A "Christian" Case for Abortion? No Chance!

[@SirChristoferus]

The atrocity of prenaticide seems to be an inversion of Christ’s sacrificial atonement, doesn’t it? Christ said, “This is my body, given for you.” But proponents of prenaticide, on the other hand, boldly proclaim the following message, “This is your body, taken for me.”

[@Lyricistleo723]

Glory!!! After so much struggles I now own a new house with an influx of $370,500.00 every month God has kept to his words,my family is happy again everything is finally falling into place. God bless America 🇺🇸.

[@julakiseleva]

Hello!! how do you make such monthly, am a born Christian and sometimes I feel so down 😭 of myself because of low finance but I still believe God.

[@Lyricistleo723]

Big thanks to Mrs MILDRED EVELYN ROONEY

[@Lyricistleo723]

She's a licensed broker here in the states 🇺🇸 and finance advisor.

[@Lyricistleo723]

After I raised up to 825k trading with her I bought a new House and a car here in the states 🇺🇸🇺🇸 also paid for my 10yrs old son's brain surgery (Oscar). Glory to God.shalom.

[@SaxPlayinSquid]

I've always wanted to be involved for a long time but the volatility in the price has been very confusing to me. Although I have watched a lot of KZbin videos about it but I still find it hard to understand

[@joeramirez7879]

Woe to the people that call evil is good and good is evil

[@chrisinolympiawa9295]

Sounds like she totally avoids the fact that the time for Choice (in most instances) is Before one engages in sex, since we do know in fact what causes pregnancy. And we all know that no form of birth control is absolutely perfect. Nobody seems to want to take that responsibility anymore. And from what I have heard from my friends who work at pregnancy resource centers, many women are pressured into abortions by male partners, family members, and friends. Why do no pro-choice people ever discuss this? Of course, men should be held responsible for their actions with regards to paternity, rape, unreasonable expectations, etc. I have so much compassion for women in turmoil due to an unexpected pregnancy, but I don't think the pro-choice position shows the most compassion for women, families, or the unborn. As for her idea that early Christians had abortions is ridiculous. It is documented that they would rescue the infants left out to die by the Romans because they valued life.

[@WaterCat5]

Seems like you want to argue that poor people should just not have sex.

[@StumblingThroughItAll]

I am blown away how the personhood argument used by pro-abortion advocates is precisely the logic used in the Dred Scott ruling as to why slaves are not to be granted rights protections. “The question before us is, whether the class of persons described in the plea in abatement compose a portion of this people, and are constituent members of this sovereignty? We think they are not, and that they are not included, and were not intended to be included, under the word 'citizens' in the Constitution, and can therefore claim none of the rights and privileges which that instrument provides for and secures to citizens of the United States. On the contrary, they were at that time considered as a subordinate and inferior class of beings, who had been subjugated by the dominant race, and, whether emancipated or not, yet remained subject to their authority, and had no rights or privileges but such as those who held the power and the Government might choose to grant them.” - DRED SCOTT, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR, v. JOHN F. A. SANDFORD

[@MrSeedi76]

It's clearly not the same argument. BTW: Deuteronomy 23:2 KJV [2] A bastard shall not enter into the congregation of the LORD; even to his tenth generation shall he not enter into the congregation of the LORD. Also - you certainly know what the Bible says about how to treat stubborn children? Deuteronomy 21:19-21 KJV [19] then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him out unto the elders of his city, and unto the gate of his place; [20] and they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton, and a drunkard. [21] And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die: so shalt thou put evil away from among you; and all Israel shall hear, and fear. Do you think you should have that right? BTW - I'm not "pro abortion" and I never came across a Christian who is. I'm against forced birth in cases of SA and incest. So I guess you see the problem? The problem is claiming that the OT has any advice on this modern day issue when it clearly doesn't. You could use philosophy to make a way better case against abortion.

[@funnythat9956]

Well put. Both, “conservative” and “progressive” Christians read the bible selectively to support their own ideology.

[@josephlarrew]

@@MrSeedi76 Yeah man, destroy that strawman!!! You're soo good at it!

[@WaterCat5]

Does using an argument incorrectly void all proper uses of the argument? Obviously not. You must show the pro-life argument is invalid, full stop.

[@thejabberwocky2819]

​@@WaterCat5Easy. Every other living human has the right to deny access to or use of their body by another human, even if it would save that persons life. Pro life is the position that fetuses should have special rights no one else has, and so has no rational basis.

[@hopenchrist]

Sorry but there is no way she could have the Holy Spirit dwelling in her and not be convicted on her nonsense. She’s not a true Christian.

[@sherrypowers2059]

As someone who chose to murder two of her own children (and call it “abortion” to keep it at arms length) in my pre-Christian life, I agree. I was saved 17 years after the second time. In large part I deceived myself it was acceptable because of the indoctrination of our post-Christian/secular American culture (and God’s enemy loves it). In fact, it took me SIX YEARS after my conversion experience to wake up one morning absolutely convicted of the egregiousness and evil of my sin. However I have always known deep down that it was wrong, (A) I cried a lot both times during and after it happened AND (B) I carried the burden of guilt and shame and pain every subsequent day. And so in my heart I always knew-even while I lived in rebellion and rejection of God. I believe with all my heart that post abortive women are somewhere on a continuum of heartbroken on one end and without conscience on the other, but the vast majority are on the heartbroken end of the spectrum: it’s vastly easier to deflect and deny than it is to face reality. These women need prayer and the truth spoken to them in love and compassion.

