A Christian Professor Claims That Jesus Would Support Abortion

By Michael Brown Published on August 6, 2018

It’s bad enough when a secular educator claims that Jesus would support certain abortions, as in the case of rape or incest. It’s another thing entirely when this educator is a professing Christian who claims that to be pro-life “flies in the face of Jesus’ teaching that he came to bring abundant life.” Really? Standing for the life of the unborn in all cases means standing against abundant life?

An Argument for PRIM abortions

According to Rebecca Todd Peters, Professor of Religious Studies at Elon University, despite the “dominant belief that Christianity and Christians are against abortion … many Christian communities recognize several circumstances in which abortion is accepted. The fact that abortion is acceptable in some cases means that the real social question is not whether women can have abortions, but which women and for what reasons?”

Prof. Peters points to the cases of “Prenatal health, Rape, Incest, and health of the Mother — PRIM.” And she argues, “Evidence indicates widespread consensus and acceptance among many Christian denominations that abortion for PRIM reasons is justifiable.”

Yes, “Of the 11 Christian statements included in a 2013 Pew Research Center study, only Roman Catholics state that they oppose abortion in all circumstances. All the other denominations, even the National Association of Evangelicals (NAE), the Southern Baptist Convention, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (LDS), and the Missouri Synod Lutherans concede that abortion is justifiable when a woman’s life is in danger. The LDS, the NAE, and the Episcopalians also specifically mention that rape and incest are considered justifiable reasons to terminate a pregnancy.”

What is Ethical or Right?

This, of course, proves nothing in terms of what is ethical or right, as if majority opinion at a given time determined morality. History has taught us the terrible danger of classifying certain people-groups as sub-human. Who cares if the majority thought this was right? Was American slavery ever Christian or moral or ethical or justifiable because the majority of Southern Christians accepted it?

Peters also correctly notes that abortions in the cases of rape and incest make up barely 1.5 percent of all abortions (if that). And it’s significant that some of the groups cited (such as the SBC) only allow for the possibility of abortion when the mother’s life is in danger, a virtually non-existent category in our current medical world. But even in this case, the emphasis is on saving life.

The Dominant Public Discourse About Abortion

Prof. Peters, however, claims, “By focusing on the acceptability of PRIM abortions, Christians have shaped the dominant public discourse about abortion into a debate about justification. By requiring women to justify their reasons for ending a pregnancy, this framework divides women who have abortions into two categories — the tragic and the damned.

Help us champion truth, freedom, limited government and human dignity. Support The Stream »

“Women who have PRIM abortions are portrayed as tragic, not only deserving of access to abortion services but also equally deserving of public sympathy. Women who have abortions for other reasons are stigmatized as morally unfit and labeled as selfish, cruel, and irresponsible. In short, they are the damned.”

A Feminist First

For Peters, who repeatedly uses words like “spiritual” and “Christian” and “moral,” there’s one issue and one issue only: The woman gets to decide what to do with her pregnancy. In other words, despite all the “Christian” lingo, Prof. Peters is a feminist first and a Christian second (if at all; God is the judge).

She writes, “It is time for Christians to challenge the inadequacy, intolerance and misogyny of this paradigm of abortion. As my deeply Christian mother taught me, ‘You shouldn’t have a baby because you are pregnant. You should have a baby because you want to be a mother, because you want to have a family.’”

In sum, “There is nothing Christian about requiring women to ‘justify’ their reasons for abortion. And there is certainly nothing Christian about forcing women to continue pregnancies against their will.”

Who Decides?

Peters says that “If we truly value women and healthy families, we must accept that ‘I do not want to have a baby’ is an imminently [sic.] appropriate reason to end a pregnancy. And we must trust that pregnant women are the only ones who are capable of making these decisions.”

Yes, just like trusting plantation owners to decide, “I do not want to have a slave.” Of course! Again, this is what happens when the baby in the womb becomes less human than the mother carrying it. The only issue is the choice of the person in power.

