I'm both Pro-Life and Pro-Choice

I define Life as beginning at Conception, but defining when life begins is not the only issue with regards to Abortion. I've become less radically "Pro-Life" over time.

Life is an important thing to protect, and so is Freedom of Choice, a good Libertarian and a good Christian believes in both of those things. Abortion represents an area where the two conflict, it's perfectly natural that different people will have different views on where to draw the line. But it's unfortunately standard on both sides to engage in demonizing the other.

I've shown, in another article of mine, that Life Begins at Conception Biblically, and that Abortion fits the Biblical definition of Murder.  But not all acts of Murder are equal, I do not view a woman who has an abortion, especially a teenage girl, the same as I do an Ax murderer. However I'll never agree with the most radical "Pro-Choice" people who want abortion to be treated like any ordinary medical procedure like having your tonsils removed.

I should also add that I oppose the Death Penalty

I'm going to give some advice to both sides. But I kind of have more for Pro-Life precisely because that's where I firmly was once and still identify with them more culturally as a Fundamentalist Christian.

To Pro-Lifers.
1. Don't engage in Slut shamming, I know only a loud Minority do that, but it's still important advice. And be careful because something can sound that way whether you intended it to or not.
2. Stop naively confusing the "Morning after Pill" with Abortion, it's not, the "Morning After Pill" will not terminate a pregnancy. it's merely a last resort to prevent conception. I go into more detail on that near the end of the defining when life begins dissertation.
3. When asked about the Rape exception, no matter what your view on that is don't answer with "Punish the Rapist not the Baby" a desire to punish is not why a women in that situation desires an Abortion.
4. Understand that Abortion is not a vice, the majority of ordinary people who are Politically "Pro-Choice" do want to lower the number of Abortions.
5. To many Pro-Chociers proving the child is alive won't be enough. They cite the issue of Autonomy, that no person has to right to use another person's body without their consent. No matter how innocent or dependent on that for their own life they are. This argument is why I feel we need to at least concede the Rape Exception.

And stop supporting Republicans, they're not Pro-Life their just using you. Ron Paul's Sanctity of Life Act would have ended legal Abortion, but when Republicans controlled both houses of Congress NO ONE made any effort to support his bill.

To Pro-Choicers.
1. No matter how much of a Woman's rights issue it is to you, that does not mean Pro-Lifers are automatically misogynists. There are and have been plenty of Pro-Life Feminists, including early Feminists before it became popular.
http://www.feministsforlife.org/history/index
2. And quit that silly "If a Fetus is alive so is a Sperm" and "If Abortion is murder so is Masturbation". It's a silly argument, it's not that difficult to understand the view that it's the uniting of the Sperm and Egg and their merging together that is the beginning of Life. Agree with it or not, it's not difficult to understand.

Basically both sides need to quit insisting the other is lying about what they say motivates them. That is inherently naive and hateful.

There is a claim that Numbers 5:11-31 is an Abortion ritual, though I see no reference to a pregnancy in it.  There are a lot of ways that passage is used against The Bible by modern critics.  Thing is, it's the opposite of the kinds of "Ordeals" used to expose "witches" in medieval times.  In this case it is something supernatural happening that was harmful to the woman. To my knowledge drinking bitter water would not actually scientifically cause that effect (Nahmandies also pointed this out).  It is actually my theory that this story is here for the purpose of allowing a husband an excuse to let his wife get away with adultery, I don't believe anyone was ever in fact condemned by this ritual.

Abortion is not a defining issue in how I vote either way. My general philosophy is that the more the Mainstream Media makes a big deal of something, the more it's likely a distraction from what the people in power don't want us knowing they're doing. I never vote for Republicans or Democrats (except Ron Paul), when choosing a 3rd Party candidate to support, I've supported both Pro-Life (Chuck Baldwin) and Pro-Choice (Gary Johnson) ones.

The Bible defines Life as beginning at Conception.

As a Libertarian I do not want the law defining anything based solely on what The Bible says, so for this post I'm putting the legal/political debate aside for a moment (it's an issue Libertarians are divided on anyway). I do see people constantly question that The Bible defines Life as beginning at Conception and thus Abortion as Murder, so I'm going to address that here.

In Jeremiah chapter 1 God SPEAKS to Jeremiah in his Mother's Womb.

Psalm 51:5 "Behold, I was shapen in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me." David is saying he was Sinful at Conception, you can only be Sinful if your alive, but more then that, Sin is unique to Human life, Animals are never defined as Sinning Biblically even at their most animalistic. Some will try to argue this refers to Sex, that is idiotic, I've written entire articles elsewhere on how that's not how the Bible views Sex, but either way Psalm 51 is David talking about HIS Sin.

