Those two words- Reproductive Rights- have become a mantra to those who accept and support abortion. Its use and misuse have distorted the abortion issue, leading many people to make sinful decisions about their unborn children.
Reproductive rights are badly applied and have limited application by unbelievers who support abortion. They feel that only women have these rights and that is just not so. Since it takes two to create a baby, men also have reproductive rights as the unborn child belongs to the father as much as it does the mother.
As people stray further and further away from God’s moral code we will see more distortions over this issue. Part of the moral code is that women are to be submissive to their husbands and that they, along with men, do not have authority over their bodies.
Husbands and wives have given their bodies to each other ending independent ownership. We know that some preachers have extended that giving to when men and women have sexual relations. More study on that issue needs to be done. (1 Cor. 7).
Thus, the secular argument that it is the woman’s body it is her choice does not hold water. It is not her body anymore and she cannot make the sole decision concerning the pregnancy. Then there is the biblical issue of submission.
Yes, a wife is to be submissive to her husband, but only if he is leading her away from sin and telling her to do activities that are in line with God’s teaching. Once a husband tells his wife to have an abortion, that has her violating God’s laws and the wife has the right to refuse to obey her husband’s instruction or demand.
Submission is not an area of life that is exempt from biblical instruction. Men need to be careful here about how they expect their wives to act. it is up to the husband to make sure his wife is following God’s word correctly.
In the case of abortion, men cannot support their wives’ attempts to abort the child. Nor can they command it be done. One cannot abdicate their husband’s responsibility by adhering to the argument it is a woman’s body thus it is her choice.
It is not her choice because the baby is not solely hers. When you give reproductive rights to the woman, then you are denying reproductive rights to both the husband/father as well as the unborn child. That is neither just nor fair.
There was an article today, Arizona’s Democratic governor signs a bill to repeal 1864 ban on most abortions, that contains information on how far the unbelieving and the compromised will take this issue and their concept of reproductive rights.
Hobbs says the move is just the beginning of a fight to protect reproductive health care in Arizona.
Abortion is not reproductive health care. Given today’s medical ability it is rare for a baby to be aborted for medical reasons. The fact that many doctors use the health condition of the unborn child as justification to recommend abortion does not make abortion healthcare.
Reproductive rights begin with the couple talking about having sexual relations and it ends once they have completed that encounter. It does not take place once the woman finds out that she is pregnant.
Abstinence is the best form of reproductive healthcare but every situation is different and people need to follow God’s leading in how they handle their romantic endeavors. However, God’s rules do not change when people are married or unmarried. Thou shalt not kill applies to all of life.
If couples are afraid the woman may get pregnant, then there are biblical guidance on what protection to use and those guidelines are often subjective and depend on the pastor relaying them to the couple. The couple needs to be prepared that pregnancy can happen and that reproductive rights stop once it does.
Hobbs denounced “a ban that was passed by 27 men before Arizona was even a state, at a time when America was at war over the right to own slaves, a time before women could even vote.”
Just because men created the law does it mean that it is wrong. The drive to allow abortion is sin and a form of rebellion against God and his ways. 160 years ago, people were closer to God’s rules and obeyed them more than they do now.
It is no surprise that the law did not include rape or incest exceptions:
The near-total ban provides no exceptions for survivors of rape or incest.
Rape and incest are parental sins and the Bible is very clear that the child is not to pay for the sins of their parents. Abortion lets the parents off the hook and penalizes the unborn child for something they did not commit. That is wrong.
The groups trying to protect the unborn child are not doing anything wrong unless they violate God’s commands and instructions in their efforts. As for the health of the mother, that was more of a going concern 160 years ago as many women died in childbirth than they do now.
With medical advancements, the mother’s death rate is so low during childbirth that should not be included as an exception for abortion. There is no excuse to allow abortion except in extreme cases, which needs to be closely governed as one person’s extreme case is not always the same as another’s.
A crowd of lawmakers — mostly women — joined the governor at the signing ceremony. Some were gripped by emotion as they cheered the repeal and said more is needed to protect rights to reproductive health care.
We can see the level of rebellion in that quote. It is not healthcare they are cheering. They are cheering because now they have legal permission to kill unborn children for whatever reason they have. That is not medical treatment at all.
Those women are not being submissive to God and his commands. They may feel ‘freedom’ to do what they want when they become pregnant but freedom is not always obedience nor considering what God wants.
Salman, who resigned in January to lead an abortion rights group, said she can’t stop thinking about her daughters. “Future generations will not have to live under the restrictions and the interference that we have had to experience,” she said.
This is terrible justification as the woman quoted is now applauding the fact that she and others have led their daughters to sin and murder. That is nothing to cheer. Rather it is a situation that needs to be lamented because it is a wrong decision that harms all people including the innocent.
She also watched her sister-in-law struggle with two difficult pregnancies that resulted in stillbirths.
This is not justification for abortion. Struggling with difficult and unsuccessful pregnancies is not wrong and it keeps men and women from sinning against God. Teenage pregnancies are not justification for abortion either.
Nor is the thought ‘what would people in my social or church circle think’. Reproductive care does not include abortion. It includes proper medical care that helps women have a successful pregnancy.
Those who abortion is proper medical care are lying. In this situation, Christians need to apply wisdom, understanding, and knowledge, not over-reactions that may be sinful in and of themselves.
We have to be careful not to sin in our fight against abortion and not adopt sinful mantras or rhetoric that distort the situation. We bring the truth in love so people can make the right decision.
On a side note, adoption is always an option. Both for the unwanted child and the childless couple who want to have a family. Adopting older children is a Christian act but one must be careful in their selection of the older child.
Abortion should not be the go-to solution no matter what the situation entails.
theologyarchaeology 