For many evangelicals, the leaked draft decision last month felt like the culmination of many prayers, tears, hard conversations, and difficult decisions at the voting polls. Now that Roe has fallen, the most vulnerable will now have a chance to be legally protected in some states and the pro-life movement will have some headway into the culture.

For many of our neighbors, the overturning of Roe and Casey is a sign of an upcoming theocratic takeover filled with fundamentalist extremism. A woman’s fundamental right to choose, which we have been told is paramount, is now under assault.

As Jonathan Haidt has pointed out, we are not getting better at debating and we have little to no tolerance when it comes to embracing tough conversations. Social media, institutional overreach into politics, and polarization are all factors, but I wonder if another contribution is something we have lost along the way.

Jesus asked over 300 questions to his friends, disciples, adversaries. He was fully God, fully man and knew full well the answers, yet he asked many questions.

With that I have 60 questions for any Christian who identifies as pro-choice. These are not meant to be dismissive, snarky, or rhetorical. They are much more helpful than calling an entire segment of people “bigots” or “baby murderers.”

1. Are all humans made in the image of God?

2. How do you think Genesis 1:27 can speak into the abortion discussion?
– And God created man in His image, in the image of God He created him, male and
female He created them.

3. Is a fetus a “potential human life” or a “human life with potential” (if you don’t intentionally end it)

4. Is the life that is being ended through abortion worthy of protections?

5. How can Proverbs 6:17 help us think about abortion?
– “The LORD hates those who shed innocent blood”

6. Is life within the womb innocent?

7. What do you think of the fact that there is entirely new, separate human DNA in the fetus at the moment of conception?
medlineplus

8. What do you think of Jeremiah 1:5 telling us that a person exists even before that person’s birth

9. Is the life within the womb human?

10. When does a person deserve rights?

11. What is an abortion?

12. Have you ever seen an abortion?

13. Do you think the pro-choice / pro-abortion position aligns more closely to a Biblical worldview than the pro-life / anti-abortion position?

14. In America, it is illegal to kill a bald eagle, carrying a maximum fine of $250,000 or two years in prison. And the law extends to the eggs of the bald eagle, making no differentiation between a living bald eagle and a pre-born bald eagle. Why should a bald eagle egg have more protection than an unborn baby?

15. Does the Bible provide us reliable wisdom on how to think about abortion?

16. Did you know that followers of Jesus have been distinctly pro-life and anti-abortion since the 1st century A.D.?
– Justin Taylor’s Did the Early Church Oppose Abortion?
– For instance, the Didache 2.2 (c. A.D. 85–110) commands, “thou shalt not murder a  child by abortion nor kill them when born.”
– Another non-canonical early Christian text, the Letter of Barnabas 19.5 (c. A.D. 130),
said: “You shall not abort a child nor, again, commit infanticide.”

17. How do you think God is most glorified through the various abortion methods? (Vacuum Aspiration, Abortion poison pill, Dilation & Evacuation)

18. What do you think your view on abortion testifies to how God views children?

19. How does God view children?

20. When should abortion be legally allowed?

21. Will you speak up for Christian doctors who are pro-life and believe performing an abortion goes against their religious convictions and conscience?

22. What do you think Proverbs 31:8-9 is commanding us to advocate for when we think about abortion?
– “Speak up for those who cannot speak for themselves; ensure justice for those being
crushed.” NLT

23. Is there ever a situation or a point in development that abortion should be outlawed?

24. If you believe that the baby inside a woman’s body is “her body”, does she have two hearts, two sets of fingerprints, two blood types, two sets of DNA, for nine months?

25. Theologically, how do you think about abortion in light of the cultural mandate, “Be fruitful and multiply”?

26. What other instances can an individual be legally protected while taking an innocent human life for virtually any reason?

27. Do you think that referring to preborn babies as “a clump of cells” has any dehumanizing effects?

28. Do you think a society that kills over two-thirds of pre-born babies diagnosed with Down syndrome is a society that values what God values?
– The Atlantic

29. What kind of job do you think the Church has done in helping mothers in crisis pregnancies (and their pre-born babies)?

30. Do you personally give money, time, prayers to any Pregnancy Resource Centers or Crisis Pregnancy Centers in your local area?

