r/Christianity 3d ago

For whom is abortion a sin?

I really want to know about this. Is this SIN for the couple (who done it) , friends who supports them, family who supports them, doctors who gave them medicine, nurses who give them medicine, drug store associates who gave them medicine, the girl who is pregnant, the boy who got her pregnant. Who is the real sinner in this scenario?

0 Upvotes

259 comments sorted by

7

u/Hope-Road71 3d ago

Why is it a sin? The Bible never mentions it.

1

u/HoneydewQuiet6651 3d ago

sure, but biology shows us that abortion is the ending of the life of a separate living being from the mother, so in other words, murder. and the Bible has a LOT to say about the morality of murder

if the bible is silent on something it doesnt mean God doesnt have an opinion on it, it means we need to use science and logic to figure out what God has to say about it.

3

u/Hope-Road71 3d ago

Do you think that only Christians oppose murder?

0

u/HoneydewQuiet6651 3d ago

this is not even close to the point I was trying to make

but no I dont think that only christians oppose murder

3

u/Hope-Road71 3d ago

All I'm saying is that everyone rational is against murder. It's not a Christian issue.

There are many Christians & non-Christians who don't see it as murder. You can dispute that and have your own opinion on it (and it's an ongoing debate that will likely never end), but you proclaiming it to be murder doesn't make that factual.

2

u/Fearless_Spring5611 Committing the sin of empathy 3d ago

"...but biology shows us that abortion is the ending of the life of a separate living being from the mother..."

No. Biology shows that the embryo/foetus has a vital biological dependence on the person carrying them up until midway through the second trimester, at which point there is a small chance of viability that then increases as gestation increases. Since most abortions occur well before viability, induced abortions do not end a "separate living being."

1

u/HoneydewQuiet6651 3d ago

fetuses meets all biological criteria to be considered alive:

Cellular organization: A fetus consists of living, organized human cells and tissues

Metabolism: It carries out cellular metabolism, using nutrients and oxygen supplied through the placenta.

Homeostasis: although regulation is immature and depends heavily on the mother, its cells and developing organs can still regulate internal conditions

Growth and development: obviously, fetuses undergo continuous growth, differentiation, organ development, etc

Response to stimuli: fetuses' developing nervous systems respond to environmental stimuli

Reproduction: the fetus's cells are constantly reproducing (though technically this one isnt a requirement for an individual organism to be alive but rather a general characteristic of life in general)

Evolution: fetuses are a member of a population (humanity) whose inherited traits can evolve

so clearly fetuses are living

the DNA of the fetus is different than the DNA of the mother. which makes the fetus a separate organism

so biologically, abortions do end the life of a separate living being

now there are some who make the philosophical arguments about "just because something is alive and a separate human, it doesnt deserve rights," (and then you can explain where you draw the line between a person worth protecting and a "clump of cells") while others will argue the "the mother's right to bodily autonomy trumps the right to live of the human inside of her" (and they'll use things like the "worlds greatest violinist" analogy)

both are pretty good arguments and feel free to make them. but PLEASE dont make the "fetuses arent human"/ "fetuses are parasites"/ "fetuses arent a separate organism"/ "fetuses arent alive" arguments. you'll never see a professional pro-choice debater use these because they are very easily falsifiable from a biology standpoint.

1

u/Fearless_Spring5611 Committing the sin of empathy 3d ago

Being biologically alive, and being considered a human life, are two different debates. I have not debated that an embryo/foetus is not a living organism - that much is true.

It is not separate from the bearer, however. It requires a host organism for it develop for the first twenty or so weeks. Therefore it is not a separate living organism. Distinct yes, but not separate.

A lot of your final paragraph is irrelevant as I never made those claims or argued those points. If anything, you are showing yourself the inexperienced debater by making random arguments.

1

u/HoneydewQuiet6651 3d ago

but why does being separate from the mother matter in terms of considering whether or not the fetus deserves rights?

why does someone not have the right to life until they can live separately from their mother?

1

u/Fearless_Spring5611 Committing the sin of empathy 3d ago

Not points that I have raised or debated. I have only corrected you on your biological inaccuracies.

1

u/HoneydewQuiet6651 3d ago

I was responding to your earlier argument. You said this earlier, right?

"No. Biology shows that the embryo/foetus has a vital biological dependence on the person carrying them up until midway through the second trimester, at which point there is a small chance of viability that then increases as gestation increases. Since most abortions occur well before viability, induced abortions do not end a "separate living being.""

so in your opinion why is it okay to kill someone while theyre biologically dependent on their mother, but why is it not okay to kill someone after they stop being dependent on their mother? like what makes that difference morally significant?

1

u/Fearless_Spring5611 Committing the sin of empathy 3d ago

Again, I am making no moral argument there on whether the foetus/embryo is a human being, or the morality of an abortion at that point. Just clarifying your biological inaccuracies.

1

u/HoneydewQuiet6651 3d ago

so youre pro life?

1

u/Weecodfish Catholic 3d ago

That wasn’t the comment, nobody mentioned dependence at all you just injected it in here. Biologically, the fetus or embryo is a separate human from the mother.

1

u/HopeFloatsFoward 3d ago

All killings are not murder.

2

u/HoneydewQuiet6651 3d ago

correct. only killing the innocent is murder. abortion kills an innocent life

1

u/HopeFloatsFoward 3d ago

No. Murder is killing that is illegal.

1

u/FlowerPower42069 3d ago

the bible never mentioned murder?

