Why is it that SOME Christians have a problem with Christians being "pro-choice"?

Question

I am a conservative Christian that is pro-choice. Some Christians make me feel like I need to turn in my "in Christ" identification card at the door for taking this stance. Why is this the case?

BTW,

I AM anti-abortion but I do not think that solving the abortion crisis in the country is solved through making the medical procedure illegal. I do not see the definition of life or the abortion issue as black and white as some try to portray it.

Answer 1

Because I see abortion to be same as the child sacrifices of baal-worshipers.

Pro-choice=anti-life

Even unborn children have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness

Answer 2

Most Christians tend to be very intolerant of people who do not share their beliefs.

Answer 3

Because they are interpreting an extremely old collection of books written in other languages in such a way as to formulate a position they wish to hold in the present.

Westboro Baptist Church does likewise...

Answer 4

One cannot be pro-choice and a True,Biblical,Christ honoring Christian,your just a sheep in wolves clothing,your of your father the devil,whom Christ said was a MURDERER and a LIAR from the beginning,such are you as well.

Answer 5

I don't know if you are pro-choice or not (you would need to spell out your position more) .. but consider the following.

The Bible teaches that human life is sacred, that we were made in the image of God and that only under special circumstances is it not considered murder to kill a person... self-defense, war (not just any war, that's another issue), corporal punishment.

The pro-choice postion - that a mother has a right to choose whether or not to allow the already living fetus to continue to live - is not biblical.

So, it is like asking "why do some Christians have a problem with Christians who are racist?" - because it is unbiblical, and in opposition to the worldview they claim they hold.

It may not mean you are not a Christian, but it does mean that you are holding a view contrary to that of Christ and have a considerable inconsistency in your worldview.

EDIT - why do you think it is wrong to legislate this issue?  Isn't this a human rights issue?  I person may disagree that the fetus has human rights, but how could you disagree that this is a human rights issue?

Answer 6

Many Christian political beliefs are contrary to religious beliefs to begin with. Pro-life because abortion is murder but it's ok to murder criminals and those on the battlefield. I know this isn't exactly what you were looking for but I said all of that to say that you cannot explain what is irrational to begin with.

Answer 7

I tend to agree with what you're saying (which is one of the reasons you're on my contact list.)

I simply disagree with people, including fellow Christians, who think that life begins at conception. A month-old fetus can't breath, can't eat, and won't live outside the mother's body . . . what sort of 'life' is that?

I do believe life begins at viability -- if the baby can eat and breath outside the mother, it's alive -- and laws should, and do, protect it.

I know a Christian couple who's fetus was diagnosed with a horrific illness -- the baby didn't develop a digestive system. 99 percent of the time a fetus spontaneously aborts, and never develops to term. This baby did. And despite our prayers and our beliefs that God works miracles, this baby was born without a stomach, or other internal organs, and he lived for a few hours until he starved to death.

The guilt that comes with the responsibility of aborting the fetus in the third month was avoided by being 'anti-abortion.' And so the child was born to live and to suffer and to starve to death. It would have been more humane to abort the non-viable fetus, but their faith prevented that.

Another thought . .

As an American, I don't want the government saying what medical procedures we can or can't have. If the government makes illegal the right to terminate an early-term pregnancy, what would prevent that government, just a few years later, from REQUIRING types of abortions, as they do in China?

I don't want the government dictating my religion, or my medical proceedures.

I seriously question people who would surrender such rights to a government they wouldn't otherwise trust to teach children, or supply basic services.

Answer 8

Thou shalt not kill

Answer 9

They think it's murder, but they are not using the Bible to reach that conclusion. In the Old Testament, a person gets a lesser penalty if their ox causes a miscarriage, as opposed to killing an already-born person.  

Answer 10

I'd call you morally anti-abortion, legally pro-choice.  You realize that we can't legislate based on our religious beliefs, and that is a good thing.  That doesn't mean you support abortion.

In that instance, I'd call you pro-religious freedom for all.  Tell them that next time they question your faith.

Answer 11

I am pro-choice.  As I see it, the counterargument to abortion by pro-life advocates is that abortion is, by definition, a "killing" of a human, even though that human is in a fetal state.  And to them, any killing of a human is morally wrong, therefore abortion should be banned.  They seem to feel that making the procedure illegal would at least recognize abortion as morally culpable, and anyone obtaining one would be punishable by law.  Thus, the side effects of a complete ban on abortion would be more tolerable and preferable to the current state of things.

Most Christians that I know who are pro-life view human lives as the most sacred interest conceivable, and they feel that any other Christians that disagree with them must condone the killing of human lives, and therefore cannot be considered a "true" Christian.

Since I'm not a Christian, I don't care what most Christians think of me, but that's my take on the issue.  What they fail to understand is that a woman has a constitutional right to privacy with respect to her own body under the Fourth Amendment.  An unborn fetus is not considered a citizen of the United States, and therefore does not have any recognizable right to life under the Constitution.  What the court weighed in Roe v. Wade was the woman's right to privacy against the state's interest in protecting an unborn fetus.  The court determined that the state does not have a sufficiently compelling interest to interfere with the woman's right to privacy until the fetus reaches viability, meaning it can sustain its own life independent of the mother.  Thus, no law banning abortions outright could be legitimately enacted.