Prof. Peters also fails to distinguish the moral difference between a 12-year-old girl, raped and impregnated by her step-father, who had no choice in the matter, and a 30-year-old single woman who forgoes birth control on her one-night stands, only to find herself with an unwanted pregnancy. Although consistent pro-lifers oppose abortion in both cases, of course there is a massive difference in our attitude to the two mothers.

The Life of the Baby

But to say this is to miss the larger issue, since what is especially remarkable in Prof. Peters’ essay is that she does not utter a single word about the life of the baby. Not one. Not even a hint of a sentiment about the well-being of the child in that mother’s womb.

How, then, can she dare cite the words of Jesus, who spoke with tremendous passion about hurting innocent little ones? (See Matthew 18:1-6.) How can she refer to His teaching that He came to bring abundant life (John 10:10) while ignoring the life of the unborn?

She writes, “Creating healthy families requires more than ensuring that babies are born. It recognizes that creating healthy families and raising children is a deeply spiritual and moral task requiring commitment, desire, and love on the part of the parent(s).”

Yes, this is true. But to be Christian, to be “deeply spiritual and moral,” requires that we not slaughter babies in the womb, regardless of who makes the decision to do so.

Whose Abundant Life?

Prof. Peters states that, “A Christian vision of abundant life requires that we recognize and support the development of healthy and robust families. It requires that we respect women and the moral decisions that they make about their families.”

But a vision cannot be Christian unless it esteems the life of “the least of these.” And the only moral decision a Christian can make when it comes to innocent, helpless life is to do our utmost to protect it and preserve it.

And that, of course, is the fundamental reason we oppose abortion: It is because we are pro-life. In stunning, unchristian fashion, Prof. Peters missed this entirely. And it is this that “flies in the face of Jesus’ teaching that he came to bring abundant life.”

Print Friendly
Comments ()
The Stream encourages comments, whether in agreement with the article or not. However, comments that violate our commenting rules or terms of use will be removed. Any commenter who repeatedly violates these rules and terms of use will be blocked from commenting. Comments on The Stream are hosted by Disqus, with logins available through Disqus, Facebook, Twitter or G+ accounts. You must log in to comment. Please flag any comments you see breaking the rules. More detail is available here.
  • handydan

    Everyone denies, rebukes or dismisses the TRUE choice in this matter. The choice is made when everyone is still wearing all of their clothes. It is a matter of morality, which is a decision based on belief in God. The marital act is for pro-creation, not sensual pleasure alone.

    • Andy6M

      “The marital act is for pro-creation, not sensual pleasure alone.”

      I agree that sex is for both, and it must always be engaged in with a sense of responsibility for the first should that be what results.

  • Is there some reason we shouldn’t stigmatize deadly sin? And for the person who carries that burden, isn’t it better that she knows what it is, so she can find the grace in Jesus Christ to be released from it?

    • gladys1071

      so you are saying, not wanting to continue a pregnancy is a deadly sin?

      Who are we to judge? women have rights too, and they don’t lose their rights to their bodies because of having sex.

      This idea that a woman that becomes pregnant means she has to stay pregnant is so repugnant. It is like she does not matter in the equation at all.

      It is her body doing the gestating, that is providing the nutrients, her body that is going to have physical changes due to pregnancy.

      The disregard for her rights is astonishing to me.

      • Hannah

        I’ll bite.

        In most circumstances (barring rape and other atrocities), she *did* have a choice – and she chose to court fate. Now’s she’s pregnant and also responsible for the life growing within her. I don’t see this sort of callous dismissal and browbeating about “her rights” when the child is born, so why is it considered a non-issue whenever the child is still unborn?

        If I were to get pregnant and I didn’t want the child, it would completely counterintuitive to both Christianity and motherhood to want to abort the child. No amount of progressive “revelations” can undo what God has established as true. I know you don’t consider yourself part of the camp, so I don’t expect you to understand; if you wish to, I’d take a gander at a study Bible (for historical and cultural context) and you’ll learn exactly why we all loathe abortion and see it equivalent to murder.