[@biblicalworldview1]

I love the approach of Scott Kluesendorf and his disciples! This is such a good video.

[@JennaD7207]

It makes me so angry because there are plenty of women out there who want a child so bad and can't have one. Then you have so many women killing their babies. I just can't understand it. Adoption is ALWAYS a choice here in America.

[@fluffytheostrich3878]

Unfortunately, adoption is much more complicated and burdensome than it should be in the US, generally taking 6-18 months and at least $15,000 assuming the bio mother doesn't change her mind and cause legal nightmares through the process. Adoption is the optimal route, but we really need to push for major reform in that area legally

[@barbgardner5549]

@@fluffytheostrich3878 totally agree from an adoption mom. Ours was 25 yrs ago and was $12,000. Now domestic adoption is over $25,000. Most people can not afford this 😢

[@joychenery9998]

​@barbgardner5549 why does adoption cost so much?

[@WaterCat5]

There are already an abundance of children in foster care and adoptive facilities, yet infertile people don't adopt them. Your line of reasoning simply doesn't make sense. It would be better for the infertile mothers to adopt, no? This is a classic case of revenge fantasy.

[@gnuhaus]

Thousands of children are available for adoption right now for free through the foster care system. We’ve also received thousands of dollars from the state through adoption subsidy program (as well as tax credits) to help raise our sons these past 18 years. Had no idea that’d be the case when we went into it, but are glad we’ve been able to feed and care for them well.

[@ldianer57]

Thank you both for your insight. Thank you sister, for citing that barrenness was a curse in those days. (31:00 minute counter). Sarai/Sarah and Hannah were mocked! Thought less of for not being able to bare a child. I don't ridicule pro-choice, but I do appreciate pro-life. God bless you both.

[@wesleygestring2529]

Progressive Christian don’t talk about the gospel because the gospel points out that we are sinful people.

[@MrSeedi76]

Is that supposed to be a joke? It's "conservative" Christians who rarely ever mention the name of Jesus because they know that their worldview doesn't agree with anything He said.

[@SirChristoferus]

@@MrSeedi76 Any statistics on that? None? Not one graph? Interesting.

[@designbuild7128]

@@MrSeedi76 I would contend that conservative believers put Jesus' commands ahead of copying His lifestyle. The opposite for progressives (they want to emulate part of Jesus' statements and actions and leave it there where it departs what they desire to support). If you mean conservative in the political sense, you are merely speaking to the humanistic [forgot God] trend for both left and right in modern culture. But for professing Christians, the progressives don't speak to the Gospel, they speak to some of what Jesus said and did (both groups may cherry pick, but the left wins this game). "Why do you call me, Lord and not do what I say"- Jesus in Luke 6.

[@trfaison]

Wouldn't becoming pregnant be to consent to pregnancy?

[@midimusicforever]

Not in the case of rape, but either way, it's not the kid's fault, so it's not an excuse for murdering the child.

[@loveisall5520]

@@midimusicforever So right--but why do the baby killers always drag up rape, horrible as it is? It is so rare that pregnancies come from rape. I never was in the situation to marry a woman who'd been raped and had a child afterward, but I can't imagine in my heart of hearts, that it would've precluding my marrying the woman if I loved her. But, as you and I both know, it's almost always the most vulnerable who suffer the most in our world. What's the deal with midi music? Curious...

[@HHHHammer]

I mean not really you still have the right to not give birth

[@thejabberwocky2819]

It's not. Consent is continuous and is not forced on someone by their previous choices. Learn what the word means

[@trfaison]

@@thejabberwocky2819 Consent is agreement or permission expressed through affirmative, voluntary words or actions that are mutually understandable to all parties involved, to engage in a specific sexual act at a specific time and the consequences there of. Be accountable. Sex can produce pregnancy. No action taken to prevent pregnancy means that pregnancy may very well be likely. Should consent be required for the vulnerable baby to lose it's life?

[@dvs3423]

It’s astonishing how far people will go with such destructive thought to justify murdering a baby, fetus, embryo, or whatever word they want to give it. It’s degenerative, but I think we are, as a world society, waking up to see a baby as a gift not a problem.

[@joychenery9998]

Do you really think that is true?

[@maxwellman8233]

I can't believe a Christian could literally believe in and advocate murder.😢

[@AnimeEmpire2023]

Abortion isn't murder

[@FriedMetroid]

The future isn't going to look back kindly on our time because of this. Abortion is an atrocity.

[@shannonbillings5013]

It is the very worst atrocity we must support pro life ministries saving mothers and preborn babies it disgusts me that people after 1973 are happy they are alive and yet will murder preborn babies and not give them the same opportunity

[@MrSeedi76]

​​all good and well as long as people don't make the claim that this opinion is somehow based on the old testament which commands us to kill our grown children if they disobey us (Deuteronomy) or says, that "bastards" (illegitimate children) can't be a member of the congregation for 10 generations. Deuteronomy 23:2 KJV [2] A bastard shall not enter into the congregation of the LORD; even to his tenth generation shall he not enter into the congregation of the LORD. The old testament taught that children are blemished by the sins of the father. They aren't considered sinless. That's because the whole congregation needs to be pure so God can dwell among the Israelites.

[@loveisall5520]

I've said this for decades: a hundred years from now, if man is still existent, men and women will look back in horror at the idea of women ripping babies out of their bodies for convenience as well as killing them in utero for the same reason. Rather as we look in our Scriptures at people sacrificing their children to Molech.

