Recent polls indicate that the majority of Americans are pro-choice with regards to abortion. This is interesting considering that similar polls tell us that the majority of Americans identify themselves as Christians. This begs the question, Can a Christian support abortion?
Without getting into any of the medical details of or even physiological reasons for abortions (for I am not a physician or a physiologist), I would like to deal with the issue from a purely theological standpoint. Where one stands on abortion, I submit, has more to do with one’s theology than they realize.
Can a Christian support abortion? The answer is “yes,” if their theology allows them to do so. The issue comes down to one’s beliefs concerning the creation of the soul. The theological issues of abortion are not spoken of or understood much today, yet the implications are significant. The question that one must ask with regards to this issue is this: When does the soul/spirit (immaterial aspect; henceforth soul) join with the physical (the material aspect) of a person? This is often referred to as a debate about the constitution of man. If the soul is part of the physical body from conception, then abortion is out of the question. The person is a complete person, material and immaterial, from the beginning and has not only divine recognition, but a divine mandate for life. Any premature cessation of this life by an outside agent would amount to murder. But if there is a time when the physical “fetus” is without an immaterial aspect, then, during this time, the fetus is not a person, but simply an extension of the mother’s physical nature. The question is, when does the body receive the soul?
There are two positions that have been represented prominently throughout church history and it is with these two I would like to wrestle.
1. Creationism: The belief that the soul is created directly by God and “inserted” into or united with the body which in turn is created indirectly by God through the parents. In other words, the soul is created immediately by God, while the body is created mediately by man. This position has significant support in contemporary and historic theology. Noteworthy adherents to this position include Wayne Grudem, Charles Hodge, Louis Berkholf, John Calvin, and enjoys the support of most Roman Catholics. The basic defense for this position is that God, the father of all spirits (Heb. 12:9), is the only agent that can create an immaterial entity. Kind gives forth to kind. Man is physical and can only birth physical. Therefore, God must have created the soul directly, outside of the mediating agency of man.
2. Traducianism: (from the Latin tradux meaning “inheritance or transmission”) The belief that while God is the ultimate creator of all things, He uses secondary causes to bring them into existence. If God ceased from creation after the sixth day and no longer is creating ex nihilo (out of nothing), then all creation since the sixth day is initiated mediately through secondary causes, including the soul. To put the matter plainly, parents are just as involved in the creation of the soul as they are the body. God does not use special process for the creation of the soul. The basic defense of this position is focused on the negative implications of the creationist position. If God creates the souls directly, without the mediating support of humanity, how does one explain the sinfulness of the soul. If people are born with a fallen sinful nature (Ps. 51:5), how did the soul become corrupt? Did God create a sinful soul and place it in a sinful body? Can God create something impure? Traducianist are quick to charge the creationist with making God directly responsible for sin. The traducianist does not elevate the value of the soul above that of the body. Therefore, a traducianist believes that the soul/spirit is created in and with the body. Their is not two acts, but one.  Traducianism is not without it support. Noteworthy traducianist are Tertullian, Martian Luther, Jonathan Edward, and Millard Erickson.
Now, back to the topic of abortion. Theologically speaking, it is impossible for there to be a Christian traducianist who supports abortion. Why? Because the traducianist’s theology precludes a necessary belief that a person is complete from the moment of conception. There can never be a time when the child is without a soul. The parents provide the soul at the same time and in the same way as they provide the body.
A creationist, on the other hand, may support abortion. Why? Because no one can say with any amount of certainty when the body is united with the soul. Is it at conception? Implantation? During the first, second, or third trimester? At birth? Or even sometime after birth like the age of accountability? This leaves a slight crack in the door theologically. A deferment to ignorance is usually the best recourse for the creationist, not knowing when the soul is united to the body. While this deferment may suggest that the best stance for the creationist concerning the abortion issue is one of non-support, this does not necessitate this position. One can be a Christian creationist and support abortion based upon a reliance in the findings of the medical community. If the medical community can provide further information that leans in favor of a stance that a fetus is not really a person based upon issues of psychological response along with physiological issues dealing with the parasitic nature of the fetus, then the creationist may lean in favor of a pro-choice stance on the issue.
I don’t want people to get the wrong idea, so I am going to say something as clearly as I can: Our stance concerning the issue of abortion is not our guide with regards to this theological issue. In other words, we do not choose the position that best fits with our agenda one way or another. We must seek to find the truth, not defend our preconceptions. If creationism is the best option in dealing with the biblical evidence, then that is where we go. We then let the scientific community deal with the issue of abortion, providing answers about when life begins. But if the traducian position provides better answers, then we go there, letting its theological implications provide us with a proper response to the issue of abortion.
I am a traducianist. Not because I seek a solid theological stand against abortions, but because I believe that it is the best option that deals most comprehensively with the biblical data and a systematic Christian worldview. I believe that the creationist view (which is the most prominent and popular among laity) assumes an implicitly unchristian stance concerning the relationship of the body and the soul. There is no reason to say that the soul is of special nature, having to be created directly by God.