        Another interesting contradiction I’m reminded of: if an unborn child is not considered human, why is the slaughter of a pregnant woman considered a double homicide? Just thoughts. Carry on.

        • gladys1071

          I am actually against the double homicide law, it is a contradiction.

          I don’t care about what the bible says, i care about the legality for remember we live in a pluralistic society.

          Do you propose to force ALL women to remain pregnant against their will, even those that are not Christian?

          Are you saying women lose their rights due to having sex, they lose their rights to their bodies?

          Do you really want to force women to gestate a pregnancy against their will?

          • Ken Abbott

            “I don’t care about what the bible [sic] says.”

            Which is a most telling statement.

          • This is an interesting argument, where you claim that people who are not Christian are exempt from truth and natural law.

            I suppose this is the side effect of you believing that truth and natural law are mere “beliefs” that one is exempt from by denying God. As for the “fertilized egg,” that is a unique human Made in the Image of God: your own child.

          • She’s a troll.

          • Hannah

            Not a troll, but someone very misled, perhaps. Most women who take this strong a stance on reproductive “rights” usually have been abused in some way or raised by abused, bitter women. It grieves me to see them hurting, but I can’t help if they don’t want it. There’s never a right answer when it comes to those who are seeking blood, so I say my piece and end it there. It’s half for her, half for whoever else. The contradictory behaviors and beliefs are enough to make me realize that there’s no point in arguing because it’ll never become a discussion. There will be no exchange of ideas – just a vitriolic rampage that utilizes the same ideas, vernacular, and conclusions. I’m not being pessimistic; I’ve just done this a while and know when they’re not gonna listen.

          • gladys1071

            You are wrong, i have never been abused and i am not bitter.

            I actually think for myself, no need to be brainwashed by pro-lifers or pro-choicers for me to come to the conclusion that i side with a woman’s rights to her body.

            To me it is a no brainer that the pregnant woman’s rights supersede the embryo or fetus.

            I have no issue with pro-lifers carrying to term all of their pregnancies

            I am pro-choice, NOT pro-abortion or pro-birth.

            I have never been pregnant, and i am happily married 21 years with no children.

            i hope that clears up your projecting about me

            next time ask me?

          • I❤️Life

            I have a question from one Christian to another. Who creates the unborn child, God or man?

          • Q: “Do you propose to force ALL women to remain pregnant against their will, even those that are not Christian?”
            A: I propose that as with rape and murder, abortion should be illegal regardless of what the perpetrator believes. Just because psychopaths believe they should be allowed to murder does not mean we should legalize it. In the same way, even though there are women who believe it is okay to kill their babies (before or after birth), doesn’t mean we should have it be legal.

            Q: “Are you saying women lose their rights due to having sex, they lose their rights to their bodies?”
            A: No, sex does not make a woman lose rights to her body, but having another person’s body conjoined to hers does. Just as we would not let one person in set of conjoined twins have the other’s life taken so he can move on and live the life he wants to, so we should not let a woman take her baby’s life. (I’m all for stronger laws that make the father of the child responsible as well. The father and mother BOTH have responsibility to take care of the child they created.)

            Q: “Do you really want to force women to gestate a pregnancy against their will?”
            A: Not really, I want all women to love children enough that they would never even consider killing them. This would mean women would be willing to gestate instead of unwilling. Since we aren’t there yet, (just as we still have men who don’t see rape as horrible) we should have laws that discourage those men from raping and those women from aborting.

            Ultimately though, until you see morality as a solid standard that should be applied to all people whether they agree with it or not and until you see abortion as utterly immoral, you probably won’t be able to come to the same conclusions.

          • gladys1071

            What about those of us women that are unwilling to gestate? again are you for forcing us to gestate against our will by passing laws barring us from terminating?

            If you REALLY mean “NOT REALLY”, then stop trying to change the laws to ban abortion.

