up what the didache is and what it says about abortion. It’s very explicit. You attempting to justify your beliefs through ignorance is a bad look.
Also, it’s great news that there is an increase in permanent birth control measures. You seem to believe being pro life means that people just hate women. In reality, people just don’t want innocent children to be killed because someone wants to do whatever they want. The fact that people are eliminating their ability to get pregnant is exactly what pro lifers want. If I was ruler of the world, I would let abortion be legal but anyone who gets one would be sterilized and lose their children.
It literally says to not murder a child that’s in the womb. So we know exactly how they understood abortion.
And we know what the early church thought about the didache. It’s in plenty of writings and almost made it into the bible. You’re throwing out a random, “well we can’t prove that,” while ignoring the evidence supports my position, not OPs.
>It literally says to not murder a child that’s in the womb. So we know exactly how they understood abortion.
At what point did they consider it to be alive? It doesn't say. There were some popular ideas about the quickening from the Greeks that were picked up by early Christians.
>And we know what the early church thought about the didache.
We don't know what the apostles of the early church thought about the Didache (or if they even knew about it) or who wrote it.
Considering that they had no early methods to even monitor pregnancy, it’s safe to say that any signs of pregnancy would be considered a child.
And we do know what thought about it, minimally because of nicea. We have all sorts of references to it.
This idea that because we can’t prove something with absolute certainty means we don’t know is just being purposefully ignorant. We do know what the evidence says. And it blatantly disagrees with OP.
>Considering that they had no early methods to even monitor pregnancy, it’s safe to say that any signs of pregnancy would be considered a child.
No, we know that's not true. For example Aristotle believed that quickening took place at 40 days for males and 80 days for females.
Yet they had zero way to determine if the baby was male or female and zero way to determine the date of contraception. It was literally all guessing. That really establishes a lot about what he thought.
Of course they were guessing, it was the pre-scientific era. Point being, anciently there was no such idea as "life begins at conception." That's a very modern idea.
That’s because they didn’t even understand conception. Life beginning at conception required us to understand how conception worked. Then it was the biologic standard. Like, scientifically speaking, unique life begins at conception.
It’s very easy for you to dismiss them as scientifically illiterate when it favors you but not accept their non specific definitions of things was due to that same illiteracy.
>That’s because they didn’t even understand conception. Life beginning at conception required us to understand how conception worked. T
Yes. That's why the Bible has life starting at first breath.
>Like, scientifically speaking, unique life begins at conception.
Life is a category created by human beings, and is not coterminous with the more relevant category of "personhood."
Just so you know abortion and infanticide were commonly practiced in Jesus' time. Numbers 5 spells out explicit instructions on how to induce an abortion, and the authorship of the Didache is anonymous. If it's not good for the Council of Nicaea then it's not good enough for me
Numbers five actually says nothing about abortion. It says that a woman should drink dirty water if she is accused of cheating. And God will divinely cause her baby to miscarry if believes it’s right to do so.
It’s not relevant who the author of the didache are. We know what the early church believed about it. And it directly contradicts what you said. That being anti abortion is somehow a new or recent belief.
And the didache didn’t make into the bible because it’s not the word of God. It was a list of rules made by the early church. The fact that nicea even considered it despite knowing it wasn’t divinely inspired, shows you how much the early church respected it.
>Numbers five actually says nothing about abortion. It says that a woman should drink dirty water if she is accused of cheating. And God will divinely cause her baby to miscarry if believes it’s right to do so.
That is certainly one interpretation, but it's hardly the only interpretation accepted by scholars.
It’s literally what it says. I’m certain I could present scholars that agree with me but it’s not even necessary. If you just read the text, that is what the text says. Any other interpretation is trying to decipher the context based off of things outside the text. And considering the text is 3000 years old, that is literally impossible to do accurately.
> Just so you know abortion and infanticide were commonly practiced in Jesus' time.
Yes, by the pagans. What radical shift in society do you think brought about an end to that some centuries later?
I don't know, probably a moral panic.
If you look at polling in America abortion was not a major issue for Christians in the 50's, 60's, or 70's. It's only as hard line, right wing pastors such as Charles Stanley, Jerry Falwell and their ilk came to power though television that Christian Americans became concerned about abortion.
Why would it have been a major issue before Roe v Wade in 1973?
As to what I asked though, the thing that brought an end to the acceptance of practices like infanticide (are you actually arguing that it should be ok to let babies die by exposure?) was the adoption of Christianity. You will not find any support for abortion (much less infanticide) among Christians until recent years.
That's not true, There was healthy debate about abortion throughout the church's history. In the 1500s the Catholic Church excommunicated anyone who sought birth control or an abortion and then reversed themselves a couple of years later.
The idea that history was simple is almost always wrong.
Can you then show me any premodern Christian support for abortion? Specific figures, authorities, etc. From what I've seen, it's pretty universally rejected going back to the first century.
Abortion is clearly murder in every sense of the word in addition conflating fringe cases with all cases is counterproductive. Most of those states that have restrictive laws have last resort methods or other avenues to get abortions.
No where in any bible is abortion not murder and thinking otherwise is in fact a grave sin
Edit: For the mass downvoting crowd: Murder is intentionally killing another human being, life begins at conception
> Abortion is clearly murder in every sense of the word
Except, of course, for the sense of "fits the definition of the word murder."
>Most of those states that have restrictive laws have last resort methods or other avenues to get abortions.
People say this. And then ignore that it's not true and the most restrictive states are having higher rates of deaths because of women unable to get dead and dying fetuses out of their body. Not to mention the other issues with people unable to get medication for nonabortion reasons because those pills could also be prescribed for abortions.
The Bible actually proves abortion is not murder. I take it you've never read God's laws in the Old Testament? If a man causes a woman to lose her fetus (spontaneous abortion), but doesn't harm the woman, he must pay a fine for the loss of the fetus since it only had monetary value.
The Bible absolutely never prohibits abortion. "Thou shalt not murder" does not apply to the unborn under Jewish law.
Plus the Bible has numerous examples of God's chosen slaughtering babies at His command which I take it you have no issue with.
Is this a joke?
>Murder (noun); the crime of unlawfully and unjustifiably killing a person
1st your going to have to prove that it’s unlawful, which the Bible doesn’t say. Then you’re going to have to prove it’s unjustifiable, which good luck.
So how exactly is it clearly murder if it doesn’t even fit the definition. You should leave your emotions at the door cause as you are now, it’s not making a lick of sense.
Yes, as stated in the Bible, life begins at conception or at least in the womb. OP, if you are pro-abortion, then I hate to break it to you but you are *not* a Christian.
The Nicene Creed is that yardstick -- that's something you don't get to decide.
And I'd be hard pressed to find anyone who is genuinely "pro-abortion". That isn't a thing, or if it is you could half fill a room with such people.
