Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
As usual, Newsmax does a poor job representing views they don't like. Christians are required to properly and fairly represent the viewpoints of those with whom we disagree, to the best of our ability. It is part of loving our neighbors.Here are five pro-choice arguments made by Christians [link]:
Yes. We always need to keep this in mind.1. Life is complicated and hard
The Christian faith is not about rules, it is about being conformed to the Person and nature of Christ, being empowered by His grace. The commands of Jesus exist to align ourselves in conformity to Him and His empowerment.2. The Christian faith should not be exclusively about rules
It does. The question of concern surrounds whether or not the conceived life is a person at the various stages of development within the womb. This is both more complex than most anti-abortion people believe, and less complex than most pro-choice people believe.3. Legal abortion limits dangers to women
Abortion is obviously a personal choice (involving the intimate parts of a person and their well-being) as well as a corporate choice. Beyond the conceived life, there is also at least one other parent whom the choice will affect. Then there may be communal concerns regarding having children to provide the next generation.4. Abortion is a personal decision that cannot be summed up in soundbites
This is a dumb statement. We are accountable both to God and human governments.5. The Holy Spirit gives the Christian the ability to make choices, and those choices are only accountable to God, not human authority
You make a good point, since you consider the conceived life a person ("the child"). However, if one was to consider the woman's situation unrelated to the conceived life, then it is obviously true that "legal abortion limits danger to women.""3. Legal abortion limits anger to women." This is a misleading statement. The dangers to the child in the womb are incalculably increased, infinitely greater than any danger to the mother, with abortion. There is no comparison. It is a totally illogical statement.
You make a good point, since you consider the conceived life a person ("the child"). However, if one was to consider the woman's situation unrelated to the conceived life, then it is obviously true that "legal abortion limits danger to women."
That's a fair critique. I am trying to use neutral language (so as to be fair to all points of view) and I made a poor word choice. Certainly the needs of the conceived life and the woman are connected with each other, but if one does not consider the needs of the conceived life relevant to the choice of abortion, then it is certainly true that "legal abortion limits danger to women."It is impossible to call them unrelated.
True. But the needs of the conceived life are intricately entwined with the life of the mother. So, it is not a valid way to look at it. I am not trying to be a devil's advocate. I am trying to show that it is illogical to separate the life of the child in the womb from the decision to abort, not matter what the danger to the mother.That's a fair critique. I am trying to use neutral language (so as to be fair to all points of view) and I made a poor word choice. Certainly the needs of the conceived life and the woman are connected with each other, but if one does not consider the needs of the conceived life relevant to the choice of abortion, then it is certainly true that "legal abortion limits danger to women."
Is that better? (Please note my initial comments regarding my own convictions regarding this issue.)
Congratulations on posting a response that will harden people in the pro-choice position and weaken any opportunity for other Christians to persuade those persons to a better way. It might make you feel better to misrepresent and demonize people you don't agree with, but that's counterproductive to the point of this thread (as I understand Salty's intent). It's not "all about you" and your desire to feel morally superior to those you don't like.1. When life is complicated and hard, I might need to kill my children...
So, professing Christians claim it’s ok to kill babies and you think telling them they are killing babies will “harden” them in their pro baby murder stance? Really?Congratulations on posting a response that will harden people…..
…It's not "all about you" and your desire to feel morally superior to those you don't like.
Thank you. I find myself in good company with John the Baptist, Elijah, Jesus, Nehemiah, Paul, etc as I am not a prevaricator unlike many Evanjellyfish today.Congratulations on posting a response that will harden people in the pro-choice position and weaken any opportunity for other Christians to persuade those persons to a better way.
No misrepresentation at all. Babies are murdered because irresponsible adults don't want to deal with the consequences of their fornication. Truth hurts. If it hurts them, then maybe next time they shouldn't kill babies.It might make you feel better to misrepresent
The clear, English, title of this thread is "How would you answer these statements?". That's how I would and how I DO answer them. Don't like it? Tough nuggies. I ain't asking you to like it.and demonize people you don't agree with but that's counterproductive to the point of this thread (as I understand Salty's intent).
Oh no, my poor wittle fweelings. Telling people to stop murdering babies is making it all about me? Is that a real circuitous way of insinuating I'm a baby?It's not "all about you" and your desire to feel morally superior to those you don't like.
If you have talked to pro-choice Christians, you would know that most of them (FWIW, all that I have personally talked to) don’t not believe that a life in the germinal stage, the embryonic stage, and sometimes even the fetal stage are persons (aka, “babies”). Not that many years ago, a common view was that a fetus was not a person until they took their first breath.So, professing Christians claim it’s ok to kill babies and you think telling them they are killing babies will “harden” them in their pro baby murder stance? Really?
"Baby murder" - that’s quite a loaded term. If someone doesn’t believe an embryo or fetus is a person, then it cannot be murder. It would be “baby manslaughter” at worst.Don’t know about “feeling morally superior” to the pro baby murder crowd, but I do feel an enormous sadness that professing Christians are undermining the pro life message by claiming baby murder is ok.
There is no shortage of persons who claim to be Christians who are giving occasion for unbelievers to blaspheme God.They are giving the enemies of God great occasion to blaspheme His name.
