Jump to content

The Protestant Community

Are you Protestant? Or, are you sincerely inquiring about the Protestant faith? Welcome to Christforums the Christian Protestant community. You'll need to register in order to post your comments on your favorite topics and subjects. Register in less than a minute, it is simple, fast, and free! We hope you enjoy your fellowship here! God bless, Christforums' Staff
Register now

Fenced Community

Christforums is a Protestant Christian forum, open to Bible- believing Christians such as Presbyterians, Lutherans, Reformed, Baptists, Church of Christ members, Pentecostals, Anglicans. Methodists, Charismatics, or any other conservative, Nicene- derived Christian Church. We do not solicit cultists of any kind, including Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, Eastern Lightning, Falun Gong, Unification Church, Aum Shinrikyo, Christian Scientists or any other non- Nicene, non- Biblical heresy.
Register now

Christforums

.... an orthodox Protestant forum whose members espouse the Apostolic doctrines in the Biblical theologies set forth by Augustine, Martin Luther, Ulrich Zwingli, John Calvin and John Knox etc. We do not "argue" with nor do we solicit the membership of people who espouse secular or cultic ideologies. We believe that our conversations are to be faith building and posts that advance heretical or apostate thinking will be immediately deleted and the poster permanently banned from the forum. This is a Christian community for people to explore the traditional theologies of Classical Protestantism. Those who would challenge the peace and harmony that we enjoy here as fellow believers are directed to another forum.

Enjoy your fellowship

In order to understand the importance of Christian fellowship, we must first understand what Christian fellowship is and what it isn’t. The Greek words translated “fellowship” in the New Testament mean essentially a partnership to the mutual benefit of those involved. Christian fellowship, then, is the mutually beneficial relationship between Christians, who can’t have the identical relationship with those outside the faith. Those who believe the gospel are united in the Spirit through Christ to the Father, and that unity is the basis of fellowship. This relationship is described by Jesus in His high-priestly prayer for His followers in John 17:23. The importance of true Christian fellowship is that it reinforces Christ centeredness in our mind and helps us to focus on Christ and His desires and goals for us. As iron sharpens iron, in true Christian fellowship Christians sharpen one another's faith and stir one another to exercise that faith in love and good works, all to God’s glory.
Sign in to follow this  
theophilus

Abortion is not a constitutional right

Recommended Posts

Since the Roe v. Wade decision abortion has been considered by most to be the law of the land and a constitutional right. Here is some information about the decision that most people are unaware of.

 

Working from what the Supreme Court ruled in Roe, pro-life lawmakers can pass a Life at Conception Act and end abortion by using the Constitution instead of amending it.

 

A simple majority vote in both houses of Congress is all that is needed to pass a Life at Conception Act as opposed to the two-thirds required to add a Constitutional amendment.

 

When the Supreme Court handed down its now-infamous Roe v. Wade decision, it did so based on a new, previously undefined "right of privacy" which it "discovered" in so-called "emanations" of "penumbrae" of the Constitution.

 

Of course, as constitutional law it was a disaster. But never once did the Supreme Court declare abortion itself to be a Constitutional right.

 

Instead the Supreme Court said:

 

"We need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins . . . the judiciary at this point in the development of man's knowledge, is not in a position to speculate as to the answer."[/size][/font]

 

Then the High Court made a key admission:

 

"If this suggestion of personhood is established, the appellant's case [i.e. "Roe" who sought the abortion], of course, collapses, for the fetus' right to life is then guaranteed specifically by the [14th] Amendment."

 

That's exactly what a Life at Conception Act would do.

 

A Life at Conception Act changes the focus of the abortion debate. It takes the Supreme Court out of the equation and places responsibility squarely on the shoulders of the elected representatives who, unlike life term judges, must respond to grass-roots pressure.

 

http://prolifealliance.com/end_roeVwade.html

 

he decision can be overturned by enacting a law that defines life as beginning at conception

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And the Supreme Court cannot legislate from the bench; that is up to legislators. They did not, to my knowledge legislate this as law. We have been allowing abortions simply on the premise that there is no law to stop it, not that their is a law to protect abortion. Later, the government acted to protect abortionists, but with no legal right to do so, but there is no legal right to stop it yet. This is an instance where God's law prevails over man's. Those who break it shall be judged by God, if not by man.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The US Constitution explicitly gives Congress authority over the Supreme Court. But, who cares what the Constitution says. :(

 

Not only is there is there a "right" for a mother to kill her pre-born baby, but apparently there's a "right" to force you and me to subsidize abortion through the Affordable Care Act, Planned Parenthood Funding, and IRS tax breaks.