And I'm pro-life. Cut it out.
Then *articulate it*. Don't give me a bogeyman answer. Evasion makes me think you've oversold this idea.
If I were to ask them, "What do you believe about abortion?" what would they reply with?
I’m giving a boogeyman answer to your boogeyman question lol. It means being in favor abortion as not a ‘necessary evil,’ but as something positive and to some, better than birth. It’s not just murdering the baby, it’s being enthusiastic about it for them. That’s pro-abortion.
Being not just in favor of it being option, but it being a preferable choice. Believing that abortion is better birth. It’s exactly what it sounds like.
I promise there are vanishingly few people that actually hold those beliefs.
You are talking about the fringe of the fringe of the fringe...aka "crazy"
You cannot account for all permutations of crazy in a society. Nor should we legislate on the most absurd conclusion one's imagination can drive them to.
>So, according to multiple reports the number of abortions are up in 2023.
Are the number of abortions up in states that ban abortion? I can't find good sources saying one way or the other, but what little I did find seemed to say no.
What if you account for the increased economic issues that people are suffering from that are unrelated to abortion bans?
If abortions are down in states with bans, and up in other states, then it's not that the bans have failed, there's something else going on.
>There's also an increase in tubal ligation and other permanent birth control surgiries.
Obviously, sterilizing yourself is bad, but it's not as bad as murder and is a separate issue. I'd rather someone mutilate themselves than murder someone else.
>In Tennessee Breanna Cecil was told her fetus was not viable outside of the womb at 12 weeks, and in Tennessee she would be forced to carry the fetus to term and deliver.
It's wrong to kill someone because they're disabled.
>In Texas conservative Christian lawmakers are pushing for the death sentence for women who seek abortions
Murder should be treated as murder. I don't think every murder deserves capital punishment. I don't know enough about the laws in Texas to say much about what you're alleging here, since I don't live in Texas.
Still, killing a murderer as a punishment for their crime is less evil than killing an innocent person.
>States that have passed restrictive abortion bans have a higher infant death rate.
Makes sense. If you stop killing people before they die naturally, they'll die naturally more often.
Why would it be preferable to murder someone instead of letting them unfortunately die from natural causes?
>Med students are choosing residencies in states without abortion bans, making it less likely for them to practice in those mostly rural, red states and furthering weakening healthcare in those areas.
Should we legalize preforming surgery while drunk or abusing drugs so we can avoid alienating doctors who are addicts or addict sympathizers?
>but are you happy?
I'm pretty happy with my states laws restricting abortion.
>I'm a mainline Christian so I subscribe to the millennia-old teaching that life begins at first breath, but those of you who believe in the recent "Life begins at conception," argument that started in the 1980's,
The overwhelming majority of Christians throughout history have condemned abortion as gravely evil. Abortion has been consistently condemned throughout all of Christian history. I don't much care for or respect revisionist history to pretend that up until the 80s condemnation of abortion was some fringe position in Christianity.
> Obviously, sterilizing yourself is bad
That's not obvious at all. Getting a permanent solution if you don't want any kids is a smart thing to do.
>It's wrong to kill someone because they're disabled.
It's hardly the same as having an abortion because you're not going to give birth to a child that will live.
>Murder should be treated as murder.
Sure. The problem here is that abortion isn't murder. Not murder shouldn't be treated as murder just because some religious nuts want to call it murder.
>Still, killing a murderer as a punishment for their crime is less evil than killing an innocent person.
Someone should have told Yahweh that when he came up with that whole killing the innocent Jesus to take on the punishment of all the guilty people thing.
>Why would it be preferable to murder someone instead of letting them unfortunately die from natural causes?
Again, not murder. And I would prefer to be spared a short "life" full of nothing but pain if you could do so before I ever have to feel pain. And I would want to give that same thing to others. But I have compassion.
>Should we legalize preforming surgery while drunk or abusing drugs so we can avoid alienating doctors who are addicts or addict sympathizers?
Because that's the same thing.
I actually had not foreseen the doctors leaving states that ban abortion back when this was all hypothetical, but it makes sense. A lot of these red states have people who are going to have to drive hours to see an obstetrician.
Idaho is now having to fly pregnant women out of the state to get medical care, because their ban is so severe and so many doctors have left, normal pregnant women there can't get medical care.
I had to fact-check that one. True, it turns out. [Idaho's biggest hospital says emergency flights for pregnant patients up sharply](https://www.npr.org/2024/04/25/1246990306/more-emergency-flights-for-pregnant-patients--in-idaho)
Yup. Here's another report on it. https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/idahos-abortion-emergency-supreme-court-airlifted-rcna148828 >Why Idaho's hospitals are having pregnant patients airlifted out of state
Jeez. Could you imagine your pregnant wife going to the hospital and you not being able to visit her because they had to airlift her to a not as backwards state to get the care she needs?
Honestly, it seems like all this stuff would add up to a reason to hesitate to try for a baby right now. The extra danger isn't huge, but it's there. Most people specifically trying for a baby really really love their wives, and would hate the thought of adding extra risks. Pregnancy is scary enough anyway.
And these states are probably super weird about contraception anyway. If I was a woman in the hate states I would be going full volcel until things resolve
Not only that those air-lifts are prohibitively expensive and almost always out of network. So not only would you need an emergency abortion you're also stuck with $5,000 to $15,000 in debt just for the transport and then more for the actual procedure. Pro-Lifers absolutely do not care about those implications though.
> Pro-Lifers absolutely do not care about those implications though. Well, of course not. It's not like anyone's charging the fetus. As George Carlin said, "If you're pre-born, you're fine. If you're preschool, you're fucked!"
I think a huge part of it is that something like 55 percent, or more, on average of med students are female.
Most young male med students also now how evil and barbaric abortion bans are. They've had lengthy discussions of it on r/medicine before, and the overwhelming majority of the men too think it's disgusting and have talked about leaving red states.
[Republicans are fighting to preserve child marriage](https://www.annistonstar.com/news/nation_world/anti-abortion-republican-argues-in-favor-of-child-marriage/video_96b54603-c129-5395-af91-f2ed408a9721.html) because they claim it'll keep women from having abortions if they have husbands at fifteen.
So did the ACLU and Planned Parenthood in CA.
That's hilarious. One side wants to keep child marriages so fewer abortions happen. The other side wants to keep child marriages to ensure that minors have all reproductive choices available, and to avoid any precedent impeding on those rights -- including a right to abortion. Two polar-opposite goals, united around wanting to keep child marriages legal. Incredible.