This line of thinking (that the soul must be created directly by God) evidences more of a Gnostic worldview than it does a Christian worldview. Gnosticism was a first-century Greek philosophy that crept into Christianity here and there, and still plagues our thinking at the most fundamental level. The Gnostics were dualists, believing that all things material were essentially evil, while all things spiritual were essentially good. For a Gnostic, the ultimate goal was for one to escape the confinement of the material body, finding fulfillment in the spiritual existence. But the Christian worldview is just the opposite. Christianity affirms the essential goodness of all creation, even though it has been infected with sin. Our goal is not to escape the physical world, but to sanctify it. God declared all things good at creation. All that was involved in this declaration was the physical world, including man’s physical nature. When man sinned, God did not cast aside His original intent opting for a “plan B,” but immediately began the process of redeeming the world that He created. When people die, there is an unnatural breach in their personhood, separating the immaterial from the material, but this does not suggest that the immaterial soul is somehow better or more highly favored in God’s eyes than the body. In fact, the consummation of redemption comes at the resurrection of the body, when the soul is reunited with the physical body and the new heavens and new earth (material) are created.
This Gnostic disdain for the physicality has unfortunately found its way into Christianity in many ways. In the early Church sex was seen as a necessary evil rather than a beautiful creation of God. Monasticism was highly valued thinking that the pleasures of this world were all evil. People have seen culture and government as evil because they are part of this world. The Bible is seen as a book of God to the neglect of the contribution of man (this has had great repercussions hermeneutically). Finally, I believe the Church has devalued the body and elevated the soul, believing that while man can create the body, only God can create the soul. There is no reason for this. They are both equally miraculous.
I believe that the traducianist theory answers the questions of anthropology better than the creationist viewpoint. While their are many good Christians, contemporary and throughout church history, who have held to the creationist view, I believe that they are wrong. Having said this, I believe that when it comes to abortion, while one’s theology may allow them to support it, I believe that this theology is not only wrong, but evidences more of a Gnostic worldview than a Christian worldview. The body and the soul cannot be dichotomized in such a way. The parents create both the body and the soul at the same time as mediate agents of God.
In short, I believe the issue of abortion is a theological issue. Sadly, I believe, this understanding escapes the forefront of the debate because so many in the church today have relegated theology to a seat of irrelevance and impracticality.
To hear more about this issue, listen or watch The Theology Program session 4 of Humanity and Sin.
152 replies to "Can a Christian Support Abortion? The Theology of Abortion"
Oh my gosh, to imply I despise medical treatments????
well shucky darn…yooos jess got me there….considering I am an MS patient who has to take shots…and have an electric wheelchair….and have MRIs when necessary. So that’s a bark up a wrong tree.
And Margaret Sanger of Planned Parenthood advocated against all those minorities you claim to represent. Fortunately for us, yours was a matter of civic duty, and not human duty.
And yes, one-for-one, if the choice came of my life for that one, yes. Without a doubt. You fail to see human life as it is intended to be, fragile at any age.
And the Modest Proposal was a parody, but made because of very real sentiments. Perhaps you should read Citizens in Chains, about kidnapping Irish and Scot children and transporting them to the Americas as slaves. Before the African slave trade was implemented. This is about human life, and because something is in development to look like us….tell me, are we not conceived with the instructions in our dna already?
The message for my blue eyes was encoded into those cells present at conception. So if the cells are not fully developed yet does not mean they are not there. All the messages of who I am are there at conception. And my XX…all there at conception. You seem to accept the end result.
http://www.dianedew.com/sanger.htm
So tell me one who speaks for society…how do you endorse philosophy spouted by the very one you marched against? Those poor black people you marched for, according to Margaret Sanger, should have been aborted. What a dichotomy you are.
Dr. G,
The Scripture verses you mentioned above have absolutely nothing to do with mentally disabled children after birth. And do not agree with you that they mean it is alright for a woman to have an abortion either.
No where in the Old Testament or the New did God tell people to kill their infants because they were severely disabled.
Yes undoubtedly many of them died because of that disability and the lack of the medical care we can now provide. So did many people with diabetes, heart disease, etc.
The fact that they died without that type of care is a totally different thing than killing them outright because we don’t believe they should live!
Obviously, you are not just talking about abortion here. You are talking about euthanasia and you have decided man has the right to decide when another life is not worth living.
Of course I do not support M. Sanger. I’ve often stipulated my position is very, very different from hers, and the other racists you cite.
And my point was, that your remarks against science, conflict with your sentiments in other areas. Indeed, with your very life. Can you despise the ideas/rationality of science … even as you depend on it for your very life?
I’m consistent; not a dichotomy. How about you?
I’m part Irish myself.
A plan for development, is not the same as the completed building.
If you went to that Pet Store again, and paid $100 for a cat … and they gave you a genome read-out of a cat … would you be satisfied? Is the plan, really the same as the completed object? Many, many things have to be added to the plan, to make the building.
Dr. G,
My Mother died this last December of heart disease. However, for many years before that she had suffered from Altzheimer’s disease. If was very advanced before she finally passed away. She could no longer communicate, most of the time, with anything more than groans, she didn’t know her own children most of the time, she couldn’t feed herself, dress herself, bathe herself, or attend to her other bodily needs. According to your definition, was she soul less–non human–an animal?? And I suppose we should of killed her because of that? She certainly no longer fit the description of someone with advanced intelligence that is your definition required for humanity.
A true story:
My uncle was a successful engineer who had a fatal cancer. Before he ran up huge medical bills that would take medical resources away from those who could profit more from it … he committed suicide.
Nearly every member of my family has signed a Living Will, asking that no extraordinary procedures be taken in our lives, should we become brain dead.
This is a voluntary procedure.
As I was re-reading CMP’s original article, I found myself wondering about the accuracy of the following:
“Because the traducianist’s theology precludes a necessary belief that a person is complete from the moment of conception. There can never be a time when the child is without a soul. The parents provide the soul at the same time and in the same way as they provide the body.”