31. Did you know practicing Christians are more than twice as likely to adopt when compared to the rest of the country?
– Barna

32. Did you know that highly religious Americans disproportionately donate money, time, and goods to the poor and charities compared to all other U.S. adults?
Pew

33. Considering the lack of basic protections in so many states, do you think pre-born babies fit the description of “the least of these” that Jesus commands us to care for in Matthew 25:40?

34. Did you know the founder of Planned Parenthood was an advocate of eugenics?

35. Did you know that in recent years, there have been (5,000+) more black babies aborted than born in New York City?
– Politifact

36. Did you know that Planned Parenthood calls CPCs / PRCs “fake clinics,” like what has been graffitied on their buildings since the leak?
– Wash Examiner reports graffiti
– What are Crisis Pregnancy Centers? By Planned Parenthood

37. Is abortion a political issue?

38. Is abortion only a political issue?

39. Is it wrong to legislate morality?

40. Is it wrong to criminalize murder or rape?

41. Does the government have any role in restraining immorality in its own society?

42. Is abortion a moral good?

43. Should abortion be incentivized?

44. What laws do you think might create perceived incentives for a mother to abort her baby rather than keep or put the child up for adoption?

45. Did you know that 96% of the 5,577 biologists in a recent study affirmed the view that a human life begins at fertilization?
– here

46. Did you know a fetus was one of the very first to rejoice at the coming Messiah Jesus Christ (who Himself was still in utero)?
– Luke 1:40-44 “And when Elizabeth heard the greeting of Mary, the baby leaped in her
womb. And Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit.”

47. Christologically speaking, did God the Son disappear from the cosmos when he left Heaven until he was born?

48. Did we only have two-thirds of the eternal, Holy Trinity for roughly nine months?

49. Or has the Son of God always been and always will be (including conception and pre-birth)?

50. Did you know that Embryologists at Princeton published a piece titled “Life Begins at Fertilization with the Embryo’s Conception”?
– Princeton

51. What are your thoughts on recent legislation erasing the term “woman” and replacing it with “pregnant people”?
NYTimes

52. Can men get pregnant?

53. Even if you still do believe that the separate body with separate DNA is “her body”, how do you reconcile abortion with 1 Corinthians 6:19-20 instructing every christian to disregard autonomy?
– “Do you not know that your bodies are temples of the Holy Spirit,
who is in you, whom you have received from God? You are not your own; you were
bought at a price. Therefore honor God with your bodies.”

54. If abortion is not a decision with any moral weight, why is there a heavy toll after such an act?

55. Did you know that experts estimate there are between one and two million couples looking to adopt?
Adoption Network

56. How can establishing God’s kingdom and will on earth as it is in heaven inform us on this topic

57. Do you think Jesus’ parable of “The Good Samaritan” can teach us anything in the abortion discussion?

58. What do you think Job 31:15 can tell us about which side we should advocate for?
– “Did not He who made me in the womb make them? Did not the same one form us
both within our mothers?”

59. Have you taken part in abortion?

60. Did you know that in Christ you are fully known, fully loved, and fully forgiven?

You may have considered all of these questions before. You may not have ever considered any of these questions before, but they are certainly worth considering before condemning the position the church of Jesus Christ has held for a couple millennia.

In any discussion surrounding abortion, I find much hope and resolve when I am reminded of the Westminster Confession, “As there is no sin so small, but it deserves damnation; so there is no sin so great, that it can bring damnation upon those who truly repent.”

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Posted by Jamie Wilder

Jamie is a member at Eastside Community Church and serves in kids ministry and in his church's theological and biblical training program, The Forge. You can find him on Substack (somewilderwords.substack.com) or social media (@somewilderwords). Jamie is a graduate of Texas A&M University and lives in Dallas, TX with his wife, Katie.

31 Comments

  1. Kathleen Zielinski June 29, 2022 at 10:52 am

    Dude, seriously, you expect me to wade through and answer 60 questions? Here are the high points:

    1. The question is not whether a fetus is human life; of course it is. The question is whether it is a human person. “Human life” takes in the cells that you killed last time you scratched your nose, amputated limbs, cancerous tumors, none of which are protected because even though they are human life, they’re not human persons. (I haven’t read the Princeton article you cite, but really, nobody is disputing that the fetus is (a) human and (b) alive and therefore human life. The question is whether it’s a person.)

    2. At common law, personhood set in at viability. That makes sense to me. I think personhood is connected to consciousness and self awareness, which happen at around the time of viability.