            Their will always be women like myself that will NEVER agree to gestating, so again what do you propose to do with those of us that refuse to gestate?

            Please tell me how far are you willing to go to force us to remain pregnant?

          • Hannah

            Well, at least you stand by your own standards then. Still doesn’t dismiss the fact that the contradiction means someone is wrong (and I’d bet money that it isn’t the Christians).

            At least you’re honest as well. Again, that doesn’t change anything. You are on a Christian site debating Christians about morality, and frankly, it’s confusing because how do you know what “morality” is without having an ultimate source of truth not confined to private interpretations?

            The laws of nature apply to all of humanity, not just those who accept that they are the product of their Creator. And no, you know quite well that I wasn’t saying that women “lose their rights” when they have sex – I explicitly said that they “court fate” when they choose to engage in sex which means they at the very least acknowledge that it is a possibility, even with contraceptives. You are quite the persnickity type, and I had a funny feeling you’d try and twist my words, hence I chose them carefully.

            You refuse to give the child *any* rights, and that is on you, not me. You see only one person being wronged here, and that person made the choice that resulted in the other. I find it enraging that you won’t acknowledge the child’s autonomy from its mother, and because of that, you will not understand a word that comes from me. Science and I see the mother and child as two different people (despite popular opinion), and that alone make abortion murder.

            You will have more to say, I have no doubt, but I’ve said my piece. Have a good day, ma’am.

          • gladys1071

            Oh so you believe in “fate” now? So you are basically saying that a woman having sex has no recourse am i right?

            Just like a smoker is “courting fate” he has no recourse, he cannot get treatments for his cancer right?

            The unborn is ATTACHED to the mother and is INSIDE her body which in turn means it is USING her body. It is NOT autonomous.

            Tell me where does is say anywhere that the unborn have any rights to use another person’s body.

            Since you say a woman that becomes pregnant has to stay pregnant, then yes you are advocating a woman losing rights to a fertilized egg.

            You are saying the moment conception occurs the woman now has “sealed her fate” and has to stay pregnant right?

            You know what enrages me, is that YOU believe a woman loses her rights to a fertilized egg.

            It enrages me that you think women should be forced to stay pregnant against their will

          • Jim Walker

            reminds me of a joke.
            Doctor : Congratulations lady you are pregnant.
            Lady : Is it mine ?

          • gladys1071

            ok?

          • Jim Walker

            That lady is you. You loved yourself so much, there is little left to love others.
            No women are forced to gestate for someone else’s baby but their own having 50% of your DNA and 50% of your husband. Its not a foreign particle, its your own. Yet you have no love, at all.

          • gladys1071

            You don’t know me at all, yet you claim to know my heart and who i love. Again you are projecting.

            Just because i don’t feel attached to an embryo, you seem to think that defines who i am. You are a simplistic thinker.

            You do know that people are more complex then just one particular issue.

            You know nothing about me or my life, yet you pass judgement.

          • Jim Walker

            Its not an embryo, its your own baby.
            And I’d rather be a simplistic thinker than a murderer and Oh… you don’t know me either ya ?

          • jnlpc

            I am confused. You are saying that a woman always has full rights and authority over her body–no exceptions. OK. I am just wondering why you refer to this life as a “fertilized egg”. Pro-choice folks use such terms because they don’t want to admit the life inside the mother is a “human being”. If the rights of the woman over her body exceeds anything or anyone, why do pro-choice advocates avoid the term “human being”? According to this line of thinking, It doesn’t matter if the life inside the womb is a human being, a piece of tissue, a fetus, fertilized egg, a mistake, or an inconvenience. The rights of the woman prevail in any and all circumstances. I remember once, hearing a pro-choice spokeswoman call the life inside the womb a “human being”. She said the mother has the right to terminate that “human being” no matter the circumstances. I actually admired her honesty (though I totally disagreed with her assertion). So why do you avoid using the term?

          • gladys1071

            No i will never give more rights to an embryo or fetus over the woman.

