Have Christians unintentionally caused abortions?

[Joy]

Probably church discipline would work better if it were administered equitably in the church. If she did not get herself pregnant, and her partner was within the church, then obviously the father should be disciplined; as well, any male or female who is found to be committing fornication or adultery or molestation, baby or no baby. Check the lists for all within the church that are to be disciplined. A bit comprehensive, those lists in Scripture.

[justme]

yup
she's ruined
she's not worthy of love
better kill that baby so no one except her knows that she isn't worthy of love

[Neto]

Josh I do not know if this is just you or the Holdman view of things. If it the later then I pity what they have become. The Amish split with the Mennonites over this exact issue of Shunning in the 1600s. That you agree with their sentiment makes me feel you have forgotten the ways of Menno Simons and taken up the cause of Jacob

On many thing we agree I have found. But on this I cannot agree. I hope you understand.

This is a bit backwards. Menno Simons espoused a strict view of excommunication, extending it to family relationships. Jacob Amman took this hard-line view against the position of the other Swiss Brethren, who (oddly) became known as 'Mennonites'. (It is a bit more complicated than this, as Menno did express a somewhat different position on excommunication in his early writings. Sorry, I don't have a reference handy for this, but as I recall, he was pulled in somewhat opposite directions in his attempts to bring harmony between the Flemish & Friesian 'factions' of Dutch anabaptism. He didn't really succeed in this, and in some perhaps minor ways, this distinction remains even today.)

[aussieandy]

Yeah I seem to recall the same story. But it is Swiss Anabaptism that carries the softer view on the Ban.

[Neto]

After posting earlier, I read back through this thread. (I think I got it all, not entirely sure.) Anyway, a pregnancy can be just 'the way someone got caught' with a sin that they would have never confessed otherwise. So the confession may seem questionable. (I have wondered about this in cases where a man was caught in some sin, and so there was a confession. I'm left wondering if there ever would have been one if no one knew.)

But what I came back to this thread to say is two separate but inter-related things:
One, I don't think that encouraging a girl in this situation to marry the guy is always a good move. The guy was also involved in the sin, and the pregnancy, with the obvious public knowledge of the sin involved can be a wake up call for her to get away from a bad situation. (I know someone who found out what the guy was like when he began to pressure her to have an abortion. Thankfully she did not marry him. I knew him too, although not well, but I do think it would have been a life of misery & probably of physical abuse for both her and the child.)
Two, and this will explain more of my feeling in regards to the first. I think that God created women to say 'yes. And while she is responsible for the sin which led to the pregnancy, the guy has a greater responsibility. Why? Because God created man to be a protector of the woman. A father should protect his daughter. A brother his sister. And any Christian man should have at the center of his relationship with any woman a deep desire to protect her. No Christian man should EVER 'ask' something of a woman to which she should say 'no'. It is a violation of her created identity to 'make her say no'.

[Josh]

Probably church discipline would work better if it were administered equitably in the church. If she did not get herself pregnant, and her partner was within the church, then obviously the father should be disciplined; as well, any male or female who is found to be committing fornication or adultery or molestation, baby or no baby. Check the lists for all within the church that are to be disciplined. A bit comprehensive, those lists in Scripture.

Of course.

The only difference is an innocent child never asks to be a victim of fornication. Which is why it’s so evil - risking creating a child with a dad that doesn’t love him or her, or love their mom. If you love someone you don’t fornicate with them.

[Josh]

yup
she's ruined
she's not worthy of love
better kill that baby so no one except her knows that she isn't worthy of love

Not sure where or how such an anti-biblical belief system would come up, but a starting place is that being “desirable for marriage” has nothing to do with being “worthy of love”. Christians could start by creating a good social role for single and celibate people.

[Aurien]

One, I don't think that encouraging a girl in this situation to marry the guy is always a good move. The guy was also involved in the sin, and the pregnancy, with the obvious public knowledge of the sin involved can be a wake up call for her to get away from a bad situation. (I know someone who found out what the guy was like when he began to pressure her to have an abortion. Thankfully she did not marry him. I knew him too, although not well, but I do think it would have been a life of misery & probably of physical abuse for both her and the child.)

This is along the lines of what I was thinking as well.

[Soloist]

Mostly a side point, Menno Simons didn't require shunning of family members, he may have personally felt that way but he gave freedom to choose on that. Also Jacob split over several things, the ban was one, but not by any stretch the only issue.

[Neto]

Mostly a side point, Menno Simons didn't require shunning of family members, he may have personally felt that way but he gave freedom to choose on that. Also Jacob split over several things, the ban was one, but not by any stretch the only issue.

I was responding on the basis of one of his very last booklets, INSTRUCTION ON EXCOMMUNICATION, 1558. I have scanned in parts of this treatise, and hope that I caught all of the scan errors.

...it is evident that the congregation or church cannot continue in the saving doctrine, in an unblamable and pious life, without the proper use of excommunication.
....
...seeing that I have acquired more knowledge in some things through length of time and through many cases, therefore I was fraternally requested and besought by several pious hearts who would gladly see the right in all things that I would make it a point before the close of my life to set forth in orderly fashion the ground and meaning of the true apostolic ban or separation in writing formally, and to let the elders and ministers of the church examine it, as well as all those desiring peace, so that if anyone after my departure (for I am now quite weak and gradually becoming an old man) might cause any trouble, strife, or dissension among the quiet and peaceful under pretense that he heard this or that from me at any time, or concluded from some of my writings which have never set forth so plainly concerning husband and wife, and of open, offensive, carnal sinners as is done here, that then men may refer them to my final position with which I fell asleep in God and made my departure from the flesh.
....
...we truly confess that there is but one single ban in Scriptures, a ban which does not have reference merely to the spiritual communion such as the Lord's Supper, and the handshake, and the kiss of peace, but it extends also to natural contacts, such as eating, drinking, daily affairs, and conduct. If the father is to shun his son, or the son his father, the husband his wife, or the wife her husband, in the spiritual communion only and not in natural communion, then there must be two bans in the Scriptures, the one extending to the spiritual communion and the other both to the spiritual and the natural.
....
...pious parents as well as the church must assent to the excommunication of the apostate children, and their pious children must assent to the excommunication of the apostate parents, and the pious husband must assent to the excommunication of the apostate wife, and the pious wife to the excommunication of her apostate husband, and they must agree that justice is being done them according to the Scriptures. And if now they would shun them only in spiritual communion, they would make void their own sentence which they in common with the church have pronounced, and they would not seek the salvation of their dearest friend with that spiritual love and zeal with which the Word and Spirit of the Lord command them. And moreover, they would continue in the great danger of infection, the very thing against which, so that they might evade it easily, the ban is given to the pious by God's Word, without exception of husband or wife, parent or child, in a clear and plain commandment, as has been stated.

He goes on later to say that a secret sin, once confessed, is between the believer & God, and even should it come to light, no further punishment is called for by Scripture, because the purpose of excommunication (restoration) has already been achieved without it.