This is not an article about grammar, which I assumed most are delighted to hear. But it is on something more complex. It is about gender specific pronouns, their use and how that relates to the pursuit of truth.
Last week, on a physician assistant (my profession) professional online forum, I posted a link to a Fox News headline where a physician assistant was fired in Michigan when she would not agree to follow the hospital policy of using a patient’s preferred pronoun, even if that pronoun is inconsistent with their congenital sexual morphology, or refer patients for transgender therapies. She stated her reason was because she was a Christian (evangelical, I assume). Now to give Ms Kloosterman all due fairness, I am sure the situation was more complex than a simple brush over of the facts in the media. She was fired and the exact reasons are not clear, but she also reports a hostile response to her initial concerns. But putting all that complexity aside, I just wanted to focus on the issue of using patients’ desired pronouns. I left that post to “soak” (think crab pot) for a few days and went back to see the discussion and to comment.
I was not surprised that evangelical Christians came to this Michigan PA’s defense, but the argument that the main Christian supporter used, did surprise me a bit. She said that the reason she would not use the preferred pronoun, if it is inconsistent with the patient’s sexual anatomy at birth (I’m not sure how you would know this in many cases), is because she is one of the few people (and I think she included all evangelicals in this “few”) who still believe in absolute truth.
I had not posted any opinion on that forum up to that point, but I knew that I was not in favor of the Michigan PA’s viewpoint in the story or the supporting evangelicals. So, to have someone with an opposing opinion to mine, stake out that the difference between her and people like me was the belief in absolute truth, was like a poke in the eye. Actually, it was like a poke in both eyes, Three Stooges type.
The one theme that has been behind much of my writing and thinking since 1990 is the quest for absolute truth. I am speaking of the classical Greek idea of truth, that which is consistent with reality. This quest, for me at least, transcends religion and into a unifying field of knowledge of all of reality, including fields such as science (and thus my series of articles on an old earth). I don’t like lies. I don’t like it when I lie. I don’t like it when religious people or politicians lie. My mantra has been, if God exist, he lives in reality. The better we see reality, the better we can see God. The more we are delusional about reality, the foggier God becomes. But it is not just about God.
I do admit, along with the commenter on that forum, that we live in an age when truth has become relative. We all see it in politics. Stolen elections with no evidence? Claim that vaccines are dangerous with no evidence of that? With the invent of social media’s soundbites, perception is more important than reality, so lies do work.
On the conservative side of Christianity, the relativity of truth has come with the merging of Christian ideas with conservative political and American nationalistic ideas. While on the surface, American white evangelicals see a harmony between the two, these do ideologies make strange bedfellows. I could share a thousand data points to prove my point, but one example is that the main agenda of the conservative political movement (and virtually all political movements) is the lust for power. So, when you have two philosophies with opposing fundamental ideas, conservative political seeking power, while Jesus said, his kingdom is not of this world, then to merge them, you have to sacrifice the aspiration for absolute truth. The pioneers who first mix these opposing viewpoints in the same pot may not see the consequences of the loss of truth, but it will haunt their philosophical descendants. For with the loss of absolute truth, eventually comes the loss of meaning and ethics, and we are seeing that already.
On the liberal side of Christianity, some would call “new age Christianity” there is a merging of two opposites, orthodox Christianity, and eastern religions, most notable, Buddhism. As I’ve said many times, I can respect, philosophically, a Christian and a Buddhist, but I have no respect for the blenders, because it makes no sense. Again, I could list a thousand data point of incompatibilities, but I will look at one simple one, and that is in metaphysics.
Christianity’s concept of reality (along with all the major monotheistic religions and with much of science) is that reality is real, time is real and linear, history is real and is also linear. But the basis of Buddhism is that reality is an illusion as is time and history. This has major ramifications in how you approach life.
The major tenet of Buddhism is that strife comes from desire. To escape desire, one attempts to transcend this illusion of reality. For one practical example, meditation exist in both Christianity and Buddhism, however, they have profoundly different goals. For the Buddhist, they meditate to transcend the world around them, such as the single word or mantra. Sometimes it is the focusing on the irrational as the classical sound of one hand clapping. On the other hand, Christian meditation has traditionally been rational. You sit and meditation on a question, “How can I be a better husband?” Or you might meditate on the nature of God, but not with the intention of removing yourself from reality, but to close in on it. Muslims often meditate on the adjectival names of God in the same way.