            If that enrages you well too bad. Women are thinking feeling and do not just become incubators without any rights.

            Again we live in a pluralistic society and you have no right to impose your religious view on total strangers.

            If you are against abortion, you DON’t have to have one that is your perogative.

            You have no business sticking your nose in other people’s pregnancies.

          • Aren’t you the same woman I just had a debate with elsewhere, who goes by the name of “WomanArePeople”?

          • gladys1071

            nope.

          • Bravo!

          • Jim Walker

            She has never claimed to be Christian.
            She would gladlys abort her own flesh and blood and come out smiling. Disgusting nasty woman !

          • gladys1071

            who said anything about smiling?

            I think you are projecting.

          • Jim Walker

            Well OK, but definitely a sigh of relieve ya ?

          • gladys1071

            yes of course.

          • Jim Walker

            There you go. How many times have you gone for abortions ?

          • gladys1071

            Again you are projecting. You seem to have your mind all made up about me.

            I have never had an abortion, never been pregnant, thank you very much!

          • Jim Walker

            Great to know that you didn’t have one.

          • gladys1071

            stop assuming things about me, i know you think i am horrible person because i refuse to gestate a pregnancy.

            I figured i would be demonized because i don’t get any fuzzy feelings about being pregnant or embryos.

          • Jim Walker

            I don’t think you are a horrible person. I’m glad you were never pregnant
            But there is no such thing as a Pro-choice Christian. Christians value life because Jesus gave His life in exchange for ours, think of that for a moment.
            You should promote life, and not promote rights.
            I apologize for some nasty remarks, I too, am human. You turned the right knobs on me hahahaa. Please forgive me.

          • gladys1071

            I am pro-choice and i am a Christian. God knows how i feel about this, he is aware off this, it is not a secret.

            I am not ashamed to be me before God. I don’t pretend to be something i am not.

            I am pro-choice not pro-abortion. Not my concern if women carry to term or not. It is a private intimate decision that is not my business.

            I have no issue with people being pro-life some of my best friends are pro-life, and they know i am pro-choice and they respect me.

          • Jim Walker

            I hope 1 day you will be enlightened, I did. I was pro-choice too.

          • Hannah

            No, she has elsewhere. Checked myself after Nigel did. She’s said that she’s a pro-choice Christian and in the same breath rages against those who support the rights of the unborn. I had to step away, I got so angry.

          • Jim Walker

            Wow ! and she said this here :
            “I don’t care about what the bible says, i care about the legality for remember we live in a pluralistic society.”
            I have to say, I used to be closet pro-choice and after I chanced upon Stream, I flipped to Pro-Life. Thank God for opening the eyes of my heart.
            I’m still struggling to accept pregnancy caused by rape and incest though.

      • Joseph Matthews

        ”This idea that a woman that becomes pregnant means she has to stay pregnant is so repugnant ” is not repugnant at all. she should stay pregnant. if she does not want the baby give it up adoption

        • gladys1071

          Why should she stay pregnant? Yes it is repugnant to those of us that believe women have right to their own bodies.

          Do women just become incubators without any rights because of a sperm fertilizing an egg?

          Does a fertilized egg/ embryo now have MORE rights then the pregnant woman?

          • Meaning right to their slaves, which you use the word “body” to pretty up your language. How demonic.

            So your argument is that your own child is less than you are, and that your child having rights as given by their creator somehow takes away from yours? Have you always been a wiccan? Because that is 100% their theology, where they believe they suck the life out of their child to assert their own.

          • You consented to that life when you had sex. If you don’t want that life in your uterus, then don’t have sex. But if you do and you get pregnant, then you have a moral obligation to bring it to term.

          • gladys1071

            no i does not, consent to sex is consent to sex.

            It is like saying that consenting to sex is consenting to getting an STD

            Do you believe in getting an STD treated, or should the person just let it fester and not get any treatment?

          • LOL, this is so ridiculous. A child in the womb is not a disease. It is a living human being. It is the consequence of sex.

