Blog: Why I Think Abortion Should be Banned – Part 4: Abortion and Religion

To wrap up this month-long series on abortion, it’s time to talk about the religious aspect of abortion. I saved this one for last because it’s easily the most controversial part of the abortion debate. According to Pew Research Center, as of 2023-2024, 95% of atheists, 94% of agnostics, and 80% of secularists believe that abortion should be legal in all/most cases. Furthermore, 57% of Muslims, 79% of Buddhists, and 82% of Hindus also support abortion. That’s also not accounting for the large number of Progressive or lukewarm “Christians” that have bought into Leftist ideology and support abortion. What this means is that if you bring up the existence of God in the abortion debate, you’ll likely be even more hated than if you had just brought up the moral/ethical, scientific, and legal arguments against abortion. God forbid you stand peacefully in front of a Planned Parenthood clinic and pray for all the children that are being slaughtered and the mothers who need God’s healing. In that case, you risk being assaulted, and even investigated by the FBI and imprisoned. Even more evidence that requires religion to be talked about when considering the abortion debate is it’s use in the Satanic Temple, which openly mocks Christianity in the name of “satire.” The Satanic Temple has actually framed abortion as a “religious ritual” so they can argue that banning abortion infringes on their religious rights and even run their own abortion clinics. Because of this, it’s clear that religion does play a part in the abortion debate and is something that we need to talk about.

Now, I’ve already written an entire post about how God condemns abortion as murder last Friday, but I’ll recap. Though the Bible does not explicitly condemn abortion (that word didn’t even exist until the 1500s, but it was used to refer to any pregnancy that didn’t come to term; it wasn’t until 1867 that it meant “the termination of a pregnancy” and replaced the word “foeticide” which had been used by the medical world since 1823) it makes it very clear that life starts at conception with passages like:

Psalm 139: 13-16

“For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother’s womb. I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made; your works are wonderful, I know that full well. My frame was not hidden from you when I was made in the secret place, when I was woven together in the depths of the earth. Your eyes saw my unformed body; all the days ordained for me were written in your book before one of them came to be.”

Jeremiah 1:5
“Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born I set you apart; I appointed you as a prophet to the nations.”

Luke 1:41-44
“When Elizabeth heard Mary’s greeting, the baby leaped in her womb, and Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit. In a loud voice she exclaimed: ‘Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the child you will bear! … As soon as the sound of your greeting reached my ears, the baby in my womb leaped for joy.’”

Job 31:15
“Did not he who made me in the womb make them? Did not the same one form us both within our mothers?”

It even gives rights to the baby in the womb in Exodus 21: 22-25:

“If people are fighting and hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the woman’s husband demands and the court allows. But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise.”

From this we can see that God sees the human fetus as life and thus, abortion as murder and no person who truly calls themselves a Christian can be in support of abortion for any reason except in the rare case where there is absolutely nothing that can be done to save both the mother and the baby. You would need to either be incredibly ignorant or really talented at twisting Scripture beyond recognition to ever justify supporting it as a Christian.

Now that I have established the Christian view, let’s take a look at the claim that abortion should be protected as a religious right by the Satanic Temple. Though this seems like a reason that might have some legitimacy, if you look at it for more than five seconds, it falls apart. For one thing, the Satanic Temple, though it claims to be a religious organization and has the hallmarks of a religion, it is not one. Religion has always been recognized as the belief in and worship of a superhuman power or powers, especially a God or gods. The Satanic Temple, however, does not recognize those things. If you go to their About Us page, they basically just push secularism that elevates oneself as the final authority. To give it the same treatment as, for example, a Catholic/Protestant church is like giving an atheist organization “religious organization” status because they asked for it.

Oh, wait. That’s actually exactly what they’re doing, because when you look at the teachings of the Satanic Temple (and the Church of Satan as well) and the tenants of atheism, they’re exactly the same. Weird how that works….

[Author’s Note: Before I get any atheists in the comments section claiming that the Satanic Temple and Church of Satan aren’t atheist, just note that the Temple of Satan makes it very clear that they see Satan as a metaphor for reason, independence, and bodily autonomy amongst other things and the Church of Satan’s FAQ section makes it very clear that they are atheists and distinguishes themselves from “Devil-worshippers” who do believe in the supernatural. Though they try very hard to distinguish themselves from each other, in reality, they are pretty much the same, though the Church of Satan is not as social-justice-warrior-esque from what I understand.]