    3. Even if I’m wrong about both of those, the anti-abortion position is heavily based on the religious views of its adherents. Not completely, but mostly. And in a pluralistic society like this one, I think we need to tread very carefully on imposing by law our religious beliefs on other people. We are not living in Israel under Ahab; we are living in Babylon under Nebuchadnezzar. Our system mostly works because there is a tacit agreement that we will leave each other alone; the alternative is a civil war, which Christians might not win.

    4. Although I think it should be legal, I hate that there are as many as there are. That said, a lot of the time it’s the least bad option. I don’t like the idea of the state imposing itself on people struggling with hard decisions for which there is no good solution. I knew a mentally retarded girl who was raped and became pregnant at age 15; are you going to tell her she has to carry it to term? I’m not.

    5. All those people waiting to adopt will find there are just as many children out there whom no one wants to adopt. They’re looking for blonde, blue eyed babies. If they’re serious about adopting, there are plenty of handicapped children, older children, children with behavioral problems from having been abused, all of whom would also like families of their own.

    Reply

    1. Point #3 is notable because such efforts tend to produce blowback that ultimately hastens the dismissal of Christianity. In recent years, socially conservative Christians have become much more aggressive in trying to enact laws that impose burdens onto members of groups that such Christians dislike. The outrageously stupid effort to prevent gay couples from benefiting from civil marriage laws is a prime example. Never mind that the arguments proffered for opposing same-sex marriage were mostly bad-faith arguments.

      Conservative Christians now complain that they’ve been relegated to “negative world.” Well, go figure. Society generally takes a negative view of people who go into the public square and make stupid, bad-faith arguments. Just ask Amber Heard.

      Reply

      1. So I guess you’d also condemn the Southern Christian Leadership Conference and the many religious leaders who imposed their view of Christianity on societies that wanted segregation in the 1960s. And while we’re at it, how about William Wilberforce, who imposed his religious views on the trans-Atlantic businessmen who earned a living transporting and selling slaves?

        Reply

        1. So, you’re suggesting that there’s no secular basis for racial equality? That’s a bit ironic considering that most white evangelicals at the time supported segregation.

          Reply

          1. What is the secular basis for racial equality?

          2. I don’t hear him saying there aren’t secular arguments in favor of ending slavery and racial equality, just that there are religious arguments in their favor and that abolitionists and civil rights advocates made them fervently. Would you have told them to keep their religion out of it or that it is wrong to impose their religious convictions on others?

          3. Sam,

            I’m fine with religious arguments that favor the individual liberty of religionists, so long as that practice doesn’t include causing material harm to others. But I don’t favor religious arguments for limiting the liberty of non-religionists to engage in activity that offends religionists. For example, I disfavor Rod Dreher’s demand that the government provide religionists with a “safe space” where they won’t be exposed to things that offend their religious sensibilities—even to the point of promoting Orban’s authoritarian kleptocracy as the last bastion of Christendom.

    2. “5. All those people waiting to adopt will find there are just as many children out there whom no one wants to adopt. They’re looking for blonde, blue eyed babies. If they’re serious about adopting, there are plenty of handicapped children, older children, children with behavioral problems from having been abused, all of whom would also like families of their own.”

      There’s a pretty big difference between only wanting to adopt a child based on race and not wanting to adopt an older child with behavioral problems or severe handicaps. Raising a child who’s been abused or neglected, or has some sort of severe handicap, is not something that everyone can handle.

      Reply

    3. You say kill babies. I say kill liberals as they are the worse of the two. I won’t accept your position unless you accept mine.
      Now I’ve said this to highlight that laws must be based upon a common morality, not the whims of people. The underlying morality of the foundations of this nation is that of the Judeo-Christian religious beliefs. That morality is based upon the Judeo-Christian Scriptures which recognize that there is a God who we as humans are part of his creation; and, it is the Creator to whom we are ultimately accountable. If there is no God, then any morality becomes relative. That is the form of morality to which our society has digressed; “his truth”, “her truth”, “my truth”, “your truth” are examples of that digression as are the discussions in gender identity – all of which so characterize the liberal mindset of our society today. It is a mindset that the foundation of my morality is as valid as yours. The founders of this nation never meant that the society should be without the Biblical basis of morality. Otherwise we might just as well adopt the Koran (Quran) as the basis of morality that says kill all people who do not believe in Allah. (Read the Quran – it’s in there.) And appendant to their religion, the morality that enslaves women and cuts off the hand of the thief.
      So, you say kill babies. I say kill liberals – it makes just as much sense. Laws enforce morality.

