Can a Christian Support Abortion?

I don’t understand why you only reference one Christian who is pro-choice when there are many more in the world. This article is more of a personal attack on KushieIsMoon than it is valid argument. I don’t think Jesus Christ would approve of such an act of vengeance. Of course, living in a country founded on secular ideals, it’s irrelevant what any deity would think about abortion.

There are many things about this post with which I take issue. I won’t touch on all of them, but here’s a start:

it is possible to be Christian and pro-choice. The idea that you would put “Christian” in quotations when also saying “abortion supporters” is offensive. My salvation is not based on my pro-choice beliefs or on ANY of my actions.

To also put to question Kushielsmoon’s salvation because she hasn’t met YOUR criteria of a how/when a Christian should be saved is completely arrogant. Christianity is not a formula. You and I are on completely different ends of the spectrum, but I’m not questioning your salvation. That’s not my job.

Pro-choice means exactly what it says: I support CHOICE. If a woman becomes pregnant and keeps the baby, I support that. If the woman has an abortion, I support her there, too. Our job is not to point fingers and cast stones and hurl insults and quote Bible verses to “prove” that she’s murdering her unborn child. Our job is to love. To have compassion for a woman who has made a choice.

LOVE is more powerful than hate. Compassion and forgiveness are more powerful than condemnation.

@Bri and @KushielsMoon – What does “Christian” really mean then? We are using the same word with at least two different meanings, I think. You appear to be using “Christian” to refer to something similar to a nationality or way you were “brought up” or set of principles. True Christianity certainly contains a set of principles, but the principles without salvation and entry of the Holy Spirit are merely outward and not inward. I believe @yeager is trying to distinguish between a title and the true act of salvation through belief in Jesus Christ and receiving the Holy Spirit. I think we’ll all agree here. But the important part is what’s next: he’s also rightly assuming that upon receiving that salvation we, as true Christians who have not strayed, would continue to work toward being of “like-mind” with God and search out His truths (John 17:20-26, Phil 2:1-2, others). Doers, not just hearers (James 1:22-25). Anyone can hear…those abandoned to Christ live what they hear. This is where we start to diverge because the Bible, when taken in its entirety, clearly convicts abortion as sin, even more convincingly when you acknowledge a pre-born baby as a human already. Hold up, we’ve all sinned and strayed, though…yes, but there is a difference in sin and a lifestyle of sin. And a greater difference still in a bad choice and choosing to lead others to that choice, purposefully and blatantly rejecting God’s Word. Even still, there is no judgment from me—God alone sits on the judgment seat and we will be judged at the conclusion of our lives. If we were judged at our worst moment, when we were most separated from God through sin, then we’d all go to Hell. Fortunately, by God’s grace, love, and mercy alone, everyone still living that has yet to accept Christ—they are still alive and can be immediately be forgiven upon one decision. This is a key difference between judgment and discernment. We are called to discern, certainly, but not called to judge. Matt 10:16 – “I am sending you out like sheep among wolves. Therefore be as shrewd as snakes and as innocent as doves.” In Matt 7:1-6, Jesus calls us to discern “dogs” and “swine,” yet “not judge, lest you be judged.” Therefore, there is a difference in discernment and judgment. My goal here is discernment, and I believe @yeager’s is as well. This is the heart of the use of the word “Christian” in quotations, to acknowledge that just because we say we’re something doesn’t mean we are. “I’m a millionare!” Actually, no, I’m not. The Bible even says “not everyone who says, Lord, Lord, will enter the kingdom of Heaven.” (Matt 7:21) He instead says to “build our house upon the rock,” as a direct analogy of those who keep his commandments. (Matt 7:24-27, Luke 7:47-49). Before I offend anyone, I am not calling you “dogs” and “swine,” for I would hate to be the following: “You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye.” (Luke 7:42)

