Abortion Again?

Last time I mentioned abortion, I said it wasn't something I put too much effort into studying. But it seems to be a big deal and I have been thinking about it more and more.

I still don't see why I need to.
Abortion is the act of killing unborn babies. Does it need to get more complicated than that?

Apparently. The pro-choice apologetics I've heard though are really really terrible.
Maybe I'm coming in from a hard angle, I mean, I am looking to be convinced that murdering babies is OK. That's a tough sell, but for some reason a lot of people feel that way.
I even offer an alternative: show me why a foetus is somehow not human and therefore all right to dispose of.

The short of it: my position is that abortion is the murder of unborn babies. You either have to convince me that it's not murder, or it's not a baby.
So far, I'm unmoved. And if it's wrong to hold the view that murdering babies is wrong, then I don't want to be right.

I don't want to suggest that all women who have had abortions are evil. I imagine many have felt that it was the right thing to do in a certain situation. Of course there are also the numerous medical reasons for abortions to be necessary. The particular attitude I'm very much opposed to is "A baby/pregnancy would be an inconvenience to me, so I'll just abort it".
I'm aware pregnancy is no walk in the park, and childbirth even less so, but once the baby is born, if it's still unwanted, there are plenty of couples who aren't able to conceive their own who would love to adopt.

So what have I been offered in defence of baby killing?

Does Ockham's Razor Disprove The Existence Of God?

Here's another fairly common argument put forward by some atheists. On the face of it, it usually looks like one of the smarter ones too. Of course it's just another mess of nonsense. Let's take a look!

There are various ways they might put it, but it boils down to something like: For any model of the universe that includes God, a simpler one can be made for a naturalistic universe.

The way they defend it is by suggesting that there is no reason to have God somewhere in the theory of everything. Everything they study and discover in science uses natural processes, so there's no reason to assume that there is a god at any level of reality. More often than not, the atheist who is making this claim isn't actually a scientist themselves, so any discoveries they have personally found will be minimal and probably previously well documented by actual professionals.

The main defence? Ockham's Razor.

The Apologist's Guidebook

What we do:

But in your hearts honour Christ the Lord as holy, always being prepared to make a defence to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you; yet do it with gentleness and respect, having a good conscience, so that, when you are slandered, those who revile your good behaviour in Christ may be put to shame. -- 1 Peter 3:15-16 

Misunderstanding the Moral Argument

I'm not sure what it is about fundie atheists, but many of them just don't seem to be able to grasp the Moral Argument. In a recent conversation one hit just about every mine in the field even though I was doing everything I could to steer them through safely. It's like I was saying 'two steps right' and they heard 'spin on the spot'.


I stepped in to a conversation to help clear up a few things. The atheist was speaking to a Christian who was attempting to defend the moral argument, but to me I thought the believer hadn't really got the best grasp of it himself. I think he understood it, but wasn't so great at explaining it. Whatever the case with the Christian, the atheist had no chance to get to grips with it, so I figured I'd push things in the right direction to get them both on track. It was meant to be a quick in and out, but the atheist seemed unable to grasp my clarity.

I should have taken the hints from his comments like these before getting involved...

Is this real misunderstanding or intentional dishonesty?
Anyway, here's where I came in. Take a look at this.

Think About Abortion!

This isn't a subject I think about that much. It seems pretty obvious to me that abortion is wrong.
That's nothing to do with any Biblical perspective or laws. It's the plain fact that killing a defenceless baby can not be defended.

Anyway, I had this short exchange recently with someone who clearly hasn't stopped to think for a moment about their pro-choice position.

They gave up replying, and my guess is that they couldn't think of a response to my last question.

Where is the line drawn? When does a foetus become a human being?
When the umbilical cord is cut? Ridiculous.
When the baby leaves the womb and comes out into the world? Just a matter of location? Ridiculous.
At some point during growth in the womb? Now here's the real problem!

As a Christian I can ask this question. I can say that perhaps in early weeks the baby might not be developed enough to have received a soul and truly be a human being. I have no way of knowing when that happens though, so to be on the safe side, I'd have to rule out abortion completely.
Atheists don't have that in their worldview. They can't draw a line between a soulless foetus and a soulful human baby. In which case, all atheists should be anti-abortion, because a foetus has everything it needs to potentially become a full human being at conception. As soon as mum's egg and dad's sperm join together, that's the full set of ingredients that make a person.
An atheist trying to draw the line anywhere else is getting into dangerous water where they can also be damning the disabled, the elderly, or anyone who needs any kind of assistance to live.

The Reason For Prayer and Miracles

I stumbled across this exchange online and the lack of understanding from the atheist side pains me.
Although I wonder if maybe they actually understood what prayer and miracles were about, perhaps they might not be atheists? We can only hope.

Let's tear this apart.

Does God Allow Us To Keep Slaves? (New Testament)

The slavery debate has been settled in our society for a good while now. We know it's wrong to take a person and keep them as property that we can do whatever we want with. Thankfully slavery is now illegal after a lot of hard fighting by people including Christians like Abraham Lincoln and William Wilberforce.

But some people think that the Bible allows or even commands us to keep slaves. If that's the case that seems to mean that God of the Bible is less than perfect morally. Fortunately for us, God, Jesus, and the Bible do not allow keeping slaves. So there's your short answer.

How about a slightly longer answer? Try these:

"There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus." Galatians 3:28

In Jesus' ideal world, all people are equally important. If everyone is meant to be equal, then slaves are a complete no-no.

"For we were all baptised by one Spirit so as to form one body--whether Jews or Gentiles, slave or free--and we were all given the one Spirit to drink." 1 Corinthians 12:13

Just to reiterate a point...
And finally, in case so far it sounds like the New Testament is OK with slavery because one day slaves won't exist any more, here's an Old Testament verse to put it all in perspective:

"Anyone who kidnaps and sells another person must be put to death. If they still have the person with them when they are caught, they must be put to death." Exodus 21:16

The trouble I think most people have with seeing passages in the Bible about slavery is that they read them through 21st century eyes. For most of us, our understanding of slavery is completely based on the image of black people being taken from their homes in Africa and forced into hard labour by rich white people. They were seen as property, no better than livestock, and had no respect or rights. They were considered sub-human. When we hear the word 'slave', we think of the worst type of slavery, because that's what we're familiar with. We can call this kind of slavery 'chattel slavery'. Sounds a bit like cattle, if it helps you remember. (The word 'chattel' is derived from 'cattle' anyway).
But the above verse from Exodus clearly says that taking someone and holding them as property to be sold is wrong. If that doesn't describe slavery as we know it, I don't know what does.