      Reply

      1. Dylan Caspari June 30, 2022 at 9:49 pm

        Jodie, your statement about the underlying morality of the foundations of this nation being that of the “Judeo-Christian religious beliefs” is inaccurate…it’s nothing more than a product of right-wing propaganda meant to entice the Church to pledge loyalty to the Republican Party. The primary influence concerning morality at the time of the Declaration of Independence was something known as “natural law”. While generally seeing the rights and value of individuals as being bestowed by “God”, the scope of natural law as applied to the new government was not seen to be exclusively connected to the specific moral beliefs of the Bible. The founders were rather quite intent on forming a government and legal environment that was not strictly constrained by personal religious convictions. We need look no further for clear evidence of that than the very first amendment in the Bill of Rights.

        Furthermore, your argument assumes that fetuses are “persons” under the Constitution…that is just not the case. Until you can recognize your error there, you’ll continue to offer up what is basically just propaganda that has no productive value in civil dialogue on this topic.

        Reply

      2. So you support welfare and food stamps. And child support at conception (the father can be confirmed as early as nine weeks pregnant and republicans have talked about a bill like this). Also closing non born children on your taxes (which Georgia is already allowing?

        Reply

    4. Kathleen,

      In regards, to your third point, I agree that the religious views of those of us who oppose abortion factor heavily into our views on abortion. The religious view is that we are all made in the image of God and that our lives are sacred and deserve to be protected under law. It actually doesn’t differ all that much from the view of non-religious people (leaving out the part of about being made in the image of God).

      What distinguishes those who oppose abortion from those who support it is the answer to the question of when life begins or, as you put it, when personhood begins (which is, I think, the question Jamie Wilder was asking). But this isn’t really a religious question, is it? The answer is more influenced by science and our knowledge of human development than religious faith. I just don’t see the great imposition of religion on the rest of society that you see here. It’s certainly not any more of an imposition than a Christian advocating for environmental laws that protect God’s creation or advocating for stronger social safety nets because of Jesus’ admonition to care for the poor, or for racial equality, etc. and no one seems bothered when we advocate for those things.

      Reply

    5. Kathleen,

      Thanks for engaging with the article!

      With that I have some pushback on your responses.

      1. I am well aware of the personhood argument. Those exact phrases are eerily similar to what what slave owners + slave traders uttered throughout the dark history of chattel slavery. “Yes the slave is human, but not a person. Just property. And the person with more power gets to decide what to do with it.” I don’t expect that to change your mind completely, but I hope it would give you pause.

      2. If personhood is connected to “viability” or consciousness and self-awareness, as you put it – what do we do with mentally incapacitated or those w/ limited abilities? What we do we do with Alzheimer patients? I don’t see how that is a standard that holds up when asking “when can I intentionally end a human life?” I think we fundamentally disagree. I don’t believe what a human can functionally bring to the table should dictate whether I can end their life or not.

      Let’s apply that standard to other circumstances:
      I am not conscious when I am asleep — although if you let me finish sleeping and then wake up, I will be conscious. Same with the preborn life. If you just don’t kill the baby, it will be conscious, viable, and self-aware.

      What about a day old baby?
      Surely that baby is not self-aware.

      The principle applied elsewhere is hard to stand by.

      3. You are right that historically the anti abortion / pro life movement has been driven from Christians and even other religious people groups. As I cited, the early church was radically counter-cultural to the pagans who practiced child sacrifice and many committed infanticide for a variety of reasons.
      I agree there is so much beauty to a pluralistic society! But when you think of it, isn’t “thou shall not murder” a religious command?
      What about “thou shall not steal” or “bear false witness”?
      Do you see how it is unavoidable to avoid all overlap with religious teachings when discussing matters of Justice?
      An untruth that many believe is that secularism is neutral. And that if a position can be tied to a religious viewpoint, then it is biased and therefore we must avoid at all cost.

      Have you actually considered what it would be like if Christians stopped applying life to public life and policy? Daniel Darling reminded me:
      1. No MLK applying Scripture in the civil rights movement
      2. No Susan B Anthony applying her faith for women’s rights
      3. No William Wilberforce applying his faith to help shut down British slave trade
      4. No Dietrich Bonhoeffer applying his faith against the Nazi regime
      5. No early church applying their faith to feed the poor and care for the sick and build hospitals.