Furthermore, though there is such a thing as religious toleration here in the States, it’s religious toleration to a point. If you kill and eat your pet cat in some voodoo ritual, while you might be protected under the First Amendment, you’re still subject to your local animal rights laws. Extend that to humans, if you make a human sacrifice and try to pass it off as “religious expression” or a “religious ritual” you’ll still be put in jail for murder. The same should apply for these people. If the Satanic Temple kills a baby in an abortion ritual, they should not be given the get-out-of-jail-free card, religion or not. What they’re doing is murder.

Finally, to end this series, here are the key takeaways:

  1. According to science, life starts at conception.
  2. Abortion should not be allowed in any case (including potential severe deformity or disability) except in the rare case where there is absolutely nothing that can be done to save both the baby and the mother.
  3. Abortion opens the door to euthanasia (murder) at any point for arbitrary reasons, justifying countless human rights violations, particularly eugenics-based genocide.
  4. Abortion is not constitutional federally or under state law. Nothing in the Constitution defends it (and if there were to be an amendment made to make it constitutional, it would violate the other premises laid out in the rest of the text).
  5. There is no good religious justification for abortion that can be made, especially when combined with what science has shown us.

Until next time,

M.J.

38 thoughts on “Blog: Why I Think Abortion Should be Banned – Part 4: Abortion and Religion

Add yours

  1. It is of course, your perogative to cite the bible when it comes to the defense of your beliefs on this or any other matter. However, to avoid such accusations of lies, and hypocrisy it (and it’s proponents) must then be able to withstand evidence – based charges regarding such things as (not in any particular order) infanticide, genocide, slavery, racism – overt and tacit – rape, and misogyny, to name three.

    Might be better to stick with science?

    Like

    1. Greetings, Ark.

      If one is to adhere to an evidence-based approach, such as science, one would find themselves just as frustrated. All approaches require some sort of belief or faith including science – especially evolutionary science. All approaches to answers inherently have a philosophical view that essentially becomes one’s religion or lack of religion.

      Unless I am mistaken, your views sound atheistic. Might I ask why you are arguing soo passionately against a God that you don’t even believe exits?

      Liked by 1 person

      1. Science does not rely on faith so let’s nip that asinine rubbish in the bud straight away. Neither is it a religion.
        Furthermore, as you do not appear to understand evolution I suggest you go and do a little or, if need be, a lot more study.
        This might help you.

        What about my views do you consider are “atheistic”?
        From your comment it appears you also don’t understand the correct definition of atheism.
        For the record, I am always wary of any interlocuter who has no blog as they tend to be drive-by critics and often remain anonymous simply so they can Troll.

        To your final paragraph.
        Because those that DO believe gods exist have a nasty habit of insisting that everyone must, in some form or another, be exposed to such beliefs and often impose them.
        It becomes even more insidious when such unsubstantiated nonsense is indoctrinated into those that do not have adequate critical thinking skills to defend against such nonsense, and when this includes children it is tantamount to child abuse.
        I hope I have covered all your bases?
        If not, feel free to expand.
        And why not open a blog and we/ others can interact from from your own spot?

        Like

        1. Greetings, Ark.

          Thank you for your response. You brought up many good points, which all boil down to truth. What is the truth about science? What is the truth about evolution? What is the truth about your personal views and are those absolute truths or subjective because they are truths specific to you. Unbelief requires faith. One has to believe that something either exists or not – that requires faith. Did the universe come from nothing? If not, where did the required catalysts come from? It seems that it takes a lot more faith to believe that absolute truth does not exist. An absolute truth would hold answers to all these questions. But if no absolute truth exists all of your critiques about other perspectives are intolerant and are actually in favor of one absolute truth – your own.

          Like

          1. I lack belief in gods because of the absence of evidence. It is that straightforward.
            If you make a claim regarding your god then the onus is on you to provide evidence to demonstrate the veracity of the claim.

            I take it you did not watch the short video hence your ignorant comment in reference to “truth” about evolution.

            If you lack the integrity to address these two basic topics I see no point in indulging you further.
            But if you wish to continue the dialogue then feel free… Start with evidence.

            Liked by 1 person

            1. If there was a Big Bang, then there must have been a ‘Big Banger’. What are your thoughts, Ark?

              Like

            2. <<I have no idea? Have you evidence that your god Yahweh was responsible?>> Do you have any evidence that a ‘Big Banger’ isn’t responsible? It takes a lot of blind faith to hold to an evidential view of origins and evolution. Again, I ask. What is absolute truth?

