Responding to 12 Pro-Choice Arguments 

I realize I already made this comment in your previous video, but I'm making it again because of the nature of this video. I was raped in 2003. I thought he was going to kill me and he told me he was a demon and I was going to hell. God graciously spared my life and I didn't get pregnant. I wasn't on any birth control because I was saving myself for marriage. If I had become pregnant I would have kept my baby. The baby is innocent and I would absolutely love him/her.

I never liked the argument "the foetus wouldn't survive by itself so it can't be considered human"... A new born baby wouldn't survive by itself, is it not human either?!

I learnt to two pertinent points when we were having children, 1) Going through IVF, my wife was considered pregnant right after the moment of transfer and the little blob of cells was also considered our baby by everyone. 2) We lost one child at the 22 week mark of gestation. I know of no prem or still birth child like ours that is not considered a baby and that their death was a tragedy. How can a blob in one womb be worthy of life and the same blob in another womb be worthy of death? it is not logical to me

The double standard about the argument that “men need to keep silent” goes deeper than that. They allow and encourage men to stand up against the pro-life stance routinely.

One thing we actually agree on is I cannot justify abortion (except for in extreme instances, such as medical scenarios, etc.). Saying it's a woman's body/right to choose is gross, when it takes an innocent life. I know people find all sorts of ways to try to justify it, but it's just wrong in my opinion. And, i don't even want anyone who HAS had an abortion to torture themselves with guilt, but just to not have another nor promote abortion as an easy option. Fortunately, I'm a man and won't ever have to make that call for myself.

nobody owns their body its on loan

0:36 - What is the heart of the case for pro-life? 1:58 - Is being human sufficient or does a "person" have right to life? 4:50 - "Men should remain silent on abortion" 8:33 - "Women should decide when she becomes a parent" 11:23 - "Denying abortion has consequences to the status and equality of women" 16:00 - "Women have a right to bodily autonomy" 18:45 - "Early abortion are safer than child birth" 22:53 - "The Embryo Rescue Case" 26:04 - "Spontaneous miscarriage should be the highest priority if humans have right to life from conception, but it isn't" 29:39 - "Pro-lifers are inconsistent when criticizing about definitive moments, when conception itself isn't one" 36:32 - "Women will have to get back-alley abortions" 40:45 - "Judith Jarvis Thomson's Violinist" 50:42 - (Bonus) "What about when the mother's life is in jeopardy?"

Thank you both, and especially you, Sean, for the personal story about your sister. God bless you, her, and the mother that chose to keep the baby, and your parents.

It was Biola U's Ethics At The Edge Of Life series with Scott Rae and Scott Klusendorf that helped me to think clearly about the Pro Life issues.

#7 my sister went into labor at 20 weeks gestation with her fist child. He was born alive but died very quickly. For her next three pregnancies she had her cervix sewn shut so she would not go into labor too soon and she went on to deliver three healthy children who are now 22, 20 and 18. The point is that the doctor determined the reason for the miscarriage and acted on it.

We deeply thank both your sister & you for sharing her very personal, emotional testimony. May God continue to bless & guide you both.

Thank you. Such a great info packed and thought encouraging time

I was thinking recently about how our society now designates our “true selves” as our inner thoughts (or our spirit) and rejects our bodies as being part of our true selves. Therefore, if someone “believes in their inner being” that they are a woman, it no longer matters if their body is male. The body must be remade to reflect the person’s “true self” which they determine in their spirit. This is essentially a type of Gnosticism because it rejects the body (the material world) as inconsequential or even evil. This also helps explain why abortion is seen as acceptable by our society. In this Gnostic way of thinking, a baby in the womb is not really important because it is merely a body. It can be seen as “not yet a person” because it is not yet capable of expressing an inner identity. Therefore, it is just a body with no “true self” inside it yet, and so it is inconsequential. How different this way of thinking is from what the Bible teaches! The early church rejected Gnosticism as a heresy with good reason. The Bible recognizes that human beings exist as body, soul, and spirit (3 parts) which is not surprising since we are created in the image of a triune God. We are promised a resurrection of the body, because our bodies are an integral part of who we are. If we were meant to be freed from the body and exist as spirits then why would God promise to resurrect our bodies? Why was Christ resurrected in a body? Our bodies are fearfully and wonderful made, and even though they are currently groaning with the rest of creation under the weight of sin and death, we look forward to a better time when we will be free of disease, death, pain, and sorrow in our resurrection bodies. This modern Gnosticism that has stealthily permeated our society is a targeted attack of Satan to get us to do great harm to ourselves, because in rejecting our bodies we are rejecting an integral part of ourselves and (through abortion) we reject our own children as well. It makes me very sad to see the harm the enemy’s deceit is doing to so many. But unfortunately, I am not sure whether the arguments presented in this video (however logical) are going to change the thinking of the non-Christian who is entrenched in this false dichotomy between the “true self” and the body. How do we counter such thinking?