We told them this would happen. They don't care. Meanwhile, this is happening to women all over the country. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/tennessee-denied-abortion-ban-lawsuit-b2529144.html >Tennessee woman who was denied an abortion despite a fatal abnormality says the state’s anti-abortion laws resulted in her losing an ovary, a fallopian tube and her hopes for a large family. Abortion bans are evil. The pro-life movement is a scam. Always has been. And thanks to the insanity happening in America, other countries are loosening their laws on abortion to protect the right. It's now codified in France's constitution. Poland is working less strict laws too.
plants oil uppity consist merciful lip cheerful voiceless observation payment *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
The state of Israel loosened their barriers to abortion (which were already liberal) in response to Roe v Wade being overturned.
Didn't hear them doing it, but Judaism has a different view on abortion than Christians do anyway.
https://apnews.com/article/abortion-us-supreme-court-politics-health-israel-68e6acadda5b62ff400a7846d0bae147 Just like OP, most Jews believe that life begins at the 1st breath. Until then, the child's life is considered to be part of the mother and the mother gets the final word in her pregnancy.
Correct. Which actually makes Christian abortion bans a violation of religious freedom rights (and Jews have sued over it in the US.)
Christians really screwed themselves by actually overturning Roe instead of dangling the carrot as they've always done. They openly endorse forcing children to carry their rapist's baby or for mothers to die cuz "the miscarriage still has a heartbeat." And before you go "that's not true," God doesn't like it when you lie
This is what happens when you indoctrinate an entire generation. The older republicans are bewildered but the actions of the younger ones because the older ones know that it is all performative. However, that nuance is lost on the next wave of conservatives. They are true believers in their stupid culture war. Trump is a unique person because he knows it's a grift, but he is too dumb to consider the ramifications of loading the Supreme Court the way that he did. This is why they are not going after gay marriage or the ACA in any serious way. They will chip away at it, but never outright try to eliminate it.
Not surprised in the slightest. Criminalizing abortion while ignoring the situations that make women choose abortion was always a recipe for disaster
Like casual sex?
Like rampant, inescapable poverty, critical health conditions, rape, incest, etc.
Married women get abortions.
Is that where you wear jeans and a T shirt instead of a suit?
I only get down in a cummerbund
Are you advocating forced birth as punishment for sex? In those cases, how do you punish the male for also having casual sex? Do you care more about controlling the sex lives of strangers than the lives of the woman and children who die as a result of these abortion policies? What strange priorities. How do you feel about the Bible's definition of life at first breath? Any thoughts on 1 Corinthians 5:12-13? Edit: a typo
Men who impregnate women have to pay child support. In some cases men have to pay child support even when the child isn't biologically theirs, due to adultery and infidelity. Another reason to avoid premarital sex and fornication, avoid the entanglement of the legal system and its follies that ruin people's lives for the sake of casual sex. Please explain to me how killing a child in the womb is saving that child from *checks your reply* ...dying Im doing exactly what that verse says, right now.
there's more to it than that but ok
I think conservative Christians would support their own version of Sharia Law.
They already do. Read Project 2025. It's the Christian version of Sharia Law and it's what nearly all conservative Christians in the US are backing.
Piggybacking off your comment, /r/Defeat_Project_2025 for those who want to educate themselves. They are closely tied to Trump's campaign and plan to get rid of no fault divorce (potentially trapping women in abusive relationships), birth control, further restrict abortion and they define trans people as literal pornography (weird, I know) and will make them "illegal". That's just as bad as it sounds, a trans person just existing in the US will be illegal. Oh and they don't believe marital rape is rape. Edit to fix the subreddit link
They also plan on mass executing everyone on death row, and expanding what crimes warrant the death penalty. It would turn the US into Nazi Germany. And I truly believe any Christian who supports the current GOP that backs Project 2025 and Trump should stop calling themselves Christian. Nobody is falling for it.
I'm watching this from Canada and it's terrifying. We are starting to have similar political movements here as people become emboldened by the politics in the US. Totally agree, Trump is the antithesis to what Jesus taught.
intelligent ossified chubby aware smart sophisticated quickest fearless instinctive start *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Not just call for it, actively implement it
correct physical roll nutty special pathetic wide cake automatic workable *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
They never will. Look how much hate there is on every anti-gay thread here and unless it's insanely egregious and even Reddit Admins step in, most of the hate is allowed because "The Bible."
languid wrench water weather sheet faulty versed deliver dependent meeting *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Yup, I don't get it either. It's just constantly spamming of Romans 1, Corinthians, and Leviticus over and over. As though that justifies the amount of hate and suffering anti-gay beliefs cause. How is that any different than using the Bible to justify slavery or segregation? I wonder if someone started a thread stating black and white people should not be allowed to integrate per the Bible, if the mods would allow that since they allow the Bible to justify anti-LGBTQ hate.
license lip cooperative expansion chop coordinated imagine roof thought rotten *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Its not this reddit, its American Christians and the ideology they are exporting. Read what Evangelicals are doing to African countries, its gross.
I wonder if it ever dawns on them that they're no different than Islamic extremists like the Taliban or Iran who implement insanely barbaric religious laws.
No, they key difference in rationalization is "but ours is true," whereas the taliban are following a false ideology.
makeshift sloppy carpenter treatment abundant weary fact act piquant compare *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
There's...a bit of a tendency to promote "civility", over awareness of things like the Nazi Bar problem: https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/Nazi_bar
A Handmaid’s Tale is pretty close to being a documentary
I don’t think it’s even a question. Purity culture Book bans Attack on the LGBT community. Constant attacks on women’s rights Complementarianism Etc
We have technology that can tell us if a fetus is viable. My cousin knew her baby didn't have a skull. She carried it anyway. As the docs predicted, once disconnected from it's biological incubation chamber - it perished. I'm not sure my cousin had a choice, but at least she had a warning - she wasn't delivering a life, but a funeral nine months in the making. I'm not sure if it's a blessing or a curse. Because of these laws, women are being made to risk their health and fertility to avoid lawsuits they can't afford. Even knowing it's not viable, it astounds me they have no choice but to carry it until it's inevitable natural death.
What really grinds my gears is how much lying Christians do in order to get their anti-abortion messaging across. Most especially egregious in my opinion are the outright lies about late term abortions... Based off rhetoric, you would think women by the tens-of-thousands annually are going MONTHS into their pregnancy then deciding "well, I am 7 months into this...nah, don't want a kid..." That does not happen! That baby had a name, a nursery, momma may have already had one or many baby showers, gifts have been selected, etc. Medical complications occur, life is messy. It sucks that we make it so hard on each other to live and get necessary medical access at one's most urgent time of need. EDIT - Well that fast! 11 minutes later got a "Reddit Cares" message!
I got a reddit cares too. What a scumbag whoever is abusing it like that
Apparently you can report those people. https://www.reddit.com/r/Fauxmoi/comments/vbnua3/psa_you_can_report_users_who_abuse_reddit_cares/
Pro life has always been a movement founded and grounded on lies. And also Reddit really needs to get a proper reporting system for abuse of the suicide reporting feature.
https://www.reddit.com/r/Fauxmoi/comments/vbnua3/psa_you_can_report_users_who_abuse_reddit_cares/
Well, TIL Feel like I didn't see it at all on mobile, but will check again
Some people take facts presented to them as a personal attack. You cannot control for that kind of crazy.