              Like

            3. Evidence a big banger is not responsible? Nope. None whatsoever.
              Do you have evidence your god Yahweh was responsible?

              The origins of life are unknown.

              Evolution is fact. It requires no faith,

              An absolute truth? There are no round squares.

              Liked by 1 person

            4. <<Evolution is fact. It requires no faith,An absolute truth? There are no round squares.>>

              Your claim above states evolution as fact, yet you also state that essentially there is no absolute truth. So why should I believe that your truth is true if there are no round squares? One is left to believe that truth is then relative and subject. Therefore, your claim about evolution being fact is not true. It seems to me that you are exercising a great deal of faith in something that you believe is true.

              Like

            5. What? Evolution is fact.
              I offered an example of an absolute truth: There are no square circles.
              Are you suggesting there ARE square circles? 😂😂 Feel free to fly that by your local shrink.

              If you have issues with evolution then the video didn’t do anything for your closed mind so perhaps the grown up table is not for you? Therefore someone such as Ken Ham may be more your forte?
              Seriously, if you want to indulge in idiotic semantic nonsense then you have picked the wrong interlocuter.
              You’re done.
              T’ra!

              Liked by 1 person

            6. Your positions on absolute truth are contradictory, Ark.

              Since you insist on repeatedly using the ad hominem fallacy any further discussion is pointless because you have proven that you are incapable of engaging in intelligent debate. Instead you are resorting to attacking the person vs. attacking the argument. Usually, this behaviour is observed when an individual cannot uphold their position anymore.

              Liked by 2 people

            7. <<What? Evolution is fact.I offered an example of an absolute truth: There are no square circles.Are you suggesting there ARE square circles? 😂😂 Feel free to fly that by your local shrink.>>

              I would like to also point out that the statement has been twisted and taken out of context. Misrepresenting someone’s position does not solidify or strengthen your argument, Ark. If anything it does the opposite. This is what is called a strawman fallacy.

              Liked by 1 person

            8. Still waiting for you to address the question of evolution and provide evidence.
              Are you simply going to spend the rest of your time equivocating?

              Like

            9. Please be 100% honest answering this question: if every historian, researcher, scientist, etc. were to find out and agree that there is an all-powerful, all-present, all-knowing God who sent His Son to die for us to save us from our sin based on evidence they found, would you believe in Him or would you still deny Him?

              Like

        2. M.J. here. Two questions:

          1). If you had a kid and all you teach them is atheism from a young age with no other viewpoints/worldviews being fairly explained to them (including the pros/cons of the worldview/religion and the arguments for and against it), wouldn’t that be you indoctrinating them with your beliefs? Wouldn’t you be forcing your beliefs on them making that “tantamount to child abuse” as you say?

          2). Aren’t you trying to insist that we accept atheism as the truth, partaking in the same “nasty habit” that you accuse those who believe in a God/gods of doing?

          Like

          1. Well, atheism is simply the lack of belief in gods based on the complete absence of evidence.
            This is why all religion is faith based and not evidence based.

            Therefore to “teach” atheism there is an assumption that the child would have to be made aware of theism, yes?
            For the record I firmly believe that every child should be taught as much about world religions as is possible within the average school curriculum.

            This way, children are taught not indoctrinated.
            Adherence to a religion almost always has its roots in culture and geography.

            Any positives about a religious worldview can be found in a secular worldview without the supernatural underpinnings.

            2). Once again, atheism is simply the lack of belief in gods. Why is this fact so very, very difficult for theists to comprehend?
            I am not insisting you accept it(atheism) at all. Good grief!
            However, what I would like to see is for those, like you, who claim their religion is truth and fact and insist on forcing, overtly or tacitly, such religious worldviews on others is to provide evidence for such claims.

            For example, if I asked you to provide evidence for the basic foundational claims of Christianity would you be able to do so?

            Like

            1. Greetings, Ark.

              The blogger is not forcing her beliefs on anyone. You are choosing to read her blog and you are free to stop reading her blog at any time. It is a choice, not a diatribe of forceful indoctrination. You are here, reading and commenting, by your own choosing.

              To say that one is an Evidentialist based on a lack of evidence for a god or god’s is contradictory. It takes more faith to believe that something came from nothing, which qualifies as zero evidence at the point of origin negating your definition of Evidentionalism.

              Liked by 1 person

            2. Christianity is overtly and tacitly forced/imposed.
              It is ingrained in much of Western culture and as MJ is indoctrinated so she passes on such beliefs as her religion commands. No doubt, if and when MJ has children they, likewise will be indoctrinated with her religious beliefs.