[@Tinesthia]

Abortion is terrible. So is forcing someone against their will to give their body as an incubation chamber for someone else. A disagreement between the lesser of two evils. If your child won’t survive because of a bad liver, should the government be able to force you to give your child part of your liver? And that’s assuming that 1st trimester unborn children should have all the same rights as a toddler which I don’t agree on. What I don’t understand. If an unborn 12 week old would go to heaven, but if born could take a path that goes to hell…which option guarantees a higher percentage of saved souls?

[@thejabberwocky2819]

Abortion is a necessary thing to ensure women have equal rights.

[@frogpaste]

Dr. McDowell, I'd love to see you have Jeff Durbin on sometime to discuss his work with End Abortion Now, as an Abolitionist. I used to think that abolition was an extreme form of pro-life until I heard him explain it. It really is a Gospel issue because pro-life promotes the idea that the woman who has an abortion is herself a victim, rather than a sinner in need of grace. Doing so cuts off the path to repentance. Additionally, Abolitionism is much more consistent in how it views life than pro-life tends to be. Either way, I hope you'll consider it! 😊

[@psharelater172]

Curious: Why not invite her on? Not to debate her conclusions or worldview--but to discuss what she thinks the questions are and what you think the questions are? And then sort out where you can agree to some of the questions. There might be a question you are asking that she is not. And vice versa. Without doing that these debates end up like passing ships in the night. You are sailing in different lanes. When you get onto the same lane--it is then possible to work at clarity on worldviews, rationales and conclusions. You can also start to sort out where the points of disagreement exist. Maybe the disagreement is over a hermeneutic. At that point different questions get clarified. e.g. If we are two Christians in a secular legal structure, whose Biblical hermeneutic differs; yet we see real questions to address together; how ought we navigate that discussion? How ought we live together? Just join two different parties and call each other "Satan?"

[@MsQiu-ks8lm]

She makes it sound like the unborn planned its being conceived?! Crazy woman. That's pure selfishness.

[@JonJaeden]

Let's examine Exodus 21's application to the issue of abortion: Exodus 21 presents case law for adjudicating assault cases. Moses begins with the proposition that if you assault someone and they die, your life is required (v 12), with the caveat that striking or cursing a parent or kidnapping another brings death even though no one was killed (v 15-16). Verses 13 and 14 bifurcate the lex talonis of verse 12 by distinguishing between intentional taking of life and one who kills accidentally. In the latter case, provision is made for fleeing to a city of refuge for sanctuary until the matter can be authoritatively resolved. The remainder of the chapter's discussion of assaults probes the limits of punishment for one who strikes but does not kill (v 18-27). Note the repeated use of terms indicating no fatality has resulted: "he does not die," "if the slave gets up," "but there is no serious injury." Moses, using a social-hierarchy framework, parses three cases where assaults likely to cause death occur, but death does not result -- a freeman striking a freeman, a master striking a slave and brawling men inadvertently injuring a pregnant woman and her unborn child. He covers the gamut of Hebrew society -- from freeman to fetus. Where death does not occur, a variety of civil remedies that vary somewhat by the victims' status exists to compensate the injury. But where death occurs, the passage concludes, it's life for life. "There shall be one law for all," Moses said in Leviticus. It bears repeating that these three cases are all juxtaposed against the same scenario where the assailant kills his victim and is executed. The three cases: Verses 18 and 19 take the case generalized in verse 12 head on and specify if the freeman-on-freeman assault does not result in death, the assailant is punished with less than the death penalty. His victim's injury has market value and he must be recompensed accordingly. Verses 20 and 21 make the same case for assault on a slave -- if an injury likely to cause death does not kill, the master is not executed (In verses 26 and 27, there are requirements to compensate a slave with a grant of freedom for certain severe injuries that were never life threatening in themselves. There, the injury is monetized by setting the price at emancipation). Verse 22 then addresses the case where the victim is an innocent bystander -- in this instance, a woman and her unborn child/children. It should be noted that the bystander was not the intended victim and the injury was not intentional, but, nonetheless, is treated as though intentional. If less than serious injury occurs, the assailant is not executed. That the focus is on the miscarried child/children should be evident from the fact he/she was even included in the scenario. The structure is clearly designed to span the social strata of Israelite society and show the stretch of the law -- from freeman to fetus. Had the issue of dead/not dead been relevant to the woman victim alone, there was no need to include the child/children. And if a fetus does not have the protection that comes from holding the death penalty over his murderer, what about toddlers and adolescents who are left out of this passage? Further, it can be argued that the woman, whatever status Israelite society of the period afforded her, was included already by the application of the law to victims who were free men or slaves. The passage manifestly does not leave the unborn to the capriciousness of brawling men. Their inclusion here is inclusive, not exclusive. Further, if the child's unintended death here requires the death penalty, how much more in the case of intentional abortion. It's worth noting that in verses 23-25, the lex-talonis principle is fully reiterated in a formulaic summary, acting as a complimentary bookend to verse 12. That it may be a rare event to cause a miscarriage and produce an uninjured child -- particularly in the Bronze Age Near East -- is irrelevant. This is case law and its purpose is to establish legal boundaries and analogues for judges to use in determining fault, punishment and restitution. _IF_ the child lived and you were the assailant, it is to this principle you would appeal to preserve your life. Note that the husband fixes the penalty for the nonfatal injury. _HE_ is the market for the value of the woman and/or her child/children. He sets the price for recompense. Likewise, the master whose beaten slave lives ... he is not punished because the slave is his property. He would only be financially compensating himself. For what it's worth, the brawling-men example is a common one in Ancient Near-East legal codes -- Google: "When Two Men Fight: Legal implication of Brawling in the Ancient Near East"

[@doulos3747]

Do we have souls from the moment of conception? Looking for a biblical answer to this question. Think about all the times a life is formed but either miscarries or simply never attaches to the mother’s uterine lining and passes from her body. Will all of those lives be in heaven? Also- will we age in heaven lol? Will babies stay babies? So many questions about this. I’m absolutely and resolutely pro life. I just don’t have good answers to these questions.