Does the “instant soul” really follow logically? If “The parents provide the soul at the same time and in the *same way* as they provide the body” we have to recognise that the body is produced by a process. There is a time when the embryo is without all the major body parts – heart, brain, lungs. Those components develop. Why can there not be development of the soul? Which would mean there could be a time before the development of the soul, therefore leaving open the possibility of a soul-less clump of cells, same as the creationist perspective.
Also, I find the absence of any specific Biblical reference to abortion (other than possibly Numbers 5) to be very striking, since the procedure was apparently known in ancient Egypt, roughly around the time of the exodus.
That said, I generally oppose abortion in all cases (including rape and incest) except possibly the life of the mother.
By the way Dr. G,
To call the position being stated here “feminine sentimentality” is actually quite an insult to all of the men in this world that would oppose your views just as strongly as those of us opposing you here are. Just because there are only two women in this conversation with you at this time does not mean there are no men out there that believe the same way.
For that matter, it is quite insulting to women too to call this view “feminine sentimentality”. And such a statement is not at all likely to make us change our firmly held beliefs in the innate dignity of all human life!
Tell me what science has to do with abortion? Social engineering does. Women have had abortions since there were humans. It has nothing absolutely to do with science, and if you can reduce humanity to a science experiment then you are no better than Joseph Mengele.
And yes, by passive complicity you do endorse Margaret Sanger and eugenics.
A true story,
My grandmother was dying of liver cancer and instead of sending her away we took care of her at home. We did all those thing someone would in a nursing home. She died surrounded by people who cared more for her life to bring comfort to her. I have a Living Will also. Nothing extraordinary about it. That is a terrible about your grandfather. But are you trying to imply that while he was an engineer and a brilliant mind that was what made him valuable? He had value as a human.
You make the implication that he committed suicide for the greater good of society, but that is hard to know because no one knows what anyone really feels inwardly. It is sad he had cancer, but suppose his doctor at birth had some kind of gauge to show the man would have cancer one day and instead of letting him go through it, he suggested abortion. A quicker way to die, and just as painful.
I had cancer.
And a person is different than a building being built. Again, just because it does not look like it does not make it any less. A person is a person, and a heartbeat at 10 weeks is pretty telling about development.
Yes, you are supportive of socialism and racism. You make it very clear you endorse eugenics. A blastocyst is a human being. It is not a social cancer that needs to be extracted.
Abortion is social engineering and experiments are funded by Planned Parenthood and propaganda telling society the soft lie that perhaps we would be better off without certain individuals.
And you are a dichotomy. I do not believe you are interested in Civil Rights because you have a limited view of humanity. Go to the NAACP and quote to them Margaret Sanger, and tell them it was for the good of society she said these things when creating Planned Parenthood. You have read Margaret Sanger…haven’t you? She is the founder of Planned Parenthood, you did know that, didn’t you?
I don’t challence the innate dignity of all human life; just embryos at conception.
Though I do think that … it is women, who are most directly involved, concerned, in the abortion debate.
And to be sure, your attack on an allegedly excessive rationality behind my own anti-antibortionism, might tend to confirm that the anti-abortion sentiment, is … more of a feeling or sentiment.
There is a place for feelings. Sorry I haven’t addressed sentiments much; to be sure, they have some importance.
And yet still I feel, we must make a rational case here. And anyone who values reason – male or female – is welcome to participate. I know many who let their emotions sway them, also have good minds here.
Cheryl
As I was typing this, you responded so I did not get to see your response before I posted.
Feminine sentimentality? You mean now women are sentimental about babies they carry? Oh my goodness, how awful for a woman to have a bond with her unborn child…(that was sarcasm for those keeping score of my sarcastic statements)
Now we have just trampled into a new type of yard…the kind that says “keep off the grass if you are a woman”…
Cheryl, you keep plugging in there because Dr. G is slowly giving away what is really the heart of the matter. I bet Dr. G is in need of a heart transplant…of the Jesus kind. And Dr. G is fighting pretty hard on a sheet of ice. Good thing for us we are on the side and will go out and help Dr. G stand back up when the inevitable fall comes.
LOL,
Welcome to participate? Is this your forum? Does the debate belong to you and you are just being gracious to invite us in? How kind of you. (Again sarcasm for the scorekeeper).
Yes, you decry human dignity and have done so all along.
BTW, the sarcasm statements are because someone commented on how many sarcastic statements I make, so I am alerting them to keep on tally.
LOL, like the very thought of abortion does not bring about some form of emotion for the woman. It is an emotional issue, because we aren’t talking about robots of cold mechanical parts, we are talking about real life human babies.
You DO challenge the innate dignity of all human life. Because to you human life isn’t truly “human” unless it meets your specific definition of having a high degree of intelligence.
Therein lies the rub, our definitions of who is “human” and who is not are extremely different.
Cheryl,
Exactly right on.
This is about abortion of embryos; nothing else. No adults need to feel threatend.
1) How many times do we need to say it explicitly here: I NEVER, EVER, SUPPORTED MARGRET SANGER! I am not a eugenicist. I am a lifeetime suporter of human and civil rights.
2) I merely balk finally, at saying that an embryo the size of a pinhead, that looks like a soccer ball, is a human being with rights. For the many, many reasons, outlined here.
3) Many commentators here are passionately, emotionally telling me, they are not emotional/sentimental.