          • gladys1071

            so in other words you are not going to answer my question on STD’s?

          • Of course you cure STDs. So what. That is not the same thing.

          • gladys1071

            Let me get this right, by having sex you say one consents to pregnancy but not to an STD?

            I thought consenting to sex was consenting to the consequence of sex whether it be pregnancy or an STD.

            So which one is it?

          • Yes, you consent to both. You treat one but love and nurture the other. I’ll leave it up to you to figure out which one is which.

          • gladys1071

            isn’t an STD also a consequence to sex? yet you say it is alright to treat an STD?

            You are picking and choosing the consequences so you are being disengenious.

          • You are that same woman. You’re just as morally deficient. If you can’t see the difference between a human being and an STD then you’re morally stunted. It would be a waste of my time.

      • Tim Pan

        Our rights are defined by God. Those are your “rights” . Obey them or defy them that is your “choice” to make.

      • Juan Garcia

        So you don’t believe in the intrinsic value of human life. You need to understand what you are advocating for. Without life there are no human rights – period.

      • Ken Abbott

        Your disregard for her responsibilities astonishes many of the rest of us, gladys. All this focus on “me, me, me, my rights!” ignores the effect it has on others, including the unborn, who, I point out, didn’t ask to be put in this situation.

        • If you can look through her profile, you will see that just last week she was defending contraception and childlessness as she has a “right” to sex. If you look at her messages, you will see a pattern, and not a good one.

          • gladys1071

            You have a problem with me being childless?
            Who do you think you are Nigeltea pot to tell me how i should live

            Maybe you should mind your own life and business.

            yes i will defend contraception and yes i have a right to sex with my husband whenever i feel like it NIGELTEAPOT

          • Clearly what you are dong is hardly living, especially with you being around and advocating for such death. Also, you clearly have had children, and you have no such rights without procreation.

          • gladys1071

            You are wrong, I don’t have children

          • The ones you claim were to young to be human

        • gladys1071

          Let me ask you who does my uterus belong to?

          Is it not inside my body, which in turn means i own it.

          Or does my uterus now belong to the state, to tell me what i can or cannot do with it?

          Please tell me.

          • Ken Abbott

            Gladys, Christians have a very different perspective on the ownership of the physical body. Simply as creatures, we owe our existence to our Creator God and hold our bodies as entrusted gifts from him, “on loan,” if you will. But we are not autonomous–we do not have the right to do whatever we want with our bodies. To alter a current cultural maxim, with great gifts come great responsibilities.

            Furthermore, as Paul reminds Christians, in Christ we are not our own; we were bought at a price, a terrible price, the death of the sinless Lamb of God. Since we are not our own, we must prioritize his wishes.

            So to answer your question, your uterus belongs neither to the state nor entirely to you. It belongs to God, who has entrusted it to you.

          • gladys1071

            that is fine, but that is YOUR perspective and not everyone shares it.

          • Ken Abbott

            Is truth subject to a vote? Does reality depend on “sharing a perspective?”

            The question is not whether or not what I have said is my “perspective” or my opinion (clearly it is, and pointing this out does not advance the argument), but whether or not what I have said is valid. If it is not, please demonstrate so.

          • gladys1071

            Religious belief is a statement of faith. We live in a pluralistic society, others may not share your view about body ownership.

            You say it is truth, but that is your view of “truth”. Others may disagree, since religious belief cannot be proven either way, you cannot impose your version of truth on others.

            The United states laws are based on individual rights which include bodily rights.

            Under the law i do own body and my organs, which in turn gives me the right to refuse to sustain such life inside my body.

            That is fine if you believe that your body is not you own as far as it applies to YOU, in your belief system.

          • Ken Abbott

            Again, you’re espousing relativism. A morality of convenience. You have your truth and I have my truth and it doesn’t matter whether or not they agree or are even diametrically opposed so long as everyone is happy. With that perspective, no one really cares about reality. That way lies madness. In the end, one’s morality simply facilitates what one wants to do. In this case, as it is so often, it provides an excuse for sexual license.