[@johnnyl4677]

I am pro - mother and baby's life which means I think if at all possible, the baby should be born unless it is a threat to the mother's life. However, in states where abortion is illegal, if an unborn child is a health threat to a mother, there is suboptimal health care being given. The TX case where the mother (who wanted her child and was 6 months pregnant) was not allowed to get her baby delivered and ignored because no one wanted to take the risk of litigation of delivering a baby who might die because they could be charged with performing an abortion! The physicians were in fear of litigation and as a result, this mother did not get the care she needed and died of overwhelming sepsis; they had to wait until the baby had no heartbeat and it was too late then for baby and mother. I don't think it's a coincidence the 4 of the 5 highest maternal mortality rates are in states where there are abortion bans MS, LA, AL, AR. We need to protect medically necessary procedures!

[@emilydyson1622]

The only issue I have with this story is the simple fact that sepsis during pregnancy is treated the exact same way as it is for everyone else-with IV fluids and IV antibiotics. How do we even know that the baby was the cause of the infection? Treating the sepsis right away could potentially have saved mom and baby! If they tried actually treating the sepsis, and discovered that the baby was the source of the infection and they didn’t deliver the baby at that time, then we could make the case that they chose the baby over the mom. But even then, choosing only the baby would have led to the babies’ inevitable death as well. The mainstream agenda will use anything to enforce their narrative and they will twist facts to fit their narrative. I am in full agreement with saving the life of the mother and I support both babies and women.

[@peterfox7663]

The idea that laws don't allow for medically necessary procedures to save the life of the mother is simply not true. That's never been an issue. It's a leftist talking point. Missing from your story is why the mother considered it necessary to deliver a child at 6 months instead of 9 - that is incredibly early. Yes they would be risking malpractice by inducing delivery that early unless it was absolutely necessary for the life of the mother

[@dco8886]

Please state or look up exactly where these laws prohibited these doctors to treat Nevaeh effectively without delivering the baby. Doctors being scared and confused all of a sudden by a law that clearly has definitions and exceptions stated is no excuse. They’re simply using it as a scapegoat to avoid lawsuits and accusations of gross and obvious malpractice. Medical error and malpractice is a leading cause of death across the Nation and it has been for years. And these cases also happen in very pro-abortion states. Now you have media and pro-abortion activists using and exploiting these tragic deaths for the sake of their argument and ideology. Also, Nevaeh was prolife and so was her family who want the doctors to face accountability because they clearly dismissed her symptoms and didn’t do the proper tests to diagnose her. Of course they will blame the law!

[@debblouin]

I have a hard time believing this story. 6 months is past the line of viability and the hospital probably delivered another such baby within the last few months.

[@thejabberwocky2819]

​@@peterfox7663Oh, you blissfully ignorant fool. It is currently a problem, because the religious zealots writing these exceptions have zero medical or scientific knowledge.

[@bakacs1n]

Ripping something to pieces should hit some alarm signal in any sane persons mind. I guess there could be debate about more gray area situations when the fetus is very young. One of the arguments against the famous bible verse could be that it's just a song and could be interpreted as peotic, so life might not begin at conception. For example if an embryo can be cryofreezed for a long period (so killed) and brought back to life than we could assume it had no soul and in that case one could argue ... I don't know if this was ever tested or if it is possible to test. There are a few cases when this could help, like when you don't know that you are pregnant and kill the baby with negligence and you make an involuntary abortion. Murder by negligence is still murder right? Or the classic rape case, or teen pregnancy, or illnesses when you have to choose who should be saved. Now I don't want to make any case for abortion of course, just thinking about way to determine and end this debate somehow with clear scientific evidence which goes hand in hand with the bible.

[@thejabberwocky2819]

Giving a certain class of humans special rights over other humans that no one else has should set alarm bells off in any sane persons mind. But of course, you're using the example of less than 7% of abortions to try to morally discredit the entire set, so sanity is not to be expected from you.

[@tinathecarboholic]

In the legal system killing someone out of negligence is considered manslaughter and not murder. Is removing a fetus by c section considered an abortion if there is over a 50% chance it will die? How close to death does a woman have to be for an abortion to be considered medically necessary? I have so many gray area questions.

[@fundamentawellness9562]

The phrase y’all are looking for is “common does not equal common.” Commonality doesn’t dictate normality.

