Pro-Life & Pro Choice?

politics

(Josué Aparicio) #1

So here’s a question that has been on my mind mainly because of how I believe I should live out faith:

If I believe that a fetus is life starting at conception but a woman doesn’t want to carry on with the pregnancy for whatever particular reason, shouldn’t she be allowed to have an abortion, letting her deal with the consequences of her actions?

In context, I’d much rather deal with someone on this issue on the individual basis rather than support politics with the agenda to make it law for someone not to carry out an abortion. I feel like it’s the wrong approach to an issue that can be won personally than nationally.

What are your thoughts?


(Tony Hacker ) #2

Hello Josue. So just to clarify. Are you saying that the government should not protect innocent lives because it’s considered a moral issue not a government issue?
A follow up question for more clarity would be, isn’t the government morally obligated to protect and serve the people? Especially those who cannot predict m protect themselves?

Romans 13:1-10 NASB — Every person is to be in subjection to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those which exist are established by God. Therefore whoever resists authority has opposed the ordinance of God; and they who have opposed will receive condemnation upon themselves. For rulers are not a cause of fear for good behavior, but for evil. Do you want to have no fear of authority? Do what is good and you will have praise from the same; for it is a minister of God to you for good. But if you do what is evil, be afraid; for it does not bear the sword for nothing; for it is a minister of God, an avenger who brings wrath on the one who practices evil. Therefore it is necessary to be in subjection, not only because of wrath, but also for conscience’ sake. For because of this you also pay taxes, for rulers are servants of God, devoting themselves to this very thing. Render to all what is due them: tax to whom tax is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honor to whom honor. Owe nothing to anyone except to love one another; for he who loves fnhis neighbor has fulfilled the law. For this, “YOU SHALL NOT COMMIT ADULTERY, YOU SHALL NOT MURDER, YOU SHALL NOT STEAL, YOU SHALL NOT COVET,” and if there is any other commandment, it is summed up in this saying, “YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF.” Love does no wrong to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfillment of the law.

Those unborn babies are my neighbors


(Josué Aparicio) #3

What I’m saying is if I love my neighbor as myself, I wouldn’t want to forced into a belief I don’t want. Beliefs can be changed but not forcefully by law.

Just like God doesn’t force himself upon us to believe in him it has to start with a choice, our free will, that will lead us to the truth. How that truth is presented is my responsibility, the person who holds the belief in God, to defend the faith that’s persuasive enough for someone to then change their belief of God.

In the same manner, I believe a life is a life at conception and it hurts me that they get aborted but it’s a belief that I wouldn’t want someone forced by law to believe.

Laws can make it a hostile environment for me to share my faith so let them have their choice, but if God puts someone in my path who is thinking of getting an abortion then it’s my duty, responsibility, to invest not in the life that’s living inside but the life that’s holding it, to persuade them away from such a choice.

Thank you for adding your thoughts! Much appreciated


(Tony Hacker ) #4

I can kind of see what you are saying. Your looking at things as if the gospel is our only hope. Which it is when it comes to salvation. But I cannot wait for the murderer who enters my house to be converted before the police come and take care of him. (Could that happen? Yes, I think they even made a movie of a true story about a robber who was converted by his victim)
Yet this goes back to how you look at abortion. Is it simply a “belief” as you have referenced? That sounds like choice as all beliefs are. You can choose to believe our not, to follow or not, to not believe etc…
So in that sense I can see how one would lean on “pro-belief” we’ll call it. It’s still pro-choice. I did not get forced to believe in christianity yet I do get forced to stop at red lights even though I don’t have time for them nor do I believe it’s fair. (Especially when im running late)
But I can choose to run it. Yet I could get pulled over, given a ticket or worse, cause an accident and kill somebody. And i don’t know that any good government would wait until i believed in red lights green lights before they started issuing me tickets or pulling me over.
I don’t believe abortion is as simply as choosing a religion, like buddhism, Christianity, Islam, no religion, …what do I believe about the age of the earth.
I believe it is murder. Plain and simple. And murder is not only a major sin but one I believe should be an obvious law. And sin is a reproach to any nation. ESPECIALLY at that level. Have we seen how many have been killed since it was allowed? Like 70 million. And I believe our nation has gone down quicker, morally, spiritually and many other ways because of it.
Because they’re certain laws that we can break that In my humble opinion that to God are worth heavier millstones to being tied around ones neck according to (Luke 17:2, Matt 18:6)
My choice has been persuaded about stopping at lights, not because of my choice being forced to change but by seeing the consequences of breaking the law of man. And I personally see and have seen the consequences of sin, including abortion… it’s never a happy ending for all parties.

Thanks for letting me respond and add to this big topic. God bless you brother. As with all things, we are ultimately responsible for all of our choices and God does use a variety of ways for one to land on the truth. Let’s pray God has His way in all things


(Joshua Spare) #5

Great question, @josueaparicio! I think you are hitting on one aspect that the church in America has been a bit weak in addressing - supporting mothers who are in a position where abortion feels like the right, or maybe even the only option. That isn’t to say there aren’t ministries and Christians out there who do precisely that, but it does seem like we can forget about the mothers in all the clamor to protect the life of the babies!