 

I just watched an episode of Sons of Anarchy. In the episode, a man's young baby, from a ended relationship, is kidnapped. He travels halfway around the world and battles a mob to get his baby back. At the same time, his new girlfriend makes an appointment to abort his baby (of course, she doesn't follow through. Abortion "rights" are always championed on TV but these same women always choose to keep their babies). It's amazing how Liberals can show a man to be heroic for the lengths he'll go to to save a born baby, while a pre-born baby is just something to throw away.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think as long as the baby is still in your body the baby is a part of your body and if you want to lop it off prematurely you should have the right to do so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think as long as the baby is still in your body the baby is a part of your body and if you want to lop it off prematurely you should have the right to do so.

 

If the baby is part of your body, how come men have to pay child support after it comes out of your body? If you cut off your finger, does it suddenly become someone else's finger?

 

How come Liberals think that the moment a woman's baby is born that the State has a right to take it away, or at least heavily regulate how it's raised? How is it a woman goes from absolute rights to practically no rights, just by a little change in relative location of her child?

 

Abortion is the killing of a human being. It is murder. If you can say it's okay to kill a human being in your body, why doesn't a man have a right to kill a human being in his house? Is a house not private enough? Is privacy a factor on whether something is murder? How about if the house is in a remote location?

 

Is abortion okay because babies are dumb and helpless? Should killing handicapped people be less of a crime? "But, Judge Sir, Your Honor, my victim had a low IQ and a bad leg, shouldn't I get a reduced sentence... ahem, and he was in my house?"

 

If abortion is no one else's business, why do Liberals want to force other people to pay for abortion, and even to supply abortion?

 

I bet allegations of "unjust killing" is something you hold against against believing all the Bible.

 

 

 

 

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

If the baby is part of your body, how come men have to pay child support after it comes out of your body? If you cut off your finger, does it suddenly become someone else's finger?

 

How come Liberals think that the moment a woman's baby is born that the State has a right to take it away, or at least heavily regulate how it's raised? How is it a woman goes from absolute rights to practically no rights, just by a little change in relative location of her child?

 

Abortion is the killing of a human being. It is murder. If you can say it's okay to kill a human being in your body, why doesn't a man have a right to kill a human being in his house? Is a house not private enough? Is privacy a factor on whether something is murder? How about if the house is in a remote location?

 

Is abortion okay because babies are dumb and helpless? Should killing handicapped people be less of a crime? "But, Judge Sir, Your Honor, my victim had a low IQ and a bad leg, shouldn't I get a reduced sentence... ahem, and he was in my house?"

 

If abortion is no one else's business, why do Liberals want to force other people to pay for abortion, and even to supply abortion?

 

I bet allegations of "unjust killing" is something you hold against against believing all the Bible.

 

 

 

 

 

 

I think of the unborn baby as sort of a part of your body and a parasite at the same time. So I think the mother should be able to choose whether or not if she wants to keep that baby to term or abort it. As for some of the other stuff you mentioned. Well I don't think its right that other people should have to pay for someone else's abortion. You made the choice to abort not them. I also don't think its right that a man should pay child support unless he wanted that baby to be born. If it was his body he may have made the other choice of having the baby aborted. So why should he have to pay for a baby he didn't want just because she made a different choice then he would have? As for the handicapped people thing. Well it depends really. If they are so bad that they can't move and can only lay in bed doing nothing all day then it maybe more merciful to offer them death as an option. I know if I was paralyzed from the neck down and couldn't do anything without someone else's help and had to get my diaper changed a few times a day I'd want someone to put me down.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think of the unborn baby as sort of a part of your body and a parasite at the same time.

 

 

That's a contradiction.

 

Well I don't think its right that other people should have to pay for someone else's abortion.

 

Most "pro-choicers" want to force others to pay for abortions, which is now required by ACA (Obamacare) of all insurance companies, even private insurance companies that don't serve the general public. And, right now, the ACLU is suing Catholic hospitals to try to force them to provide abortions. And, of course, men are forced to pay child support for children they never wanted. There's nothing pro-choice about pro-abortion Feminists. To Feminists, abortion is a satanic sacrament, child sacrifice, that they are obsessed with, not simply an option they want to keep legal for women.

