SHOULD CHRISTIANS BE AGAINST ABORTION

[Grailhunter]

When Christians talk about “the heart” in relation to abortion — or any other immoral act — we’re talking about the interior reality that God judges — the intentions, fears, pressures, wounds, and moral responsibility that shape the act. Abortion is objectively evil, but the interior involvement can include desperation, coercion, confusion, or even a distorted sense of compassion.

Christian moral theology never treats the act alone as the whole story. God judges both the act and the heart, and that means Christians have to consider the mother’s circumstances, the pressures she faces, the moral formation she received, and the degree of freedom or fear involved. The heart matters because charity, responsibility, and the willingness to protect life are interior realities before they ever become external actions.

And this is exactly why Christians cannot judge the way humans often do — by the act alone. If God judged us solely on the worst thing we ever did, without considering the heart, the wounds, the intent, or the circumstances, every one of us would be condemned.

We can be sure that Christ's judgment will be just taking all things into consideration.
But that does not mean we should not make the physical act illegal.

 

[Moonwood]

I am opposed to abortion but this case challenges my position.

Indiana doctor defends actions in 10-year-old rape victim's abortion

An Indianapolis doctor who provided abortion drugs to a 10-year-old rape victim from Ohio has defended her actions before a judge in the case that drew national attention in the weeks after the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade in June.

www.pbs.org

The Christian moral theology against aborting a child conceived through rape—even the rape of a minor—rests on the principle that the direct killing of an innocent human being is intrinsically evil and cannot be justified by any circumstance, however tragic. The child conceived is morally distinct from the rapist and bears no responsibility for the crime; his or her dignity comes from God, not from the circumstances of conception. Because Christian moral theology forbids doing evil so that good may come of it, one cannot answer the grave injustice of rape with the deliberate destruction of an innocent life. Abortion in this context punishes the only party who did not commit any wrongdoing, treating the child as an extension of the aggressor rather than as a new human person willed by God. Authentic compassion must therefore embrace both victims—the girl who has suffered violence and the child who now exists—offering every form of moral, medical, psychological, and social support to the mother while refusing to solve one injustice by committing another. For these reasons, Christian theology holds that abortion cannot be chosen even in cases of rape, because the evil of the assault cannot be remedied by the intentional killing of the innocent.

 

[Moonwood]

We can be sure that Christ's judgment will be just taking all things into consideration.
But that does not mean we should not make the physical act illegal.

I agree that civil law can and should forbid the act. But Christian moral theology still requires us to understand why people commit the act, because God judges both the act and the heart. Making abortion illegal addresses the external reality, but it doesn’t replace the interior discernment Christians are responsible for — charity, responsibility, and the willingness to protect life. Civil law can forbid the act; only Christian moral reasoning can address the heart.

 

[markalan]

Christian moral theology forbids doing evil so that good may come of it,

Whose Christian morality?
All churches I know support the use of lethal force to bring down a shooter killing children in school with a machine gun.

 

[Moonwood]

Whose Christian morality?
All churches I know support the use of lethal force to bring down a shooter killing children in school with a machine gun.

The principle I’m referring to is the one used in Christian moral theology: the moral object of an act determines whether it is intrinsically evil. Abortion is the direct killing of an innocent, which is always forbidden. But stopping an unjust aggressor has a different moral object — the intention is to stop the attack, not to kill.

That’s why the Church applies the principle of double effect in cases of self‑defense or defense of others. The death of the aggressor is a foreseen but unintended consequence, not the chosen moral object.

So when Christian morality says we cannot “do evil so that good may come,” it’s referring to acts whose moral object is evil in itself, like the direct killing of the innocent. Defense of others has a different moral structure.

 

[markalan]

The principle I’m referring to is the one used in Christian moral theology: the moral object of an act determines whether it is intrinsically evil. Abortion is the direct killing of an innocent, which is always forbidden. But stopping an unjust aggressor has a different moral object — the intention is to stop the attack, not to kill.

That’s why the Church applies the principle of double effect in cases of self‑defense or defense of others. The death of the aggressor is a foreseen but unintended consequence, not the chosen moral object.