Very interesting & thought provoking conversation. Sean, thank you for sharing your adoptive sister's story. It was moving and convicting. It definitely sheds a different light on the topic of rape and what the woman or girl should do.

Are the prochoicers and proabortionists ever going to decide when life, does in fact, begin? The prolifer is settled on conception which shifts the burden to the proabortionists. If not at conception, when then? If it really doesn't begin then, then why is it so difficult to say when it does? Why do people not just say. I mean, why haven't the people who support abortion developed the criteria for when life begins? We have criteria for the stages of many things including development, grieving, cancer, trauma, wounds, healing and the list goes on...but not for when life begins for those who support ending it at anytime under any circumstance? Why?

I was raised in a fundamentalist, pro-birth, racist, misogynist, almost a cult church, and believed all the Biblical misinterpretations that go along with that. Then I grew up, and the Holy Spirit rescued me and taught me. My thirteen year old student impregnated by her 21 year old "boyfriend" broke my heart. Years later (I moved around through the grade levels) I taught the daughter who was in first grade, living in a foster care situation along with her three younger siblings, while my original student, became a single mom whose life was in shambles. I knew a student (the majority of my career was teaching students with moderate to severe handicapping conditions) whose biological father and biological grandfather are the same man. She was in foster care and her mother's life was in shambles. An acquaintance with an ectopic pregnancy nearly died (these pregnancies are mot viable and WILL result in death of the mother). Fortunately, we were still in the Roe age, and her life was saved. I have yet to meet a pro-birth person who cares about and does anything to actually assist children or women. Indeed, they work for reduction of services for women and children, especially those who are poor, buying into the Reagan Myth of the "Welfare Queen", making sure that pregnant women and children cannot access medical care unless they have wealth/good insurance. Witness Rick Santorum , who lauded the excellent care his daughter Bella received, at the same time he was ensuring there was no health care available for other children. Your so-called "reasons" for women's reproductive health and rights are only the tip of the ice berg. You, like many "evangelicals" refuse ro deal with the real issues of social, economic, racial, and gender injustices. "Evangelical" originally meant "bringer of good news" - Christ, our Savior, crucified, died, buried, risen, coming again -and now it means misogyny, racism, greed, hate. In the OT judgment was brought on Israel for 1) idol worship (golden statue of Trump anyone?), 2) hostility to foreigners residing in the land (end of DACA, build a wall, etc.), 3) oppression of the poor (tax cuts for the wealthy, mega wealthy pastors and mega churches with private planes,etc). The whole pro-birth focus is a misdirect from a multitude of sins.

Bodily autonomy does not include the idea that the unborn child is part of the mother. I’ve heard this argument a lot, and the point is that you can’t force one person to support the life of another person against the first person’s will. You can’t force someone to give up a kidney to save someone else. You can’t force someone to be used as a dialysis machine/ECHMO machine for another person (even their own child). THAT is the bodily autonomy argument I hear all the time. Yes, it’s a baby, yes it’s a person, but bodily autonomy means a woman can’t be forced to biologically support the baby against her will. That’s a very different argument. Edit: basically, it’s a combo of the violinist argument and the bodily autonomy argument concept as presented in this podcast. It’s the only way I’ve ever seen it presented.

I enjoy this RU-vid channel and discussion

This was a very powerful podcast

Hey Sean got a question in the vein of apologia church perspective; do you think EVERYONE involved in abortion should be tried for murder?