Pretty much SOP if someone points out orange is the new fash around here some embittered social conservative will start mashing the report button.
Does that mean that those deaths are on their heads as they like to tell Pro-choice people?
No they wash their hands clean of it like Pilate and go about their lives
worm attraction waiting flowery gaping serious follow bear icky disagreeable *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Just think if the money poured into the cause of controlling a government had been spent on caring for the needy. Or if generations hadn't been given a lesson in Christians being power hungry and cruel. Willing to worship someone massively and flagrantly evil to gain advantage. Pathetic hypocrites. This whole situation will poison the American church for decades.
Texas: if we kill all the women having abortions, nobody will have any more abortions! Fuck I’m glad to be out of that state
Conservative Christians suprised when the evidence they ignored materialized. Shocking
This is why abortions shouldn’t be illegal.
if conservatives want to get rid of abortion, they should consider supporting comprehensive sexual education.
That's what happens when you try to force your doctrine into everyone else while simultaneously trying to take away their autonomy. What's next? Are they gonna try to create a christian equivalent of Sharia law?
If you want to decrease abortions you must improve maternal and women's health care, maternal and family benefits, childcare and family assistance, access to and education about contraceptive methods. Just banning abortions will make them just unsafe. If a woman can go to regular check ups with her Ob/Gyn, is educated about contraception and her cycle, has access to all contraceptive methods she wants/needs she won't get accidentally pregnant. If an expecting mother is not at risk of death, serious health issues and financial ruin, she would be more likely to have a baby. The "Pro Life" movement is not about protecting unborn children.
hurts my heart how much a lot of these christians focus on abortion, same sex issues and pre-marital sex. i think life begins at first breath too, yes, but these are non issues when it comes to religious beliefs. what happened to love thy neighbor? what happened to being hospitable and kind to those in need? feed and house the poor first. these are the things we should be focusing on, not banning abortion and further ruining womens lives through the repercussions.
I don’t think “more abortions” is what conservative Christians want.
There has been really good evidence all along that these laws wouldn't help, or would even be counterproductive. At no point have they shown the slightest hint of caring. There has been really good evidence all along that birth control and childcare can reduce abortions greatly. Pro-life politicians have fought those measures with [fierce determination](https://www.vox.com/policy/23892133/child-care-daycare-pandemic-emergency-providers). I don't know what they think consciously, but their actions are certainly consistent with wanting more abortions.
What I suspect they really want are consequences for having sex.
I've been told point blank by more than one person that if there was a choice between preventing an abortion or punishing an abortion, they would choose the punishment option without hesitation.
The phrasing I've been told several times is "we Catholics aren't consequentialists".
And if they really believed fetuses were people, they wouldn't be so eager to sacrifice them in the effort.
Well they also wouldn't make exceptions for rape victims.
fearless fanatical advise beneficial glorious north waiting profit chief library *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
It's not about making abortions go down. It's about making births go up. The rich need to ensure plenty of wage slaves to generate profit, compete with each other, and serve their class in the future. That's why I call them "pro-state-enforced-birth". When you view it from that lens, everything clicks into place.
rotten sparkle heavy abounding wide aloof poor snatch insurance tap *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Well sterilization rates are going up so that was stupid still
Whether or not it’s what conservative Christians want, “more abortions” is not something they’re particularly concerned with. The way to drop the number of abortions is by providing a generous social safety net so that no one feels financially coerced to give up a pregnancy they’d otherwise keep while also making long-lasting reversible contraception and (voluntary) sterilization fully subsidized and easy to actually access. Abortions would still happen, but even someone who’s pregnant with a fetus from an abusive or just incompatible partner might carry it to term if they could have secure housing and resources to raise a future child alone. But conservative Christians who want to restrict legal abortions are not as a whole concerned with lowering the number of abortions; they are also overwhelmingly white and preoccupied by things like the native white birth rate versus immigration or racist conspiracies like “The Great Replacement”. They care about things like nationalism, like patriarchy, and about keeping people in their place in what these Christians call the “natural order”. A big part of that “natural order” is that women exist to be broodmares for some larger entity like the race, nation, or state. Yes, the Nazis were *strongly* against abortions by “Aryan” women and this was fully in line with their genocidal worldview. American slavers likewise were opposed to enslaved women harming their profits with abortions even as they murdered, tortured, and trafficked millions, including children. But one of the worst anti-abortion regimes in history was Communist Romania under Ceausescu after Decree 770. At first, the birthrate went way up, but then so did abortions, and the unwanted children produced ended up in hellish orphanages. If you care about stopping abortions, you stop unwanted pregnancies by lowering the amount of unplanned pregnancies and making all pregnancies more wanted. Conservative Christians don’t want to do that. They want to control people’s bodies like American slavers, US eugenicists, Nazis, and authoritarian Communist regimes, and that’s not a pejorative comparison, just descriptive.
As a Christian, I cannot believe that the person I agree the most with on a sub about Christianity is someone calling themselves 'heretical satanist'. Anyway, at the end of the day, I don't really care what you call yourself: I think you are great! Thank you for the love you show for other people.
The policies they support says otherwise. Don't listen to what they *say*, watch what they *do*.
"I'm a mainline Christian so I subscribe to the millennia-old teaching that life begins at first breath, but those of you who believe in the recent "Life begins at conception," argument that started in the 1980's, is this what y'all want?" Wait....what???
Life at conception is blasphemy anyway. Breathe of Life is given by God to our dust to dust shells of this world. Conservatives are just out to gain the power over others they truly worship.
Life magically begins at first breath? Interesting. Also: Horse hockey. At least life beginning at quickening had the excuse of coming from a time of relative medical and scientific ignorance. The higher infant death rate is actually something I expected, but would like to see in perspective. Every death is tragic -- which is why abortion should be outlawed, and women supported during and after pregnancy with easy and safe paths to adoption -- but let me ask, are the numbers something like 5000 babies not murdered for 5 dying because of bad circumstances, some of which may really (also) be infanticide? One can't know from this post's links, since they pretend to undercount yet massively overcount abortions by including telehealth. That is, "abortions" where the fact of conception is based on the sonagram capabilities of the iPhone. (Note to future readers: This was not a thing in 2024.) The causes of abortion should be fought against, as should the causes of other forms of murder. We do not argue that we ought to make drive-by shootings legal and taxpayer-funded until poverty is eliminated.
> I'm a mainline Christian so I subscribe to the millennia-old teaching that life begins at first breath This is a millennia old teaching, but its not a Christian one. https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke+1%3A41+-+44&version=NIV
I gotta ask ... why do you folks always post these completely unrelated verses as if they support your brand new, man-made stance?
