Mary, Law, and the Trinity: Two Questions for Christians Who Support Abortion

Although some of the information here has been stated in previous posts, the information needs to be readdressed and restated. It is all too relevant given the fact another video has been released of Planned Parenthood and its associates selling dead baby parts, err tissue, and that can be viewed here:

This post is specifically addressed to people who profess to be Christians but support abortion. Two important questions need to be asked:

1) Which part of God’s revelation do you deny to support the practice: the Trinity or the Law? 

2) When could Mary have had a lawful abortion in your mind? 

In regards to question one, one of those two things must be rejected in order to support the practice for any reasons. 

One route to take is to reject God’s clearly revealed Law. In order to support abortion, one must support murder. That means that what God gave to Moses (Exodus 20:13) was inappropriate and wrong for God to do. Then, it must also be said that Jesus’ establishment of this same law within the New Covenant was a bad idea (Matthew 5, 1 John 3). 

Some try and argue that killing was the OT command; not murder. We know this is not true because the New Testament writers infallibly translated this and used the word ‘murder’, not ‘kill’. This also makes sense that the Hebrews took the Law this way, because shortly after Moses delivered that Law, he also delivered the punishment of breaking that law. And what was that punishment? Killing. 

This means that not all killing is murder. What’s the difference? The civil innocence of the person being killed. Moses killed a man and was not punished. It was an act of defense as that man was ruthlessly beating an innocent Jewish man (Exodus 2, Acts 7). Thus, acts of defense, self-defense, or the Government properly exercising it’s right to bear the sword (Romans 13) is not murder. Murder is the taking of innocent life. It’s the shedding of innocent blood. This is made clear because God hates those who do that (Proverbs 6: 6-7). 

Since there is no conceivable way to accuse the developing child in the womb of a capital crime, there is no possible justification for taking the life of the child. The crime of a father, the emotional or financial state of a mother, or physical defects of a child are all reasons that are not deemed worthy of killing someone outside of the womb, and thus don’t justify killing the person inside the womb. It’s murder. 

Thus, to support abortion one must tell God His laws against murder are wrong and should be eradicated, and one must command God repent of His inappropriate hatred for the hands that shed innocent blood. 

Now, most don’t feel comfortable doing that because then they have no foundation to prevent murder against themselves. Typically they take option 2. 

Option 2 is to deny the Trinity. More specifically, it’s to believe the infant in the womb is not a human being. Apparently a mother’s desire to have the child is the magical process which converts the non-human life into a human life. That’s digression. 

Here is how a denial of the Trinity and the denial of the humanity of infants in the womb come together: the incarnation. Jesus was a child in the womb. 

To say that a fetus (the Latin term for baby) is not a baby is to say that when Jesus first came to earth, He took on a flesh that wasn’t human. Thus, a third nature has been added to the Trinity. Jesus was both God and fetus. The stage before a fetus is often called a “zygote” or a fertilized egg; a cell. Since this can’t be a person for the pro-abortion belief, it must be it’s own non-human living cell. That means it’s another non-human flesh Jesus took on. Jesus was both God and Zygote, then changed and became both God and fetus, and then finally, Jesus became both God and man. 

Obviously the Scriptures teach against this consistently. Philippians 2 teaches Jesus took on flesh  to be found in the “likeness of man”, not fetus or zygote. The very next verse says He was found in “human form” (Phil 2: 4-8). Paul clearly knew that Jesus took on human flesh. Not something else. 

It’s an incredible leap of logic to assume that, John for example, in John 1 meant “any physical thing” when he said “the Word became flesh and dwelt among us.” The illogicality can be seen by replacing fetus with any other living, non-human form. 

“I believe Jesus was first both cow and God”. 
“I believe Jesus was first fish and God”. 

It’s lunacy. This is why Christian orthodoxy has always, through the centuries, recognized Jesus’ humanity and no other fleshly, non-human form. And to add multiple non-human natures into the Hypostatic Union (the union of God and Man in Jesus) is heresy. 

The logic follows well. Jesus was always a person. Jesus was a child in the womb. Therefore children in the womb are persons. 

Children in the womb are persons. Killing an innocent person is murder. Therefore, abortion is murder. 

Abortion is murder. God hates murder. Therefore, God hates abortion. 

That is why the first question is valid: if you claim Christianity and support abortion, what route do you take:

Do you ask God to repent of His misinformed views about murder, or do you deny the Trinity? 

The Trinity question leads nicely into the next one:

When could Mary have had an abortion?

If abortion is not wrong, then Mary was free to participate right? One time a woman online expressed the idea that “abortion is not murder, it’s the termination of a pregnancy”. It’s good to know that sins can be erased by changing their names. From now on, murder isn’t murder. It’s the termination of a personal problem. Empty the prisons. 

However, if all abortion is is the termination of a pregnancy, was Mary free to terminate her pregnancy (Replace “her pregnancy” with “Jesus”)? If so, when? 

Let no one use any kind of victim argument here. Often times, women who pay money and sign papers to have hit-men kill their children are excused on some kind of victim mentality.  Thus, it could be argued that only difficult extenuating circumstances justify abortion, and Mary didn’t qualify. Even if that asinine position is granted, Mary fits the bill. Although Mary wasn’t raped, she still had a pregnancy occur outside of a personal decision to have sex. Mary didn’t have sex and she ended up pregnant. Why are raped women off the hook but Mary isn’t? Also, societal pressures can’t be appealed to either. Mary had far more than most. 

It was an incredible disgrace for a women to be pregnant out of wedlock in Mary’s culture. Everyone around her would have been in constant disapproval of her. What makes it even harder is she didn’t commit the crime everyone would be convinced she committed. An innocent woman being harshly judged and excommunicated is intense societal hardship. Even her future husband Joseph knew this which is why he tried to “divorce her in secret”. He knew her shame would be unbearable and he wanted to protect her. Mary nearly became a single, poor, divorced mom living in a society that hated her for a false accusation. That’s far more ammunition for an abortion than most women in society today, even by liberal logic. 

This is why it must be asked: was Mary free to have an abortion? Could Mary have legally killed the Savior who came to fulfill the Scriptures, not by being aborted, but by atoning for sin on a cross?

These questions are important. And one could argue inappropriate answers to them ought to disqualify someone from the Christian title they bear. 

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s