4) To your question: “What does science have to so with abortion?” Here are some quick answers.
a) You need some technology, usually, to have one. Early abortions, even in the time of Egyptians, were performed often with early pharmaceuticals like bella dona. Such abortifacients were known in the days of the Bible. Probably in fact, the “dust” referred to, when a priest performs an abortion in Num. 5, was a pharmaceutical powder.
b) See the whole discussion above, on the links between science, reason … and abortion. The main argument is, that we value reason, the human mind … and an embryo the size of the head of a pin, does not have one. While indeed, scientists – medial doctors – perform abortions. Based on beliefs like those outlined here.
c) No adult should feel threatened by our standard; all living adults that are not brain dead, past the muster for sufficient intelligence, I would say here and now. Very unlike Sanger and Eugenics?
d) Democracy was an “experiment.” Do you oppose democracy?
e) There is no “passive complicity” with Sanger and Eugenics here; I have once again herein, actively, and explicitly opposed them; as I do here and now, for about the … fourth time?
f) In fact, I’m not even interested in the issue of adults, eugenics; I address my attention, only to embryos.
g) Worms have a heartbeat; that doesn’t make them human.
5) I know how my uncle felt about his death … because I discussed it with him before he died. He did indeed support suicide, to avoid taking medical resources away from others.
The same medical resources by the way, essentially, that some of you are apparently living on right now.
6) I hear many motional assertions about embyos here. But assertions are emotional; and are not enough. What we need is a reasoned discussion. Whether a embryo or a blastocyst is human or not, is precisely what these discussion here, are meant to determine. Read the discussion that preceeded this statement.
7) We are here listing dozens of good reasons, why an embryo should not be considered to be a human being; with a mind or Reason, intelligence; or even a soul. To contribute to the discussion … please simply address one or more of the arguments above, in a reasonable way. Many of you are combining some good arguments … mixed with emotional outbursts.
8) Abortion to be sure, is an extremely emotional subject; we and the monitors of this blog, request that people be polite; and address the issue fairly, and respectfully.
Dr. G,
Who are the “we” you keep referring to? It would certainly be helpful to know who we are talking to here.
And secondly, would you please tell us, since you keep calling yourself Dr. G., what kind of a Dr. you are? Again, it helps to know who we are talking to here.
And, like Kara above, I would like to know how it is that you have come into this discussion and are insisting on laying out the rules as to how it is to continue? You are not the blog owner here nor the originaltor of the discussion.
WHO AM I?
1) I have a PhD. I am not a medical doctor.
2) I am not the owner of this blog;
3) In calling for polite discussion, I in part, appeal to your humanity, and reasonableness. Do you reject those?
4) In calling for that, I paraphrased the Blog’s policy statement. Which you can look up for yourself.
Presumably, “Parchment and Pen” will stand behind its policy statement. Which I don’t object to: all it calls for, in essence, is polite and reasonable discussion.
Those are the simple rules of politeness and honest debate. If you don’t like them, or follow them, I’ll probably simply leave you, to talk to yourselves.
5) “We” refers to a) a rather large community of abortion supporters; which in fact presently seems to encompass … more than 50% of the adult population of the United States. Though I suppose that I particularly represent in effect, the b) scholarly community; that has long been pursing this topic, since at least the days of Aquinas, under the rubric of “ensoulment,” “hominzation,” and so forth.
Dave Z,
Do you suppose that maybe the reason abortion was not mentioned specifically in the Bible past what you were speaking of, if that was indeed talking of abortion in Num. 5, is that God had already given the overiding command, “Thou shalt not kill (murder)”? It seems to me that in the Bible it speaks often of “she conceived and brought forth a child.” It seems to me that there was not a question in the Biblical writers minds on if that was a child or not. If that is the case, to kill that one would already be against God’s specific commandment.
Dr. G,
A PhD in what?? You have not answered my question.
And I was not talking about an appeal to politeness. I was talking about you telling us in general how this discussion was to be carried out: “please simply address one or more of the arguments above”. That is telling us how this discussion is going to proceed.
And, as to comment # 5, we finally get at the truth here that although you say you find abortion repugnant, you are a part of, “a rather large community of abortion supporters”.
Yup! This supports abortion!
It’s not a conspiracy.
If you don’t like my rules, play by yourself; I’ll take my soccer ball and go home.
And honestly, I’d rather not get too specific about my identity, or even what my PhD is in. The anti-abortion community is extremely virulent. I like reasonable discussion; not bomb threats.
Dave Z:
In your defence, and to catch you up: these ladies like to suggest that:
1) Even if the most relevant passages in the Bible on abortion do not support their Pro Life anti-abortionism, or even directly contradicts them (as in Numb. 5),
2) Still, the general tone of the Bible supports them.
And so: a) “thou shalt not kill.” Just exactly what the Old Testament meant by that however, is a matte of debate. For dozens of reasons. Which these ladies know. First aa) God himself killed lots of people; in fact in a sense he kills us all, by creating us in a way that we all die physically. bb) God’s friends/subjects kill lots of people too, in military victories. While, as for “life,” cc) we “kill” life every time we eat fried chicken.
So … the question is … just exactly what do these very general statements about not “killing” and “honoring life” actually say?
These ladies assert that these very, very general remarks in the Bible, prove their God – Christ the Holy Anti-Abortionist – is real.
But if you look at the Bible itself more closely? Suppose we do that.
Cheryl,
That’s a pretty big leap in logic. Worshipping other gods was forbidden too, but it’s a regular topic throughout the OT. The Bible eats some subjects at length in several places. I just find it interesting that abortion is not specifically addressed, since it was a known procedure. No doubt the Caananite peoples were aware and practiced it. Just surprised it isn’t mentioned.