So when Christian morality says we cannot “do evil so that good may come,” it’s referring to acts whose moral object is evil in itself, like the direct killing of the innocent. Defense of others has a different moral structure.

You make some good points but I still have to ask - whose Christian moral theology?
The Catholic Church does not approve of contraception yet some other churches do.

 

[Moonwood]

You make some good points but I still have to ask - whose Christian moral theology?
The Catholic Church does not approve of contraception yet some other churches do.

Christian moral theology ultimately comes from God, because it’s grounded in revelation and natural law. When I refer to “Christian moral theology,” I mean that shared framework: the way Christians have understood moral object, intention, and acts that are intrinsically evil across the historic tradition.

Different churches may disagree on applications like contraception, but the underlying moral principles — that we cannot “do evil so that good may come,” and that the direct killing of the innocent is always wrong — come from that broader Christian moral tradition rooted in God’s revelation.

 

[markalan]

Christian moral theology ultimately comes from God, because it’s grounded in revelation and natural law. When I refer to “Christian moral theology,” I mean that shared framework: the way Christians have understood moral object, intention, and acts that are intrinsically evil across the historic tradition.

Different churches may disagree on applications like contraception, but the underlying moral principles — that we cannot “do evil so that good may come,” and that the direct killing of the innocent is always wrong — come from that broader Christian moral tradition rooted in God’s revelation.

In another thread we are discussing whether the atomic bombs dropped on Japan killing innocent people was justified ... you will find Christians on both sides of that debate.

 

[Moonwood]

In another thread we are discussing whether the atomic bombs dropped on Japan killing innocent people was justified ... you will find Christians on both sides of that debate.

Questions about the atomic bomb involve how the principles of Christian moral theology apply to a complex historical event — not a disagreement about the principles themselves. The core moral truths remain the same: the direct killing of the innocent is intrinsically evil, and we cannot “do evil so that good may come.”

Christians may debate whether a particular wartime action falls under direct killing or under the principle of double effect, but that’s a debate about application, not about the underlying moral framework. The framework itself — rooted in God’s revelation and natural law — is shared across the Christian tradition.

 

[markalan]

Questions about the atomic bomb involve how the principles of Christian moral theology apply to a complex historical event — not a disagreement about the principles themselves. The core moral truths remain the same: the direct killing of the innocent is intrinsically evil, and we cannot “do evil so that good may come.”

Christians may debate whether a particular wartime action falls under direct killing or under the principle of double effect, but that’s a debate about application, not about the underlying moral framework. The framework itself — rooted in God’s revelation and natural law — is shared across the Christian tradition.

The only way any system of "moral theology" can be evaluated is by how it relates to real life situations.
The abortion of an embryo carried by a 10 year old girl who had been raped, challenges moral absolutes.

 

[Moonwood]

The only way any system of "moral theology" can be evaluated is by how it relates to real life situations.
The abortion of an embryo carried by a 10 year old girl who had been raped, challenges moral absolutes.

Extreme cases don’t overturn God’s Law; they show why Christian moral theology distinguishes between the moral object of the act and the culpability of the person involved. The direct killing of the innocent is intrinsically evil, but the culpability of a traumatized child is shaped by fear, coercion, pressure, and diminished freedom.

The fact that real situations can be tragic or horrifying doesn’t erase the absolute; it shows why Christian moral theology insists that God judges the heart — the wounds, intentions, and circumstances that shape a person’s responsibility. A raped 10‑year‑old doesn’t challenge the absolute moral norm; she shows why the distinction between moral object and culpability is essential.

 

[markalan]

Extreme cases don’t overturn moral absolutes; they show why Christian moral theology distinguishes between the act and the interior reality of the person involved. The direct killing of the innocent is intrinsically evil, but the culpability of a traumatized child is shaped by fear, coercion, pressure, and diminished freedom.

What about the culpability of the doctor who performed the abortion and the parents who approved it?
Every situation must be assessed on all the factors involved, not an external rigid template.
This is what Joseph Fletcher (an Anglican theologian) called "situation ethics".
He believed in moral principles, but not moral absolutes.