[@JonJaeden]

Thoughts on the right to abortion to save the life of the mother ... First, I acknowledge that pregnancy rarely presents a physical threat to the mother's life, and, where it does, the medical system is equipped to respond. This is a philosophical query into whether a woman defending a legitimate threat on her life would be committing murder if she aborted the pregnancy that was the source of the threat. Consider this scenario ... A steep narrow road ascending a mountain is 1 3/4 car-widths across. On one side of the road, a sheer 1,000-foot drop-off. On the other, a sheer wall rises 1,000 feet. Fortunately, every 300 yards on the drop-off side, turnouts allow vehicles driving in opposite directions to pass by each other. You are driving up the mountain with a 1,000-foot drop-off on your right and 3/4 of a car-width separating you from a solid rock wall. You notice a vehicle coming toward you at great speed, it's driver frantically trying to slow down. He can't. His brakes have failed. But at least he has the inside lane. You, on the other hand, will be pushed into the 1,000-foot abyss when his fast-approaching car hits yours ... unless you can reach the turnout. You can't. He's coming too fast and he's already too close. As a Christian driver, are you obligated to stay on your side of the road, with the certain knowledge you will be forced over the cliff, and die? Or, would you be guilty of murder if you drove your car as close to the wall as possible, forcing the innocent other driver to go over the cliff? Or, perhaps, should you do a hard right and intentionally drive your vehicle off the cliff to optimize the other driver's chances of surviving? Is there a right to protect your life from the unintentional -- but likely fatal -- actions of another?

[@davidbcg286]

Interesting conversation but it did not address a key question like : when is a living organism imparted with a soul? Life is a continuum and conception is definitely a decisive moment, so is implantation in the womb and various stages of development. Numbers seems to show that only ~50% of fertilized embryos make it to the womb and then a non negligeable % of implanted embryos don't develop at all. This is also the life that God designed, where a filtering system is embedded. If 50% of embryos that don't make it are already a soul? Where do those souls go? Heaven, hell? What does the Bible tells about God's nature in this regard? Or maybe can we conclude that "ensoulment" has not happened at that stage yet? This is a genuine question that many Christian couples going through IVF will have to consider.

[@Natishasprofessionalhairtips]

I’ve had 4 DNCs for medical reasons due to losing my babies. Does the Bible or God include this as abortion?

[@mcm309]

I believe abortion implies a termination of life whereas a dnc after a miscarriage does not terminate a life.

[@williamphelps4552]

DNC is not abortion. That procedure was to protect you from potential sepsis from the miscarriage which was a natural death. I am sorry that you have had to endure those miscarriages and pray that God's love and peace would be multiplied to you. God Bless.

[@aaronvienot]

Oh, that's really rough. I've known a few friends who miscarried and at least two of them required a D&C and a Caeserian, respectively. That turned one hard thing into two hard things. But abortion is a procedure intentionally performed to end a viable pregnancy, and a human is intentionally killed. But a child who naturally dies in the womb leaves behind a body that is a serious liability to the mother's health and life. Sometimes a medical procedure is required to remove the child's body if the mother's body cannot safely birth it.

[@jln8186]

I did too but the fetus isn't alive. What's to question?

[@debras3806]

No that’s not abortion! Abortion is when the baby’s live.

[@toma3447]

Me and my friend had this debate the other day. I told him if secular society wants to be pro choice then ultimately it’s self defeating because we need humans to flourish.

[@MrSeedi76]

And you think 8 billion of them aren't enough?

[@thejabberwocky2819]

The last problem humanity has is birth rates. More than enough people. Your problem is they aren't the right race of people for you.

[@jskyler7]

So you lost

[@AnimeEmpire2023]

So your friend won?

[@ChosenNightwolf]

There have to be exceptions to the rule. Rape, incest, or if the fetus develops a medical abnormality that would prevent it from being able to be carried to full term and risking the life/health of the mother. No girl or woman should have to carry a fetus to term in those circumstances, ESPECIALLY if the girl is under 18 and still a child herself, Sean and Megan. George (ChosenNightwolf)

[@None-if3mo]

Stupid excuse. So just because The Father is evil, the child should die?

[@None-if3mo]

Psalms 139:13-15 (UKJV) For you have possessed my reins: you have covered me in my mother's womb. I will praise you; for I am fearfully and wonderfully made: marvellous are your works; and that my soul knows right well. My substance was not hid from you, when I was made in secret, and curiously wrought in the low parts of the earth. If you are a christian, shame on you for making excuse to justify murderer.

[@JennaD7207]

I disagree. They can give the child up for adoption. Abortion is NEVER a NEED!!

[@rebekahearly1144]

To allow for these exceptions (for which there are other solutions) you have to disregard the humanity of the unborn baby. That’s not right.

[@raehenderson]

There are testimonial videos where victims of rape chose not to abort and lovingly raise the innocent life. Thousands of women have been advised to abort because of birth defects detected. But many chose to continue their pregnancies and gave birth to a healthy child. But they chose to take the chance even if indeed the child was Downs Syndrome or with other disabilities. These children are just as valuable. ❤

[@bran7134]

Kinda wish this interview happened before the election. 😢 I've seen soooo many of my church friends justifying this murder in annnnd out of the womb because orange man is a sinner.

[@rocketscientisttoo]

We really only have one choice in this world, even though that one choice encompasses many decisions. it is a simple, though situationally complex, decision; an either or decision faced many times a day. Either God is God or I am god. Either I live my life to serve myself or I live my life to serve God. Either I will live in obedience or I will live in rebellion. Either I will choose life or I will choose death.