Here is a definition of the Greek word pneuma from the Thayer’s Lexicon: 3) a spirit, i.e. a simple essence, devoid of all or at least all grosser matter, and possessed of the power of knowing, desiring, deciding, and acting a) a life giving spirit
b) a human soul that has left the body
c) a spirit higher than man but lower than God, i.e. an angel
1) used of demons, or evil spirits, who were conceived as inhabiting the bodies of men
2) the spiritual nature of Christ, higher than the highest angels and equal to God, the divine nature of Christ
This definition of spirit as a simple essence devoid of matter is the one that I believe all of those opposing you in this discussion are using. Since this is a simple essence, devoid of matter, how can we say that it has to have a well developed brain in order to exist? Indeed, as I have asked before, if it can exist as a simple essence–with no brain–after a person dies, why would anyone automatically assume that it could not exist in an embryo or fetus before that brain is highly developed? To me that idea is totally lacking in logic and reason.
“Pneuma,” roughly sometimes translated “wind,” is the root of English words like our “pneumatic.” In some ways, it’s thought to refer 1) literally to wind or air. As when God breathed air into man and caused him to live; and then begin breathing similar air on his own time. At the time, wind and air were often not thought to be matter at all; insubstantial as they were thought to be (until the experiments of Dr. Priestly and others, discovered oxygen and so forth).
It may be therefore, that it is at least as substantial as oxygen. In spite of years of spectulation to the contrary.
Though I would not make that claim, precisely. Still, 2) many things once thought to be immaterial, are not being described by science; like gravity, etc.. And perhaps even the soul.
IN any case, 3) don’t we believe that the soul inhabits your material body now? So the soul can tie itself to material things. And furthermore 4) it appears that our soul can change; be effected by material things too. So for example: your soul resides in your body now … but as you look at the world and have experiences (divine experiences if nothing else; baptism?), your soul can change; be “washed” clean. Or, if we accept a close identification between the “soul” and the “mind,” then … our mind changes, “grows,” when we look up at the chalkboard for example.
So I personally don’t see any huge, great, irrepetable difference, between “spirit” and “matter.” For these and a hundred other reasons.
By the way I don’t know that I would agree with “essence” entirely; or in any case would suggest that somehoe, tht “essence” can grow and change; by baptism? So that it is not a static or permanent essence somehow.
But guess I’m totally stupid, and lacking in logic and reason however?
Uhhh… that should be “the Bible TReats…” had to post in a hurry – was getting called away.
Dr. G,
Please play by your own rules of politeness here. You have gotten sarcastic and made rather snide remarks about those with opposing views more than once now.
You have consistently said that we are being sentimental and not entirely logical and have called for logic and reason.
Then when somebody dares to present a logic or reason different than yours, you immediately get all sarcastic. I call foul!
I don’t know that I should defend the idea that a soul did not exist before I or whosever, built it; that might not be biblical. And might not be my position.
But adressing that situation hypotehtically, without committing myself to it? As I have said before, the fact that a soul or anyting, can live independently of this or that body after death, does not in itself imply that 1) it could have lived independently of body before. I can build something with my body – a car – that can live after me; even though it could not have existed unless I had built it.
2) I adressed a similar situation: The car I built here in Kentucky, can easily be taken by boat to Brazil, and live in an entirely different circumstance than the one in which it was built. Moving from one mateirila body to another. But … without ever presupposing that it existed before I built it.
3) One might argue that theoretically, a soul could exist in the embryo at birth; though Aquinas and the Bible suggest souls get infused when we breathe air; at birth in part.
4) In any case, my immediately previous remarks suggest that whatever soul we have can “grow” and change. As Jesus “grew in knowledge”; or even our soul is fundamentally changed in events like Baptism?
5) A disclaimer however: none of the remarks in this specifica message, may be entirely relevant; since I do not necessarily believe that the spirit is as immaterial as many do.
6) Or we might better put it another way: the spirit is becoming flesh again.
These are fast responises; unedited. There may be some errors in them to be sure. I do not absolutely committ myself at present to any of them.
But for purposes of discussion, this has been my quick answer.
I think we’ve all enjoyed some sarcasm now and then; though I’m glad things are taking a somewhat more substantial direction.
CORRECTION:
“Many things previously thought to be immaterial, are NOW being described by science”
Many other errors; but none as important as this?
Back to that verse in Exodus 21 that you say shows God does believe an abortion to be a serious matter. (For the record, I still hold to a different interpretaion of the verse than you do). However, there is something we have failed to look at here. The miscarraige, abortion, premature birth, whatever, caused in this situation was not an intentional act. It was caused by two men fighting and injuring a pregnant woman in the process so that she delivered the child or lost it.
In the Bible, deliberately taking a life and accidentally taking a life are generally treated as two very different things. And notice, the man causing this did not go unpunished, he was to be fined as the woman’s husband demanded and as the judge decided.
Taking the fact that this was an accident and not intentional into account here, I do not see how this verse can be used in any way to support the intentional killing of a humn child before birth.
Correction for me too:
I said, “that you say shows God does believe an abortion to be a serious matter” should of been, “shows God NOT believe an abortion…”
And I still made a dumb error in my correction! I’m tired. Think you get the idea though.
A PhD? Somehow I would not feel safe if we were stranded on a deserted island together. Perhaps my lack of your credentials would merely make me your girl Friday.
Yes, when you support abortion, you are passively complicit with Margaret Sanger’s agenda. You seem to be more passionate toward worms and other creatures than the human being.
Now let’s see if we can find a Bible passage relating to infanticide…oh yes, twice we find it.