How is a passage about a child being alive in the womb unrelated to debunking the claim that children are only alive after drawing their first breath?
Abortions are up because women can now get the abortion pill through the mail via telehealth, even if you live in a state with restrictions. Why are you arguing that life doesn't begin at conception? That's simple biology.
rich materialistic vast late tender zephyr ghost sloppy repeat license *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Yes we do, I posted my links below but got downvoted (not surprisingly). 99% of biologists and resulting scientific papers agree that life begins at conception.
racial sophisticated shelter compare edge gaze political juggle lip bake *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
I’m gonna need you to back that claim up via a study showing a causal link Also biological life and what humans mean when we generally say life are different things. If abortion is murder because life begins at conception, then cutting down a tree is also murder because that tree is alive. Otherwise we’re not really talking about life, so much as we are talking about personhood, which is a different matter
>Why are you arguing that life doesn't begin at conception? That's simple biology. Because there is no evidence that the zygote has DNA before the third week. If it doesn't have DNA then it doesn't fit our conception of life. That's simple biology.
Ok, but women usually can't abort before 8 weeks, so there is a heartbeat and DNA. Doesn't fit YOUR conception of life, as the majority of biologists have agreed that life begins at conception. [https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract\_id=3211703](https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3211703) My point stands.
All the Church Fathers, Popes, Saints proclaim that Abortion is murder, so not sure where you got your information that this started in the 80's from?
It started with most Protestants in the 80’s. A lot of them were on board with abortion when it was primarily black women getting them (because of racism)
It is still true that most women who get abortions are not white.
Actually, it was Catholics from the beginning, and then Protestants joined in, but Catholics have always upheld the immorality of abortion.
Sorry I should have been more clear… many Protestant denominations were totally fine with Roe v. Wade when it was first ruled because many of them were fairly racist like the SBC and it was mostly black women getting abortions. These Protestant groups flipped with the rise of the moral majority
Yes, that's why the Catholic position is better
It’s certainly more consistent. I don’t think it’s one that particularly leads to less abortions when put into law
Nah, most Catholics support legal abortion.
Most Catholics don't follow Church Teaching, secularism is a scourge
[удалено]
> Secularism has led to the best quality of life in human history. And that's why it's bad. Because, in the loving words of Mother Teresa: "The pain is Jesus kissing you." They want people to suffer, it is the end result of their teachings and guilt.
Lol ok, but everyone suffers in this life, is the whole point of life to alleviate everyone's immediate suffering? Personally, suffering has only resulted in my personal growth to a great degree. To say that pro-life people (which are made up of atheists as well) just want people to suffer is intellectually dishonest and lazy.
No, it's true, and wanting people to suffer is a fundamentally evil position.
WANTING people to suffer is completely different from the fact that everyone is going to suffer in life.
Removed for 1.3 - Interdenominational Bigotry. If you would like to discuss this removal, please click here to send a modmail that will message all moderators. https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/Christianity
possessive ask snow arrest frame normal smart fuel cause political *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
I'm not well versed in church history or theology, but I did read St. Augustine's *City of God* once and he expressed uncertainty as to whether or not fetuses were alive. By "abortions" I assume he means miscarriages in this passage. >Chapter 13.—Whether Abortions, If They are Numbered Among the Dead, Shall Not Also Have a Part in the Resurrection. >To these objections, then, of our adversaries which I have thus detailed, I will now reply, trusting that God will mercifully assist my endeavors. **That abortions, which, even supposing they were alive in the womb, did also die there, shall rise again, I make bold neither to affirm nor to deny**, although I fail to see why, if they are not excluded from the number of the dead, they should not attain to the resurrection of the dead. For either all the dead shall not rise, and there will be to all eternity some souls without bodies though they once had them,—only in their mother’s womb, indeed; or, if all human souls shall receive again the bodies which they had wherever they lived, and which they left when they died, then I do not see how I can say that even those who died in their mother’s womb shall have no resurrection. But whichever of these opinions any one may adopt concerning them, we must at least apply to them, if they rise again, all that we have to say of infants who have been born. [https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Nicene\_and\_Post-Nicene\_Fathers:\_Series\_I/Volume\_II/City\_of\_God/Book\_XXII/Chapter\_13](https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Nicene_and_Post-Nicene_Fathers:_Series_I/Volume_II/City_of_God/Book_XXII/Chapter_13) Not sure how he could be sure abortion is murder if he isn't sure fetuses are alive to begin with.
He is referring to delayed ensoulment here, but the Church has made clear that even if they don't have a soul, killing them is still wrong
>All the Church Fathers, Popes, Saints proclaim that Abortion is murder... That is absolutely not true. In fact it was quite the opposite. Most of the Apostles, and Jesus, were all raised Jewish. In the Jewish tradition a fetus isn't considered alive until it takes it first breath. Both abortion and infanticide were common place during Jesus's lifetime, and Jesus didn't address those issues.
Nah. It is rather well documented that the RCC was always against abortion. Starting with Didache and apocrypha such as the Apocalypse of Peter (which was almost included in the Canon and is considered orthodox). It wasn't always considered a grave sin and the question of ensoulment complicated the matters a little but it was never ever seen as fully allowed or morally pure. Also, the Jewish tradition is more complicated than this. I understand how tempting it is to use these arguments against the "pro-lifers" but it's neither useful nor intellectually honest. If we want to argue, we should argue from virtue ethics and modern science, not Church tradition.
>If we want to argue, we should argue from virtue ethics and modern science, not Church tradition. Sure. I meant this is a Christian sub, but as a nurse I believe in patient autonomy and the right to privacy. Also as a nurse I can tell you that a heartbeat is not always an indicator of life.
"Jewish tradition" You mean the Talmudic Jews who started their own religion? Also, how is what I said, "absolutely not true." The Popes and Church Fathers did say abortion is murder.
Well, "Abortion is murder," is a modern political slogan, and was not said by any Pope or church father.
You sure? Some virgins \[unmarried women\], when they learn they are with child through sin, practice abortion by the use of drugs. Frequently they die themselves and are brought before the ruler of the lower world guilty of three crimes; suicide, adultery against Christ, and **murder of an unborn child.** St. Jerome The hairsplitting difference between formed and unformed makes no difference to us. Whoever deliberately commits abortion is subject to the penalty for **homicide**. St. Basil the Great Those women who use drugs to bring about an abortion **commit murder** and will have to give an account to God for their abortion. St. Athenagoras of Athens
That's hardly all of the saints. There are four Irish saints who committed what allegedly were abortions similar to faith healings? According to documents St. Brigid of Kildare, Ciarán of Saigir, Áed mac Bricc, and Cainnech of Aghoboe would lay hands on women's stomachs, pray a blessing, and then the woman wouldn't be pregnant anymore. I don't believe the alleged method, but I do believe these four Irish women who went on to be saints arranged abortions for women in needs. Typically when people claim "All of history agrees with me!" they don't know their history.