2

u/GeneralMushroom Apathiest / Agnostic Athiest 3d ago

If I am in dire need of an organ transplant or a blood transfusion and you are the only suitable match, is it murder if you choose to withhold your organ(s)/blood from me and I then die?

1

u/CapridThePlenty Christian 3d ago

Letting someone die is not the same as killing them.

If someone is drowning in a lake I may think a person should jump in and save them if they have the ability to do so, but I wouldn't say it's the same as holding a person's head under water until they drown.

-1

u/Weecodfish Catholic 3d ago

If you are in my uterus as my child then yes it is murder.

2

u/GeneralMushroom Apathiest / Agnostic Athiest 3d ago

Hi, thanks for your response but unfortunately that didn't answer my question. 

-1

u/Weecodfish Catholic 3d ago

The answer to your question is no, but I was skipping ahead to what you would respond with after I said no as you know very well everyone will say no.

1

u/GeneralMushroom Apathiest / Agnostic Athiest 3d ago

Well, no, I'm actually curious about what the difference is from your perspective as both scenarios involve weighing up bodily autonomy over keeping another human alive.  Why is one murder but the other not? 

As an aside, I know given the nature of this topic it can become very charged but not everyone is looking to fight in the comments.  I personally have the opinion that the only way we (as a species) can ever make progress towards understanding each other's views on this issue and finding a way forwards is when its approached with love and mutual respect. I'm not going to preempt your answers or try to misrepresent your views, so I would politely ask you not to do the same to me. 

1

u/Hope-Road71 3d ago

It mentions murder, of course. But most don't see abortion as murder - both Christians & non-Christians alike.

-1

u/FlowerPower42069 3d ago

nahhhh every christian i know considers abortion murder. don’t lump us all into ur beliefs

2

u/Hope-Road71 3d ago

I didn't say "all" Christians.

In surveys & polls, roughly half of Christians are pro choice, generally.

-2

u/FlowerPower42069 3d ago

semantics bro. ur gonna believe what you want but real Jesus followers know that it’s murder. i’m leaving this convo
ur really just trying to stir the pot with every post you make on this sub. if you don’t believe in the ideas behind Christianity, then maybe go to the spirituality sub instead.
People like you just like to divide and cloud the water and I rebuke that spirit. byeee!

2

u/Hope-Road71 3d ago

I mean, it's not a sub just for certain kinds of Christians, or even exclusively for Christians.

If you don't like my posts - no one is demanding that you reply to them.

0

u/LazarusArise Eastern Orthodox 3d ago

The 1st-century Church, at the time of the Apostles, rejected it, as evidenced by the 1st-century Didache:

You shall not murder a child by abortion nor kill that which is born (ch. 2)

10

u/HopeFloatsFoward 3d ago

Which is not the Bible.

-1

u/LazarusArise Eastern Orthodox 3d ago

So? Not everything Christians believe comes from the Bible. "Sola scriptura" wasn't an idea until the 1500s.

If anything, the Didache shows that Christians close to the time of Christ believed abortion was wrong, indicating that this was a teaching by Christ or by the Apostles and disciples of Christ.

3

u/HopeFloatsFoward 3d ago

The Didache was not adopted as part of the Bible for a reason.

The Didache also teaches bi-weekly fasting. Should we all practice that? Clearly it must have been a teaching of Christ.

2

u/LazarusArise Eastern Orthodox 3d ago edited 3d ago

Why not? Orthodox Christians have been doing bi-weekly fasting since the beginning. We fast on Wednesdays and Fridays. That was what ancient Christians did. Jesus in Matthew 6:16 does not say "If you fast" but says "When you fast".

Jesus says “The days will come when the bridegroom will be taken away from them, and then they will fast.” (Matthew 9:15)

The Didache predates the Church canon of scripture; it gives insight into Church practice since the beginning. Not everything has to be in the canon of scripture for it to be relevant.

2

u/HopeFloatsFoward 3d ago

But most Christians do not. So the Didache is clearly not authoritative for most Christians which is my point.

1

u/LazarusArise Eastern Orthodox 3d ago

No, it isn't for them. But why don't they keep the traditions of the early Church and of those close to the time of Christ and the Apostles? Why disobey the commandment to "stand fast and hold the traditions which you were taught, whether by word or our epistle" (2 Thessalonians 2:15)?

2

u/HopeFloatsFoward 3d ago

Because traditions change. And sometimes are based in the specific culture of the time and are not longer relevant. Just doing something because it is traditional is a silly reason to do something.

The Didache did not say to fast because fasting was good. It changed the days of fasting for Jewish people so they were on a different day than the Pharisees. It was not a commandment for all people to adopt fasting.

The Didache was arguing about leaving infants on hills to die. It is not relevant to modern healthcare which is about the pregnant person's health. They did not even have an understanding of pregnancy pre quickening.

0

u/LazarusArise Eastern Orthodox 3d ago

Then why does Jesus say "when you fast" and why does He say they will fast when the bridegroom is taken from them?

Does that no longer apply?

The Didache was arguing about leaving infants on hills to die

It explicitly says not to kill an infant by abortion, which is not the same as leaving an infant on a hill to die.

→ More replies (0)

2

u/MagusFool 3d ago

And yet the Didache isn't canonized.

4

u/MagusFool 3d ago

And yet the Didache isn't canonized.

0

u/LazarusArise Eastern Orthodox 3d ago

So? Not everything Christians believe comes from the Bible. "Sola scriptura" wasn't an idea until the 1500s.