 

 

 

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If they are so bad that they can't move and can only lay in bed doing nothing all day then it maybe more merciful to offer them death as an option. I know if I was paralyzed from the neck down and couldn't do anything without someone else's help and had to get my diaper changed a few times a day I'd want someone to put me down.

Have you ever heard of Joni Eareckson Tada? When she was a teenager she broke her neck diving in shallow water and she has been paralyzed from the neck down since then. In spite of her disability she has found ways to serve God. Here is a link to her website:

 

http://www.joniandfriends.org/

 

I suggest that you visit the site and read about some of the things she is doing and see if you still think a person who is completely paralyzed would be better off dead.

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Most "pro-choicers" want to force others to pay for abortions, which is now required by ACA (Obamacare) of all insurance companies, even private insurance companies that don't serve the general public. And, right now, the ACLU is suing Catholic hospitals to try to force them to provide abortions.

 

A lot of abortions are needed due to health reasons. I know personally a handful of people that have had to take the route of abortion, otherwise they pose a significant health risk to themselves, the baby is heavily ill with a low mortality rate at birth, or both. Abortions can sometimes be necessary, and that is when it is perfectly and entirely appropriate for a healthcare system to pay for the procedure. I'm absolutely positive God respects our decisions, and trusts us to make the right choice. Abortion has become a part of our world, and has been practiced in many very unsafe ways for most of history. The are many things that might break God's heart but He loves each and every one of us and He knows exactly what our futures are. Perhaps every abortion is as well planned for as anything else He does, who are we to say? Perhaps there was never a baby to be born, and the abortion is a part of our lives and how we grow? Many people have very viable reasons to abort a child, and I believe that if they make a decision, whatever grounds that decision is based on, God is with them, supports them and loves them. If a baby was meant to be born, that baby would be born.

 

And, of course, men are forced to pay child support for children they never wanted.

 

This is a contradicting statement. Are you saying that women must carry until term and support a child regardless of her wishes, yet a man can opt out whenever he sees fit?

 

There's nothing pro-choice about pro-abortion Feminists. To Feminists, abortion is a satanic sacrament, child sacrifice, that they are obsessed with, not simply an option they want to keep legal for women.

 

I have no idea where you're getting these ideas from. I identify as a feminist-- being a person that believes in equal rights (whether or not you agree with the name 'feminism' does not discredit the movement itself, fyi). There is no 'obsession' with abortion, there is a need to keep women safe, and grant them what they have been repeatedly denied throughout all of history. Being pro-choice doesn't encourage abortions, it just doesn't condemn them. It's right there in the title, 'choice'. 'Child sacrifice'??? What articles have you been reading? What part of the Bible have you misinterpreted? Not only is that ridiculous, but it's extremely insulting to millions of people.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

A lot of abortions are needed due to health reasons. I know personally a handful of people that have had to take the route of abortion, otherwise they pose a significant health risk to themselves, the baby is heavily ill with a low mortality rate at birth, or both. Abortions can sometimes be necessary, and that is when it is perfectly and entirely appropriate for a healthcare system to pay for the procedure. I'm absolutely positive God respects our decisions, and trusts us to make the right choice. Abortion has become a part of our world, and has been practiced in many very unsafe ways for most of history. The are many things that might break God's heart but He loves each and every one of us and He knows exactly what our futures are. Perhaps every abortion is as well planned for as anything else He does, who are we to say? Perhaps there was never a baby to be born, and the abortion is a part of our lives and how we grow? Many people have very viable reasons to abort a child, and I believe that if they make a decision, whatever grounds that decision is based on, God is with them, supports them and loves them. If a baby was meant to be born, that baby would be born.

 

 

 

This is a contradicting statement. Are you saying that women must carry until term and support a child regardless of her wishes, yet a man can opt out whenever he sees fit?

 

 

 

I have no idea where you're getting these ideas from. I identify as a feminist-- being a person that believes in equal rights (whether or not you agree with the name 'feminism' does not discredit the movement itself, fyi). There is no 'obsession' with abortion, there is a need to keep women safe, and grant them what they have been repeatedly denied throughout all of history. Being pro-choice doesn't encourage abortions, it just doesn't condemn them. It's right there in the title, 'choice'. 'Child sacrifice'??? What articles have you been reading? What part of the Bible have you misinterpreted? Not only is that ridiculous, but it's extremely insulting to millions of people.