              I am here by my own choosing, you are correct. Was there a point you were trying to make?

              Where did I assert something came from nothing?
              I merely said I lack belief in gods based on the complete absence of evidence.

              Isn’t bearing false witness (ostensibly telling lies) regarded as a “sin” in Christianity?

              Like

            3. <<Where did I assert something came from nothing?I merely said I lack belief in gods based on the complete absence of evidence.Isn’t bearing false witness (ostensibly telling lies) regarded as a “sin” in Christianity?>> Might I suggest you reread what I wrote and digest it first before resorting to adhominem attacks.

              Like

    2. <<Still waiting for you to address the question of evolution and provide evidence.Are you simply going to spend the rest of your time equivocating?>>

      Good evening, Ark. I appreciate the intriguing dialogue though I do also find the equivocation of the Post Modern definition of truth tedious, yet necessary to prove a point. And yet it is difficult to move beyond the argument of truth to other subjects, such as evolution, because there is no definitive acumen by which we can determine what is true, what is false, Moral Law and the Law of Non-Contradiction. One must also ask how much evidence would be sufficient? What kind of evidence would be sufficient? Is lack of evidence an intellectual issue that one wrestles with or is it an emotional issue from personal lived experiences? So, you see, I can die on a hill presenting evidence for arguments refuting Darwin’s theory of evolution, but what good would that do? There are scores of old earth creationists, young earth creationists, non-deist evolutionists, ancient pagan creation mythologies, etc. The foundation that these arguments are laid upon is an assertion of truth. But what is truth? Truth will be the scale by which evidences are weighed. Beyond an acknowledgment of the existance of absolute truth, there is no point in elucidative conversation debating abortion, evolution, purpose, hope, rape, slavery, genocide, war, racism, happiness, hate, forgiveness, evil. Without absolute truth we have absolute organized chaos operating on different levels of humanist worldviews. However, if I walked up to you and took your wallet without your permission, you would likely demand your wallet back. Why would you demand your wallet back if my truth is that your wallet should belong to me? Shouldn’t you be tolerant and accept my truth? My behaviour would, in turn. violate your truth of right and wrong. You see, absolute truth is functioning in the psyche of each and every person whether they want to admit it or not. Absolute truth determines Moral Law, which is and has been present in every culture reflected in different ways; none-the-less, Moral Law exists whether or not it upholds absolute truth from an absolute truth originator (a.k.a. a god or gods).

      Like

      1. Impressive. You managed to type that entire flatulant drivel with one hand while tightly gripping your pee-pee with the other.
        Well done!
        I would say give yourself a pat on the back but that would require a free hand, so… 🤷

        Like

        1. Okay, Ark. Though I allow free speech on this platform and am generally pretty lenient when people are being rude in the comments, if you’re not going to be civil and instead are going to be verbally abusive towards other commentors who are being polite and asking you questions about your worldview, then let me introduce you to the ban button. Being this rude to other people does not make you sound more intelligent, but is actually a perfect example of ad hominem, where you make personal attacks against the person raising a counterargument, and shows that you are incapable of engaging in intelligent debate. Come back when you learn how to argue and argue well. Until then, good day sir.

          Liked by 1 person

    1. I think it’s because abortion and the belief that the fetus isn’t a living human baby has been so normalized that the idea that abortion can be used as a religious ritual sounds a bit weird to secular people, but otherwise seems as benign as doing communion. I also think something can be said for how these people don’t seem to actually believe in magic and probably see it more as a psychological, mind-over-matter thing, but just call it a religious ritual to challenge state laws around abortion and religious rights (which the ST has sort of admitted to doing before). I think those are the only reasons (plus a lack of understanding about what the ST actually believes) that they’re actually taken seriously.

      Liked by 1 person

    2. There’s also the fact that Oneism (the belief that we’re one with the universe and God) in America has been on the rise and has been entering the mainstream and politics for several generations now, helping to normalize that type of behavior.

      (For info on that, I suggest reading “Game of Gods” by Carl Teichrib. It’s an excellent book that explains this really well.)

      Liked by 1 person

  2. The problem with your write up is that you are using religious ideology to dictate what you would like to see in the world. Problem is no religion is actually true. They’re all faith based. You would never accept the level of evidence you have for religion in other parts of your life..