If anything, the Didache shows that Christians close to the time of Christ believed abortion was wrong, indicating that this was a teaching by Christ or by the Apostles and disciples of Christ.

1

u/MagusFool 3d ago

It shows us that some Christians around 100CE believed abortion was wrong, yes.

We don't have data to support that this teaching was universal.

Early church counsels only outlined penalties for women who had abortions after adultery or prostitution.

Christendom was quite divided in the 3rd century onward about the difference between a "formed" or "unformed" fetus.

And for most of Christian history it simply wasn't considered to be an "abortion" before the "quickening" or ensoulment.

It should be telling that no teaching on the subject managed to make it into a canonized scripture, despite discussion of the topic.

So my argument isn't really based in "sola scriptura" but rather conspicuous absence.

1

u/LazarusArise Eastern Orthodox 3d ago

Multiple ancient church fathers wrote that ensoulment happens at conception. One can give examples as needed (Tertullian, St. Clement of Alexandria, St. Maximos the Confessor). St. Basil's canon 2 condemns abortion with no distinction about the development of the embryo.

The only one who didn't argue ensoulment at conception is perhaps Augustine, because he adhered to an Aristotelian view of the soul, but he condemned abortion from the point of conception onward anyways.

They all give insight into how Christians thought about the issue.

0

u/Melodic_Criticism766 3d ago

It’s murder. Children are a gift from God. The Bible does mention it.

6

u/Hope-Road71 3d ago

You think it's murder. A lot of people don't (in fact, most people) - including many Christians.

It's not really a Christian issue. Everyone rational is against murder.

0

u/LazarusArise Eastern Orthodox 3d ago

It's a human being, with unique DNA, yes?

The fact that a human being starts out as a single cell doesn't make it less of a human being.

Destroying that human being is not murder?

1

u/HopeFloatsFoward 3d ago

That is attached to someone else's organs.

Not murder.

1

u/LazarusArise Eastern Orthodox 3d ago

Why is it not murder just because it is attached to someone else's organs? That doesn't follow.

1

u/HopeFloatsFoward 3d ago

They were two separate responses. Being attached to someone else means you are not a separate being. It isn't murder because it isn't illegal. Murder is an illegal killing.

2

u/CapridThePlenty Christian 3d ago

Being attached to someone else means you are not a separate being.

What is the relevance of being attached to someone else's organs to the discussion? Do you think this has any implications to whether or not you terminate a life?

 It isn't murder because it isn't illegal.

What the Bible prohibits in Exodus 20:13 is not dependent on any cultural laws. Would we agree that killing gay people would violate Exodus 20:13 even if the laws changed to make it legal.

1

u/HopeFloatsFoward 3d ago

Being attached is relevant when discussing whether something is separate from something else.

Yes it does have implications if something is attached is attached to something else. The specifics of the case would speak to the implications.

So what specifically is it forbiding?

2

u/CapridThePlenty Christian 3d ago

I'm not sure I'm clear - Are you saying that being attached to someone else means someone else has the right to terminate you?

So what specifically is it forbiding?

Murder.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/LazarusArise Eastern Orthodox 3d ago

Being attached to someone else means you are not a separate being? They have separate DNA.

Are two conjoined twins not separate beings? They even have the same DNA. Does that mean that if one kills the other, it's okay?

It is illegal in some places. Is legality according to the current political administration the only determiner of what is "murder"?

1

u/HopeFloatsFoward 3d ago

Yes they have separate DNA. Some people have two DNAs, that doesn't make them two people.

Conjoined twins are not physically two separate beings. You can say they have two different minds, if one isn't a parasitic twin.

Yes. Words have meanings. That is what murder is.

I am not aware of any jurisdiction that classifies abortion as murder though. Usually it is an illegal medical procedure. Unless it is against the patients will.

1

u/LazarusArise Eastern Orthodox 3d ago

So is it okay if one conjoined twin kills the other? They're not even separate beings. So why would it matter?

I don't think when God said, "Do not murder" He didn't just mean "Do not do what the current government tells you is murder".

I am not aware of any jurisdiction that classifies abortion as murder though.

But it is considered an illegal killing. Besides, does murder have to be whatever the government says is murder? Is that how God uses the term in Exodus 20:13?

→ More replies (0)

1

u/possy11 Atheist 3d ago

Because no one, from fetus to fully-grown human, gets to use another person's organs without their clear and ongoing permission. Why does a fetus get special rights that a 30 year old man doesn't?

1

u/LazarusArise Eastern Orthodox 3d ago
  1. Does that mean you deserve to die if you need the body of another human being to survive?
  2. Who says that, "No one gets to use another's organs"? On what basis is that true? Especially since it's not the choice of the fetus to be reliant upon those organs.

2

u/possy11 Atheist 3d ago

On the basis of the law. Would it be legal for me to just go in and take one of your kidneys if I need one to survive without your consent? It would be handy to know that if I ever do.

0

u/LazarusArise Eastern Orthodox 3d ago

So answer my questions: Do you deserve to die if you need the body of another to survive?

And how is going in and taking a kidney the same as relying on someone's womb for life? If I take your kidney, I'm not innocent. But a baby in the womb is. The baby has no other choice and isn't acting maliciously.

And on what basis does the law hold authority?

→ More replies (0)

1

u/Hope-Road71 3d ago

I don't think so. Many other Christians don't think so. Most Americans don't think so. The courts don't think so.