 

Lets put this into perspective. Less than 3% of abortions are for health reasons involving the mother - the actual stat is 2.8%. And less than 3% are for reasons concerning possible health problems of the baby.

 

All abortion ends in the murder of innocent life. Please share with us Scripture stating that God respects the decisions of abortionist, and trusts them or anyone to make the right choice. Can you honestly provide any Scriptural basis for taking the life of the innocent?

 

Lastly, you stated that you're an advocate for equal rights, that's something that means a lot to you I presume. Do you feel compelled to argue for the father of a child that wants to have an abortion against the wishes of the mother? Do you argue for the right to life for the child, whether a boy or a girl?

 

If a baby was meant to be born, that baby would be born.

 

Sounds like a game of Russian Roulette played with the lives of others. One could argue that mankind was meant to live, but sin entered into the world. Do you think that sin can be the deciding factor when deciding to have an abortion?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Less than 3% of abortions are for health reasons involving the mother - the actual stat is 2.8%. And less than 3% are for reasons concerning possible health problems of the baby.

 

I said 'a lot'. 3% is still a lot in numbers. I did not say most. And there are millions of women with health issues that choose to terminate a pregnancy because of the health risks it may pose, that aren't statistically shown. For example, PCOS (polycystic ovarian syndrome) is an illness which a whole of of women have, and a lot of the time it goes undiagnosed. This not only increases infertility and extremely painful menstruation, but if a woman with PCOS has an unplanned pregnancy and feels comfortable in the fact that her PCOS could impact both her body and the feotus', it's her right to terminate early before any damage is done.

 

All abortion ends in the murder of innocent life. Please share with us Scripture stating that God respects the decisions of abortionist, and trusts us to make the right choice. Can you honestly provide any Scriptural basis for taking the life of the innocent?

 

There is a lot of examples of abortion in the bible.

 

Yea, though they bring forth, yet will I slay even the beloved fruit of their womb. -- Hosea 9:16

 

If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman's husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine. And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life. -- Exodus 21:22-23

 

In particular the last quote -- this shows that abortion is not equated to murder. He shall be punished, but it is not considered murder. There are plenty other Bible passages that support this as well.

 

Lastly, you stated that you're an advocate for equal rights, that's something that means a lot to you I presume. Do you feel compelled to argue for the father of a child that wants to have an abortion against the wishes of the mother? Do you argue for the right to life for the child, whether a boy or a girl?

 

If the father of the child does not want a woman to carry to term, then of course, his wishes should definitely be taken into consideration. However, ultimately, it is the woman's body and life that will be affected the most. This is a good article on this subject https://feminismonline.wordpress.com...bortion-issue/

 

The sex of the child is not important in any stretch of the imagination. However, the child is ... well, not a child yet. For a nice chunk of time in the pregnancy, the foetus is still a clump of cells developing through the natural progression of life. The foetus has no ability to give consent in any way, shape or form. This is because the foetus is not alive. Even the bible supports, in several places, that life begins with breath. There are several passages that say.

 

"Behold, I will cause breath to enter you, and you shall live." (Ezekiel 37:5)

"...breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and man became a living being." (Genesis 2:27)

 

Additionally, this passage makes it clear that no one can determine what is going on inside of the womb except God, so no one should question His will, which may be the act of abortion:

 

"As you do not know how the spirit comes to the bones in the womb of a woman with child, so you do not know the work of God who makes everything.” (Ecclesiastes 11:5)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yea, though they bring forth, yet will I slay even the beloved fruit of their womb. -- Hosea 9:16

 

An interesting use of Scripture. God's wrath and punishment is being equated to equal rights for women to perform an abortion.

 

If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman's husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine. And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life. -- Exodus 21:22-23

 

Exodus 21:22-23 say if men strive, and hurt a woman with child. The intent here was not to deliberately cause an abortion or murder the child. And no matter how you cut it, the Scripture condemns one party as guilty even without intent which would not be murder which involves intent.