Pharaoh gave the command to all Jewish midwives to kill all the Jewish babies that were being born, because in his eyes they would have outnumbered the Egyptians. But the midwives feared God and said they could never do such a thing. But how does this relate to abortion? It was the destruction of life, even in the smallest form. So Pharoah commanded his soldiers to do the task…”in Rachel a cry was heard, Rachel crying for her own because they were taken”… Rachel being Jewish women by the way.
Another passage, Herod the Great gave a commandment to slay all the babies two years and under in Galilee and the coasts. The soldiers carried out that as well. Because he was threatened by the birth of a king who would replace him.
Oh yes, one other I just remembered…evil Queen Athalia broke into the palace and killed every child, except for Mephibosheth whose nurse ran out with him, escaping.
Now three examples of such a disregard for human life with three excuses why they can’t live. Now if you say God gave the command, no. These were done for entirely selfish reasons.
If those events never happened we would have never had Moses, Jesus or David keeping his vow to his best friend Jonathan. But maybe we would have had them.
I am fearfully and wonderfully made.
Thou knewest me before I was in the womb.
Two statements from David and Jeremiah on just how much God values infants.
A man didn’t make you like you made a car, so there is no comparison.
KK:
Huh?
The car is an analogy of course. Showing how this can make sense.
If you assert that the nature of God, his spirit, has to be different from this example, specify how. Using passages from the Bible. Otherwise, it seems you are just voicing an opinion. A raw assertion. With no evidence whatsoever. No BIble quotes; nothing. So why should I follow you? You might be a “deceived,” “false prophet.”
Many people here are given to dogmatic presentations of their ideas, as the voice of God.
But why should I follow you, as the voicepice of God? God himself is great and perfect; but are you the perfect spokesman for him? Do you always characterrize him perfectly? Just telling me “God” did it, isn’t enough. Prove you are the true voice of God.
The Bible warned there would be many vain, false persons who tell us “God said” this or that; but we should examine them closely, before we follow them.
I’m sorry ladies; I do not accept you are the final voice on who or what God really is. You have not convinced me. Just asserting “God” did it is not enough.
KK: God knew my car, that I will build tomorrow, out of a soap bar. He knew it long before I was born. That does not mean my car existed yesterday at all.
Thanks for the examples above. But note, I myself did not mention them ever. Still less did I says that they pictured God allowing infanticide. YOur mention of them above, is the first time any reference to them appeared on this blog, so far as I know. I do not refer to them myself, in any way, ever. Because in part, I agree: they do not in any way imply God’s support for infanticide.
I never spoke about them myself, because … my subject here not infanticide; it is the blastocyst.
Cheryl:
Ex. 21? Yes, you are right, it seems, in one or two ways. It was a miscarriage – caused by accident. Which makes it less serious in some ways. Still, God said, “no harm was done”
And the man who caused it was fined; fined, in an era when stealing a loaf of bread … or even cooking one on a Sabbath/Sunday – was a crime punishable by death. (Q.v., O.T.)
Incidentally, a perhaps more relevant example than the Pharoah etc: God to be sure often destroyed the equivalent of whole cities and nations; presumably there was at least one pregnant women in at least one of them?
Dr. G,
Again you try to cleverly assert a point of which you look absurd to us. I understand you trying to make an analogy of course. You putting yourself in the place of God by making a creation…but there’s a big problem with your analogy, you are not equal to God in creation, and you do not create equally, so your side is a little lacking.
A car cannot be compared to a human. Why don’t you try instead taking clay, forming a complete human out of it, with organs and bio-systems and electro-chemical processes complete as a fertilized egg.
Wait, are there electro-chemical processes occurring? Is there a bio-system? We would have to agree there are. All a human needs to be a human is present the moment that spermatozoa (I could not use the simple term for this blog) fertilizes that egg. Can you in anyway replicate that precise moment? No, you can manipulate the environment but not the process itself. Perhaps that is cloning, but that requires an original contributor.
Can you replicate the systems to such perfection that a mere nine months later a recognizable human is born? No, but you can make a mechanical object that does not move of it’s own accord and does not speak. There simply is no comparison. And while you keep referring to “us women” why don’t you say the truth about that. Because I suspect this is is going in another direction that you keep hinting at.
Am I the mouthpiece for God? When I quote scripture then yes I am. And so is Cheryl and everyone else who speaks what the Bible says.
BTW, my husband is putting together a model car, a 1964 Ford Fairlane. That looks like a tiny real one, but it’s not. He just asked me what color he should make the tiny seats. But it’s just a tiny model. Now comparing blastocysts that is in accelerated division moving toward what we look like, is nothing compared to an inanimate object. So if the dna is already present, the chromosomes are already there and the determined look is already there, then I concur, it must be a tiny, tiny human being. One with feelings.
And when we said God said, it is because God said it.
Now us “wimminfolk” who ain’t as smart like you is, will juss havta’ learn our place…So what are you a PhD in anyway? I once had a neurologist who told me that my multiple sclerosis was just an anxiety attack, so he told also to some people who had epilepsy. And he was a PhD in neuroscience. So somehow I just can’t seem so impressed by that.
Can your car reproduce another car?
Remember the point I made that accidental death and deliberate death were generally treated totally differently by God? You didn’t seem to fit that into the equation here. Accidental deaths were not punishable by death in the Old Testament, at least not that I am aware of. (Read further up in the same chapter of Exodus 21 to see what I mean).
And there is another Scripture reference that I read earlier today, can’t remember the refernce now at all, and the online concordance that I would use to find it is down at this time, that refers to a fine being given as a “ransom for your life”. So a fine was not always considered such an unsubstantial punishment, evidently.