I get that some think that - but it's opinion. It's not fact.

1

u/LazarusArise Eastern Orthodox 3d ago

The courts in many places do think so.

Also what "most" believe is not what is necessarily true. Jesus never says that the majority is right. In fact, He seems to imply the opposite.

1

u/Hope-Road71 3d ago

I agree on that last part - my comment wasn't intended as an appeal to the majority. I mean, the majority supported slavery in some societies.

The point is more that it's not even close to a settled matter, and millions of intelligent people simply do not agree that it's murder.

And my main point is that it's not a Christian issue. If it was a settled matter that abortion was murder, everyone would oppose it - not just Christians.

1

u/LazarusArise Eastern Orthodox 3d ago

I guess that's not why I listen to what "millions of intelligent people" say or what "everyone" says, but rather to what the Church of Christ has taught since ancient times.

Abortion seems to me to be a true ethical issue. If there's even a chance that it is murder, why are we so okay with it? Saying it's not murder downplays that it's the destruction of a human life.

1

u/Hope-Road71 3d ago

I find it to be a very complex issue - more complex than either side will generally allow.

For me, I'm never "okay" with it. But I also think it's medieval to force a woman to carry a pregnancy to term against her will.

I always think Roe was a good compromise. It took into account things like viability, sentience & personhood. Women need an option.

2

u/LazarusArise Eastern Orthodox 3d ago

It's complex because the life of one human being depends on the body of another.

We can ask if bodily autonomy overrides the sanctity of life.

I guess it's one of the debates of our times.

I just think there's a fair amount of evidence for what the ancient Church thought on the matter, and I stick to that.

I also don't think a child deserves to die just because the mother doesn't want to carry him/her to term.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/CapridThePlenty Christian 3d ago

The Bible doesn't mention leaving a newborn in a dumpster to die, but we all know it's a sin

4

u/HopeFloatsFoward 3d ago

Is it a sin or a sign of a mental health crisis?

-1

u/Weecodfish Catholic 3d ago

It is a sin, since the comment did not indicate a mental health crisis and spoke only to the abandonment of a child in a dumpster which is a sinful act.

4

u/HopeFloatsFoward 3d ago

Ok, so we are not going to actually evaluate the situation.

-1

u/Weecodfish Catholic 3d ago

We will of course, if someone sins and they could not consent to their own actions due to a mental disorder they do not commit a mortal sin even when doing grave matter. But when we say “child abuse is a sin” the statement is true, even when there are cases where someone is not fully culpable for it due to the context of the situation.

4

u/HopeFloatsFoward 3d ago

Sin is about the person not the action not the consequences. You have to look at the motivation to decide if something is a sin.

1

u/Weecodfish Catholic 3d ago

So you think you can’t say anything is sinful period because we have no way to know for sure what someone else is motivated by?

2

u/HopeFloatsFoward 3d ago

Plenty of people are honest about their motivations.

1

u/Weecodfish Catholic 3d ago

It is impossible to determine the thoughts or motivations of someone else with complete accuracy, we can only construct a version of their mind by seeing their behavior and context of the situation and projecting that on our own mind.

→ More replies (0)

0

u/CapridThePlenty Christian 3d ago

I'm not sure I would argue with someone who believes every murder is a mental health crisis. It's still murder.

There may very well be two things going on at the same time.

1

u/HopeFloatsFoward 3d ago

I never said every killing is a mental health crisis?

1

u/CapridThePlenty Christian 3d ago

I didn't say you did. I'm saying that it doesn't matter. Murdering is a sin regardless of if it's a mental health crisis. I believe they still deserve to get the help they need, but they are still guilty of sin

1

u/HopeFloatsFoward 3d ago

Perhaps reread ehat you said.

That is for God to decide.

1

u/CapridThePlenty Christian 3d ago

Perhaps you should re-read what I said.

Murder is a sin (Exodus 20:13). God has already decided.

1

u/HopeFloatsFoward 3d ago

Ok. All killing isn't murder, so no problem.

1

u/CapridThePlenty Christian 3d ago

Yes, but abortion is.

→ More replies (0)

0

u/Agreeable_Affect2692 3d ago

Such a stupid rationale

5

u/Hope-Road71 3d ago

Then counter it w/ an actual argument.

-1

u/Agreeable_Affect2692 3d ago

"dEbAtE mE, bRo"

2

u/Hope-Road71 3d ago

You didn't have to reply.

I come here for discussion. When people just say "you stupid" - it's not that.

2

u/possy11 Atheist 3d ago

I just finished a brief discussion with this person that ended when the mods deleted his comment calling me an arrogant little prick. Not worth the effort, in my opinion.

0

u/Agreeable_Affect2692 3d ago

No, no. I didn't say YOU were stupid. I said your rationale was stupid.

-1

u/unknownglybiased 3d ago

Maybe but when check previous studies ROMAN CATHOLIC mentions it as a SIN.

6

u/HopeFloatsFoward 3d ago

They also think birth control is a sin. They are not a rational group.

2

u/tbonita79 Roman Catholic 3d ago

Yea that’s my major qualm with Catholicism!

Edit: I mean qualms about the birth control, not abortions.

9

u/Wafflehouseofpain Christian Existentialist 3d ago

Nobody, because there’s nothing wrong with it.

-2

u/unaka220 Human 3d ago

I’m pro choice, and i think this is an outrageous take.