That said, the way I see the nature of this problem is first in identifying that there are two people involved in this situation: the mother and the child. Now, some would deny that the fetus is a “person” as yet, but, as I read your question, I believe you would agree with me that the conceived, but yet unborn child, is a person. As we approach this question, I think we have to ask the question, what is the best course forward for each person.

The strength of the position that you articulated is that you recognize that this mother is in a hugely vulnerable position! She is faced with a momentous decision, whatever it is that she chooses. And you have so clearly perceived that if we are shoving government mandates down her throat in the midst of this turmoil, that surely doesn’t seem to be the best way to love her. Wouldn’t it be better to come alongside her, support and love her, and through that point her away from abortion?

While I agree that it is certainly the more neighborly approach to come alongside a mother in this situation, I think that we risk losing sight of the person-hood of the child in the method that you have described. If the fetus is a person with all the rights endowed upon you, me, and the mother as a person, shouldn’t that fetus have the right to live a life? If that is the case, then it would make sense that the fetus requires an advocate to advocate for its life to continue past the womb, even if the mother doesn’t desire that to be the case.

In my mind, the best approach is to advocate a wholesome approach to every person involved. Not only do we need to advocate for the life and well-being of the fetus (whether through legislating against abortions, advocating for more robust and incentivized adoptions, and supporting single and/or disadvantaged parents), but we also need to come alongside mothers in this precarious position to love and support them, giving them the ability to make the best possible decision for both themselves and their baby, which, I think I can safely say, both you and I would say is the continued life of that baby.

A final thought along these lines is that I think that some people are better equipped for some tasks, more-so than others. So whereas one person may fit well into fighting for governmental protection of unborn babies but lack the necessary compassion to come alongside mothers and cherish and support them, there will certainly be another who is incredibly adept at loving these mothers incredibly well but would flounder excessively in attempting to entreat the government to change the laws. This is, I think, a picture of the well-functioning body of the church - each member able to individually pursue the tasks for which they have been uniquely qualified, gifted, and talented, but united together to collectively cultivate a work which brings glory to God.

What do you think? Does that seem a reasonable way to apply the scriptural dictates to this immensely difficult situation?


(Josué Aparicio) #6

Thank you for contributing to this. I wholeheartedly agree with you that it should be a wholesome approach that each person of the body of Christ needs to commit to. What I feel like has happened instead is a weak system that has the right idea in the law but the support falls short for the child and its mother throughout.

I agree, my approach definitely runs the risk of losing the person-hood of the child but it comes from a place of defending a life that cannot speak for itself and the only who can is the mother but I cannot speak to them if all I’m doing like you said is shoving these government mandates down her throat in the midst of a serious life decision she is facing.

I’m not going to pursue laws that already are set and fight to overturn them because it may sour the conversation more than it already is. I’d much rather spend effort in fighting for laws that enhance the experience of support for a child and its mother throughout the experience so that she knows, when confronted with this decision, there is overwhelming support that make it much more easier to keep the child.

Thanks again!


(Cam Kufner) #7

I actually have a question on top of yours @josueaparicio … sorry, lol. I am unabashedly Pro-Life, but I am reserved on cases such as rape and incest. Although those two cases make up less than 1% of all abortion cases (that statistic is according to Planned Parenthood), can I claim to be a follower of Christ, but be okay with abortion under those specific cases? I see all other cases of abortion as murder, but those two cases I have a hard time grasping if I can justify the abortion. Everyone is welcome to leave their thoughts/opinions.


(SeanO) #8

@CamKufner I think the first thing I would say is we must pray and compassionately serve those who have experienced things as horrendous as rape or incest. These are terrible, terrible tragedies and God weeps when people suffer so. We should weep with them and seek restoration and healing. Also, we should never make those who have made the choice to abort in a difficult situation feel condemned. Christ’s arms are open and we should always invite them to be healed by the Savior.

After affirming that truth, I think we must also affirm that every life is sacred; without exception. I like the way the following articles state this truth and I commend them for further reading.

Christ grant you wisdom :slight_smile:

First, it is important to note that the incidence of pregnancy as a result of rape is rare, with studies estimating that approximately 1 percent to 4.7 percent of rapes result in pregnancy. Thus lobbying for abortion on the basis of rape and incest is like lobbying for the removal of red lights because you might have to run one in order to rescue someone who is about to commit suicide. Even if we had legislation restricting abortion for all reasons other than rape or incest, we would save the vast majority of the 1.8 million preborn babies who die annually in the United States through abortion.

Furthermore, one does not obviate the real pain of rape or incest by compounding it with the murder of an innocent preborn child. Two wrongs do not make a right. The very thing that makes rape evil also makes abortion evil. In both cases, an innocent human being is brutally dehumanized.

https://www.equip.org/bible_answers/should-abortions-be-permitted-in-the-case-of-rape-or-incest/

As the church, we must not say of abortion, “This is killing,” without saying to pregnant women, “We will serve you.” We must listen, love, foster, adopt, give money, babysit, donate supplies, mentor young women, and support in whatever ways God has equipped us.

If we’re saying the former (“Abortion is killing”) without the latter (“We will serve you”), we aren’t truly understanding the gospel. And if we’re claiming we’re pro-life yet doing nothing about it, we not only aren’t truly understanding the gospel; we’re not truly pro-life.