My point in this, just like on the conservative side, to merge two opposing viewpoints, there has to be the sacrifice of objective truth. And like with the conservative Christian counterparts, eventually you must pay the piper, with the total abandonment of morals and meaning. The pioneers into this blended religion still talk of issues such as justice and cruelty, but eventually they must go silent. You cannot have a basis of seeking justice or opposing cruelty where there is no truth. In contrast, I will mention that the atheist believes in absolute truth of reality, but in a cosmos without a basis for morality or meaning, beyond an illogical existential approach. But I will stop here and go back to my main point about pronouns.
Looking at Pronouns from the Viewpoint of Truth
The argument that the evangelicals make, beyond the banner “Believing in Absolute Truth” is that God created humans as man and woman and then said that creation is good (see: (Gen. 1:4, 10, 12, 18, 21, 25). Therefore, if someone was born with male genitalia but feels like they are a woman (gender dysphoria) or vice versa, they are in sin because they are rejecting God’s design. So, if they have a penis but prefer to be called “her” or “they,” then that is likewise sin. Other conservative Christians (or so I assume) then moved into the issue as a mental health problem, that if you have a penis, but want to function as a woman, or vice versa, you are “delusional.” Delusional is another name for being inconsistent with absolute truth. Then for the medical provider to use the pronoun that the patient prefers is enabling that delusion. Regarding that point, it is not “delusional” to feel feminine while in a male body. However, it would be delusional to think you have a penis when you don’t, but that’s not their assertion.
Side-Bar Digression, Religious Mining for Law
I believe that I am entitled to be critical of the evangelical movement because I squandered almost half my life there, ending in 1990. But I observed, even while I was an evangelical, that our impetus for Biblical studies, was mining the Bible for law and quotable knowledge to impress our peers. I suspect that other religions do this. I know that Islam does. So, we read scripture to see where we need to obey laws better and to show us where other, outsiders, disobey these same laws (and fuel for the cultural wars). We told ourselves that we did this because we love God so much that we just want to obey him. But I think something more sinister was at work. None of us are as good (morally) as we think, however, our value is far greater than we can Imagine.
None of us are as good (morally) as we think, however, our value is far greater than we can Imagine.J. Michael Jones
I’ve said before that when we boil everything down, the MO of all our behavior as self-worth. People only put a bullet in their heads when they calculate they are worthless. So, by having a litany of rules that we obey, which we have convinced ourselves are from the Bible, we evangelicals calculated a higher self-worth, at least in God’s eyes. Moreover, when we created a greater chasm between ourselves and those who do not obey this litany of rules, we had a greater sense of self-worth via juxtapositioning.
This psychological predisposition renders us vulnerable to seeing laws in the Bible where none exist. I will use the number one evangelical moral issue as an example, which of is abortion. Gay marriage a close second. The Bible doesn’t mention outright abortion, while it does allude to miscarriage in a few places. It is a big leap to assume that a single-cell zygote is fully human, and you will not find any such claim in the Bible. You could make the case, even from old Hebrew writings, that the zygote and later fetus is valuable, but not fully human. Yet, the evangelical makes this huge assumption that it is fully human because then they can apply all the Biblical laws regarding murder. The Bible is clear that murder is bad. I will close this thought with a statement that I’ve made before here, the problem with women who use abortion as a form of birth control do not see the intrinsic value in a fetus as an emerging human being. The problem with the anti-abortionists, is that they don’t see the intrinsic value in a woman who is in crisis.
Looking at Real Absolute Truth
Now back to our story. In the case of gender identity, the evangelical makes a huge leap that the way God created us (the way we were born) was of his perfect design and any conflict with that is sin. This idea gets psychological traction because it separates those bad people who don’t like the sexual identity they were born with from us good people who do. Therefore, in this process of law mining, we start with a simple statement about creation and make huge assumptions that it is sin to not like the gender we were born with. To claim to be fully one gender in the body of the opposite is the paramount sin in that thinking.
If you agree with the statement that it is sin to feel incompatible with the gender state you were born in, then, for the sake of logic, you must then apply that idea to all genetic features. This logic is the beginning of real absolute truth. It is equally sin to dye your hair a different color, if you dye it blond as a young woman, or dye-out the gray as an older man. It is also sin to fight alopecia. Don’t even mention Botox or fillers. Don’t get me started on breast augmentation, coolsculpting, or liposuction. It is also sin to fight more ominous states of birth such as crippling birth defects. Goodbye Shriners, you are doing the work of the devil with those kids! You can even extrapolate that it is even sin for people like me to fight cancer or other diseases if they have even an inkling of genetic predisposition to that disease state. That’s the way God made us … or is it?