Do you think Lot behaved rightly or wrongly?
I have two daughters who have not known any man.
Let me bring them out to you, and do to them as you please.
Only do nothing to these men, for they have come under the shelter of my roof.

 

[Moonwood]

What about the culpability of the doctor who performed the abortion and the parents who approved it?
Every situation must be assessed on all the factors involved, not an external rigid template.
This is what Joseph Fletcher (an Anglican theologian) called "situation ethics".
He believed in moral principles, but not moral absolutes.

Do you think Lot behaved rightly or wrongly?
I have two daughters who have not known any man.
Let me bring them out to you, and do to them as you please.
Only do nothing to these men, for they have come under the shelter of my roof.

The culpability of the doctor or the parents is assessed the same way: by distinguishing the moral object of the act from the interior responsibility of the people involved. The direct killing of the innocent remains intrinsically evil, but culpability can vary because God judges the heart — fear, coercion, trauma, pressure, and diminished freedom.

That’s why Christian moral theology doesn’t use situation ethics. Tragic circumstances don’t erase God’s Law or moral absolutes; they show why we have to evaluate both the act and the interior reality of the people involved.

And biblical narratives like Lot’s aren’t moral templates. Scripture often shows human failure in extreme situations, not examples of what Christians should imitate. The moral absolutes remain in place, while culpability is judged with the justice and mercy that only God can perfectly apply.

 

[markalan]

The culpability of the doctor or the parents is assessed the same way: by distinguishing the moral object of the act from the interior responsibility of the people involved. The direct killing of the innocent remains intrinsically evil, but culpability can vary because God judges the heart — fear, coercion, trauma, pressure, and diminished freedom.

Assessing the culpability of a person's behaviour is situation ethics.

That’s why Christian moral theology doesn’t use situation ethics. Tragic circumstances don’t erase God’s Law or moral absolutes; they show why we have to evaluate both the act and the interior reality of the people involved.

Does God break His own law?
Now go and strike Amalek and devote to destruction all that they have.
Do not spare them, but kill both man and woman, child and infant, ox and sheep, camel and donkey.’”
(1 Samuel 5:13)

And biblical narratives like Lot’s aren’t moral templates. Scripture often shows human failure in extreme situations, not examples of what Christians should imitate. The moral absolutes remain in place, while culpability is judged with the justice and mercy that only God can perfectly apply.

Lot is described by Peter as a "righteous man" so your conclusion is rather dubious.
The story actually demonstrates the necessity sometimes of choosing the lesser evil.

 

[Moonwood]

Assessing the culpability of a person's behaviour is situation ethics.

Does God break His own law?
Now go and strike Amalek and devote to destruction all that they have.
Do not spare them, but kill both man and woman, child and infant, ox and sheep, camel and donkey.’”
(1 Samuel 5:13)

Lot is described by Peter as a "righteous man" so your conclusion is rather dubious.
The story actually demonstrates the necessity sometimes of choosing the lesser evil.

Assessing culpability isn’t situation ethics; it’s part of how Christian moral theology has always distinguished the moral object of an act from the interior responsibility of the person. The direct killing of the innocent remains intrinsically evil, but culpability can vary because God judges the heart — fear, coercion, trauma, pressure, and diminished freedom.

Situation ethics denies moral absolutes. Christian moral theology does not. Tragic circumstances don’t erase God’s Law; they show why we must evaluate both the act and the interior reality of the people involved.

And the Amalek command doesn’t mean God “breaks His own law.” God’s commands in salvation history are acts of divine judgment, not permissions for individuals to violate moral absolutes. The moral law binds creatures, not God; divine judgment is not a human moral act but the exercise of God’s sovereign justice.

Lot is called “righteous” because he opposed the wickedness of Sodom, not because every action he took was morally exemplary. His offer shows human failure under extreme pressure, not a model of a “lesser evil.” The moral absolutes remain in place, while culpability is judged with the justice and mercy that only God can perfectly apply.

 

[markalan]

Assessing culpability isn’t situation ethics; it’s part of how Christian moral theology has always distinguished the moral object of an act from the interior responsibility of the person. The direct killing of the innocent remains intrinsically evil, but culpability can vary because God judges the heart — fear, coercion, trauma, pressure, and diminished freedom.