And your example of God destroying whole cities and nations, pregant women and all, is again not a correct comparison. God did many things as a punishment in the Old Testament. And, yes, he often used man to do it. But it was directly commanded by Him and with a reason. That is not at all the same thing as a woman making a decision to take the life of her unborn child for reasons of inconvenience or whatever.
Here is the link to a very interesting article regarding this verse and the translation of Hebrew words used there:
http://www.christiancourier.com/articles/786-does-exodus-21-sanction-abortion
Careful; even epilepsy can be related to anxiety too. Calm down!
One of the best ways to relax, is to discover – as God told us – that none of us are perfect; “all have sinned.” And once we know this, that everyone makes mistakes – and that God forgives us – we can begin to relax.
I used to suffer too; but, admitting that I am not perfect – including not the perfect voice of God – helped me quite a bit. And actually, I got there too, by admitting I wasn’t as smart as I think, sometimes; can you admit that too?
I hestitate to advance another argument to a person who should relax. But … regarding my point on carving a car? Just in case I made any mistakes in presenting it:
Many people are saying here, that you get your soul at birth. They say this, partilly based on the saying that God “knew us,” long ago. Suggesting that our soul was in existence, very long ago. Well before conception, actually. (Which would be another odd objection to souls “at conception”; from the other way around).
Why was I talking about this car? Making a person of course, is not as easy as making a car. But my point above was a logical one. To prove that my statement on the soul developing, even after birth, was consistent even with the BIblical statement that God “knew” us from long ago.
I am trying to use this example to prove the logical possiblity that God could both 1) say he knew us long ago … 2) without that meaning we, our souls, were in existence from the beginning. Or 3) From long ago; before our conception. 4) At conception. Or 5) at birth. The fact is, you could have a new soul … tomorrow. And still, God could have known that soul, long ago. Even if we were only created today.
Here again, is what I’m trying to say with the soap car: it is possible logically, for God to have known us from the beginning of time … without implying however, that we came into actual creation, until even yesterday. Or tomorrow. Like my car.
So: long ago, our powerful God, could have seen a soul … that was only born today.
There is no need therefore, for us to assume that the Bible actually ever said, that our souls existed before birth; or existed, or were given to us, at birth either. The Bible can be read – as far as I humbly can tell here – in a way consistent with the creation of souls, at any time; even long after birth.
And indeed, some preachers sometimes say that we get a “new” or at least “washed” soul, at Baptism, or other significant times.
So a new soul, newly reborn soul, can appear any time!
And indeed, I hope that you will soon feel, a renewal in your own soul; knowing that here is yet another argument, for … rebirth of the soul, at any time.
I’m currently miles away from a concordance … and haven’t managed to make sense of Strong’s online yet.
Haven’t have much luck finding …
1) “Yasa,” meaning “untimely birth” yet; nor
2) “Yeled,” “child.”
1) However to be sure, your cited reference says that the Bible translations we have are wrong; our English Bibles, are wrong: “miscarriage” is the wrong word. Which doesn’t inspire confidence.
2) And cf. Hos. 28-9:14: “Give them O LORD: what wilt thou give? Give them a misscarrying womb and dry breasts.”
To be sure, I have not read whether God gives the people what they ask for.
I’ll be looking at this though; if anyone wants to refer me to a simple, usuable, online condordance, with Hebrew in translation, feel welcome here.
Correction? On “without implying”: Now: “Without precluding … that we, our soul, came into existence, even today.”
Dr G,
Do you remember the very first commandment that God man when He created him: “Be fruitful and multiply” Genesis 1:28
Do you remember the commandment He gave Noah after the flood? ” Be fruitful and multiply.” Genesis 9:1
Do you remember the commandment He gave to Jacob? “Be fruitful and multiply.” Genesis 35:11
Don’t you find that significant? Three times He says that. In fact, it was the very first commandment ever given to man, even before the commandment to not eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. And it was given in conjunction with the job that man was to have on the earth–fill the earth, subdue it, have dominion.
Is not abortion going against the very first commandment that God ever gave to mankind? How then can it be right?
Notice that I am here not denying any passage of the Bible whatsoever. Indeed, I constantly quote the Bible. In this case?
Yup! “Be fruitful and multiply.”
Which has two understandings at least. Including:
1) “Spiritual” “fruits.” “Fruits of the spirit.”
2) And then too, it may be that we can have too many children, to the point that it causes mass starvation; which is not fruitful. So that the right strategy, is not having endless children; that would be a naive definition of “fruitfulness.”
3) Remember: Jesus himself did not have any children. Was he therefor, not fruitful?
4) Many priests do not have children: likewise.
5) In some contexts, it might even mean … grow better crops, more fruit?
6) To have better fruit too, God tells us to prune trees; which can produce fewer, but bigger fruit. Abortion is like pruning trees? Fewer, but better children? We can cherish, train the few we have, better?
Cheryl
Abortion smacks of Molech. After all, what is life anyway? Here we are talking about a human and after there is no convincing us, he wants to go on the soul. Like God is not smart enough to create a soul within the baby. He still never said how he could replicate it. Now while he is explaining that, let him explain also personality. Let him explain why some people can be so full of hate toward some people and be so loving toward his own family. Or vice versa.
What is the soul? The Bible says man is a soul. It does not say we create it, catch it, fabricate it, none of that stuff. We are a soul that flesh grew around.
Genesis says “God breathed into his nostril the breath of life, and man became a living soul.” When did my soul come into being? When God breathed into me the breath of life. And what is life? Anything that is not dead. A blastocyst is not dead, it is fully alive because it is formed from cells, which according to dictionary meaning, is the basic unit of…..wait for it….LIFE. And it is fully functioning as a cell, I mean basic unit of life.