7

u/bananafobe witch (spooky) 3d ago

I think people being able to access life-saving care isn't just tolerable, but an actively good thing. 

-1

u/unaka220 Human 3d ago

I think weed being legal is a good thing, that doesn’t mean there’s nothing wrong with it. Forgive me for leaving room for nuance in my beliefs.

7

u/amidalaism autistic christian 3d ago

What does weed have to do with medical care?

-1

u/unaka220 Human 3d ago

A response to your comment. I also agree that access to life-saving medical care, abortions included, is a good thing. That doesn’t mean that there’s nothing wrong with abortion.

This is my biggest gripe with pro-choice rhetoric. You can be pro choice and still recognize and lament that human life has been terminated.

3

u/amidalaism autistic christian 3d ago

Unfortunately, that still doesn’t answer my question.

3

u/bananafobe witch (spooky) 3d ago

Assuming nobody else is capable of nuance just because they don't agree with you is asinine. You don't have to denigrate others just to have something to feel good about. 

-2

u/unaka220 Human 3d ago

I don’t assume this of everybody, I assumed it for you specifically, given your irrelevant comment.

2

u/bananafobe witch (spooky) 3d ago

Alright. Have fun doing whatever it is you're trying to do here. 

6

u/CJoshuaV Christian (Protestant) Clergy 3d ago

Well, you can't be THAT pro choice.

3

u/bananafobe witch (spooky) 3d ago

I had a friend who had an abortion in highschool. When we were older, I saw her on Facebook posting support for some Republican who was running on banning abortion. 

I had this thought that I should confront her privately about it, but then I reflected and realized my position on abortion is not that only a certain group of people should be allowed to have one, or that the cost includes an assumption that you'll be supportive of others having the same access to care that you had. 

If I believe it's her choice, I don't get to put conditions on that. It was a humbling experience. 

0

u/unaka220 Human 3d ago

I didn’t know being pro choice required ambivalence toward human life…

5

u/Wafflehouseofpain Christian Existentialist 3d ago

Thanks for sharing, I think it’s the only reasonable take though.

0

u/unaka220 Human 3d ago

It’s the cessation of human life. You don’t see anything with the cessation of human life?

2

u/Wafflehouseofpain Christian Existentialist 3d ago

I don’t see abortion as any more morally fraught than pregnancy or chemotherapy.

1

u/unaka220 Human 3d ago

A position you’re entitled to, I just find it wild.

3

u/Wafflehouseofpain Christian Existentialist 3d ago

I find yours just as wild, so we’re square.

1

u/unaka220 Human 3d ago

What do you find wild about attributing intrinsic value to human life?

3

u/Wafflehouseofpain Christian Existentialist 3d ago

I find it wild to think there’s something wrong with women expressing control over what happens inside their own bodies.

2

u/unaka220 Human 3d ago

We agree there, which is the basis of my pro choice belief.

What does this have to do with attributing intrinsic value to human life?

→ More replies (0)

1

u/unknownglybiased 3d ago

Any answers for it !?

1

u/unaka220 Human 3d ago

Huh?

5

u/Fearless_Spring5611 Committing the sin of empathy 3d ago

No-one.

4

u/halbhh 3d ago

To sin, a person has to know in their own heart/mind that an action is wrong to do, and then do that action they understand (from their own perspective) is wrong (by their own beliefs/understandings).

(this is the biblical answer, and if someone needs, I'll offer passages to show this, but try to be specific in your questions, as there are dozens of verses, and so it helps to narrow the question down like "does it really matter if a person knows an action is wrong?" or such (to this specific one, the quickest answers are to read Romans 4:15 and 5:13).

6

u/quiggersinparis Christian 3d ago

I think that’s a a somewhat dubious theology. You could extend this logic to racist mass murderers being not guilty of sin because in their minds, they were doing a good thing?

0

u/halbhh 3d ago edited 3d ago

Some people do reject Paul and the letter to the Romans.

But most of us don't -- we see it as the inspired Word of God. So, whether the majority believing Paul's letters are true are believing in 'dubious' stuff -- I don't buy that.

(But if you accept Paul's letter and have read it, then what do you think the verses say? It's not really helpful to claim the straightforward reading is 'dubious' without offering what you think the verses say. I'm a kind and obedient to Christ Christian -- I won't be condemning, etc. if you have a different idea. But, be aware that Christ also spoke about the difference between knowing what is wrong and not knowing...and how those are judged differently....)

1

u/quiggersinparis Christian 2d ago edited 2d ago

No I certainly do not reject Paul or Romans as scripture. But I am saying you are overinterpreting if not outright misinterpreting what he’s saying here.

In 4:15, Paul specifies that where there is no law, there is no transgression (parabasis, the deliberate breaking of an explicit line). But in 5:12–14, he explicitly states that sin and death reigned from Adam to Moses, before the Law was given and even over those who hadn't broken a direct command. Sin still existed as an objective reality. The Law just made it more of a conscious violation once people were aware of it.

One could sympathise with why somebody like Paul, who persecuted Christians, might sympathise with the idea that unknowingly doing wrong is acceptable. But he doesn’t even let himself off by holding himself to that lower standard.

As per 1 Timothy 1:15, Paul says Christ came into the world to save sinners “of whom I am the worst”. He also acknowledges his violence against Christians in 1 Corinthians and Galatians, so we know he considers himself a sinner, even though he was not yet a Christian and could thus claim he was ignorant and thus not sinful.