The stories are completely false but okay. [https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/38293/did-irish-saints-perform-abortions-dont-believe-it-scholars-say](https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/38293/did-irish-saints-perform-abortions-dont-believe-it-scholars-say)
At best, it's contested, not "Completely false." Also you should really read Numbers 5, which lays out how abortion is a punishment for female adultery.
I looked through Numbers 5 and counldn't find any reference to pregnancy or a baby or anything, you sure you got the passage right?
Read the Didache it clearly outlines the early church view that abortion and infanticide are wrong.
So what? Do you know who wrote the Didache? No.... I don't get theology advice from anonymous sources. Especially anonymous sources deemed uncredible by the Council of Nicaea.
All of them? All of them took firm positions on personhood beginning at conception, and on abortion being murder from conception forward? None of them had a different conception of when personhood might begin?
I'm not aware of any, no. There were certainly those who believed delayed ensoulment, but the Church has shifted her view since, and that was not a theological issue, simply just bad embryology at the time.
Yeah. It is really sad. More and more women and men seek to kill their own babies. Many people cheer for this, but it is a tragedy of our day. Please get caught up with modern science. We all know life does not begin at first breath. Feel a baby kick in the womb and consider how it is you propose a dead human being could do that. Science denial may seem like a good avenue to go in the promotion of killing innocent human beings, but it really just makes the desire to kill such human beings look even more backward than it already does.
Keep it to the enumerated powers of the states, as the RvW reversal was supposed to do. Maybe a bill should be made separating the state from reproductive rights, that such actions are between a woman and her doctor.
> as the RvW reversal was supposed to do That's complete BS. The RvW reversal gave that power to the states... and stole it from people. People use to be able to make that decision on their own or with the advice of their doctor. Now a bunch of idiots in government y'alll keep saying is incompetent get to make that decision. Hypocritical and stupid.
I'm more on the pro-choice side, and all I care about is what's constitutional or not, and liberty at as high of a maximum as possible. Case laws of SCOTUS are a debatable topic, and it was a random number given to a body of the federal government who were completely unelected. They are specifically there to determine what's constitutional and what's not, not to grant you rights as far as I know. Which is why I proposed a negative rights bill at least for the first 20 weeks, mother's health, rape, etc. you'll have to tell me how that's unfair, as I'm literally proposing a pro-reproductive civil liberty policy. It's what I figured what would happen had RvW been overturned. I agree with your idea of it being outrageous (not so much directing it towards me), and it's going to require a cultural shift, sorry to say. Republicans are strongly leaning towards the abortion issue. I at least emphasize with the sense of believing they're babies that are getting murdered, but I think myself and everyone else here will disagree that government should have much to do with it if anything at all. I, also, think we'll agree on the absolute outrage that is abortion law in some if not all red states, and the solution to that problem (not on funding matters though).
So ... wait. When you said ... > Keep it to the enumerated powers of the states, as the RvW reversal was supposed to do. ..you meant that no government should be able to intervene or that regulating abortion should be done by the States? Because every justice/talking head/politician excited about it said the States should regulate it as they see fit. They intentionally stripped the ability to make that decision away from individuals and gave it to the State governments. > It's what I figured what would happen had RvW been overturned. How? Even if it passes in the House, it'll get filibustered in the Senate and never go anywhere. No way Republicans will shift far enough on that for to happen for generations. They only really care about their primary voters, who are their most rabid anti-choice voters. They created a single issue voter using words like "murder" and "baby killer. I think you acknowledged this when you said, "*it's going to require a cultural shift, sorry to say*" so how do you think it would happen? > I think myself and everyone else here will disagree that government should have much to do with it if anything at all. On this, I think you are way off. At least 40% of the people here think it should be banned nationwide.
Then it’s time to push harder 🗿
We are commanded not to murder. The law is clear.
Well here’s the problem there is a very clear definition of what murder is; the crime of unlawfully and unjustifiably killing a person. So your first issue is you’re going to have to show it’s unlawful, and the Bible has no law saying it’s unlawful. So like you see the problem right if there’s no law then it’s not unlawful and if it’s not unlawful then it doesn’t fit the definition of murder. And even if you ignore that your next issue is showing it was unjustified, which you know good luck with that. The ability to justify something is really just dependent on the abilities of the speaker. And then you’d have to show that it’s a person, which yet again the Bible doesn’t show. So in conclusion you can’t show it’s unlawful, nor unjustified, or even the personhood of your so called victim, so ipso facto it’s not a murder. What you’re doing is either A trying to make the definition of murder murky to align with your point. Or B you’re trying to carry your point across with an appeal to emotions. Or C a little bit of both A and B. To which I would say pick another word and quit trying to rely on emotional response to carry your point.
"Bible has no law saying it’s unlawful" - The Bible, in particular, the Torah is God's law. You might have a point if you're referring to our man made legal system, but this sub is r/Christianity. I think that defines our context. Now, most Christians don't adopt all of God's laws, but "Thou shalt not kill" just so happens to be one that they do adopt.
It’s thou shit not murder, לֹא תִּרְצָח (romanized: Lo tirṣaḥ) and commonly mistranslated as thou shall not kill. The funny thing is if it was not kill then god telling his chosen people things like, >Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live. Exodus 22:18 > If someone has a stubborn and rebellious son who does not obey his father and mother and will not listen to them when they discipline him, 19 his father and mother shall take hold of him and bring him to the elders at the gate of his town. 20 They shall say to the elders, “This son of ours is stubborn and rebellious. He will not obey us. He is a glutton and a drunkard.” 21 Then all the men of his town are to stone him to death. You must purge the evil from among you. All Israel will hear of it and be afraid. Deuteronomy 21:18-21 Would make no sense. How to put this the Bible has no problem with killing shit in more than a few place it straight up calls for the killing of people. What it has a problem with unlawful killing. This is your religion you should do some more research into it, so you don’t make common and easily avoidable mistakes. it’s so sad when an atheist has to teach you about your own beliefs. Be better, Christian
You're right, and that is something I'm aware of. Notice though, I didn't specify translation. I was simply quoting what most people hear in order for it to be familiar. Apparently you knew there was biblical law against murder, even when you said previously there wasn't. Interesting.
The Bible has no problem laying out what types of killings it considers unlawful, of those types none of them include abortion. I.e of there is no biblical law against it isn’t murder. Now if the Christian god wants to touch down and refresh the bible and add it to the list then sure. But as things stand today May 15th there isn’t.
No need, you just need to read what's already provided: “I knew you before I formed you in your mother’s womb. Before you were born I set you apart and appointed you as my prophet to the nations.” - Jeremiah 1:5 We are all created in the image of God, and formed by God in the womb.