I’m thinking Biblically: The human fetus becomes more valuable as time goes by in its development. If the fetus is born, it becomes a baby human. Leviticus 27.3 (GNB) [3] (3-7) according to the official standard: -adult male, twenty to sixty years old: 50 pieces of silver -adult female: 30 pieces of silver -young male, five to twenty years old: 20 pieces of silver -young female: 10 pieces of silver -infant male under five: 5 pieces of silver -infant female: 3 pieces of silver -male above sixty years of age: 15 pieces of silver -female above sixty: 10 pieces of silver

With the hospital analogy, it’s not a question of would you save the baby or the embryos, it’s would you be the guy who decides to burn down the hospital with the babies

Thanks for this video guys

Another thing wrong with "the violinist" is that the baby is naturally where it's supposed to be. The violinist is hooked up artificially through modern medical intervention. The baby is on growth support as is common to all humans and part of our natural development. The violinist is on life support, an unnatural disruption of the natural process that leads to death. What a wonder that is, being able to prolong life through advances in modern science, but the argument is not a parallel at all. Completely different categories.

Very nice, thank you

One more point on the Violinist argument that is more of a point on ethical implications between the two scenarios rather than any practical change of the outcome, I do think that there is a difference between the two in that modern abortion technology doesn’t allow for a simple “unplugging” of the fetus from the mother in the same way as a disconnect of the violinist. Either way, both will end up dying, but if there were a way to simply take a living fetus out of its symbiotic relationship with the mother and her womb, there would be a better argument for that procedure. As it stands now, there’s no way to do that without actively killing the baby so it’s death must be a positive action vs a passive one. It would be more analogous to killing the violinist than simply removing them from their life support. I don’t think it holds up either way and the end result is the same but it does reshape the moral argument a bit

The 10th argument was strong. I do think that the human baby is a stranger. Automatically conceiving a child does not make them connected to you. There is bonding that naturally occurs with any human you encounter-whether inside the womb or not. Sean touched basis with this approach in a way, but I would expound that pregnancy should not be analogous with being hooked up as someone's life support because pregnancy is natural whereas that is not. The biological makeup of most women since the beginning of time have been to conceive a human, carry the human to term and deliver the individual outside of the womb. Being hooked up to someone (even a famous violinist) is not an ordinary, natural occurrence. Just like you can't give away someone's organ without their permission, you can't make someone be another person's life support especially when it's not naturally occurring.

I'd like to add a talking point. Is consent to sex consent to pregnancy? I have my own views, but I'm more interested in how you guys see this. I thought of this when you brought up that last case with the violinist and how this was non consensual to start with and therfore closer to a case of rape. But a pro-choicer would say that the case is equivalent even when the sex was consensual(because they'd argue the pregnancy was the non-consenting part). Please reply if you have a moment, I'm really curious what you guys think of the matter.

Pro Choice should have no other meaning, in this circumstance, than choosing whether to engage in sex with the possibility of gaining a child, or in abstaining, if a child is not what you want.

Thank you very much for this

It’s interesting that you are saying nobody does anything to stop spontaneous miscarriages. Here in Canada if a pregnant woman experiences anything they think could be a problem with their pregnancy she goes into the nearest ER where they take you in immediately to see the OB on call for examination and ultrasound.

For 6, people also make a weighted assessment when it comes to the embryos. There is no guarantee the embryos would make it to infancy, while we know the infant is already there. Let’s change that up and say that the embryos were in a self-contained apparatus that would nurture them until infancy. Each apparatus is guaranteed to bring the embryo inside to infancy without any intervention. Now the math for most people would intuitively change. It's still the classic ethical quandary of the value of one life vs several, but now the ethics off ramp of is removed for the one considering the issue. An alternative way to look at the problem: you can only save one, a woman with an infant in her arms or a pregnant woman.