It is also an essential doctrine of Christianity that the cosmos is no longer perfect. In many ways we are square pegs in round holes and on many levels. Why is the Christian surprised when there is a misalignment between gender identity and external genital anatomy? Why do they use that misalignment as grounds for hating a whole class of people?
For the sake of time, I will not diverge across the entire spectrum of the non-genderization of pronouns. Subscribers of those views have different motivations, even those who are completely content with their birth sex. I will even admit that you will find those few individuals who were just bored in life and to create attention and meaning they decided to pursue becoming the opposite sex. If those people exist, I suspect they are the rare minority. In the same way, I suspect that there are atheists who, just for the fun of it, are pretending to be evangelicals, but again, that must be rare. Personally, I don’t see the “fun” in fundamentalism.
I will mention one more area in this pronoun dispute, and that is the ones we use for God. I will only say, if I were to ever write another non-fiction book (may God forbid) it would have a cover of a grandmother from the 1950s and a little girl sitting beside her and the title would be, No Suzie, God Does Not Have a Dick.
The more typical person with gender dysphoria gives a compelling testimony about when they were a very young child, being so distraught with their gender anatomy that they were suicidal. The Christian is the first person to assert that the personal testimony is a valuable and an evidential tool for finding truth. There is something there, a misalignment that goes far beyond “liberal helicopter parents who plant ideas of sex change in their children,” as I heard one evangelical on TV say.
Looking at the issue of pronouns, I want to wander back to a more practical application as I finish this up. Nowhere does the Bible say it is a sin to not like your gender, to use pronouns that are not in agreement with what lives in your pants. It is this process of law-mining that a conclusion is made, a messy form of Biblical exogenesis.
If I were still in practice, would I use the preferred pronoun for a patient, if I knew that pronoun was incongruent with their genitalia? Hell yeah! I would because I love and respected my patients. If a patient told me to call them “Rainbow Trout,” and that would not be so unusual as I had several patients who were native American, I would call them such. I would not make it an issue of my righteousness, to be praised by my Christian subculture or to be made a hero of the culture wars on Fox News. I don’t mean to imply that’s what this PA in Michigan is doing, but it would be what I would be doing back in my evangelical days if I were in her shoes.
What is the cause of gender dysphoria? That is a complex question, and no one knows for sure. This is too long already to discuss the research here. But I’ve heard the testimonies of many of these people, including those who were going through sex reassignment therapy and surgery and I am convinced it has an organic basis.
In closing, I want to say that I do not write these articles in order to persuade someone of a different opinion to follow mine. I certainly don’t write and post these things to argue with anyone. Religious and political beliefs are deeply held with deep emotional ties. However, I do write to defend those who share my views, but may not have the time to put their defense into thoughtful words and to stir thinking. If you have evidence that I have overlooked, such as a Bible verse that actually says, “Thy shall not be called by a gender pronoun that is different than your genitalia,” share that in comments. I will reconsider my positions bases on the evidence, because I believe in absolute truth.
8 responses to “Why a Christian Should Support a Person’s Choice of Pronouns—A Philosophical Discussion”
Apparently a similar blending was going around 100 years ago in the early 1920s. Chesterton wrote (possibly in his “Mere Christianity”) of encounters with those “who will tell you Christianity and Buddhism are at heart the same, Especially Buddhism”.
And they now have Someone (or many Someones) they can PUNISH! PUNISH! PUNISH! PUNISH! PUNISH! PUNISH! PUNISH!
Just like their God of Wrath on a hair trigger.
One possible explanation I heard once was that there might be a Boolean switch somewhere in the genome that determines whether a fetal brain develops as male or female. (This assumes there are actual if subtle difference in brain structure & function between the two.) A developing fetal brain awash in male or female hormones from its developing fetal body. What if this hypothetical Boolean switch gene flips the other way, so that the brain develops opposite to the body – male-to-female or female-to-male?
One of the problems is that English has NO animate neuter or gender-inclusive pronoun. “It” is INANIMATE neuter.
Over 40+ years in SF and Fantasy, I have seen several attempts at such a pronoun: “hir”, “s/he”, “sahn”, you name it. NONE have caught on.