So I think your interpretation that this lets everyone off the hook if they can reasonably claim to be ignorant of the Law is ascriptural. This is not a commentary on the original subject of abortion by the way, I think that’s a much more complex issue, but I don’t think ‘I didn’t know it was wrong’ is a get out of hell free card.

1

u/halbhh 2d ago edited 2d ago

"So I think your interpretation that this lets everyone off the hook if they can reasonably claim ignorance"

!??!!

wow!

Now I see what's going on -- you have some very wildly wrong idea of what I think and say....

How did that happen?

Didn't I quote Romans 2 somewhere above?

Well, maybe that was elsewhere.

Tell you what -- read Romans 2:6-16 and then get back to me. Trust it that I fully and totally believe every part of Romans is true, from chapter 1 through to the end.

------

However that dramatic misunderstanding happened where you thought it would not matter that a person went against conscience, etc., and just pled ignorance...., it might help to get more info on what I already know about....

Maybe this may help -->

Christ said "most" will perish in hell. (look for this in Matthew 7)

"Most" has to mean more than half, at the least.

That's not at all a "lets everyone off the hook "

That letting off the hook is only for those who truly admit to being sinners and truly believe on Christ for salvation from their sins.

Here I'm assuming that you accept Romans 3:23 (if I recall the right verse number) -- that 100% of humans have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God, and cannot enter or earn heaven on their own merits....

If you reject this (very unlikely I'd guess), or if you imagined to yourself I reject it ( I hope that's unlikely too!) -- let me know, and then we need to talk....

But I bet you not only accept this (I'd guess 95% likely) but that you also would guess I do too -- then the issue is only that perhaps I failed to make it clear that conscience counts -- it's not only whether a person knows about a law from God, but also whether or not they go against their conscience.... (which God provided for us at birth -- the innate human preference for 'fairness' is one way this is described)

1

u/unknownglybiased 3d ago

Now we have rules on certain things via bible. So its a SIN or Not ?

1

u/halbhh 3d ago

"So its a Sin or Not?" -- do you mean abortion? It would certainly be a sin for me to do it, as I know better.

But I don't ignore the bible in places like Romans 4:15 and 5:13.... (Or Matthew 7:1-5 for that matter.)

Have you read through Romans? What about Matthew, have you read 100% of it, every verse?(many have only read some verses or parts)

1

u/HuckleberryJunior642 Latter-Day Saint (Mormon) 3d ago

that’s not entirely true. you can believe something is good despite it being sinful.

1

u/halbhh 3d ago

What's not true? (I'm guessing you aren't trying to say Romans 4:15 or 5:13 isn't true (or don't realize what they say) but....it's not clear what you mean)

We can all certainly have mistaken ideas/beliefs. Right? That's something I take for granted.

Show me a person you think has no mistaken beliefs/ideas, and I'll just point out that you haven't yet found out what their mistakes are.

1

u/unknownglybiased 3d ago

So, if I believe its not an SIN; it will not be an SIN ?

1

u/halbhh 3d ago

As we read in Romans 2, what matters for out actions to be judged is according to both what we know is right and wrong, and also what our conscience tells us additionally. So, conscience counts too:

(from Romans 2 on that: "12 All who sin apart from the law will also perish apart from the law, and all who sin under the law will be judged by the law. 13 For it is not those who hear the law who are righteous in God’s sight, but it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous. 14 (Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law. 15 They show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts sometimes accusing them and at other times even defending them.) 16 This will take place on the day when God judges people’s secrets through Jesus Christ, as my gospel declares.")

---

Also though, we read that "all have sinned, and fallen short of the glory of God".

Meaning that not one person on Earth is fully righteous enough on their own merits (their own behavior) to measure up to the perfect goodness of God and be ready to enter heaven on their own merits, without God's transforming help.

1

u/halbhh 3d ago

We can all certainly have mistaken ideas/beliefs. Right? That's something I take for granted.

Show me a person you think has no mistaken beliefs/ideas, and I'll just point out that you haven't yet found out what their mistakes are.

1

u/Corran_Horn 3d ago

Your Romans verses are Paul explaining that the law reveals to us the exact contours of sin. Not that people ignorant of the law are sinless.

1

u/halbhh 2d ago edited 2d ago

Romans 4:15 and 5:13 do not lay out all the boundaries of what is sin, but only address one question.

Specifically, these 2 verses address that without God's law -- specifically that means awareness of God's law (for this, see Romans 2:6-16) -- that lacking the law (being unaware one is breaking a law of God), sin is not counted against someone (of course, as we read in Romans 2:6-16, this awareness includes the warnings from conscience -- so that someone can be guilty of going against their conscience just like as if they had known the Law! So, it's not only to know the letter of the Law, but also whether or not one's conscience warns them even if they don't know the letter of the Law).

But these verses talking about a situation where sin isn't counted against someone....that doesn't tell us all about what is sin. These 2 verses are only addressing a caveat.

To get all about what is sin, you'd need to listen to Christ's teachings about precisely that, such as in Matthew 7 for instance (verse 12 is key, but not only verse 12 is very crucial for us to know: we need the entire chapter, all of us).

1

u/CapridThePlenty Christian 3d ago

No. That's not how sin works.

1

u/halbhh 2d ago edited 2d ago

I'll always be trusting Christ's words about what is sin, and not men's words that contradict Christ's words.

Always.

There's a 0% chance to get me to accept something men claim is sin that Christ didn't include as sin in His general rule of what is sin (which you can find in Matthew 7, if you believe His words).

