Abortion should be illegal because it is an attack on the vulnerable. Plain and simple. I may think it worse than animal abuse, but the premise is the same: a civilized society does not and should not treat those among us who are so vulnerable as disposable. Our motivation may be Scriptural, but our reasoning can be biological and ethical, and that is why we can make our case in a pluralistic society.

Yes, we can, and if you want to do that in secular society, by all means do. It’s a perfectly reasonable position for a citizen of the United States to take, and a legitimate dialog to have (though I know of plenty of debate in biology as to just what defines “life”). But when you’re making a biological argument, you’re no longer making a Christian one, for though biologists can be Christians and Christians can be biologists, neither is a necessary criterion of the other.

But the premise of this thread, both Dr. Moore’s book and Trevin’s comments, is opposition to abortion as a Christian, moral imperative. That can ONLY be done if and to the extent it’s supported in Scripture. And there, I turn your question back to you, for I contend that Scripture only has authority to those who have accepted, first and foremost, the One whose authority is behind, above, and beyond Scripture.

But if you’re saying OT law shouldn’t apply to nonbelievers, does that not work against the argument of trying to repeal Roe v. Wade?

The irritating thing about the Bible is that as soon as we get comfortable with our righteousness and the evil of the “other guy,” it comes and challenges us too. At least it should. . .whether we prefer “liberal” or “conservative” causes.

All right, why don’t replace it with terms like these: good news to the poor, release to the captives, sight to the blind, freedom for the oppressed, year of the Lord’s favor (commonly understood to mean the O.T. concept of Jubilee, with debt cancellation among its commands). I’d say these concepts might predate the 60s by a teensy little bit, eh? ;{)

And please, let’s lose the term social justice. That word came in vogue during the 1960s when evangelicals were busy adopting neo-Marxism.

“If one accepts that the unborn child (‘other’ people we make war on) is a human being, with all the dignity and worth that name implies, then abortion (lethal state sponsered violence) is murder and is unjust. Therefore, abortion is much more clearly (just as much) a pro-life issue than war spending.”