      The list can clearly go on, but asking christians to keep their faith to themselves and demand extinction of anything faith-related in public thought might not be the outcome you think.

      4. If you think it should be legal (and I assume you don’t think there is any moral weight to the decision, right?), why is it a bad option?

      And you do understand that there *could* be a good solution or end result, right? Many women have wrestled with their pregnancy and been happy that they gave birth or gave the child up for adoption rather than end his or her life.

      Pro Lifers are not immune, unaware, or ignorant of the evils in this world. Very close women in my life have been traumatized by evil men. We just believe that because an evil act was done to someone does not mean that someone else should die because of it.

      A child’s worthiness of protection does not rise and fall based on the perfection or the sinfulness of the father or mother, but the worthiness of protection is attributed to the child being made in the child being human. Because all humans are worthy of legal protections from government sanctioned murder.

      For the sake of argument, lets say that all pro-lifers said that you are right and that the baby’s protections go out the window based on who the father is or what he has done… would you agree that no other abortion should be legal?

      If so, I think the vast majority of the pro-life community would be happy and would be able to focus resources, finances, counseling toward that 5% of fringe cases you mentioned.

      If not, then I am led to think you don’t actually believe abortion is that bad. I have a sneaky feeling that many pro-choice folks would still say it should be up to the woman (or pregnant person) to choose. In any situation — not just the tragic case that was outlined.

      Not always, but often fringe examples (less than 5%) are often used in bad faith. Which is a shame.

      5. Coming from a large, close family who has several bi-racial cousins who were adopted, I find this last statement extremely ignorant and ungenerous. I have a multitude of friends and family members who were adopted and not one of them were blonde and blue eyed. And to drive home a similar principle on the value of a human, someone’s legal protections should not be based on whether they are wanted or not. What a cruel world we would live in if we decided that we could kill unwanted people.

      I think a point of agreement is that we need to revamp the system so that so many children aren’t waiting in the system to be adopted, but that is not on the pro-life community. There are multiples of homes wanting to adopt vs children waiting to be adopted. Instead of slandering others it might good to acknowledge that the Pro Life / Anti Abortion folks step up and put their lives and homes into the reality, not just their words.

      I think an important reminder on this discussion:
      While the pro choice side has always said “There is one person, the mother, in the abortion room who is worthy of life and protections.”

      The pro life side has always said, “There are two people in the abortion room, the mother AND the child, who are worthy of life and protections.”

      Reply

  2. These seem like loaded questions.

    As another commenter has noted, saying that something is “human life” settles nothing. Cancerous tumors are “human life,” but we don’t prosecute people for taking chemotherapy to snuff out such life. The relevant question is when does legal human personhood begin.

    Christians throughout the centuries have arrived at a host of different views as to when human personhood begins. In my view, the best supported view is the view that human personhood begins at quickening, i.e., at around 16-20 weeks into the pregnancy. This is also consistent with Christian practice, as there is little history in Christianity of treating pregnancies lost naturally before this time as human persons. Even with our modern medical advances, about 20% of pregnancies are lost naturally before 20 weeks. There is no general practice within Christianity of treating such losses of life as the death of a human person. And that’s been the case for the last two millennia. Our common law reflects this position, as do the civil laws of most countries within the ambit of Christendom.

    Therefore, I’d suggest that there are solid sectarian and secular arguments for establishing the commencement of human personhood at 16-20 weeks. Thus, I would support laws that restrict access to abortion after this period.

    I recognize that there is a sectarian Christian argument that human personhood begins earlier than that. I don’t find that argument to be theologically persuasive. Moreover, it’s a bit peculiar that many who proffer that argument are unwilling to treat natural miscarriages as the death of a human person. Their own practices suggest that their views are shaped more by a desire to participate in narcissistic virtue-signaling than anything else.

    Further, I cannot come up with any secular argument for establishing human personhood before 16-20 weeks. We live in a pluralistic society where a local majority of religionists cannot impose legal burdens onto non-religionists on matters strictly of religious belief and practice. Believing that human personhood begins before 16-20 weeks is purely a matter of religious faith. (Never mind that I don’t even believe that it’s a persuasive view within the context of Christianity.)