So there is no point in talking to a person with whom you disagree? Then why respond at all? Just let the Spirit take care of the opinions of others, right?If they are Christians then God Holy Spirit is surely grieved by these statements and beliefs and He, God, will soften their hearts and bring them to repentance.
You flatter yourself. True prophets are only harsh toward self-righteous persons.Thank you. I find myself in good company with John the Baptist, Elijah, Jesus, Nehemiah, Paul, etc as I am not a prevaricator unlike many Evanjellyfish today.
Sure there is. You have made the strange assumption that pro-choice Christians actually hold your view regarding the personhood of life in the womb, yet they are intentionally, and with full-knowledge, acting viciously toward that life.No misrepresentation at all.
You make the profoundly naive assumption that all persons who consider abortion have pregnancies resulting from fornication (voluntary sexual relations outside of marriage).Babies are murdered because irresponsible adults don't want to deal with the consequences of their fornication.
So does ignorant and intentional cruelty.Truth hurts.
And I congratulated you for it and pointed out the consequences. What’s the problem? Why were you triggered?The clear, English, title of this thread is "How would you answer these statements?". That's how I would and how I DO answer them.
Do you feel like you are “owning the libs?” Well enjoy it. You are going to be held accountable for every last word by an authority much greater than any of us. Your words work against the goal of eliminating elective abortions.Don't like it? Tough nuggies. I ain't asking you to like it.
I would not make a stupid insinuation like that. I’ll tell you up front what I think and not play around. What a lot of people around here don’t realize is that I never try to insult anyone. That’s emotional claptrap. I was trying to engage your reason, not your emotions. However, it is clear that I failed since I managed to trigger an emotional response.Oh no, my poor wittle fweelings. Telling people to stop murdering babies is making it all about me? Is that a real circuitous way of insinuating I'm a baby?
It was the most charitable interpretation of your answers. Otherwise, I would have to assume that you want people to continue aborting children by the way you have responded to those views. Or the third alternative, that you don’t know any better.As for my secret desire to "feel morally superior…”
..."Baby murder" - that’s quite a loaded term. If someone doesn’t believe an embryo or fetus is a person, then it cannot be murder. It would be “baby manslaughter” at worst....
Really? The Nazi’s didn’t believe Jews, himosexuals, Gypsies and others weren’t really people either. Was it murder? Yes, of course it was.If you have talked to pro-choice Christians, you would know that most of them (FWIW, all that I have personally talked to) don’t not believe that a life in the germinal stage, the embryonic stage, and sometimes even the fetal stage are persons (aka, “babies”)…..
"Baby murder" - that’s quite a loaded term. If someone doesn’t believe an embryo or fetus is a person, then it cannot be murder. It would be “baby manslaughter” at worst….
I dont belive that an 8 year is a person- your age must have at least 2 digits (ie 10) to be a person!
Therefore if I kill an 8 year old it would not be murder.
NOW - how stupid is my statement.
In the 1700's many believed that Blacks were not persons - so killing them was not murder.
Killing a POW (without cause) well thats not murder! (Check the Geneva Convention)
yea right!
Bottom line - it is NOT what you believe -it is what the Law and or what God says!
There seems to be disconnect between my motivations and your apparent motivations:Really? The Nazi’s didn’t believe Jews, himosexuals, Gypsies and others weren’t really people either. Was it murder? Yes, of course it was.
Calling a person a “fetus” doesn’t change the fact they are a person created in God’s image. Killing them is murder.
Calling them a fetus only serves to ease the conscious of the people involved in the baby murder.
So, to use an analogy, when professing Christians believe blacks, Jews, himosexuals, Hispanics are not really people, therefore it really isn’t sin/murder to kill them, your response/motivation is to change their minds through self reflection and consent… all the while watching the murders take place?- AND -
There seems to be disconnect between my motivations and your apparent motivations:
My motivation is to engage with the Christian who is pro-choice and get them to reconsider their position through discussion, using logic and scripture. I am unconcerned about showing virtue or saying “the right things” to stay in good standing with the “pro-life” movement, since I don’t live my life for the approval of anyone but God. I’m also not concerned about “winning” an argument or proving I am correct. My motivation is to change the mind of the other person. And the only way the other person’s mind changes is by their self-reflection and consent.
To do such a thing, we have to start where people are. Every pro-choice Christian I have even spoken to DOES NOT believe that a conceived life (including conception, implantation, and germinal stage) is a person (aka, “a baby”). Then there are some who do not recognize that a fetus is a person until the time of birth when they take their first breath (concept based on Genesis 2:7) which used to be a mainstream view among many conservative Christians until the 1970s.
Moreover, God, the law of Moses, and US law all recognize that murder is a matter of intent AND knowledge. Manslaughter is what happens when a life is taken without both knowledge and intent.
So starting out a conversation with someone by calling them a “baby murderer” effectively ends the conversation immediately. This should be common sense. However, upon reflection, I now understand that my motivations for “responding” to these poorly articulated positions (thanks, Newsmax) must be different from yours.
It seems everyone else wants to drop “truth bombs” and take no prisoners. That certainly feels good and plays well on TV and social media, but it ridiculously ineffective for changing hearts and minds.