The funniest gender-neutral term I’ve come across is the recent “Latinx” to replace “Latino” and “Latina”. Let me get this straight:
1) A Gender-Neutral/Inclusive Noun, i.e. a NEUTER term.
2) To describe a group of people defined by their first language (Spanish).
3) A Romance Language that has NO Neuter Gender, i.e. EVERYTHING in Spanish is “he” or “she”.
Think about that.
(The only Romance Language with a neuter gender is Romanian. NOT Spanish, NOT Portuguese, NOT French, NOT Italian. English’s neuter gender comes from it’s Anglo-Saxon side, NOT it’s Norman French side.)
The Bible has ALOT to say about the forming of a human being in the womb, from OT laws recognizing an unborn child as a life and holding those responsible with murder who create a forced miscarriage and child’s death, to the Psalms clear affirmation of God knitting together the child in the womb, to pre born children being filled with the Holy Spirit (unborn John the Baptist leapt in the womb at Mary’s voice), etc etc. You have been away from Bible study for too long, as “a clump of cells” is a secular point of view – not biblically Christian. No real opinion on pronouns- I likely would call a biological man or woman by their preferred name or pronoun if regularly working or in friendship with- even while viewing their lifestyle as wrong from God’s perspective.
I allow comments to go through when they add to the discussion with objective information, I don’t see that here. As I said, I’m not here to argue with anyone. I spent more than 30 years in that world and have no desire to fight with anyone from that world. I am not trying to convert you or anyone who holds those ideas to thinking like me. I simply offer an alternative for those that are forced to believe in certain extra-Biblical, subculture mandates or must leave Christianity altogether. If you are one of those people, you are welcome to stay here. If you are someone who wants to argue or pick fights with people who have different opinions than you, you’ve picked the wrong place. My life is too short to enter arguments with anyone. I will let your comments stand for now, although you did not present an objective verse that declares that a fetus is equal to a full human, having the exact same value and deserving the same penalties of murder. The problem with arguments in either a religious or a political context, is that they have deep cultural-emotional connections that can quickly turn discussions into personal attacks. When you make the assertion about my personal Bible study, or lack thereof, I sense this is a step in that direction of personal attack. I don’t know you and I know nothing about you but assume the best about you and respect you. If you disagree with my perspective, it doesn’t mean to me that you are a bad person, that you are dumb, or you have lack of study. I have no certainty in any of my views because I am a fallen human being, with limited abilities to find the truth. But I have given many decades of serious thought and study. But this allows me the space to respect people I don’t agree with. If you have objective, information that either states that a fetus is fully equal to a born human, or that a “lifestyle” of someone who feels their soul is one gender while their body has the sexual organs of the other is against God’s will for them and sin, please share that. However, unless that verse is clear and direct and does not involve cultural extrapolation of the text, it will not contribute to the discussion.
My comment on your study of the Bible. Yes it was unnecessarily snarky. My apologies. A bad habit of mine, likely borne out of my basic orientation toward confrontational. I should have offered my opinion more thoughtfully, which is a topic my 85 year old Father keeps having with his 55 yr old son (me). With that said, the references I should not require exact references for a serious student of the Bible. You also mentioned unborn children as “clumps of cells” which is an offensive term to those who have learned God’s perspective in Scripture on unborn life. I would honestly assume that had I put in chapter and verse (which do exist) you might (forgive me but I’m about to assume things) consider doubting either the inspired nature of what I’m quoting or have some inconsistent interpretation (which are the two methods often used by those in disagreement with the inspiration or truth content of the Bible). I found your blog through a connection via PTSD, and if my comments offer you nothing of value- I’ll move on and view my comments as unofficially prophetic, warning you that you should not be too hasty to speak for what God had said if you truly aren’t speaking with accuracy on what He has said in the Bible. I can leave you to your family related posts as I do for mine, and apologize for the intrusion- but you do have your post setting on public.