            You speak of “imposing” my truth on others and then tout the fact that the US has laws. But all laws are an imposition of morality and perceived truth. You can’t get around this.

          • gladys1071

            everyone has their “truth” that has always been all through history, does not matter if someone is religious or not. Truth is in the eye of the beholder and subject to interpretation.

            So whose truth is right? what is reality really?

            Life is a mystery, and nobody has all the answers, so all we can do is the best we can.

            The United States is based on each person deciding for themselves what they believe. Laws are made in a balance to protect society and to give as much freedom to the individual as possible.

            That is why laws change, morality changes, everything is relative as you call it. You just don’t want to admit it, but it is true.

            The way we live now is different then the norms and moral of 100 years ago, and the norms and morality of 500 years ago was even more different.

            So i can argue this all day, neither one of us will get anywhere.

          • gladys1071

            for your information, everyone does what they want to do, EVERYONE. i have yet to meet a sinless perfect person.

            Just so you know nobody needs a sexual license. People do what they want no matter what you say or anyone says.

          • gladys1071

            That is fine you can believe that if you want.

            Others may not share your belief, so just leave the rest to decide for themselves whether or not to carry to term a pregnancy or not.

            Other pregnant persons may believe differently then you.

          • Ken Abbott

            You espouse a relativistic view of truth and morality, Gladys. Basically, whatever the individual thinks/feels is right, is right. Temporarily convenient but fatally flawed, and it can’t be lived consistently. So you end up being a hypocrite.

          • gladys1071

            everyone is a hypocrite and everyone acts that way. I have yet to meet a person that does not live a relativistic lifestyle, EVERYONE DOES.

            Let me ask you do you have friends that have been divorced and re-married? does the church you go accept divorced and re-married people? if so the church is being relativistic, otherwise they should kick out the re-married people for they are commiting adultery , after all marriage is for life.

            Do you believe that if a person divorces they should stay single the rest of thier life?

            Would you go to a wedding of a Christian that is re-marrying after a divorce?

            So tell me who is not relativistic in their life, EVERYONE!

        • gladys1071

          I don’t care if it astonishes you, this is about bodily rights. I am not ashamed to say that i side with the pregnant woman first and i believe in her rights coming first.

        • Jim Walker

          me, myself and I-types are narcissists.

      • Are you not the same one just days ago boosting for contraception? It seems you have found the deep, intrinsic connection between the evil of abortion and the evil of contraception.

        • gladys1071

          I really don’t care what you think.

          • Clearly you do not even care what God has to say.

        • Jim Walker

          I won’t spend much time with her. She will Gladly kill her own anytime any day without guilt.

  • Kathy

    Life begins at conception, Abortion is murder

    • Hannah

      Simple and to the point. Wholeheartedly agree!

  • Paul

    “A Christian Professor Claims That Jesus Would Support Abortion”

    I don’t care what she professes to be, that isn’t Christian.

  • Margaret Jaeger

    As my deeply Christian mother taught me, ‘You shouldn’t have a baby because you are pregnant. You should have a baby because you want to be a mother, because you want to have a family.’” Her quote….what I see in this is her Mother telling her…don’t create a baby in the first place, not a consent to murder it in the womb. I think this professor has professed too much twisted philosophy as a substitute for Christianity. I confess,,haven’t thought a lot about the rape and incest pregnancy except to feel an agonizing gut wrenching. They may be the damned or not butnwhy should the baby be damned also? I can’t imagine anything tougher for a young girl child to have happen to her or the adult woman but still,,why condemn the baby to death..? I understand the fear and shame and resentment a woman of any age would feel but I hope all such cases are met with psychological therapy that offers the point of view of saving the life of the baby for adoption. For women truly doomed with her life in jeopardy, I leave that desicion to the Mother herself, and the father, if involved. I can’t shame her in either decision.