Dr. G,
Many versions do not use the word “miscarriage” in this verse. Take a look at this link which lists many versions for this verse:
http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Exd&c=21&v=1&t=KJV#vrsn/22
I will give you the link for the home page of this site. It is the one I go to a lot for a concordance and lexicon. Someone told me that the Lexicon on here was outdated, but I haven’t found a site anywhere else that has all of the features that this one does. I will put it in another comment however because two links in one comment usually sends the comment to moderation.
Dr. G,
Here is the link I promised you: http://www.blueletterbible.org/
Dr. G,
The lexicon definition of multiply in the site I gave you the link for is:) be or become great, be or become many, be or become much, be or become numerous
a) (Qal)
1) to become many, become numerous, multiply (of people, animals, things)
2) to be or grow great
b) (Piel) to make large, enlarge, increase, become many
c) (Hiphil)
1) to make much, make many, have many
) to multiply, increase
b) to make much to do, do much in respect of, transgress greatly
c) to increase greatly or exceedingly
2) to make great, enlarge, do much
2) (Qal) to shoot
It says the stem is Qal, hense the first meaning above would be the one used. To be become many, numerous.
Because priests do not have children doesn’t mean that God commanded them not to.
And Jesus was a man yes. But remember, He was sent from God for a very specific purpose in that manhood–to become our Saviour. He didn’t have children, neither did he have a wife having an abortion!
Of course God is smart enough to create a soul in anyone, at any time. I’m not denying that. The problem is … when does he choose to do it?
The signs are, it is not at conception. Take your present examples:
1) Note that Adam’s body was more or less adult, most think, when God breathed life into it.
2) And indeed, (in Aquinas?), part of the argument that our soul begins at birth, is based on …the idea that we don’t get it, till we draw our first “breath.”
3) Do I really need to be able to create a soul myself, to have anything valid to say about it? Then you too should stop talking. Because indeed, can you create one from knowledge? We can all create them by procreation; but …
4) What does that famous phrase “chose life” mean? It might mean … a) spiritual life. What b) physical lives does it intend to save? Surely not all lives; God demands that we kill animals to sacrifice to him. Indeed, even jesus gives up his own physical life.
So given so much variability in the world “life” … where do you get your God-like authority, to tell us that for sure, it means the embryo?
And so perhaps we should cease speaking, soon enough.
No doubt, we should honor the lives of human beings with souls. But the question is: is a blastocyst a human being with a soul. So far, no one has proven that.
5) By the way: I know you feel sure today, that you know what God wants and says; and that I am wrong and evil. But is that humillity? Often in life, we discover that just when we were absolutely sure we were right … we discover that we were wrong after all. That is why Jesus called us to be humble.
6) I admit, abortion is not attractive. But … I cannot say that God himself, ever firmly pronounced against it.
7) And the more I look at the Bible itself, the less suport I see for the current Apostate Church of the Holy Foetus; which looks like a heresy to me.
8) There is no strong Biblical evidence against abortion. Indeed, there is some evidence in favor of it.
9) Therefore, anyone can say abortion is wrong “in their own opinion,”
10) No one should ever say, that “God said” abortion was wrong.
Those who say that, speak falsely, for God.
Which is a very, very, very bad thing.
Often the people who think they are very, very good … turn out … to be the opposite of what they think. So consider carefully. So many think their anti-abortionism, is the word of God. But … so far, we have not come up with a single place where the Bible definitely supports anti-abortionism at all.
And so I conclude: religious anti-abortionism, is, surprisingly enough, a heresy.
And a dangerous one too.
Become “large” in your spirit.
Thanks for the site.
Dr. G,
Wow. Such intellectualism may just get you into trouble with God. So by your logic then we all must be adults to get a soul?
And you think you can change the very idea of God’s creation, to reduce to the level that you have and say God perhaps intended for us to have abortions?
Are you really implying that God is ok with abortion?
http://www.blackgenocide.org/photos.html
This link is graphic and please do not view the link if you are sensitive. It is pictures of abortion as you Dr. G. advocate. Now you tell me that God in any way can be pleased with this. I say no, and I believe He becomes angry because His creation was viewed as nothing more than just a few cells that are not viable.
Now you might say it is unfair for me to post the link, but it is the real pictures. It is germane to the discussion, and after seeing this, how can anyone say it is a viable option. Even the methods used are inhumane. And you want us to believe this as acceptable?
I say no, because it is evil to do this. Not even the worst horror slasher film can come in comparison to this.
Warning, pictures of actual aborted babies. Unfair? Someone has to speak for these innocent children. Again, don’t look at the link if you are sensitive and not in front of children. It made me cry when I saw them. So how dare anyone say this is something God could be pleased with or permits.
Well, Dr. G,
The more I look at the Bible, the more I believe God doesn’t approve of abortion. And you certainly haven’t been able to prove to me scientifically that an embryo of fetus doesn not have a soul, and thus is not, in your opinion, a human being.
By the way, no thoughts on the “multiply” comment above? How do you justify abortion in light of the command to multiply? That is a total opposite.
And of course there was the Scripture that says that children are a gift from God and the young man that has many are blessed.
I don’t see how abortion fits with either of those Scriptures and I certainly don’t see that there are others that say it is alright.
You asked for Scriptural back up to our beliefs. We have given you many. But you just throw aside everything we say and indeed say the more you look, the more you believe the Bible supports abortion.
Obviously there is nothing more we can say. So I am bowing out of this conversation.
My last remarks were address to KK; not C.