Actually for Christians pro-choice is particularly hard to argue against. The baby isn't really dying under your belief system, its just going to heaven, which is supposed to be a much better and happier place to be (I assume there is some crazy exception argued for that even though babies have not been baptized they'll still avoid going to hell for "not believing"). The only thing you are really doing by forcing mothers in distress or in low income situations to conceive is putting both the mother and the child in a much harder situation where it is more likely that the child will grow up in a broken home, which we know tends to result in criminal activity, or in the worst case they might just die from malnourishment. I'm not actually sure how Christians respond to this. Even William Lane Craig argued that when the Israelites slaughtered all the Canaanites, including the children, it wasn't so bad because the kids were going back to heaven, but that it was justified anyway as those kids could have corrupted the Israelites as they grew up (not sure how though). His argument sounds even worse than mine, but it clearly demonstrates that in the Christian religion killing really isn't that big of a deal if the expected result is going to heaven. And God clearly is okay with it. He commanded one group to massacre another. He also committed mass genocide multiple times in the bible. Plus, even if you argue those were Godly choices and not personal ones, can't you simply ask for forgiveness from Jesus and come out clean as a whistle? That's what's so great about Christian morality - all you have to do is ask for forgiveness, and you're good to go. Infinite life in heaven. There is no punishment. Everyone gets an infinite number of get out of jail free cards for literally all of your crimes, all of your sins. Actually I find it quite funny how Christians think such a system would serve as a good basis for morality...it seems quite the opposite. Under atheism of course, it is way more serious, because its not clear that there is life after death. So ironically you should be more of an atheist to defend a pro-life position.

I've have had people talking to me call a fetus a parasite. 😓

It wasn't a good idea to gloss over the "fetal personhood conceded" bodily autonomy argument at 15:16 and not rebut it. Unfortunately, it's no longer considered "extreme." It's the most common pro-choice argument used today. It would be a good idea to do a follow up video devoted to refuting various forms of that particular argument.

To the question about when the conception becomes an individual, is unattainable because the abortion arguments only start after the woman knows she's pregnant. The argument about a violin player argument is one to have a woman's ovaries and ovum removed. To support sterilisation programmes.

Sean, slave owners were paid reparations for loss of their “property”.

The amount of women that will actually hear this and change their mind is… *drum roll* Zero. 🎉

The entire argument of "pro-choice", i.e. "if you don't like abortion, don't get one" is the same logic the South used to justify slavery pre-civil war

In today’s world of “trans” persons, more than two genders and not defining what is a woman and what is a man, who would be left who was allowed to comment on abortion? If men can’t comment on the issue of abortion, what is a man?

The existence of the youngest premature baby ought to already settle it, at least for that many weeks

Awesome apologetics

The violin argument is so dumb. I heard this in college and my teacher asked me (F) how I would feel. I told her I would have him play awesome music for me until the time came to unhook him from me. It is a temporary situation. My teacher was pissed this was my answer. Lol

Then let your body choose what it wants

Ectopic pregnancies don’t count as ending the life of the child to save the mother. There is literally no way to save the child because they cannot thrive outside of the womb. And to add to your point that doctors say there IS NO reason to end the life of the child to save the mother (defending the need for abortion clinics), if a mother’s life is at risk, she’s not going to an abortion clinic, she is seeing her own personal doctor. Also, medical technology is such that if needed, the baby can be delivered early and kept alive. If it’s a situation of mom finds she has cancer and they say she needs to abort so she can receive treatment? SO many women choose to give their child life and prolong their treatment. There just is no valid reason to kill an unborn child. Good talk, guys!

The unique genetics itself proclaims that we are human being fully born does not only make u human its the genetic

Every mom can tell you that the moment the baby is born, it is physically and morally more difficult to care for your baby,because what Your body did when the baby is growing inside you is not nearly as exhausting as after birth! Yes your husband can help with feeding is not breastfeeding and change the diaper, still very emotional at all levels and yet woman are bless by it .

Anytime that the desires/wants of an adult are held higher than the rights/life of others children or not it’s wrong. It’s violating the rights of one human for the desires of another human we as fallen individuals our desires very often leads to sins.

Suppose the baby will surely pass on shortly after birth anyway? ANSWER: Its always better for baby to pass in the warm, loving arms of his/her mother, nurse, or other loved one than at the tools of an abortionist. (Not MY brilliance; I heard that answer per an interview with a well-known pro-life advocate here on YT. Idr her name)

To my mind, the claim that we own our bodies seems fallacious.

@7:18 "Committed the unpardonable sin of falling in love with a student" While serious in a university context, this isn't the unforgivable sin. It may be unpardonable to you in your in-group as university faculty, but I'd argue that's not the biblical meaning of that particular sin. And this is important because speaking this way confuses theology. The unpardonable sin is blasphemy of the holy spirit, attributing to the devil the works of God. What the Pharisees accused Jesus of. This has nothing do with "Don't stand. Don't stand. Don't stand so close to me."

A lot of the people I know will use the argument from Numbers 5. That God is the one who created it. It's the most frustrating and upsetting argument especially from self-proclaimed Christians.

