How can you be Christian and be Pro Choice?

When the angel said ..."this is the sixth month with her " he is referring to the baby being in it's sixth month with her. in oder for it to be in it's sixth month it had to have previously been it's first month. which is what I meant when I said that it kinda makes the point of life beginning at conception.

You seem to be saying that life begins at conscienceness, where is that written?

 

The easiest perspective to use? You can be against abortion personally, in your own actions and beliefs, because of your faith.

What you would expect, limit, or force others to do with their bodies isn't the same decision. There's nothing in the Bible about forcing your will on others. It's a very tenuous position, honestly, and I wouldn't call myself Pro Choice. I'm terribly against abortion, and don't want others to have them, either, but the line comes at telling people I don't know what they should be forced to do or not do.

 

I can see your point. My position is motivated more out of concern for the rights of the baby than it is about the immorality of having an abortion. If it were not hurting anyone but the person who has one then I would not be so strongly opposed to it.

 

The argument as to when life starts is certainly one that can be discussed at length. While many do not agree with me that it begins at conception any reasonable person knows it begins before birth. At the very least we should ban all third trimester abortions. I think the majority of americans would agree to that and it would be the law of the land if not for the pro choice groups that fight it and the judges who allow it.

 

or it says that life begins at 3 months and that's when they start counting. does the bible elsewhere describe a 9 month old pregnancy? just curious.

 

I'm not sure I follow your logic. In verse 56 it says that Mary stayed with Elizabeth for about 3 months and then left to go home and then vs. 57 says that Elizabeth then gave birth. That adds up to 9 months.

 

gothca. misread. i thought it was saying the, essentially, the baby was born then.

 

My position - it's not my baby. I don't like restrictive federal laws on personal rights, especially medically, in that I wouldn't want some old bastard on either side determining what I could do with my life, etc., so I don't feel it right for an old bastard to determine the finality of a life that's neither in his hands nor mine. It's tenuous, as I said, because I loathe abortion and 99% of the cases in which it's used - it goes against what I believe religiously and spiritually. But laws on abortion, legislation on abortion have obviously become much more about politics than religion, and when it comes to the government, I feel it should be a matter of personal rights moreso than of religion.

 

It not that tenuous. You are not alone.

 

Is it not the job of society to protect the innocent and helpless? The "its not my baby" line of thinking could be used to justify a lot of things. To me it is not so much an issue of religion is it is an issue of human rights. To me the right of the baby to live trumps almost all the rights the mother has. If you place them on equal footing before the law it becomes pretty simple. You deny one party the right to do as she wishes with her body or you deny the other party life itself.