[@Lovegainers5]

She is a total liar 0:37

[@BtotheeB]

What changed my mind from pro-choice to pro-life : Going down the Margaret Sanger & Puerto Rico rabbit hole. Listening to Live Action dialogue between Abortion doctors and post-abortive women. Former Planned Parenthood director Abby Johnson’s testimony. And finally, my mom’s abortion and wife’s miscarriage. Both grieve. Only one has had a lifetime of deep regret. No one grieves the loss of a clump of cells. ❤️‍🩹

[@stingingcake853]

I also find it interesting because I had a similar journey but with different points: 1) one science teacher who straight up said when we were learning about meiosis, “Life starts at conception, this isn’t a political statement, just a factual one. Life doesn’t just happen spontaneously, it’s passed on from parent to child.” And then every single science class (I have a degree that made me take a lot of biology courses) after that not having an issue with when life starts for any other animal or plant except humans. When, functionally, our reproduction is the same as any other mammal. 2) realizing that if I believed it was wrong to take the life of an innocent human being, then it must be wrong to purposefully kill them in the womb (as according to point, #1, they are alive and a distinct human being) 3) Abortion is a tool of eugenics and yeah, planned parenthood was founded on racist principles (this is the one that gets people to think even if the first two point don’t.) I always found it interesting how some people resonate with personal stories, and others with more philosophical arguments. And it always makes me frustrated because I know how the other side thinks (at least some of them) because I used to think that way too. I am sorry for your loss as well.

[@thejabberwocky2819]

84% of women who abort do not regret it, even 5 years later.

[@BtotheeB]

@@thejabberwocky2819 Of those 84%, how many were ignorant of the science? Of the beautiful human complexity growing inside of them? How many were numb with selfishness? Rationalized it away? Traumatized? How many told themselves they don’t regret it to avoid the pain? We don’t know. This is an emotional dimension that adds a layer to the debate but it’s by no means the entire argument. My mom, among the 16%, didn’t regret hers til several years later. Still tragic. My mom aborted and my wife miscarried at about the same stage of development and grief follows both. Even in me - as a potential brother and father. I know there’s nuance but I’m trying to figure it out. @stingingcake853 Really appreciate you sharing your knowledge & experience! 🤙🏼

[@AndrewMarinelli]

@@thejabberwocky2819 100% of those women, and all of the men who played their own roles regarding those abortions, will meet the One who gave them life. There is nothing we do right or do wrong that goes unseen.

[@bingus4901]

@@thejabberwocky2819 How many Nazi's regretted what they did after 5 years?

[@johnmanzanaseed]

Did God teach Adam how to deliver a baby?

[@josephlarrew]

Most people can actually "deliver" a baby. Well, only a woman really delivers it. The man just catches it, lol. And pretty sure they could figure you need to cut the umbilical cord so that the baby and mother can be in a better situation.

[@tinathecarboholic]

No, he taught Eve how to deliver a baby.

[@drrightlife]

If you believe in the Ontological Trinity Personal Creator, you know there is a difference between IDENTITY and REALITY OF BEING A PERSON (God is Unity Integrity of Identity, but Multiplicity of Uncreated Persons.) Gen 2:7 says the human biological body was created BEFORE the "breath of lives" came, when the human became "living soul." THE BIOLOGICAL FETUS IN THE WOMB BEFORE BIRTH DOES NOT BREATH! The fetus on the womb is human biological identity BUT IS NOT A PERSON (from Personal Source/Origin) UNTIL AFTER BIRTH! Abortion os wrong because it destroys human life identity, but it is a medical procedure between the woman and her doctor AND SHOULD NOT BE FICTATED BY CIVIL GOVERNMENT.

[@SirChristoferus]

People aren’t born as fully grown adults with 50% of them having a missing rib. Furthermore, what about the infants born with mucus obstructing their airways? Are they soulless until the excess mucus is suctioned out? There is no logical justification for premeditated prenaticide.

[@MommaBeeb]

While a fetus doesn’t breathe like we do after we are born, that doesn’t dictate his/her value. Besides, they still need the same oxygen exchange, which they get through the mother’s breathing. Also, they practice breathing and swallowing in the womb, it’s just with amniotic fluid.

[@FlyingFrog87]

I don’t think your argument is very strong. The only person God breathed life into is Adam. Eave didn’t get that privilege and no other human has. She took her first breath just like the rest of the animals, but she is still considered an image bearer of God. Plus your interpretation contradicts how God treats unborn persons throughout the rest of scripture. Specifically in Judges 13:3-5, where Samsun’s mother was supposed to eat a Nazirite diet before she even conceived, because Samsun was supposed to be a Nazirite *from the womb*. The scripture is treating him like a person under the Nazirite vow before he could breathe or even eat on his own, but what ever his mother eat or drank he ended up partaking in through his placenta from his mother. And that mattered to God if he was to be considered a Nazirite even as an unborn person. Also, in other parts of scripture, it talks about unborn people as being sinful and in need of a savior. It is a long held belief of the church (the proof texts from scripture I won’t get into) that something can’t be sinful unless it has a soul. -That humans and the fallen angels are sinful, but not animals, who are just affected by the curse. With this logic, you can reason that the unborn can go to hell, unless God saves them first from the womb.

[@MrSeedi76]

​@@SirChristoferus50% of people don't have a missing rib.