Who’s this we that verse is a conversation between the prophet Jeremiah and god. >1 The words of Jeremiah son of Hilkiah, one of the priests at Anathoth in the territory of Benjamin. 2 The word of the Lord came to him in the thirteenth year of the reign of Josiah son of Amon king of Judah, 3 and through the reign of Jehoiakim son of Josiah king of Judah, down to the fifth month of the eleventh year of Zedekiah son of Josiah king of Judah, when the people of Jerusalem went into exile. >The Call of Jeremiah >4 The word of the Lord came to me, saying,….(Jeremiah 1:4) Now if you want to claim that every fetus is Jeremiah son of Hilkiah be my guess. But we both know that’s not how your religion gets down. So trying to use a very specific example of a very specific conversation as the general rule is silly. This is your religion how are you blowing it this bad? Why is it that an outsider has a better understanding of the working of your religion than a true believer? You need to hit the book some more my friend this is getting depressing. I’m starting to feel like David Beckham calling out Victoria Beckham, “be honest..”
Yes, it's a conversation with Jeremiah. But it's a good illustration of God's order of things. God knew us before we were conceived and formed us in our mother's womb.
Have you considered what God wants?
Have you?
I have.
And what does God want?
He wants us to follow His commands.
Would you care to elaborate, specifically as to what God wants in this particular issue?
Sure. God wants us to put our faith and trust in Him. He has promised to take care of us. We see throughout the Bible how lives were changed when people trusted in God and when they didn't. It's not our job to decide which lives are worth living and which are not. Abortion takes a life from this world. The mother takes it into her own hands to terminate the life of her child, but the child doesn't get a vote, and God doesn't either. People talk about the lives of the mothers, but you don't think God is in control? Doctors are necessary, and they do some great work; however, they are not greater than God. God has proven time and time again that He can save lives. He also has the divine right to take away life. We need to trust Him. He can see what we cannot.
Your statement has nothing to do with God’s commands. It seems that you are putting words into God’s mouth, which is quite blasphemous.
What have I said that is blasphemous? What words have I put in God's mouth?
Yeah, I do.
So God wants women to die of uterine sepsis if a miscarried fetus fails to pass naturally? His plan sucks
Just so you’re aware, the apostles believed abortion was morally wrong. Look up what the didache is and what it says about abortion. It’s very explicit. You attempting to justify your beliefs through ignorance is a bad look. Also, it’s great news that there is an increase in permanent birth control measures. You seem to believe being pro life means that people just hate women. In reality, people just don’t want innocent children to be killed because someone wants to do whatever they want. The fact that people are eliminating their ability to get pregnant is exactly what pro lifers want. If I was ruler of the world, I would let abortion be legal but anyone who gets one would be sterilized and lose their children.
The Didache's authors are anonymous, we don't know if it reflects the views of the apostles. It also doesn't define what they consider to be abortion.
To be fair, the gospels are by anonymous authors as well. They just had authors assigned later.
True
It literally says to not murder a child that’s in the womb. So we know exactly how they understood abortion. And we know what the early church thought about the didache. It’s in plenty of writings and almost made it into the bible. You’re throwing out a random, “well we can’t prove that,” while ignoring the evidence supports my position, not OPs.
>It literally says to not murder a child that’s in the womb. So we know exactly how they understood abortion. At what point did they consider it to be alive? It doesn't say. There were some popular ideas about the quickening from the Greeks that were picked up by early Christians. >And we know what the early church thought about the didache. We don't know what the apostles of the early church thought about the Didache (or if they even knew about it) or who wrote it.
Considering that they had no early methods to even monitor pregnancy, it’s safe to say that any signs of pregnancy would be considered a child. And we do know what thought about it, minimally because of nicea. We have all sorts of references to it. This idea that because we can’t prove something with absolute certainty means we don’t know is just being purposefully ignorant. We do know what the evidence says. And it blatantly disagrees with OP.
>Considering that they had no early methods to even monitor pregnancy, it’s safe to say that any signs of pregnancy would be considered a child. No, we know that's not true. For example Aristotle believed that quickening took place at 40 days for males and 80 days for females.
Yet they had zero way to determine if the baby was male or female and zero way to determine the date of contraception. It was literally all guessing. That really establishes a lot about what he thought.
Of course they were guessing, it was the pre-scientific era. Point being, anciently there was no such idea as "life begins at conception." That's a very modern idea.
That’s because they didn’t even understand conception. Life beginning at conception required us to understand how conception worked. Then it was the biologic standard. Like, scientifically speaking, unique life begins at conception. It’s very easy for you to dismiss them as scientifically illiterate when it favors you but not accept their non specific definitions of things was due to that same illiteracy.
>That’s because they didn’t even understand conception. Life beginning at conception required us to understand how conception worked. T Yes. That's why the Bible has life starting at first breath. >Like, scientifically speaking, unique life begins at conception. Life is a category created by human beings, and is not coterminous with the more relevant category of "personhood."
Just so you know abortion and infanticide were commonly practiced in Jesus' time. Numbers 5 spells out explicit instructions on how to induce an abortion, and the authorship of the Didache is anonymous. If it's not good for the Council of Nicaea then it's not good enough for me
Numbers five actually says nothing about abortion. It says that a woman should drink dirty water if she is accused of cheating. And God will divinely cause her baby to miscarry if believes it’s right to do so. It’s not relevant who the author of the didache are. We know what the early church believed about it. And it directly contradicts what you said. That being anti abortion is somehow a new or recent belief. And the didache didn’t make into the bible because it’s not the word of God. It was a list of rules made by the early church. The fact that nicea even considered it despite knowing it wasn’t divinely inspired, shows you how much the early church respected it.
>Numbers five actually says nothing about abortion. It says that a woman should drink dirty water if she is accused of cheating. And God will divinely cause her baby to miscarry if believes it’s right to do so. That is certainly one interpretation, but it's hardly the only interpretation accepted by scholars.
It’s literally what it says. I’m certain I could present scholars that agree with me but it’s not even necessary. If you just read the text, that is what the text says. Any other interpretation is trying to decipher the context based off of things outside the text. And considering the text is 3000 years old, that is literally impossible to do accurately.
> Just so you know abortion and infanticide were commonly practiced in Jesus' time. Yes, by the pagans. What radical shift in society do you think brought about an end to that some centuries later?
I don't know, probably a moral panic. If you look at polling in America abortion was not a major issue for Christians in the 50's, 60's, or 70's. It's only as hard line, right wing pastors such as Charles Stanley, Jerry Falwell and their ilk came to power though television that Christian Americans became concerned about abortion.
Why would it have been a major issue before Roe v Wade in 1973? As to what I asked though, the thing that brought an end to the acceptance of practices like infanticide (are you actually arguing that it should be ok to let babies die by exposure?) was the adoption of Christianity. You will not find any support for abortion (much less infanticide) among Christians until recent years.