 

"Behold, I will cause breath to enter you, and you shall live." (Ezekiel 37:5)

"...breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and man became a living being." (Genesis 2:27)

 

Ezekiel 37:5 and Genesis 2:7. The allusion to the first man Adam that was not born of the womb, God breathed life into him, and from Ezekiel which speaks of Rebirth from the Holy Spirit sent by God Ezekiel 36:25-27.

 

"As you do not know how the spirit comes to the bones in the womb of a woman with child, so you do not know the work of God who makes everything.” (Ecclesiastes 11:5)

 

We do know the way of the Spirit, of the wind, we do not know from which it comes, or whether it goes. Sound familiar? This Scripture is about the mystery of life indeed. Your comment, "this passage makes it clear that no one can determine what is going on inside of the womb except God" equates to a demolition team that does not check or know whether anyone is in a building before blowing it up. If you do not know, should you gamble with the life of the baby?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
There is a lot of examples of abortion in the bible.

 

Yea, though they bring forth, yet will I slay even the beloved fruit of their womb. -- Hosea 9:16

 

If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman's husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine. And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life. -- Exodus 21:22-23

 

In particular the last quote -- this shows that abortion is not equated to murder. He shall be punished, but it is not considered murder. There are plenty other Bible passages that support this as well.

Neither of these passage has anything to do with abortion.

 

(V. 22) "If men strive, and hurt a woman with child,"" - The context of the verse is hypothetical. In this case there is no intent to harm the woman or child. This would be a case of accidentally hitting a woman. Given the context this is a case of either a premature live birth or a miscarriage but certainly not an abortion.

 

so that her fruit depart from her," - Literally the Hebrew states "her children come out." Here the Hebrew reflects a birth and not the loss of children.

 

"and yet no mischief follow:" - The KJV translates the Hebrew noun אָסוֹן as "mischief." The noun אָסוֹן means "harm." However in this case the incident was accidental and no harm came to either the woman or the child.

 

"he shall be surely punished, according as the woman’s husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine." - Since there was no real harm, compensation for injuries are to be made and this is to be determined by the woman’s husband and a judge.

 

(V. 23) "And if any mischief follow," - Now we come to the section which deals with hypothetical situation if harm did come to the woman or the baby. There are two hypothetical situations: (1) if no harm comes, or (2) if there is harm. No harm equals compensation but if there is harm that is a different matter.

 

"then thou shalt give life for life, Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, Burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe." - Thus if harm does come to the woman or baby, then the principle of lex talionis apply. Thus it would be a case of life for life if either the mother, child, or both died.

Edited by Origen
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hosea 9:16 is part of what is commonly referred to as a "woe oracle" (v. 12). The reason for the cruse is given in v. 10. They came to Baal-peor.

 

Ephraim is stricken their root is dried up; they shall bear no fruit.

Even though they give birth, I will put their beloved children to death.

 

Note that the text states "Even though they give birth." It is the same Hebrew verb used in Exodus 21:22-23. Clearly they give birth. Giving birth is not an abortion. The death will would occur only after the birth and this made clear by the future tense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are no Scriptures supporting abortion. What pains me was the use of Hosea 9:16. The actions of God are being used to empower women to take the life of unborn babies. God and women are being equated by the use of that text. And the argument further makes my head slam against the keyboard to suggest that God supports abortion, and respects that decision by fallen mankind.

 

Your commentary on Exodus 21:22-23, Origen is spot on. The Lex Talionis states that punishment should be limited and not exceed the crime. If a woman has a premature birth and the baby is fine there still is recompense for the harm inflicted to cause such a thing. If injury is sustained by the child, then retributive justice is called for an eye for an eye, tooth for tooth, life for life. The unborn child is with rights.

 

Both of these Scriptures should be handed over to the side of Pro-Life in defense of children.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Under Calvinism and monergism, is it even possible to abort one of the elect (which suggest incomplete Soverignty on God's part) or are all abortions simply hastening the damned to their fate?

 

[it starts to poke at the philosophical sore spot that I have with Monergism.]

 

For the record, this does not make abortion 'right', it just questions where it should be placed in the long list of things that I am called to be 'morally outraged' over.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Under Calvinism and monergism, is it even possible to abort one of the elect (which suggest incomplete Soverignty on God's part) or are all abortions simply hastening the damned to their fate?