    That’s not to say that there aren’t private moral considerations to weigh concerning whether to engage in a pre-personhood abortion. But these considerations are better addressed within the context of voluntary religious communities and the family. I see no legal or factual basis to justify the intrusion of the state into such matters.

    I’d suggest that my position is a pro-life position, as it precludes taking the life of a human person. The Roe/Casey regime permits abortion through 24 weeks, so does permit abortion at least a month beyond when human personhood has begun. Even so, I’m willing to place limits on state coercion at a time before human personhood begins. So, I’m content with a legal regime that permits choice before 16-20 weeks, even if that opens the possibility that some people may make unwise choices.

    Reply

    1. Seriously? Cancerous cells are human death. Allow nature to take its course and they will kill you. Neither do they have a separate DNA. Cancerous cells truly are part of the person’s body, and in that sense a fetus is not – science alone shows clearly that it is a separate, though dependent entity (as will a baby be even after it is born, unless you want to put that to the test by exposing it on the hillside a la the Romans). Allow nature to take its course with a fetus and it will grow to be a fully developed baby. That much seems obvious.

      Reply

      1. First, the DNA of cancerous cells is different from that of the surrounding tissue. So, by the definition of the cited article, cancerous tumors qualify as human life.

        Second, your reasoning doesn’t address the relevant question. In this case, the word “life” is being used in multiple ways. The relevant question is when does human personhood begin. The cited article isn’t seeking to answer that question, so it’s disingenuous to cite it as supporting evidence.

        Third, related to the prior point, I suspect that there’s a reason why those who favor establishing personhood from conception prefer to use the term “life” instead of “personhood.” As I noted above, life is a more ambiguous term, and can have multiple shades of meaning. Personhood, by contrast, is a precise term. As I noted above, the biblical and historical case for establishing personhood from conception is rather weak. In fact, most people who would establish personhood from conception curiously only do so in the context of abortion: When it comes to early-term miscarriages and oral contraceptive use, they do not treat the loss of life as a lost person. It’s rather clear that many of those who aver that personhood begins at conception do so only because “opposing murder” offers a bit more rhetorical panache than a more honest approach. I’m no fan of abortion, and I agree with the reasoning of Dobbs. Even so, I’ve always stayed clear of the “pro-life” movement. It’s filled with too many crackpots who, in my experience, are looking for a way to compensate for their own psycho-social deficiencies.

        Reply

        1. Dylan Caspari July 4, 2022 at 8:35 pm

          Absolutely spot on with that analysis!…The only thing I can’t really agree with you on is that you agree with Justice Alito’s opinion in the Dobbs case. Alito’s rather peculiar application of the theory of “originalism” relies heavily on a view of U.S. history with respect to abortion that is quite detached from real scholarship. That doesn’t really surprise me because Supreme Court Justices are experts in legal gymnastics, not historical accuracy. Alito insists that the question is “whether the right is [deeply rooted in [our] history and tradition] and whether it is essential to this Nation’s [scheme of ordered liberty]”. The reality is that is precisely what our history bears out with respect to the practice of abortion. “Originalism” can get you whatever result you want if you simply revise the historical record.

          Reply

  3. I love this list and will be discussing these points with my pro-choice friends. Would you be able/willing to make a similar list for me to discuss with my pro-life friends? ie. “60 Questions for Pro-Life Christians” that asks similarly-hard questions regarding points that pro-life christians are prone to overlook?

    While I am pro-life, I find that there are many, many points of disagreement I have with many pro-life christians. And for some people, beyond agreeing on “I want to live in a world without abortions” There is little else we would agree on.

    Reply

    1. Never mind that it’s unclear what necessarily constitutes a pro-life or a pro-choice view. If human personhood commences with conception, then the use of oral contraceptives is by far the leading cause of of abortion-related killing of a human person. But many of those who say that personhood begins at conception seem content with the sale of oral contraceptives. Moreover, few such people treat early-term miscarriages, of which there are half a million annually in the US, as the death of a human person.

      One of the unfortunate consequences of Roe, which rendered one’s view on the subject politically meaningless, is that most people’s stated views on abortion—whether on the left or the right—reflects a kind of narcissistic virtue-signaling intended to enhance one’s position within a particular tribal subculture.