    • I can, as truth is universal and therefore has no exceptions.

  • Yossi

    Oy, but if this professor’s reasoning doesn’t ultimately boil down to the same logic used to justify most horrendous of historical crimes: “For the German people to have abundant lives, it is acceptable to remove foreign elements (i.e. the Jews) that would impede such.” or “For the sake of the people of the Soviet Union to experience abundant lives, it is necessary and therefore acceptable to liquidate the counter-revolutionary kulak class that stands in the way.” And, as Dr. Brown points out, her glossing over the real moral distinctions of the situations in which abortions occur — kind of like saying that when someone is shot that there’s no difference between “I shot him because he had a invaded my house and was about to kill me” and “I shot him because I hated his race.”

    • Juan Garcia

      Great comment! Any “moral” position not based on the objective moral duties and values as defined by God is simply moral relativism based on personal preference.

  • Juan Garcia

    I’m disturbed that the tag line writer would use the term “Christian” professor. It should read professor – period. Anyone who does not passionately support the intrinsic value of human life born or unborn should not be described as Christian.

    • Irene Neuner

      Yah what seminary does this lady teach at?

  • Is it me or am I seeing a concerted effort to rationalize abortion through a religious justification? This is not the first “religious” studies professor to argue in this fashion. They have lost the moral argument and are going back to reshape their rationales. This woman is neither religious or a Christian. Expose these frauds whenever one can.

    • Solstício

      that’s why the bible speaks of the “great harlot,” the false church that will “prostitute itself” with the world

  • bfast

    “Prenatal health, Rape, Incest, and health of the Mother — PRIM.
    Prenatal health — If a medical anomaly can be detected, such as Down Syndrome, well kill the kid.
    Rape, Incest — A horrible injustice has been committed, the solution? Slaughter the innocent. If it were OK to kill a preborn child because they were a product of rape, then it should be just as justified to kill a post-born child.
    The health of the Mother — You mean, like, “she will experience anxiety”? That excuse is used in Canada by medical doctors to justify abortion.

    I concur that in the rare circumstance, such as a tubular pregnancy, where the pregnancy is fundamentally threatening the life of the mother, and by extension the life of the child, that a “self-defence” claim can realistically be made. Even in these cases, however, medical science needs to seek a way of saving both. Could they c-section the child? Could they implant the child in another womb? We must value the child as a full human from the moment of conception, or we must wear the label of murderer.

    • Paul

      “I concur that in the rare circumstance, such as a tubular pregnancy,
      where the pregnancy is fundamentally threatening the life of the mother,
      and by extension the life of the child, that a “self-defence” claim can
      realistically be made. Even in these cases, however, medical science
      needs to seek a way of saving both. Could they c-section the child?
      Could they implant the child in another womb? We must value the child
      as a full human from the moment of conception, or we must wear the label
      of murderer.”

      That’s about the only justification I see for an abortive procedure, and like you said there may be other options to pursue medically that preserve life. But it takes a demented mind for anyone to use an ectopic pregnancy abortion as some justification for abortion on demand.

      • Solstício

        I am a woman and would never kill my own son (or anyone else) to save my own life …
        a true Christian must give life

        • Paul

          I would respect your decision

  • Irene Neuner

    As my deeply Christian mother taught me, ‘You shouldn’t have a baby because you are pregnant.

    Reality glitch!

  • Royce E. Van Blaricome

    Is there some reason that The Stream is engaging in false narratives now? Dr. Brown has it correct in his opening remarks. Why did The Stream get the headline wrong? Intentional clickbait to get one to actually read the story? IF so, that’s Deception. Who does that come from?

    If not, do a better job!! The headline makes it appear that The Stream disagrees with Dr. Brown and with God on what a Christian is,.

  • Solstício

    I feel nothing when I see an unbeliever who supports abortion or any sin, but when a person who says “Christian” I get traumatized

Inspiration
The Promise of Deliverance
James Randall Robison
More from The Stream
Connect with Us