Situation ethics denies moral absolutes. Christian moral theology does not. Tragic circumstances don’t erase God’s Law; they show why we must evaluate both the act and the interior reality of the people involved.

Situation ethics denies there are moral absolutes that cover every situation ... so do you by invoking the "culpability" loophole.

And the Amalek command doesn’t mean God “breaks His own law.” God’s commands in salvation history are acts of divine judgment, not permissions for individuals to violate moral absolutes. The moral law binds creatures, not God; divine judgment is not a human moral act but the exercise of God’s sovereign justice.

That clarifies your previous comment.

Lot is called “righteous” because he opposed the wickedness of Sodom, not because every action he took was morally exemplary. His offer shows human failure under extreme pressure, not a model of a “lesser evil.” The moral absolutes remain in place, while culpability is judged with the justice and mercy that only God can perfectly apply.

You may feel qualified to judge Lot, but I am not.

Which of the Ten Commandments were violated by people God honoured?

 

[Grailhunter]

I agree that civil law can and should forbid the act. But Christian moral theology still requires us to understand why people commit the act, because God judges both the act and the heart. Making abortion illegal addresses the external reality, but it doesn’t replace the interior discernment Christians are responsible for — charity, responsibility, and the willingness to protect life. Civil law can forbid the act; only Christian moral reasoning can address the heart.

The statistics of why people murder babies are in post #4
Abortion-----charity, responsibility-----address the heart.....You are not really going to know the people that the law stops from having abortion. So you are not going to know their story.

Now we have suicide hot lines......should we have abortion hot lines.......Single mother hot lines......adoption hot lines?

 

[Grailhunter]

The culpability of the doctor or the parents is assessed the same way: by distinguishing the moral object of the act from the interior responsibility of the people involved. The direct killing of the innocent remains intrinsically evil, but culpability can vary because God judges the heart — fear, coercion, trauma, pressure, and diminished freedom.

That’s why Christian moral theology doesn’t use situation ethics. Tragic circumstances don’t erase God’s Law or moral absolutes; they show why we have to evaluate both the act and the interior reality of the people involved.

And biblical narratives like Lot’s aren’t moral templates. Scripture often shows human failure in extreme situations, not examples of what Christians should imitate. The moral absolutes remain in place, while culpability is judged with the justice and mercy that only God can perfectly apply.

FYI
The people in Judges 19 are identified as an old man and a Levite----who gave up the women to the homosexuals.
The story of Lot's incest with his daughters is Genesis 19.

 

[Grailhunter]

Assessing culpability isn’t situation ethics; it’s part of how Christian moral theology has always distinguished the moral object of an act from the interior responsibility of the person. The direct killing of the innocent remains intrinsically evil, but culpability can vary because God judges the heart — fear, coercion, trauma, pressure, and diminished freedom.

Situation ethics denies moral absolutes. Christian moral theology does not. Tragic circumstances don’t erase God’s Law; they show why we must evaluate both the act and the interior reality of the people involved.

And the Amalek command doesn’t mean God “breaks His own law.” God’s commands in salvation history are acts of divine judgment, not permissions for individuals to violate moral absolutes. The moral law binds creatures, not God; divine judgment is not a human moral act but the exercise of God’s sovereign justice.

Lot is called “righteous” because he opposed the wickedness of Sodom, not because every action he took was morally exemplary. His offer shows human failure under extreme pressure, not a model of a “lesser evil.” The moral absolutes remain in place, while culpability is judged with the justice and mercy that only God can perfectly apply.

Ya know I suspect that demons walk the halls of abortion clinics, maybe Satan himself maybe there and spreads his wings and does a dance of joy as he watches mothers get naked and lay down on table that could serve as an altar to the devil and spread their legs as a monster get between her legs to horribly murder her baby. The screams of the baby would probably be music to his ears.
You will not likely see videos of this because Satan does not want people to see the house of demonic horrors. Sometimes the baby is dissected in the mother, sometimes murdered after its head passes the birth canal and sometimes the baby is murdered outside the mother. We don't get to see it, but God sees it.