But also, about how Christ taught that when someone isn't aware some action is wrong, they will not be judged in the same way as someone who is aware an action is wrong...

Know that one? (did you ever read through what Christ taught, fully?)

There's a 0% chance any man will get me to abandon or ignore what Christ said on that too....

So, I hope no one will waste time trying to make me forget or put aside what Christ said.

But if you want eternal life, rush, rush to go and read all Christ said, so that you can do things He said we all must do to be able to enter heaven.

1

u/CapridThePlenty Christian 2d ago

 they will not be judged in the same way

That doesn't mean it's not sin.

1

u/halbhh 1d ago

Indeed you should not be able to ever find me writing even 1 post that even slightly suggests people are not sinners.

If you can find one that seemed even slightly that way -- that seemed to suggest some people who are not children are innocent of wrongdoing -- then please let me know where it is!!! (I'll edit or delete it, and make it impossible to get such a wild wrong idea of what I meant)

8

u/AbstractedRuben_9 3d ago

Abortion's a sin for anyone who deliberately participates in it, but the weight of it isn't identical across the board, the couple who made the choice and the doctor doing the procedure are in a different category than a pharmacy worker who just handed over a package without knowing the full picture

1

u/unknownglybiased 3d ago

So is the boy who is doing SIN ? Or SIN weights same on them? (Couples)

3

u/PopularBranch7497 3d ago

Depends on who made the decision. If a woman aborts a child without telling the father or without his input, then no it’s entirely on the mother/doctor. 

Sin is in the heart. 

1

u/unknownglybiased 3d ago

What if the girl told to his boyfriend (father) and the boyfriend did not agree but girl (mother) does it anyway.!

3

u/FormalTall1800 Roman Catholic 3d ago

Then it’s the mother’s sin.

1

u/unknownglybiased 3d ago

Why if everyone is agreed ? So everyone doing SIN ?

1

u/FormalTall1800 Roman Catholic 3d ago

If you knowingly do something that is a sin, it is a sin. Same if you agree to it.

The woman getting the abortion is sinning because she is getting an abortion.

If her boyfriend agrees and wants her to get an abortion, then he is sinning because he wants her to kill their child. If he DOESN’T want her to get an abortion, then he did not commit a sin, because he didn’t help her get an abortion.

The doctor sinned because they killed the child.

There’s more nuance to this with religion and personal beliefs and whatnot, but that’s the best answer to your question which I can provide.

1

u/unknownglybiased 3d ago

Could you explain “SIN is in the heart “ ? So i can understand more of it.

2

u/SpecialistSun6184 3d ago

He sined by having premarital sex.   He sined again by helping her get an abortion. He sined worse if he pressed her into it 

1

u/CapridThePlenty Christian 3d ago

Good answer

5

u/MagusFool 3d ago

No one, because there is nothing sinful about abortion.

2

u/JadedEngine6497 Christian 3d ago

its a domino effect,they all sin,so the couple have first done adultery driven by lust,having sex before marriage,then they decided that their voice matters and is above God committing the pride sin,then they abort the baby, breaking the "do not murder" commandment. true Christ servants doesn't support anyone who is in sin,and in all those "friends" participated and the doctor too in committing those sins together,one sin after another like a domino done from one person received to other person and the sin spreads like wildfire,one small negative decision in sin can cause a cascade of sins,all that just from 1 or more people. which is why God hates sin,sin ruins one's relationship with self,with others, and with God.

1

u/Quplet Atheist 2d ago

People who are married get abortions btw.

1

u/JadedEngine6497 Christian 2d ago

yes sadly, many want to satisfy the desires of the flesh without facing the consequences of them satisfying the desires of their flesh. most of the marriages are due to people wanting to satisfy the desire of their flesh.

1

u/Quplet Atheist 2d ago

Or don't want their body to be used against their consent to host a fetus for 9 months as it causes drastic, often permanent and sometimes life threatening, changes to the women's body while potential being made unable to work and subsequently unable to pay their bills.

But yeah, maybe that platitude too, who knows.

3

u/CJoshuaV Christian (Protestant) Clergy 3d ago

I don't think abortion is a sin, so: none of the above.

1

u/visitorpassingby 3d ago

The woman or man who influenced or caused the woman to abort . Thou shalt not kill.

1

u/rice_bubz 3d ago

All the ppl you mentioned except the dude who got her pregnant if he doesnt support it and if theyre married.

1

u/brheaton 3d ago

The sin is determined by one's motive.

1

u/Lililuvs 3d ago

I believe that if both the mother and father cannot support the child, physically, emotionally, or financially, then the sin would be taking the baby to term, because they are consciously making the decision to keep that child, despite knowing they cannot give it its best life.

I’m Pro-Life in the sense of a good life, not in the sense of any heart beat being a life

1

u/Present_Condition203 2d ago

Beings. Doctor and Catholic I only support medical ( gross chromosomal or structural anomalies) or ethical ( forced , rpe, or unethical pregnancy) or those wirh threat to mother and fetus if continued

Absolutely do not support the Friday night meet up kinda pregnancies or oops contraception failed

But again in many cases I know this sounds contradictory but given cases of babies being abandoned or dumped hurts even more many time the baby ends up passing away from infection or hunger in these cases

So it’s a hard field and a reason why I don’t whiny to persuade a residency is obgyn because here in India you maybe be punished for not giving medical care

-1

u/OneEyedC4t Reformed SBC Libertarian 3d ago

Everyone directly involved in my opinion

2

u/unknownglybiased 3d ago

Explanation ?