I've thought about this for years. I don't have a problem with all situations are woman or parents make this heartbreaking decision. Not all, but a few.

"pro choice" call pro life people as been anti-choice. therefore, using there same logic, pro-life should call them anti-life. would they agree with such title? no because they don't consider the baby (foetus) to be alive. why should pro life use their (pro choice) title if it's wrong? the title anti-life seems more suitable and true.

Simple question for Xtians who shout Abortion-is-murder: IF a woman aborts her fetus/child, what should be her punishment for this "murder" ??

We are in the last days and the fight is futile now, they will be judged harder than us.

Abortion is nobody’s business except the pregnant woman in question and her doctor. Neither a fetus nor a zygote is a person, but even if they were, they still wouldn’t have special rights to violate a woman’s bodily autonomy against her continued consent. Just as we can’t force you to donate blood, or a spare kidney or any other bodily resources against your will to save a life, you cannot force a woman to do the same for her fetus. We also wouldn’t allow a teenage girl to adopt a child, but you’ll force her to birth one if she should get pregnant?

Better an unborn soul go straight to heaven and the arms of Jesus than a born soul never know Jesus and Salvation.

Something to consider. I’m Pro-Choice, I am also for life. Here’s why. The most fundamental gift God gave humanity was the right/power to choose. Salvation itself is a choice required action. Had humanity been forced to love God void of choice, it could be argued if that was actually love versus instinct. But God gave us power to choose life or death, but then gave us the better answer, choose life. I opt for a woman’s right to choose, but I also take the responsibility as a disciple of Jesus to give her the option to the right choice, because I’ve rightly divided the word of truth. Why heap condemnation on her when I can set her free with truth?

Why does this man speak poorly of patriarchy and highly of egalitarianism? Or did I understand him wrong? Egalitarianism isn’t biblical

You guys get the bodily autonomy argument COMPLETELY wrong. The fetus being its own distinct person and NOT part of the mother's body is literally an assumption the bodily autonomy argument makes in order to show that EVEN IF this is the case, the pro-life argument fails. If you're going to allege to counter what is by your own admission the most common pro-choice argument, you should at least get that argument right in the first place. I'm so tired of handholding pro-lifers through this. It makes it really hard to respect you guys.

If an egg is fully a chicken, then why can Christians who keep the practice for not eating meat during lent eat them?

The violist story is so stupid, 1 who care he is famous 2. You are not related or created the violist life.

Mr McDowell, you're probirth. Nothing else.

Hoo boy, lots of strawmanning in this. I'll mostly ignore all the "arguments" because most are irrelevant to the question at hand, and you know this because at the end of most of these, you comment that if humans are persons at conception, they fail. So let's address that. I do want to point out #8, that when pressured, pro-choice advocates turn the argument around and ask pro-lifers at what point of conception does a new human exist. Despite the fact that I've literally never heard anyone use this as a real argument, it's also just whataboutism, which does not address the point. I bring this up specifically because I, too, am tired of whataboutism, which is what this whole video is. Instead of addressing the personhood argument, you dance around it and address bad arguments or arguments that depend on the personhood argument while simultaneously often refusing to grant it. In fact, you do admit that if the personhood argument holds, so too so some of these arguments. So, why not address the personhood argument? Give me a reason that a human being at conception should be afforded the full rights of a person. This should be your goal, yet you did not even attempt it. And there's a reason for that no doubt. I've looked up arguments for it, and they are either based in religion or genetic essentialism, both of which certainly have their flaws. All other "arguments" are whataboutism like this video or most religious arguments. How many religious arguments start by trying to disprove evolution or some other concept rather than actually providing evidence for their God? If you want abortion to be outlawed, provide an argument for your stance. It is not sufficient to point out that the idea of personhood is not defined to a clear moment in pregnancy. That does not disprove the idea of personhood, and even if it did, it does not necessarily support your side. That's a false dichotomy. There are plenty of other arguments, such as more utilitarian ones, for abortion. Show that your argument is superior first.

Why does God abort over 20 million babies annually via miscarriage?