    Like

  3. While I understand religion, im not sure you quite understand abortion. You see, most of the world revolves around SCIENCE, and if we didn’t rely on science, well we wouldn’t be here. Abortions are quite literally live saving medical procedures. My best friend, a long with many American women, would not be alive without abortions. I really encourage everyone to do some research. Furthermore, banning abortions with no exception would include banning them from women whom have miscarried and have already lost the baby due to natural causes, and they would need an abortion procedure in order to live, and maybe have a baby one day. Let us not stray from science and medical research, lets protect healthcare.

    Like

    1. Hello,
      Thanks for leaving the comment. I’m quite aware that most of the world revolves around science, which is actually why I started my series about why I think abortion should be banned with the science of it, if you care to read that post (https://tanukicorner.com/2025/03/03/blog-why-i-think-abortion-should-be-banned-part-1-the-science/). Thus, let’s look at the statistics around your central claim that abortion saves lives and I’ll explain what policies the pro-life side is actually suggesting.

      As for the science around if abortion is lifesaving, with the exception of very rare cases, abortion is never needed to save the life of the mother. In fact, the total number of abortions that are deemed necessary to save the life of the mother is only 1.14%. In 1967, Alan Guttmacher, who was the president of Planned Parenthood, said, “Today it is possible for almost any patient to be brought through pregnancy alive, unless she suffers from a fatal disease such as cancer or leukemia, and if so, abortion would be unlikely to prolong, much less save the life.”

      Some other notable quotes include:

      “The fact of the matter is that abortion as a necessity to save the life of the mother is so rare as to be nonexistent.” – Surgeon General of the United States Dr. C. Everett Koop (1981)

      ““The situation where the mother’s life is at stake were she to continue a pregnancy is no longer a clinical reality. Given the state of modern medicine, we can now manage any pregnant woman with any medical affliction successfully, to the natural conclusion of the pregnancy: The birth of a healthy child.” – Bernard Nathanson, co-founder of NARAL (1981)

      “In more than 25 years now of medical practice, I have come to learn that if a woman is healthy enough to become pregnant, she is healthy enough to complete the term ― in spite of heart disease, liver disease, almost any disease. As far as I’m concerned, there are no medical indications for terminating a pregnancy.” – Hymie Gordon, M.D., Director of Medical Genetics at the Mayo Clinic (1974)

      “Since 1953, I have never seen a patient die because she needed an abortion and it could not be performed. Doctors now have the tools and the knowledge with which to work so that they can handle almost any disease a patient may have, whether that patient is pregnant or not, and without interrupting the pregnancy.” – Dr. Jasper Williams, Jr., of the Bernard Hospital in Chicago, Past President of the National Medical Association (1981)

      These are leading doctors saying these things. This should tell us all that abortion is not healthcare. Most of it is the intentional killing of a living human beings, often for social/economic reasons (which actually makes up 96.5% of all abortions). And that’s not even mentioning the adverse effects of abortion pills like mifepristone on women, which can cause severe hemorrhaging and sepsis.

      Furthermore, what about the consequences on a woman’s mental health? Studies have shown that women who have had an abortion are 3 times more likely to have depression than women of the same age who have not, have an 81% increased risk of having at least one mental issue afterwards, teen girls who have had an abortion are 10x more likely to attempt suicide than older woman who have had an abortion and are 4x more likely to be successful in killing themselves, 1.5% of women seek psychiatric help after having their abortion, self-harm rates are 70% higher in women who have had an abortion, and the list goes on. These numbers are damning.

      As for pro-life policies, you assert that a full ban on abortion would prevent women who have miscarried from getting care. This is not true. A full ban on abortion would mean that it would be illegal for anyone to intentionally kill the fetus at any term. However, in the case of things like ectopic pregnancies or a miscarriage, this is not an abortion. An ectopic pregnancy is something where the death is unintended but necessary for the mother’s life. A full ban on abortion would not affect this. In the case of a miscarriage, while an abortion-like procedure would be needed for the safety of the mother, this is not an abortion because the baby has already died, thus a full ban wouldn’t touch this either. An abortion is the intended death of the fetus (formerly called foeticide) to terminate the pregnancy. Because a miscarriage or an ectopic pregnancy are unintentional, they are not, by definition, abortions.

      Resources used:
      https://www.hli.org/resources/what-percentage-of-abortions-are-medically-necessary/
      https://www.hli.org/resources/do-abortions-save-lives/
      https://healthresearchfunding.org/19-shocking-post-abortion-depression-statistics/

      Click to access HMKP-118-ED00-20240110-SD004.pdf

      Like

Leave a reply to M.J Cancel reply

Create a website or blog at WordPress.com

Up ↑