[@MrSeedi76]

​@@FlyingFrog87unborn going to purgatory is exactly what Christianity has believed for quite a long time. How come that jews who use the same texts come to vastly different conclusions about abortion when supposedly the answer to this issue is so obvious? BTW - the real issue isn't even that one side is "pro abortion". Nobody is "pro abortion". The real question is how to reduce abortions. By outlawing them? Which would have as a consequence that pregnant women can't leave their state or country to get one elsewhere. Or maybe, lower abortion rates by heaving more help for young pregnant women. Or stuff like paid maternity leave (which is normal in European countries but many conservative Republicans think it's "socialism"). The country in Europe that for years had the lowest abortion rates was also the one with the most liberal abortion laws - the Netherlands. That was because there were education programs and financial help for young mothers.

[@GeeThevenin]

Just goes to show that if you look hard enough you can justify anything with the ambiguous writings of a collected group of bronze age goat herders. Why is that so hard comprehend? If you really had one book from one all knowing all loving supreme being you wouldn’t have 10,000 different denominations each claiming the others are gonna burn in hell.

[@AndrewMarinelli]

Gee, what do you make of Jesus? Do you think Jesus spoke to the credibility of the Old Testament?

[@thejabberwocky2819]

​@@AndrewMarinelliI think you have no reason to believe you have any words jesus said, ever

[@josephlarrew]

@@thejabberwocky2819 Then I have no reason to believe you have said any words ever, even as coming from your username.

[@josephlarrew]

@GeeThevenin, You seem to sorely misunderstand, at the least, humans then, as well as denominations.

[@AndrewMarinelli]

@@thejabberwocky2819 Interesting. Why is that?

[@midimusicforever]

Every child has the right to not be murdered.

[@thejabberwocky2819]

But not the right to survive at all costs.

[@jskyler7]

That has nothing to do with abortion.

[@AnimeEmpire2023]

Good thing a fetus isn't a child

[@greatfilmmaker]

A Christian argument for abortion within the eighth week. The fetus s DNA brainwaves nervous system and heartbeat, separate from both parents. So how is it not human? Pro abortion is can't see answer that

[@carlpeterson8182]

I think they could say that the fetus at that point is a human life but not at a point that the human life has rights. So a human life and not a human being. I disagree but one could use that as an argument. I would say that all innocent human life has a right to life given to them by their creator (God). It is innate because they are human. once you start arguing that some innocent human life has no right to life then why not other humans?

[@midimusicforever]

@@carlpeterson8182 If humanness is a sliding scale, am I more human than someone born with a brain deficiency? That kind of reasoning is a foundation for a quite scary society.

[@jskyler7]

It’s of the human species but there is no such thing as fetal personhood.

[@greatfilmmaker]

@jskyler7 if it has DNA brainwaves, heartbeat And a nervous system, separate from both parents, how is it not personhood

[@greatfilmmaker]

@@carlpeterson8182 human rights have human rights. You got DNA brainwaves. Nervous system heartbeat, separate from the parent that makes you human. That makes you have human rights, so you do have the right to live

[@arieso7274]

Progressive christianity is Not Christianity at all …..period

[@StumblingThroughItAll]

It takes some serious levels of blind faith to believe that a child in the womb is not a human person. I just don’t have enough faith to believe that.

[@MrSeedi76]

It takes some serious level of blind faith to think that the old testament has anything to say about this matter. Consider how "cheap" human life is in the OT or how parents are advised to stone their kids if they disobey. Not sure how anyone can make a pro life argument from that. BTW - most of the people who are in favor of forced birth don't care what happens to the kids AFTER they're born. Or why else would the US still not have general paid maternity leave like any other civilized country in the world?

[@thejabberwocky2819]

It is a person. And just like all other people, it should not have the right to ignore its mothers bodily autonomy even to save its life.

[@StumblingThroughItAll]

@@thejabberwocky2819 Ok. you if I am hearing you correctly, you view abortion as the act of killing a person in self-defense? Is that your arguement?

[@thejabberwocky2819]

@@StumblingThroughItAll Not even close. Everyone has the right to deny access to or use of their body, even to save a life. For example: If I'm dying and need your blood to live, does my right to life mean that I can make the government take your blood for me against your will?

[@StumblingThroughItAll]

@@thejabberwocky2819 I have always been fascinated by this argument simply due to the fact that it is so disconnected from scientific reality. It enters a logical path about halfway through and intentionally leaves out obvious context that would make it a very tough sell. For starters, in your example, if an outside entity refrains from intervening in any way, and human bodies are left to continue on their natural path, the example you give results in the natural death of a person. In the case of a pregnant mother, a vast majority of the time if left to progress naturally without outside intervention, additional life comes from it. Accordingly, these examples are not a realistic logical comparison by a long shot.

[@robertlaabs5066]

Crazy 🐈

[@MariaKneas]

Claiming the ability to redefine reality is a form of the oldest temptation in the Bible -- wanting to "be like God."

[@jpobrien1973]

Abortion needs to be abolished. Sean, I would love to see you have Russell Hunter from Abolitionists Rising on for a discussion on this topic!

[@thejabberwocky2819]

Women's rights do not need to be abolished. Start treating women like people. I know that's hard because your bible says not to

[@AndrewMarinelli]

@@thejabberwocky2819 At what age or developmental stage do a woman's rights begin? Based on another one of your comments, would you define that point as viability?

[@jpobrien1973]

@@thejabberwocky2819 No one has a right to murder, but all people do have a right to not be murdered. And Christianity has been one of the leading movements supporting women being treated well. You might consider studying history a bit more before trying to make points? Just a thought

[@thejabberwocky2819]

​@@jpobrien1973Everyone has a right to their own body, which includes the right to deny access to or use of their body even to save a life. Abortion isn't murder by either definition. It isn't illegal. And since everyone who isn't pregnant has the right to deny access to or use of their body, it isn't unjust either. Christianity is one of the PRIMARY REASONS women have been oppressed in Christian dominated countries for 2,000 years. Sorry you're so unaware of what your own religion teaches, but the bible views women as second class people. Individual Christians, not Christianity, helped attain women's rights.