Abortion as an intentional act is specifically mentioned only once. Amos 1:13 "Thus saith YHWH; For three transgressions of the children of Ammon, and for four, I will not turn away the punishment thereof; because they have ripped open the women with child of Gilead, that they might enlarge their border:" Clearly not approved of.

Genesis 16:11 "And the angel of the LORD said unto her, Behold, thou art with child, and shalt bear a son" Not Fetus not Zygote but Child.

Exodus 21:22-23, isn't entirely clear to modern readers. The issue is what "mischief follow" (which should be translated "evil follow") means, some people want to think it means the Mother dieing, I don't think that's logical. the earlier phrase "fruit depart from her" does not necessarily mean the Baby died, it is possible rarely for the baby to survive a miscarriage if it happens late enough in the pregnancy. I think the "Evil following" can refer to either the child or the mother dieing.

Psalm 139:13-16 actually describes the Conception process, with amazing Scientific accuracy for over 3000 years ago.

Isaiah 44:2&24 also clearly refer to conception.

We know from Genesis 9:4-6, Leviticus 17:11&14, and Deuteronomy 12:23 that "The Blood is the Life" and that the Shedding of Man's Blood is murder. Genesis 4 also bares this out. The "Fetus" has a Heartbeat at 21-24 days, before most women ever know their Pregnant.

Let's look at the New Testament.
Like 1:15 "and he shall be filled with the Holy Ghost, even from his mother's womb." Luke 1:41- "And it came to pass, that, when Elisabeth heard the salutation of Mary, the babe leaped in her womb; and Elisabeth was filled with the Holy Ghost: And she spake out with a loud voice, and said, Blessed art thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb. And whence is this to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me? For, lo, as soon as the voice of thy salutation sounded in mine ears, the babe leaped in my womb for joy." Remember that if your ever quizzed on when the Ministry of John The Baptist began.

Life ultimately can't be defined purely Scientifically "A live body and a dead body contain the same number of particles. Structurally, there’s no discernible difference. Life and death are unquantifiable abstracts. Why should I be concerned?"-Dr. Manhattan.

Lots of people have been declared "Legally dead" because their heart stopped but been revived. And some people can even be declared "Brain Dead" but other parts of their bodies still function. So if the end of life can be as ambiguous as it's start. Yet many Pro-Choice people will call you an Idiot if you choose to define life as beginning for example even as soon as it's Heart Beats. The most common argument is "Viability" well lots of born individuals lack "viability".

Problem exist even when defining the beginning of life Metaphysically or spiritually. It's often worded as a matter of when the Soul enters the Body/Fetus/Zygote or whatever you call it. But you see The Bible does not support the idea of Pre-Existence, though it's part of many apostasies.

Genesis 2:7 "And Yahweh God formed Adam of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and Adam became a living soul." Doesn't say a Soul entered him, it says he "became a living soul". I don't believe it's only the body created at conception, I believe the soul and spirit are as well.

Conception is a process that begins when the sperm enters the egg, not merely a "moment". A process which as I said early on here The bible describes in detail, the "Zygote" may not be "a living soul" when the process begins, but it is by the end I believe.

One fact that is no common knowledge is that the sperm usually doesn't reach the egg till over 12 hours after ejaculation. This ignorance is why the "morning after pill" is often incorrectly defined as a type of abortion. There is an Abortion pill now, but it's a very separate pill.

The morning after pill is merely a sort of concentrated birth control pill, (which women are told not to take if their already on the pill). It will not harm an already conceived "zygote", it merely attempts to prevent conception from happening. It's not the same as Abortion and whether you view birth control itself as wrong or not it can't be called murder, and so as a Libertarian I certainly don't want the morning after pill to be illegal.

Defining when life begins is not the only issue with regards to Abortion. I have a post on the Politics and Religion forum dealing with that more.

New Testament on Marriage.

Now I feel I've shown that the Old Testament doesn't joyfully endorse Harem Polygyny/Concubinism as much as people think. On the other hand, is the New Testament as anti-anything other then absolute monogamy as people assume?

 Matthew 19:5-6 says "For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder."

 It is common to insist that the "one flesh" emphasis while not explicitly saying only one wife still would make it awkward to involve more then two people. The poetic idea is the wife as the husband's other half, and the word translated "twain" does imply duality. Still the intent of the verse is against divorce. Again as a Libertarian, I don't support divorce being legally restricted either, Jesus' command was about the promise made before God, not a legal contract.