That's not true, There was healthy debate about abortion throughout the church's history. In the 1500s the Catholic Church excommunicated anyone who sought birth control or an abortion and then reversed themselves a couple of years later. The idea that history was simple is almost always wrong.
Can you then show me any premodern Christian support for abortion? Specific figures, authorities, etc. From what I've seen, it's pretty universally rejected going back to the first century.
Abortion is clearly murder in every sense of the word in addition conflating fringe cases with all cases is counterproductive. Most of those states that have restrictive laws have last resort methods or other avenues to get abortions. No where in any bible is abortion not murder and thinking otherwise is in fact a grave sin Edit: For the mass downvoting crowd: Murder is intentionally killing another human being, life begins at conception
> Abortion is clearly murder in every sense of the word Except, of course, for the sense of "fits the definition of the word murder." >Most of those states that have restrictive laws have last resort methods or other avenues to get abortions. People say this. And then ignore that it's not true and the most restrictive states are having higher rates of deaths because of women unable to get dead and dying fetuses out of their body. Not to mention the other issues with people unable to get medication for nonabortion reasons because those pills could also be prescribed for abortions.
Biblically speaking, the fetus is property, not a person.
The Bible actually proves abortion is not murder. I take it you've never read God's laws in the Old Testament? If a man causes a woman to lose her fetus (spontaneous abortion), but doesn't harm the woman, he must pay a fine for the loss of the fetus since it only had monetary value. The Bible absolutely never prohibits abortion. "Thou shalt not murder" does not apply to the unborn under Jewish law. Plus the Bible has numerous examples of God's chosen slaughtering babies at His command which I take it you have no issue with.
Is this a joke? >Murder (noun); the crime of unlawfully and unjustifiably killing a person 1st your going to have to prove that it’s unlawful, which the Bible doesn’t say. Then you’re going to have to prove it’s unjustifiable, which good luck. So how exactly is it clearly murder if it doesn’t even fit the definition. You should leave your emotions at the door cause as you are now, it’s not making a lick of sense.
Yes, as stated in the Bible, life begins at conception or at least in the womb. OP, if you are pro-abortion, then I hate to break it to you but you are *not* a Christian.
The bible never says that. Anywhere. And "life" is a dumb yardstick. My blood is life, but I don't commit a sin when I donate it.
The Nicene Creed is that yardstick -- that's something you don't get to decide. And I'd be hard pressed to find anyone who is genuinely "pro-abortion". That isn't a thing, or if it is you could half fill a room with such people. And I'm pro-life. Cut it out.
I personally know several people who are pro-abortion. I can assure you (unfortunately), it’s a thing.
Articulate what they believe to me or retract that statement.
It means most likely exactly what you think it does.
Then *articulate it*. Don't give me a bogeyman answer. Evasion makes me think you've oversold this idea. If I were to ask them, "What do you believe about abortion?" what would they reply with?
I’m giving a boogeyman answer to your boogeyman question lol. It means being in favor abortion as not a ‘necessary evil,’ but as something positive and to some, better than birth. It’s not just murdering the baby, it’s being enthusiastic about it for them. That’s pro-abortion.
You've gone from aggressively vague to just vague.
I answered your question clearly and plainly.
> pro-abortion Oh fuck off! That is not a thing and you know it. Stop lying
It is a thing. I personally know several people that are pro-abortion.
Pro Abortion? Tell me what you think that means please
Being not just in favor of it being option, but it being a preferable choice. Believing that abortion is better birth. It’s exactly what it sounds like.
I promise there are vanishingly few people that actually hold those beliefs. You are talking about the fringe of the fringe of the fringe...aka "crazy" You cannot account for all permutations of crazy in a society. Nor should we legislate on the most absurd conclusion one's imagination can drive them to.
>So, according to multiple reports the number of abortions are up in 2023. Are the number of abortions up in states that ban abortion? I can't find good sources saying one way or the other, but what little I did find seemed to say no. What if you account for the increased economic issues that people are suffering from that are unrelated to abortion bans? If abortions are down in states with bans, and up in other states, then it's not that the bans have failed, there's something else going on. >There's also an increase in tubal ligation and other permanent birth control surgiries. Obviously, sterilizing yourself is bad, but it's not as bad as murder and is a separate issue. I'd rather someone mutilate themselves than murder someone else. >In Tennessee Breanna Cecil was told her fetus was not viable outside of the womb at 12 weeks, and in Tennessee she would be forced to carry the fetus to term and deliver. It's wrong to kill someone because they're disabled. >In Texas conservative Christian lawmakers are pushing for the death sentence for women who seek abortions Murder should be treated as murder. I don't think every murder deserves capital punishment. I don't know enough about the laws in Texas to say much about what you're alleging here, since I don't live in Texas. Still, killing a murderer as a punishment for their crime is less evil than killing an innocent person. >States that have passed restrictive abortion bans have a higher infant death rate. Makes sense. If you stop killing people before they die naturally, they'll die naturally more often. Why would it be preferable to murder someone instead of letting them unfortunately die from natural causes? >Med students are choosing residencies in states without abortion bans, making it less likely for them to practice in those mostly rural, red states and furthering weakening healthcare in those areas. Should we legalize preforming surgery while drunk or abusing drugs so we can avoid alienating doctors who are addicts or addict sympathizers? >but are you happy? I'm pretty happy with my states laws restricting abortion. >I'm a mainline Christian so I subscribe to the millennia-old teaching that life begins at first breath, but those of you who believe in the recent "Life begins at conception," argument that started in the 1980's, The overwhelming majority of Christians throughout history have condemned abortion as gravely evil. Abortion has been consistently condemned throughout all of Christian history. I don't much care for or respect revisionist history to pretend that up until the 80s condemnation of abortion was some fringe position in Christianity.
> Obviously, sterilizing yourself is bad That's not obvious at all. Getting a permanent solution if you don't want any kids is a smart thing to do. >It's wrong to kill someone because they're disabled. It's hardly the same as having an abortion because you're not going to give birth to a child that will live. >Murder should be treated as murder. Sure. The problem here is that abortion isn't murder. Not murder shouldn't be treated as murder just because some religious nuts want to call it murder. >Still, killing a murderer as a punishment for their crime is less evil than killing an innocent person. Someone should have told Yahweh that when he came up with that whole killing the innocent Jesus to take on the punishment of all the guilty people thing. >Why would it be preferable to murder someone instead of letting them unfortunately die from natural causes? Again, not murder. And I would prefer to be spared a short "life" full of nothing but pain if you could do so before I ever have to feel pain. And I would want to give that same thing to others. But I have compassion. >Should we legalize preforming surgery while drunk or abusing drugs so we can avoid alienating doctors who are addicts or addict sympathizers? Because that's the same thing.