[@thejabberwocky2819]

​@@AndrewMarinelliEveryone's rights begin at birth. In every country I'm aware of. Fetal viability is around 22-24 weeks. That's when it gains autonomy, not rights.

[@BoylenInk]

Progressive X = Not X

[@MrSeedi76]

Conservative X = Not X.

[@thejabberwocky2819]

No true Christian fallacy

[@BoylenInk]

@@MrSeedi76 Conservative X can never = not X since the concept of Conservative is to hold onto what has been (X). Since the concept of Progressive is to change X, allegedly for the better, the issue of how much change before it isn’t X anymore is a legitimate question. Asking how much of X Conservatives want to hold onto before it isn’t X anymore is nonsense. So switching my claim around doesn’t work like you think.

[@BoylenInk]

@@thejabberwocky2819 My claim isn’t a fallacy. Just as there are fat people who claim to be slim (there are literally hundreds of examples of people claiming to be something they are not), so too there are non-Christians who claim to be Christian.

[@thejabberwocky2819]

@@BoylenInk Chapter and verse of the bible which declares that a progressive Christian is not a Christian. Cue crickets and proof of the fallacy.

[@awws0me809]

Go on and adopt those abandoned severely handicapped children first and take care of them for the rest of your lives. Then come and preach about abortion being wrong in every case. Only then.

[@thesisypheanjournal1271]

There are waiting lists of people wanting to adopt babies with disabilities.

[@dancotandi9145]

Every thing is in chaine.If you promote abortion then you raise self-absorbed agoistic haracterless women and man.Culture has to be transformed throught installation real life value but not pleasure , power driven society.

[@jamiemcvay130]

We don’t kill people because they are disabled.

[@justinverwoerd3705]

Christians have been doing that since forever

[@sarahpfeuffer1396]

Special needs children are a blessing from God. I'm a mother of a special needs boy and I also hope to be a foster care Mom one day. Children are a blessing, not a curse

[@paulan7218]

in my mind you gave consent when you had sex. sex is for procreation that is its primary function

[@thejabberwocky2819]

Thankfully people with functioning brains disagree. Consent can't be forced on someone by prior choices. Consent is continuous and can be revoked anytime. Sex's primary functiin for humans is pleasure. The vast majority of sex does not result in reproduction

[@HHHHammer]

⁠I mean if it hasn’t even developed a brain it matters less than a animal at that point dark truth

[@AndrewMarinelli]

@@thejabberwocky2819Would you claim that said consent can be revoked one month after birth? One day? One minute? Consent is one thing; consequences and results (positive or negative) and responsibilities are another. I'll pass on insulting your brain function and simply state what we both (and all) know already: that sex comes with the possibility of pregnancy. (BTW: married/still married for 13 years, one child, no abortions. Yes, it's not just about procreation.)

[@thejabberwocky2819]

@@AndrewMarinelli 1. After the child is born, there is no longer an issue of consent to remain pregnant. So way to completely bungle my point. 2. Consent to be a parent CAN be revoked after birth...its called adoption. 3. Consent is one thing you don't seem to understand, because consent to an action with risks is never consent to unmitigated consequences of said risk. This is like saying car accident victims should be denied medical treatment (they consented to drive, didn't they?) 4. Sex comes with a VERY low possibility of pregnancy 5. Having sex should not remove someone's right to their own body, a right which everyone but pregnant women enjoy uninterrupted. I seriously hope for your partners sake you understand consent better than what you've portrayed here.

[@jskyler7]

That’s in your mind, not in reality.

[@Maxsumms]

Of course there is because babies go to heaven , so on that logic i wish i was aborted then i wouldnt be here in this crap life now 😮😮😮

[@MrSeedi76]

The argument by William Lane Craig, one of the most famous Christian apologists, to justify the genocide of the canaanites was that the children who were killed, go directly to heaven. Not that this idea can be found anywhere in the Bible but still...

[@TrishAdams-rq4ew]

Ive said the same thing many times. Ive attempted to take myself out twice and failed. Only now 30yrs later am i starting to understand why. May God bless, comfort and encourage you.

[@sidali2590]

It's not disturbing abortion is healthcare

[@drrightlife]

In the case of the fetus in Elizabeth's womb, who became John Baptist, the Greek say the fetus moved in the womb BECAUSE OF HEARING MARY'S VOICE. This is the common medical effect known as the "Moro Response" and DOES NOT IMPLY THE FETUS BEING A PERSON. The movement was caused by Elozabeth hearing Mary's voice, NOT BY THE FETUS AS BEING A PERSON.

[@MommaBeeb]

I don’t understand the personhood argument. The living being in question is undoubtedly of the human species. There are many historical situations where humans have placed other humans into groups that make them non-persons: the Nazi genocide, American chattel slavery, etc. Currently, abortion advocates use personhood arguments to group humans yet to be born into a group of non-persons that have no value. But they are humans, and therefore they have value. Human lives have value, if they didn’t, why do we have laws against killing/murder?

[@dco8886]

Value comes from being a human not just a person, which is a very philosophical and subjective definition. Go take a nap.