I find it it interesting that men always think they know what’s best for a woman’s body. If you both were women talking I would take more notice. I think men no matter what you’re beliefs are need to stay out of this topic. Women don’t go around debating as to what men should do with their bodies. It didn’t start with abortion. Who’s idea was it that women weren’t aloud to wear pants back in the day? The man’ s idea. Who’s idea was it for women not to be aloud to vote and work? A man. Women couldn’t drive a car. Who’s idea was that again? Men. Who’s idea was it to label job professions back in the day as police man, fireman, mail man etc. a man. Who’s idea was it to make women feel inferior back in the day? A man. Men have done enough. Men need to stay out of topics that solely pertains to women! Get two women to talk about this and then I’ll listen!

Milk the Money Sean!

Why do Christians meddle in people's lives? What gave them authority?

Enjoy all your personal pregnancies my man.

Over the hill men discuss what is allowed to women without a brain between them.

Must. Control. Women.🦍🔨

DID you know: Jesus killed 42 children - just for teasing a grown man. 2 Kings 2:23-24 From there Elisha went up to Bethel. As he was walking along the road, some boys came out of the town and jeered at him. “Get out of here, baldy!” they said. “Get out of here, baldy!” He turned around, looked at them and called down a curse on them in the name of the Lord. Then two bears came out of the woods and mauled forty-two of the boys. LOL

I wonder how many of these counter arguments just assumes things from the bible, then goes from there. That only works if the person you argue with is a Christian. The best argument for pro choice is bodily autonomy. And if you are for self defense, then there's no problem here. If you think babies are special and precious, then surely you would mind god killing them, but you're not. If you can special plead for your point of view, then surely you'll allow others to do it.

