Can A Person Embrace Christianity, and Be Pro-Choice?

[Eightball]

The title of the thread says it all folks.

Can a person embrace the Christian faith and have compatibility with a Pro-Choice belief system?

Regards, Eightballsidepocket

 

[Trigg]

The title of the thread says it all folks.

Can a person embrace the Christian faith and have compatibility with a Pro-Choice belief system?

Regards, Eightballsidepocket

Being pro-choice on this forum is kind of unpopular.

I have no problem being pro-choice (for rape and incest) and also a christian.

 

[dmp]

It's Spiritually Unethical to support Homosexual lifestyles, the murder of children (regardless of status of 'birth'), and other issues. It's also impossible to be one who 'litters' and be a Christian - or a healthy Christian. Littering is an example of Pride; something Christ warned about.

So - to answer your question, supporting the murder of kids doesn't make one 'not' a Christian I suppose, but if somebody 'truly' follows Christ, it's impossible for them to condone the activity. Impossible. One who follows Christ would not have the ability to support Abortion-on-demand (Pro-Choice).

 

[no1tovote4]

I always wonder about the making it unlawful thing....


Is it "holier" to have the choice and not do it or to create a law making others follow what is right? Is it holy to create a law in order to make others follow a law they do not believe in?

To me it is a clear case of murder, but to others it obviously isn't.

 

[dmp]

I always wonder about the making it unlawful thing....


Is it "holier" to have the choice and not do it or to create a law making others follow what is right? Is it holy to create a law in order to make others follow a law they do not believe in?

To me it is a clear case of murder, but to others it obviously isn't.

I follow speed limit laws I don't believe in. (shrug). I pay Taxes for laws I don't believe in (see: Social Security).

 

[no1tovote4]

I follow speed limit laws I don't believe in. (shrug). I pay Taxes for laws I don't believe in (see: Social Security).

Taxes: Render unto Ceasar....

Speed limit laws are clearly a way to keep the public safe from insane drivers.

I understand what you are saying, but those are just questions that I ask. Is it better to have the choice and choose to follow the right course, or is it good to be forced to follow the right course by simply taking away the option?

If thine eye offend thee, pluck it out.....

 

[dmp]

Taxes: Render unto Ceasar....

Speed limit laws are clearly a way to keep the public safe from insane drivers.

I understand what you are saying, but those are just questions that I ask. Is it better to have the choice and choose to follow the right course, or is it good to be forced to follow the right course by simply taking away the option?

If thine eye offend thee, pluck it out.....

Speed limits are clearly NOT a way to keep the public safe, but a means of 'taxation via Citation'.

But to the topic at hand...Would you apply that same comment to 'hate crime' laws?

We enact laws for the betterment of mankind...of society. Murdering kids not only kills innocents, it can destroy the lives of fathers and mothers.

 

[Mr. P]

I'm Pro-Choice. Nothing I say would change anyones mind, so...
That my 2 cents.

 

[no1tovote4]

Speed limits are clearly NOT a way to keep the public safe, but a means of 'taxation via Citation'.

Nah, they are just misused in that way.

But to the topic at hand...Would you apply that same comment to 'hate crime' laws?

I don't think how a persons thought process brought them to murder somebody should be taken into account when giving punishment.

We enact laws for the betterment of mankind...of society. Murdering kids not only kills innocents, it can destroy the lives of fathers and mothers.

As I said, "If thine eye offend thee, pluck it out..."

I agree, if you work it as simple murder the easiest solution is to get the SCOTUS to understand that humans begin before they take their first breath of air, then it would be murder to take that life.

 

[dmp]

Nah, they are just misused in that way.

Frankly, if you look at most speed limits and citations, it's very clear where the emphasis is - $$. If states worried about 'keeping drivers safe' licensing would be much more efficient.

I agree, if you work it as simple murder the easiest solution is to get the SCOTUS to understand that humans begin before they take their first breath of air, then it would be murder to take that life.