As for self-sacrificial love: So self-sacrificing that we sacrifice the baby? Where did our faith in God go? Since when was it noble to kill one man so another could eat? Did Jesus not feed the 5000 from just 5 loaves of bread and 2 fish? Furthermore, let’s play “devil’s advocate” and for argument’s sake, take your point of view: That the baby was spared a terrible life by being aborted instead of born into a family that could not provide. You mentioned a lack of food, distraction such as school, etc. So what about the baby born to a mother who is well off, with say, 3 children? Then suddenly her income is cut…and she’s also going back to school…and the baby has AIDS…and is deformed…and mentally disabled…and any other slight you can pile on to a single human being? This child, maybe he/she is 1 day old…can you kill it in love and it not be murder? Yes? Hmmm…ok, still playing devil’s advocate…what if the child was 1 year old? What if 12? What about 18? How about 40? How about 65? (now we’re moving to the other end, senior citizens). If the question is quality of life, I can tell you that there are people of every single age in this world that have it as bad off or worse than that child born into the struggling, disease ridden family, that you claim justifies the abortion. Would it be loving to kill them? If so, then what law would stop it, since all we need is to say we’re doing it in love? And God knows our hearts, regardless of human laws, so if we can love a fetus by killing it, then what person is off limits if our love is so rash, short sighted, and faithless, as to want to kill them to do what we in our infinite wisdom deem as best? (sorry, that was sarcastic) So where is the limit? Is it strictly because it’s a “helpless baby?” Well, that’s true for at least a couple years after birth. Or is it because the baby is unborn? Then something distinguishes between a born and unborn human? When we start distinguishing between humans because of something they cannot control…then we can justify anything, including genocide. Or is it because the life is so intertwined with the mother that the mother has a greater right to choose. The baby cannot choose, but the mom can, so she gets to choose? How about the 1 year old which cannot choose? There is no difference. So how do you actually define the line? This is a true question, and not rhetorical because I’m sure I’ve left out at least one conceivable scenario, and since you’ve obviously thought about this a little bit, I’d like to consider the possibilities that you have considered.

I find the following two consecutive paragraphs terribly contradictory: “Having an abortion when you want a child, but knowing that you wouldn’t be able to care for the child if you had one now- I’d call that more selfless than selfish. Having an abortion to make sure that you can feed the three children you already have- I’d say that’s love. A woman who aborts because she does not want to make a child suffer- that’s love.” “Abortion doesn’t eliminate the sanctity of human life. On the contrary, it reminds us of the sanctity of life- the woman’s life, her husband’s life, her childrens’ lives. Antichoicers so often forget that there is more than just the fetus, there is a woman and her family involved in this as well.”

Love is not self-seeking (1 Cor 13:5). So the argument that “there is more than just the fetus, there is a woman…involved in this as well” is selfish of the woman and not derived from love of her baby. If she did it out of true sacrificial love, then you could say simply “there is more than just the fetus, there is the rest of her family involved as well.” Then that could still be defined as a type of love, given that it is all selfless. The woman considering herself in the slightest makes it no longer purely love. We’re all convicted here, as I know if we’re honest, we do selfish things every day. But we’re talking about the pursuit of true love and trying to indicate that aborting a baby is in love? Then the second quoted paragraph above takes away from that point. Which is it? Is the mother to be considered, or did she do it out of love? If it’s out of love, then the aforementioned argument about where to draw the line is very valid. If it is out of consideration of the mother, then it is not selfless and does not fit the Biblical definition of true love…so love has nothing to do with it, as it is mother looking after herself at expense of another.

Of course, if we decide that a pre-born baby is not a human at all, then that is an entirely different conversation. The above arguments are for those that rightly consider a pre-born baby to be human, but have failed to search out the scriptures with an open heart and discern the Holy Spirit and instead consider killing a human baby “Christian.” The relationship with God through the Holy Spirit and salvation of Jesus Christ is what we mean by “real Christian.” We’ll all get it wrong for a time, but we must love God in a way that we continue to search out his truths. If we can agree to that, in all honesty that we only know inside ourselves, then we may be moving in the same direction. I hope these posts from all parties help us each to do that–I really and truly and passionately mean that.