I am pro-choice because God is pro-choice, I am not pro abortion Here are my arguments for why I am pro-choice(my own definition) (*Disclaimer* I’m not using the “generic” definition of pro-choice. I use my own definition of it. When I say I am pro-choice it is strictly concerning the CHOICE in the matter and not the abortion. It should be the woman’s choice to abort. The woman shouldn’t be forced to have a child. It should be between her and God. I do NOT approve of abortion. I would NOT ever try to convince a woman of having an abortion, exactly opposite, I just wouldn’t use force. I do NOT think abortion is a good idea or ever the right idea.) For starters, who places ALL the governing authorities for EVERY nation on this planet? God, right? Now then, if it is God Himself who put these authorities in place, and these authorities make abortion legal, then who am I to rebel against them, or try to have them changed? Why did God allow these authorities to do so in the first place? And why would God want the fallible and broken human be the one to “fix” this problem? Did God place these corrupt authorities in power so I could fight against what they do? They are not forcing abortions, they are simply not condemning those who wish to have an abortion. Let’s look at the book of Daniel for how we should go about trying to change laws or rules from the governing authorities. There were ALL kinds of crazy laws/rules in Daniels time. Did he fight to change any immoral laws/rules? I don’t think so. Let’s look at Shadrach, Meshack, and Abednego. Did they fight against any of the hundreds of immoral laws the king might have had in place? Do you think they protested abortion in that time? I think not. They didn’t even rebel/argue against their own execution when they were to be put to death by fiery furnace. It seems pretty clear the only time we should fight or rebel against our governing authorities is when they make a law or rule that forces us to sin against God. When they try to make us break any of Gods rules and laws. That is when we can rebel, that is when we can refuse to bow to the authorities. Only when they are trumped by Gods rules. So my question here is why did God allow all these governing authorities to make abortion legal? It is He who placed them in power. I’m going to go ahead and let the Creator handle this one. It’s clear that I cannot stop abortions from happening. So, we have many very strange and specific laws all throughout Deuteronomy and Leviticus. Yet, not one of them gets specific about human children in the womb. Not one out of the hundreds of very specific laws even mention abortion. Why? Yet, both abortion and infanticide were common practices in biblical/ancient times. And the reasons for each were surprisingly diverse. Here is a quote from the ancient philosopher Aristotle . He said abortion is appropriate as a means of controlling the size of a family, but should be performed early, “before sensation and life”. This proves abortion was also a “thing” even back then. Yet, the Bible is completely silent on the matter. And that’s how I’m going to stay too. I won’t fight for it and I’m not gonna fight against it. I’m going to trust Gods plan and let Him deal with the sin of man. However, I will fight/stand up for for our individual rights. To force any woman to do something they DO NOT want to do, is in fact an encroachment on individual rights. And is in fact wrong for other individuals to do, who are NOT part of the governing authorities. I say….. the choice is up to the woman carrying the child and God. Not you, not me, not the state, not anyone but the 2 mentioned, the pregnant woman and God. If Gods not going to stop it neither am I. And god has never told me to try and stop it either. The idea that abortions can be legislated out of existence is nonsense, because it ignores the fact that this is impossible, and because it creates unsafe and risky conditions for women. Legislation outlawing abortions will not prevent them from occurring; instead women’s lives will again be at risk. You can NOT legislate morality! Abortions are going to happen regardless of making them illegal or taking away the ability to preform safe abortions. What you did is kill not only the child now, but also potentially the woman carrying the child. Now you possibly have 2 deaths on your hands. The Bible is very explicit about a lot of things The Bible has rules for everything. From what clothes to wear, where and when to do it, how to treat friends, how to treat enemies, and an incredible amount of small details that covers numerous unlikely scenarios. If it was important, it was written down. It is unreasonable to think that the authors of the Bible thought that abortion was a grievous and unforgivable sin but simply forgot to include anything about it. They included everything. Deuteronomy 25:11-12 has advice about fights, too. It recommends that, if two men are fighting and the wife of one man grabs the other man’s private parts, the woman’s hand should be chopped off. Please explain why this is a law in the Bible, but abortion isn’t in there. (Great law here, we want to make sure no women be grabbing that penis, however, we don’t need to make sure abortions don’t keep happening, why no law about abortion?) Back in Exodus 22: 2-3, we get pretty clear rules about killing burglars. It’s fine, but only at night. No killing burglars during daylight hours. (Another specific law legalizing the killing of another human, yet nothing about abortion, strange) Leviticus 11:13-19 is pretty clear about which birds are never on the menu. These are the birds you are to regard as unclean and not eat because they are unclean: the eagle, the vulture, the black vulture, the red kite, any kind of black kite, any kind of raven, the horned owl, the screech owl, the gull, any kind of hawk, the little owl, the cormorant, the great owl, the white owl, the desert owl, the osprey, the stork, any kind of heron, the hoopoe and the bat. Lots of owls on that list. A little later, Leviticus 19:19 provides rules about mixing your fabrics. No mixing your linen and wool. (God really seems to not like fabrics mixed, so He made a law about it…..why not make a law about killing unborn babies?) Exodus 23:19, says, “The first of the first fruits of thy land thou shalt bring into the house of the Lord thy God. Thou shalt not seethe a kid in his mother’s milk.” In other words, do not boil a baby goat in its mom’s milk. The point of all of this is that the Bible goes to a lot of trouble to be pretty thorough about a dizzying variety of topics and covers a tremendous amount of fairly niche and unusual scenarios. Abortion existed during biblical times and was a fairly common practice. The authors of the Bible knew about abortion. If the authors of the Bible - men who had strong opinions on the morality of milk, mixed fibers and owls - wanted to forbid abortion, why in the world haven’t they forbidden abortion? Why didn’t God forbid it! Again, all of these very strange and specific laws. But we couldn’t get one to tell us abortion is forbidden or a sin. Yeah, I’m pro choice, if the almighty God who sees everything can standby and not protect the unborn, then so can I.

Sorry to hear your story Kim, but I think you're missing the point, if you did get pregnant and choose to keep and love your baby I would support you 100% and never question your decision. On the flip side, if someone else in the exact same scenario made a different choice from you and terminated the pregnancy, I would support her 100% and not condemn her for her choice. That is why it is called pro-choice not pro-abortion.

Sean, pro life and pro choice are misnomers . Moreover they are not moral issues and not about human rights. It’s all about privilege . When Brown v. Board of Education desegregated schools, most white Christian schools objected. They viewed desegregation as an infringement of their rights to discriminate against blacks. Christians want the rights to discriminate against a woman’s privilege to terminate her pregnancy. What Christians want is the right to infringe on the privileges of others. You have the freedom to worship however you want, but not the right to take away the privileges of others.

Sorry Sean, but you arguments against a woman’s bodily autonomy is made of straw. I am sure you know the argument very well. The foetus is in the mother and umbilically connected to her. What you are saying is that she should not be allowed to disconnect. Who else has the privilege to use your body against your will? Don’t forget that God has no objections to abortion when it suits him. Hosea 13:16 “ because she has rebelled against her God, the little ones shall be dashed in pieces, and the pregnant women ripped open”.