Thanks for your comments and I accept your apology. If you have concrete evidence, from the Bible, or anywhere, that states the moment a sperm meets the egg, that group of cells (zygote), and it is factually a group of cells whether someone thinks it is a human or not, is fully valued as human, I’m all ears. But I’ve read from the American Evangelical perspective for over thirty years, was part of the pro-life moment, my wife worked in a pregency crisis center ( I’m just saying this not to pat our backs but to make it clear that we were fully indoctrinated in those ideas) and I was and still am a huge fan of Francis Sshaeffer who first bought the concerns of abortion to the American evangelicals, However, when I started to read Biblical scholars outside the American Evangelical perspective, for example Jewish scholars of old testament, it became clear that the Bible was not saying what I was taught it was saying in the Evangelical subculture. For example, the verse in Psalms 139 that is used over and over. It is talking about making a human in the metaphoric example of knitting. To continue this metaphor, imagine knitting sweaters. You put one up for sale that only has two stiches. Then another that is 10% done, another that is 30% done, another that is 75% done, and one that is a full sweater. Society will not value any of the sweaters like they will the finished one. I just need one simple verse that says clearly that God said the fetus from conception has the exact same value as full human being. I think we humans like to make everything black or white. The sperm and egg, before they meet are nothing, but when they meet are fully human. I will stand by my statement that no where does the Bible say that is true. The problem with the other side (abortion as a form of birth control) is that they see no value in the kitting process until it is fully human and that is not true either. But unless you come back with a very clear and dogmatic statement from God, in the Bible, that the human zy·gote is fully human, I don’t think we have anything new to discuss. I respect your opinion as I held the same for half my life. But thanks for dropping by. Again, I’m not trying to convert your way of thinking, but I’m just trying to clear out space for those who have been told they are not Christian because they don’t hold to the American Evangelical ideals.
Thank you for your thoughtful reply and not taking the bait on any of my other controversial comments – which to be sure I likely made even if I was trying hard to not do so!
Here are some basic evidences for how the Bible views human life in the womb. I care not to argue on any other basis, because as you can discern, I believe the Bible is God’s inspired word, inerrant, and fully sufficient for all that pertains to life and godliness that a Christian needs to understand in order to be pleasing to God.
Luke 1:41 (NASB95): When Elizabeth heard Mary’s greeting, the baby leaped in her womb; and Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit.
Luke 1:43–44 (NASB95): And how has it happened to me, that the mother of my Lord would come to me? 44 “For behold, when the sound of your greeting reached my ears, the baby leaped in my womb for joy.
Here you can see a pregnant Elizabeth, carrying the unborn John the Baptist. Hearing Mary’s voice of greeting, the baptist leaps in her womb. This is not the behavior of a mere clump of cells and indicates consciousness and even a spirit of joy – by an unborn child.
Exodus 21:22–25 (NASB95): If men struggle with each other and strike a woman with child so that she gives birth prematurely, yet there is no injury, he shall surely be fined as the woman’s husband may demand of him, and he shall pay as the judges decide.
23 “But if there is any further injury, then you shall appoint as a penalty life for life,
24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot,
25 burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise.
Here we see a clear indication in OT law, which God have the Israelites as a representation of righteous living, that if a woman is unlawfully struck so that a forced miscarriage occurs, if it results in loss of life, a just and equal punishment shall be meted out. Life for life.
What is interesting here, beyond the clear point that an unborn child is a human life, is no qualifiers are given for how many weeks along the woman is when she is forced to miscarry from the assault. This teaches that God places the same penalty – life for life- at ANY point in the pregnancy when a woman is carrying a child and is assaulted to the point of miscarriage.
In many places in the OT laws in Exodus, you can see laws requiring payment, but with a human life taken, God has a higher standard based on the clear value He has for human life – whether in the womb or out of the womb.
Of course as you referenced Psalm 139, written by King David.
Psalm 139:13–16 (NASB95): For You formed my inward parts;
You wove me in my mother’s womb.
14 I will give thanks to You, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made;
Wonderful are Your works,
And my soul knows it very well.
15 My frame was not hidden from You,
When I was made in secret,
And skillfully wrought in the depths of the earth;
16 Your eyes have seen my unformed substance;
And in Your book were all written
The days that were ordained for me,
When as yet there was not one of them.
Unlike a fabric that is being knit, which has no inherent value in comparison to a human life, when God knits cells together and forms a human being – it is a wondrous thing. David did not have the benefit of ultrasound and high res photos of a baby’s development in the womb as we do, but He did have God’s Spirit which gave him the unusual wisdom to relay how God views unborn babies in the womb. And not just this, with no qualifiers given for how what weeks of development the child is in from conception to birth (meaning what will be said applies to anytime in the process), David speaks for God and tells us that life is already sovereignly planned and ordained. Without going down a rabbit hole of sovereignty vs free will, it is clear the Bible teaches that God ordains a individual human life – EVEN BEFORE being conceived. In other words, God views humanity from before, during and after conception through the entire birth cycle in the womb. Also see how God plans a life even to the detail of where we roam, (Acts 17:26 is fascinating).