I can't see another way to view Abortion. We protect 'some' people who cannot breathe for themselves (see: Coma victims, etc), yet we kill others because their birth would be an inconvienance (see: babies).

 

[5stringJeff]

I have known Christians who were pro-choice... but their entire theological and political philosophies were extremely liberal as well.

I have never heard anyone adequately reconcile a pro-choice position with orthodox Christianity.

 

[TheEnemyWithin]

I've known a few crack-hoes claiming to be "Christian" who were also pro-Kerry, pro-international-community, pro-Islam, etc., who supported abortion. The reality is, the "You shall not murder" is plain enough argument agaist the procedure. Baby slaughter is not compatible with Christianity at all.

:baby: << For Bush

<< For Kerry

 

[Gem]

I think that you would find that the vast majority of people who are Pro-Choice identify themselves as Christian (the vast majority of liberals identify themselves as Christian...hence my extrapolation), so obviously these people have made peace between their religious beliefs and their feelings regarding abortion.

It seems to me that most Christians do not follow the Bible completely, they take the Lord's name in vain, they work on Sunday if thats what they have to (or choose to) do, etc. Many people feel that science has opened new doors of understanding regarding many issues, the development of a fetus being one of those areas.

Most people I know who are pro-choice believe that a baby is a baby when it can live outside the womb without help. Therefore, killing a viable baby would be against their Christian values...but killing what they see as a blob of tissue or an underdeveloped fetus, is a woman's right.

 

[dmp]

Most people I know who are pro-choice believe that a baby is a baby when it can live outside the womb without help.

...yet they wouldn't extend that definition to those who can't live w/o machines...see: Lady in Florida whose husband wants to take her off machines.

 

[no1tovote4]

Frankly, if you look at most speed limits and citations, it's very clear where the emphasis is - $$. If states worried about 'keeping drivers safe' licensing would be much more efficient.



I can't see another way to view Abortion. We protect 'some' people who cannot breathe for themselves (see: Coma victims, etc), yet we kill others because their birth would be an inconvienance (see: babies).

Well, I gave it a try but my heart wasn't in it. I just can't justify such an act. I don't believe that abortions could be seen as any other thing than as murder of the most innocent.

All life is sacred in my religion so regardless of whether you think it is a person would be irrelevant.

 

[deaddude]

I've known a few crack-hoes claiming to be "Christian" who were also pro-Kerry, pro-international-community, pro-Islam, etc., who supported abortion. The reality is, the "You shall not murder" is plain enough argument agaist the procedure. Baby slaughter is not compatible with Christianity at all.

:baby: << For Bush

<< For Kerry

emphasis added

Actually it is "thou shall not kill." So that includes capital punishment, war, murder and abortion. How do people who support the death penalty reconcile that with Christianity?

 

[dmp]

emphasis added

Actually it is "thou shall not kill." So that includes capital punishment, war, murder and abortion. How do people who support the death penalty reconcile that with Christianity?

No - it's actually 'murder'. Not 'kill'. Much different connotation.
The Hebrew word rendered 'kill' is 'ratsach', which can mean murder or kill for other reasons. However, most of the time this word appears in the Hebrew, it's in relation to murder. Every time the word 'kill' appears in the KJV before Ex.20:13, it's translated from other Hebrew words.

What's ironic about the 'kill' rendering is that in the very next chapter, God decrees the death penalty for a variety of offenses.

This verse has been misused for decades by opponents of capital punishment, and by many wishing to avoid military service, using religion as an excuse.(Yes, I realize many such people have genuine religious convictions, but are they CORRECT? Remember, David, the man after God's own heart, was a man of WAR.)It is used by animal-rights wackos as well.

I believe a better rendering would've been, "Thou shalt not MURDER." God Himself ordered more than one execution, such as that of Achan & his family, and that of the unnamed Israeli in the wilderness who was gathering wood on the Sabbath.

And in Matthew 19:18, the KJV renders jesus words thus: "He saith unto him, Which? Jesus said, Thou shalt do no murder, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness,"

The Greek word here is 'phoneuo', which means,'to murder'. It is not used to denote killing for other reasons such as in battle, self-defense, accidentally, or in a sanctioned execution.