 

Hi atpollard

 

That's like making the argument that no elect will ever face tribulations or die horrible suffering death. So much for any martyr. I will take it one step further and say that an Elect may even perform an abortion before Regeneration (Moses and Saul/Paul murdered). Regeneration will however enable one to faith and repentance by the Holy Spirit. But on the topic of Infants, Jeremiah was told that he was known by God before being formed in the womb Jeremiah 1:5. Paul speaks of God knowing the Elect before the foundation of the world Ephesians 1:4. The Elect are the Elect even before being conceived in the womb. The Westminster Confession of Faith has it:

 

III. Elect infants, dying in infancy, are regenerated, and saved by Christ, through the Spirit,[12] who works when, and where, and how He pleases:[13] so also are all other elect persons who are incapable of being outwardly called by the ministry of the Word.[14]

 

[12] Luke 18:15 And they brought unto him also infants, that he would touch them: but when his disciples saw it, they rebuked them. 16 But Jesus called them unto him, and said, Suffer little children to come unto me, and forbid them not: for of such is the kingdom of God. Acts 2:38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. 39 For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call. John 3:3 Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God. 5 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. 1 John 5:12 He that hath the Son hath life; and he that hath not the Son of God hath not life. Romans 8:9 But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.

 

[13] John 3:8 The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit.

 

[14] 1 John 5:12 He that hath the Son hath life; and he that hath not the Son of God hath not life. Acts 4:12 Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.

 

The only reason I can think that someone would argue against elect infants dying prematurely is to suggest that they must receive an outward call or conversion as additional requirements to the atonement. If that is the case, then no elect are affected by learning impairments as some actually argue on this point (Perfectionism). I do not believe that this is the case. There is a difference between primary and secondary causes (God cannot be the cause), and predestination and foreordination (God does not directly cause, but allows it). Just because a sinful act happens to an Elect member by a non repentant non elect member doesn't mean that God orchestrated the sin or imputed sin into the non elect. The vessel of wrath may be hardened to sin but he is not imputed with Sin as if God is the author of Sin. This again as in our previous discussions is touching on Predestination (single act in the positive) vs Double Predestination (double act in the negative).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When people love their sinful lifestyles and hate Christ and His commands what can we really expect, nothing is sacred anymore even life, George Washington said " there can be no national morality apart from religious principles"

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
When people love their sinful lifestyles and hate Christ and His commands what can we really expect, nothing is sacred anymore even life, George Washington said " there can be no national morality apart from religious principles"

 

The real booger though is when someone professes to be Christian and condones, defends, and argues for these sinful acts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hi atpollard

 

The only reason I can think that someone would argue against elect infants dying prematurely is to suggest that they must receive an outward call or conversion as additional requirements to the atonement.

Greetings William,

 

Then let me offer another reason. I had Ephesians 2:10 in mind "For we are God's handiwork, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do.". If Eph 2:10 is true (and I am strongly persuaded that it is), then the unborn is at a disadvantage in opportunities to do those good works which God has prepared. This doesn't mean that an elect can't die young, God has a long tradition of doing as he pleases without asking for my input. It just suggests that the question should be asked.

 

In the bigger issue we have lightly touched. I do understand and I have strong concerns. Two things hold me back from pursuing that particular discussion further: first it will be a lot of effort for a small amount of theoretical gain, and second, I am not sure that heading that direction will lead to building up rather than tearing down. So for now, I am going to 'go slow' when approaching Monergism. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some of the opinions in this thread break my heart. You see, I became a mother at a very young age but I never regretted it. Did getting an abortion ever cross my mind? No! The moment I knew I was pregnant, I was scared but I knew that getting an abortion is never an option for me. I just graduated from school back then, have no work and the same goes for my husband. However, here we are now, struggling but still very happy. And I don't think my life will ever be the same without my son. He was a blessing and he still is a blessing. One that we would never ever regret having!

 

So for me, I am entirely against induced abortions. I can understand a few reasons, maybe rape or for health reasons. However, as much as possible, I think all pregnancies should be given a chance to develop. I know some mothers even prefer it more if their baby would be saved instead of them, in cases of accidents or health reasons. And that's very admirable... That's just love and care that they have for their baby.

 

Abortion is and would never be a right. It should not even be an option especially for two consenting adults who became intimate. Why? Because both are capable of thinking for themselves. A foetus or a baby doesn't even have that option. And for us to take away their life just because we're more powerful than them, that's shameful.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×