Marriage references in Paul's Epistles seem to assume monogamy, but Paul was writing to a Greeco-Roman audience, for whom monogamous marriage was the norm well before Jesus was born. (Though the Macedonian and Hellenistic rulers weren't as strict about it). Indeed, many would say that Western Christianity's devotion to monogamy is another example of how it is really more Hellenistic and Roman in origin then Jewish.
http://www.princeton.edu/~pswpc/pdfs/scheidel/010903.pdf
But Greek Monogamy still treated adultery as a one way street. To modern readers it's outright annoying how the Odyssey treats the threat of Penelope remarrying or being unfaithful as a horrible catastrophe, while Odysseus has two affairs on his journey home without the slightest condemnation. And also Euripides play Andromache revolves around a conflict between a wife and her husband's mistress, and the narrative is firmly on the "other woman's" side, (Of course Hermione is a spoiled brat Neoptlemus only married for politics, while Andromache is the widow of Hector he took as a spoil of war, and yet they do seem to have fallen in love somewhat). So I understand the points in the above PDF I linked to.

The Church's marriage to Christ, is in how it's treated a Monogamous marriage between a Bridegroom and a Bride, the Church as a collective unit is The Bride.

1 Timothy 3:2, 12, 5:9 and Titus 1:6 refer to how an Overseer (Bishop is an unfortunate KJV rendering, the most obvious area where it's Anglicanism is an issue) should be the Husband of "One Wife" the word for "one" here is "Mia" (Strong# 3391) which can be interpreted as meaning "only one", "Heis" or "Monad" are the standard Greek words for "one". But these are special guidelines for Overseers, the rule here could also mean no less then one (hence how Protestants use it against The Vatican) and elsewhere it's clear Christians can choose to be single for life if they wish.

Polyandry is the term for a marriage between one woman and plural husbands. The Wikipedia page says the Bible condemns it simply by citing the adultery laws. That's obviously flawed logic however. The Bible doesn't address it, the Hebrew Bible is the product of a very Patriarchal culture that never even heard of it as an option. In the New Testament Paul might have heard of it from the examples in ancient Sparta, or Caesar's account of the Celts practicing it, but if he did he chose not to address it.

The most common form that has actually been practiced is Fraternal Polyandry, a pair or group of brothers sharing a wife. The Torah does say that if a husband dies before producing an heir, that his widow should marry his nearest living kinsman (who would be a brother if there was one) to produce a son that would in a sense legally be considered the son of the dead husband. The reason for this is it is vital that the family line of inheritance continue, it was considered important for the tribe as a whole that no individual family line perish. So, what if a Husband becomes unable to reproduce but still lives? Like he becomes Sterile due to illness, or loses his genitals in an injury? Given the intent of the law, I could imagine it being allowed there if they'd have considered it.

On the other hand, Jesus condemns a man married to a divorced woman who's husband still lives as adultery. But that needs again to be understood in the context of the condemnation of divorce.  As I said in other articles, it's only reproductive sex God really wants to restrain.

I frankly don't approve of the modern world's over attachment to Monogamy for all romantic relationships, because it's fueled by jealously which is a very unhealthy emotion. And as I've explained elsewhere, not all sex outside marriage is a sin like is commonly taught.  Loving more then one person should not be inherently wrong.

But how do I morally view Marriage? Or rather the Hebrew custom we associate with marriage? Everyone should agree that marriage is about more then just sex, and many even that it's more then just love.  From my understanding of the intent of what the Bible portrays about it, it's even more then just a "committed relationship", it's the foundation of the family. To me it is implied in the function of marriage that you will at least try to have and raise children. This is why it annoys me how often on TV two people get married and have apparently never discussed the children issue till they find out a week after their honeymoon they're not on the same page there, sadly I'm sure that does happen in real life too often, but it shouldn't.

I believe ideally children should have both a father and a mother. But I know we live in a fallen imperfect world where that option isn't always possible, so I don't support single parents having their children taken from them. And I certainly don't want adoption limited.

To people complaining about Gay adoption I'd say two parents are still better then one, even if they're  the same gender at least one has the option of staying home, and certainly it's better then none. In fact I want adoption made a lot easier in general, it's become a lot more complicated in recent decades, they don't even have orphanages anymore. To me even the most dysfunctional family is preferable to the state raising them in foster care.

As the Hebrew Scriptures demonstrate, Harem Polygyny creates rivalry problems. So for the purpose of raising children I consider a monogamous marriage best. But other people also being involved doesn't have to be a problem. So I don't consider open marriages a sin, so long as everything is done openly and honestly.

So in summery, legally I want marriage to have no restrictions at all, morally I consider one husband and one wife best to raise children, but will pass no judgment on those trying to do it differently.