 

[no1tovote4]

emphasis added

Actually it is "thou shall not kill." So that includes capital punishment, war, murder and abortion. How do people who support the death penalty reconcile that with Christianity?

It is not.

Here is a link to Exodus Chapter 20, God gives them the 10 Commandments in this chapter.

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/index.php?search=exodus 20&version=31

In particular pay attention to verse 13.

You shall not murder.

 

[deaddude]

My mistake, my translation must be wrong. My apologies.

 

[Eightball]

I tend to go with the crowd that sees scripture/bible as authoritative. With that in mind, I have little alternative in this issue, but to see life before or after birth as precious.

I am saddened that much current thought uses "viability of life" as the parameter of life or death for infant humans.

That "viability of life" is usually hinged on survivability, and survivability is considered post-birth canal.

I would counter the viability issue with this. Is a post-birth human or infant any less dependent on it's mother or outside help than before birth? In other words, can a new born infant immediately after birth or even 6 months after birth survive in human society by itself? Can it feed, dress, bathe, communicate needs clearly, work(contribute to society), in human society? The answer is obvious.

Now, let's look at the unborn infant. Would the same parameters exist for the unborn infant as a 0-6 month infant. Basically, yes. The unborn infant is solely dependent on the mother for nutrition, and safety. In fact many outstanding pediatricians, and researchers are starting to accept that some outside-the-womb stimulus affects the unborn too. This may include, a the host-mother talking or singing to the baby. There is much research continuing in this area. It is literally in an "infant"(lol) stage at this time.

So, with the matter of viability of life as a major factor in continuing or terminating an unborn infant's life, I am left pondering if this criteria is indeed correct or ethical.

If viability of life centers around one's dependence or independence or worth to society, where does this ultimately lead?

If there is a creator that has endowed all humans with free-will, yet many of His created beings are terminated by us before they can excercise that gift or quality of choice, what does that say about us?

Many will say that the majority of those terminated before birth were condemned to poverty, disease, or total dependency upon society through welfare. Termination of those potential, "society draining" lives was for their own good, and society's.

I personally believe that the bible clearly expresses that viability of life is determined not by the created, but by the Creator of those lives.

There is an illustration in scripture about a potter and the clay that he's molding on his work bench or wheel. In this illustration, the potter is metaphorically God, and the clay is metaphorically human's or us. In this metaphorical scene, the clay or us wants the potter or God to make us a certain way, but the potter or God, says, "your the clay, I'm the potter". Basically, what the metaphor was saying, is that when we determine the viability of life ala "unborn" we are stepping into the realm of the potter. We have absolutely no credentials to play that role. In fact for those who claim to be Christians yet wink an eye at abortion as it is in the U.S. and many other "advanced" countries, in think there needs to be some introspection.

Scripture says many things to all men and women and children. One person can read a verse and get a certain message from it and know without a doubt that God spoke/directed to them through it. Another person can read that same verse or verses and receive a totally different message and feel confirmed in their soul that God ordained it. Here's the one thing that scripture will not do. It will not contradict itself. The bible either condones abortion or doesn't.

I know that many anti-biblical or Anti-religious folks can quote scripture as well or even better than many Christians, and even point to verses that seem to speak on their behalf. The bible is to be taken in total....as a message from the Potter to the Clay, and not "piece-mealed" in order to force it to say something else.

The Potter will be questioned why He allowed entire cities to be destroyed in the Old Testament. Yet, He was the potter, all along. Who but the Potter knows the viability of a life. Creation has always longed to assert itself in the role of Creator, ala "I'm the commander and chief of my life." Without a moral compass, creation has created it's own form of morality that side-steps the issues of, personal responsibility, guilt, forgiveness, etc. Science, and philosophy, have become the mantra of creation in it's attempt to counterfeit it's Creator's intact parameters of right and wrong.

Regards, Eightballsidepocket