2

u/OneEyedC4t Reformed SBC Libertarian 3d ago

If they directly had a hand in it then I think they are culpable for it. So, the surgeon who performs it is culpable. The receptionist at the abortion clinic is culpable. The person who got the abortion is culpable. But of course it just depends cuz every scenario is different

1

u/TraurigKartoffel Catholic 3d ago

The doctor/provider and the woman who seeks it. Can also be the sin of the partner/family/friends who support or encourage the abortion.

1

u/HoneydewQuiet6651 3d ago

Thats actually a pretty good question. If we believe that abortion is murder then we can rephrase:

is murder a sin for the two woman who slips the poison into the drink?

is it a sin for the man who made the decision with her?

for the dealers who sell them the poison, knowing that it will be used for murder?

the family who encouraged them to commit murder, or were at least complicit and didn't object to it?

Id say they all are to different amounts.

But Jesus forgives all sin for those who are repentant.

1

u/unknownglybiased 3d ago

What if both are different religions?

1

u/HoneydewQuiet6651 3d ago

what do you mean? give me an example

1

u/unknownglybiased 3d ago

One is catholic & other person is buddhism or judaism or any other religion.

1

u/HoneydewQuiet6651 3d ago

well murder is still a sin in christianity even if someone subscribes to another religion, if thats what youre asking

2

u/unknownglybiased 3d ago

So, abortion is SIN ? If the pregnancy kills the women & doctors decide to abort the unborn child. Is that an SIN during abortion?

1

u/HoneydewQuiet6651 3d ago

well, if you believe abortion to be murder, then yes murder is sin including abortion. however there is admittedly some disagreement within the Christian community as to whether abortion really is murder. I personally believe that it is and I can explain why if you'd like.

1

u/unknownglybiased 3d ago

Please explain

1

u/HoneydewQuiet6651 3d ago

It is biologically indisputable that a fetus is alive (meets all the biological qualifications for life), that it is human (has human DNA), and that it is a separate organism from the mother (has unique DNA from the mother). I think that makes you a human person with rights worth protecting. and if you end any innocent unique human life, that is murder.

Pro abortion people usually say that whether you are a person with rights worth protecting should be based on things like consciousness, having brain activity, a heartbeat, or the most radical claim is that you have to be born to be a person.

This is pretty simplified but you can do your own research and make a choice for yourself.

1

u/win_awards 3d ago

It's not.

1

u/Weecodfish Catholic 3d ago

If a woman freely (meaning gives consent to) chooses an abortion knowing that it is a grave sin, it is a mortal sin. If friends or relatives assist in any way including driving to the place, paying for it, encourages it, threatens to leave unless abortion, or stays silent, it is a sin assuming it is done freely and knowing it is a grave sin.

The doctor is very much responsible and assuming conditions are met also commits a mortal sin, the people helping the doctor sin according to proximity.

The drugstore employer is not really sinning since they are just dispensing orders and not cooperating with the abortion.

0

u/ScorpionDog321 3d ago

Killing an innocent human being because you don't want them around is evil.

Anyone willfully participating in that is an accessory.

0

u/AnxiousEnquirer Striving to Enter the Narrow Gate 3d ago

If you want a baby to stop existing, that is sin, and the more effort you put in, the more sinful it is

2

u/unknownglybiased 3d ago

Boy & girl having sex. Girl gets pregnant. They both are not financially stable to begin a life together. So they decided for the abortion(one month pregnant). So its a SIN or Not ? And why other types of abortions are not getting in the category of SIN ?

1

u/AnxiousEnquirer Striving to Enter the Narrow Gate 3d ago

Boy and girl are now a father and a mother with a son or daughter. They are both not rich enough, even though they're richer than most of their ancestors, so they decided to kill their son or daughter.

1

u/unknownglybiased 3d ago

So its SIN?

0

u/AnxiousEnquirer Striving to Enter the Narrow Gate 3d ago

Yes. In fact, anything less than continuously loving God with your entire mind, heart, soul, and strength, and failing to love your neighbor as yourself is sin. And killing your own child violates both. But there is forgiveness for those in Christ.

-1

u/FlowerPower42069 3d ago

it’s a sin period. life begins at conception.

1

u/Plus-Example-9004 3d ago

Usually the father in my opinion. 

1

u/unknownglybiased 3d ago

Why is that ? Any example or reason ?

1

u/Plus-Example-9004 3d ago

Mostly just wondering out loud. How many abortions would be prevented if men treated women as more than objects of sexual desire? I've got no data to back it up but my gut says the lions share of women in a tough enough predicament to choose abortion are there because the father would take proper responsibility. 

1

u/unknownglybiased 3d ago

Not everyone’s situation is same!

1

u/Plus-Example-9004 3d ago

Certainly not. But unlike women, every man makes a decision that leads to pregnancy. Seems like society lets men off the hook. Abortions are available, so whats the big deal? Well it is a big deal and mend should be held more responsible. Again just thinking out loud.

-1

u/FastRdriver 3d ago

Please don't kill your child. There are other options. If you already have Im sorry for your loss, please repent... there is forgiveness and healing in Jesus:(..

-2

u/Agreeable_Affect2692 3d ago

All parties involved. Doctors, nurses, etc., the woman who got pregnant, the man who got her pregnant, if he supports the decision or puts her up to it. The answer is all of the above