      Reply

      1. Ryo,

        It’s my understanding that oral contraceptives do not act post conception, but before it takes place. Here’s what a website from NIH says: “The main mechanism of action [of the pill] is the prevention of ovulation; they inhibit follicular development and prevent ovulation.”

        https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK430882/

        Reply

        1. That’s the main mechanism, but not the only mechanism. Oral contraceptives function secondarily as an abortifacient . This only occurs when the primary mechanism fails, namely, about 1-3% of the time.

          But there is no substantial effort by opponents of abortion to get the abortifacient removed from the oral contraceptive pill.

          I’m not suggesting that this is due to hypocrisy. In reality, I suspect that most people don’t even know or care what their view on abortion is. The terms pro-life and pro-choice have come to denote membership in a socio-political tribe.

          Reply

    2. Kevin,

      Here are a few concepts/questions from a comment I posted on another abortion-related article on this site:

      Between 1/3 and 1/2 of all fertilizations end in a miscarriage (aka spontaneous abortion). Approximately 20% of clinical pregnancies (i.e., those that have had a positive pregnancy test) end in miscarriage.

      Numerous risk factors lead to increased rates of miscarriage, such as being overweight, use of drugs and alcohol, malnourishment, and many others.

      Should all miscarriages should be investigated as potential negligent homicide?

      Should in vitro fertilization (IFV) be outlawed because it creates embryos that are never implanted?

      Does a woman lose all autonomy once she carries a fertilized ovum? Does she simply become a life support system for a uterus and vagina?

      How should ectopic pregnancies be handled? What about a fetus so badly deformed they cannot survive after birth? Do you prefer a slow death after birth over an abortion?

      Are you ok with forcing a 10 year old rape victim to take her 6 week + 3 day “precious child” to term?

      Do the child support responsibilities of the father begin at conception? Is the father responsible for ensuring the mother has access to pre-natal health care? How do you intend to enforce this?

      At what point does anti-abortion legislation move from simply being “pro-birth” to “pro-life”? Should legislation restricting abortion also include defining responsibilities of the father, ensuring health care for the mother, pediatric care for the child after birth, etc.?

      Throughout human history the man who has impregnated a woman has had the “choice” to simply walk away from his responsibilities. Should women be denied the opportunity to make a similar “choice” early in their pregnancy?

      Reply

  4. I’d like to chime in with Kevin above, but get a bit more specific in the kinds of questions to ask. Something like…

    I know many pro-life Christians would be willing to adopt, as you suggest. What about working together with pro-choice people (I’m not in that camp, myself) on public policies that could improve the lives of women and make it far easier for them to choose to give birth to their babies? Many self-described Evangelicals have joined with the Republican party’s resistance to providing the kind of social safety net that would provide assistance, not just during pregnancy, but beyond. Could we explore policy options together that would be effective in enabling women to see past the difficulties that cause many to choose abortion?

    Reply

  5. I am unapologetically pro-life, and I appreciate this helpful list. However, you can’t use Jeremiah 1 to assert that humans existed before birth. That’s not biblically accurate nor taught anywhere. That passage does say that God (in eternity, with foreknowledge) KNEW Jeremiah, but does not say the prophet existed before his conception in his mother’s womb.

    Reply

    1. Dr. Scott–Jeremiah does reference pre-birth in the second line. However, it opens with God’s foreknowledge of his people before being formed in the womb (pre-conception), which is consistent with Romans 8:29 (not just “knowing about ahead of time, but pre-existent “knowing intimately” ahead of time, as only God in his omniscience can).

      Reply

  6. […] by Jamie Wilder; mereorthodoxy.com; June 29, 2022 […]

    Reply

  7. Rebekah Lebeau July 1, 2022 at 11:44 pm

    Where can we send our answers?

    Reply

  8. You cannot legislate people into the Kingdom of God.
    Forcing already traumatised rape victims to carry a baby to term is evil.

    Reply

  9. Katie,

    taking the free will women is the work of Satan, the great oppressor. Not being born is not the worst thing that can happen to a child. Being born to be abused, sex trafficked , sacrificed to satan, and given a life of hell – are realities for many unwanted children. The USA imprisons more people per capita than anywhere else in the world. CHildren that probably should have allowed to remain in heaven are forced on the earth. many then live and end up in hell…. when the Christian thing would have been to leave the child in heaven instead of forcing someone to live a life of hell – and the likelihood of going to hell. Taking free will is the work of Satan , not God. You are doing the devil’s work and sending many to hell.

    Reply

Leave a reply

Your email address will not be published.