This is just the low hanging fruit of the argument on the intrinsic value of an unborn human life in the womb from a Biblical perspective.
It matters little to me what human terms are used to call a developing unborn child ANYTHING other than a human life (cells, z-got). These terms are all used to try and assuage the inherent horror of what an abortion is, at any point past conceiving, the unjustified murder and ultimate dismemberment of a human being.
I really don’t want to continue in arguments that I know there is nothing that I would say that would change your mind or the other way around. My life is too short for this. Again, I am not here to try and persuade people with strong opinions like you on this topic, and which represents the majority of American evangelicals and most Catholics. You have my respect as I spent half of my life with those same views. I am here for the disenfranchised Christians for who the American evangelical sub culture says you must believe x, y, and z or you are a bad person and not a real Christian, when the Bible does not say that. So, I speak for the defense of them, not to persuade you as I know that is beyond my ability or intent. But for the sake of those disenfranchised I will give this defense.
The difference between you and me is not that you believe and honor the Bible and I don’t. I hear this from evangelicals everytime we start one of these discussions. It is because I do believe the Bible and I take it very seriously putting words in the Bibles mouth that are not there. I will once again assert that the Bible says nothing about the fetus having the same value as a fully human. The Bible says nothing about abortion being the exact same as murder. The passage from Exodus 21:22–25 is the best example of this notion. When I read all the evangelical Bible teachers, pastors, they all interpreted that passage the same as you have. But when I read Jewish old testament and Hebrew language experts, they said the opposite. They said this verse says if the woman is killed, it is murder, but if the baby is killed the attacker musts only pay the husband a fine.
“Pro-Life” has become the cornerstone of the American evangelical moment and its number one litmus test of a true believer. But the Bible doesn’t hold that view. Again, if God saw abortion in the same light as the evangelical, he would have had one simple verse, “To kill an unborn born baby is murder.” Jesus never addressed it and abortion has always been around. The passages you use are all tangential to this fundamental claim, forcing the reader to make huge leaps and inferences to reach their conclusion.
I will assert that there is the possibility the evangelicals have made pro-life an idol. The proof of that is this. While the Bible does not say the fetus has the same value as the born human, they claim it does. In 2016 almost 90% of the evangelicals aligned themselves with Donald Trump when he supporting overturn Roe-Vs-Wade. They embraced him, loved him and considered him one of their own. Yet, Donald Trump is a self-proclaimed habitual adulterer, fornicator, greeder, money-hungry, and a world-class liar. All those things are clearly condemned in the Bible as sin, lying mentioned directly almost 500 times. So, when a group takes a belief that is not in the Bible as an excuse to accept the evil that is clearly in the Bible, to me that suggest an idol.
Again, I am not trying to persuade you. I consider that you are a decent person with sincere beliefs and I respect that. But I make this argument public the sake of those who have been disenfranchised.
But before closing, I will also defend in practical terms some of assertions that prolife people make toward me over abortion, which are not true. I am prolife in the literal sense. I do believe that the fetus has value as a human in process. We could easily have eliminated most abortions a long time ago if, as a society, wanted to. You look at the reason most women get abortions and fight to prevent that by making birth control easy and free for sesually active people. By financially supporting single moms. But making adoption easy. My removing the stigma of being unmarried and pregnant. I could go on and on.
We, personally, have had two miscarriages, one at three months after conception. We named our three month daughter and had a service for her and it was painful. She had value. That is the issue for those who see no value in a fetus and I’m not one of those. It is out of my respect for the Bible, that it does nto say that our Laura has the exact same value as our present grown children (would I have one of my grown children killed in exchange for brining Laura into this world alive? No.) and Exodus 21:22–25 supports that view. But I also am concerned about how badly the evangelical church has treated the woman in a crisis pregnancy, or women in general. This idea locking them all up in prison with their doctors, is a cruel and unloving approach to a problem that could be solved via a loving and supportive way.
But unless you can show me a direct verse where God says a fetus has the exact same value as a fully human, then I see no reason to continue this discussion. I end this with my same assumption that whoever you are, you are a good person, and you take these things seriously and have great passion over your opinions. I hope the best for you and you are a friend despite our disagreement over this issue.