Tag Archive for: abortion

What’s Left of ‘My Body, My Right’?

[Editor’s Note: This blog was originally posted in 2014. While the general argument is still as relevant as ever, a lot has changed in the cultural landscape since then, most notably the 2022 Dobbs decision overturning Roe v. Wade. Plus, time-sensitive statistics are relative to 2014.]

The right to privacy just might be the most widely touted justification for abortion today. Implied within the right to life and to liberty, the concept of “privacy” demarcates the sacred domain of self-possession (my body), autonomy (my choice), and liberty (my freedom). Without at least some form of the right to privacy, one cannot defend against forced marriage, coercive medical procedures, physical abuse, slavery, forced labor or any other forms of coercion. And of course, abortion isn’t a “right” unless a mother can do what she wants with her body. One mantra, long circulated under the right to privacy is: “My Body, my right.” The (illicit) presumption is that bodily autonomy guarantees women of the right to abortion. But when these words are pressed, and the idea inside squeezes out, there might not be much pro-choice power left.

History of “My Body My Choice”     

The right to privacy has legal roots in the 1927 Olmstead v. United States decision where the letter of dissent, penned by Justice Louis Brandeis, articulated this previously unstated right. The case concerned Olmstead’s suspected smuggle and sale of alcohol. The “privacy” issue regarded how authorities gathered evidence against him. Brandeis argued that our founding fathers had “conferred against the government, the right to be let alone – the most comprehensive of rights and the right most favored by civilized men.” Olmstead was convicted, by a 5-4 decision, on covert wire-tapping evidence, gained without a warrant. Brandeis’ dissent letter, however, proved pivotal forty years later in the 1967 Katz v. U.S. case which overturned the Olmstead ruling.

In between these events was the 1965 Griswold vs. Connecticut ruling where the right to privacy was applied to sexual ethics, thus bringing that conversation closer to the abortion debate of today.

In Griswold v. Connecticut the issue was contraception, specifically within marriage. The ruling found in favor of the Executive Director of Planned Parenthood, Estelle Griswold, who advocated for the free use of contraception (at least) within marriage. The predominate justification for their case? Privacy. Married couples have the right of privacy whereby they can choose for themselves whether to direct their sexual relations toward pregnancy or not.

Following the Griswold case, Eisenstadt v. Baird (1972) would extend the right of contraceptive access to unmarried couples as well. In that case, the right to privacy joined with the equal protection clause to give unmarried couples the same access to contraception as married couples. While the Eisenstadt case is important, the Griswold case is widely considered to be the more groundbreaking decision leading up to Roe v. Wade (1973).

In Roe v. Wade (1973), the right to privacy was one of the main justifications for the ruling, in favor of Jane Roe (Norma McCorvey), granting a qualified right of abortion access. Together with the concurrent Doe v. Bolton case (verdict rendered the same day, January 22, as Roe v Wade) abortion access was granted to U.S. women on an unprecedented scale. The privacy argument refers to a woman’s right to manage her body how she sees fit, with minimal intrusion from others. Her contraceptive practices are primarily her choice to make, in part, because she bears the greatest responsibility for what happens to her body be it pregnancy, sexually transmitted diseases, child-birth, or subsequent motherhood.

Roe v. Wade proved to be a controversial ruling, having been disputed ever since. Some sense of the “right to privacy”, however, has never been disputed, since it is understood that the federal and state government should generally respect individual citizen’s rights to conduct their private affairs privately, and to manage their own bodies with general freedom from interference. It is this special right (a.k.a., sacred right) that is implied when people say things like, “the government should stay out of my bedroom” or “you can’t tell me how to raise my child” or, more crassly, “keep your rosaries off my ovaries.” Pro-choice and pro-life advocates can all agree that there is some sort of privacy right implied in the basic legal and human rights of U.S. citizens. The terminology is not explicitly stated in our founding documents yet some sense of it has always been understood therein.

[Editor’s Note: The watershed case of Dobbs v. Jackson (2022) overturned Roe v. Wade (1973) Doe v. Bolton (1973) and Casey v. Planned Parenthood (1992). The decision confirmed that there was no explicit “right to privacy” mentioned in the Constitution, although, the concept still applies in regarding people’s general rights against spying, theft, illegal search and seizure, contraception, etc. Dobbs did not overturn Griswold or the Eisenstadt decisions, so those applications of “privacy rights” are maintained, even abortion is no longer included as a constitutional right]

But how far does that right to privacy extend? When pressed, it seems like there are some important qualifications that can be pitted against a blanketing sense of “privacy.”

1) Certain public health issues restrict the right to privacy

In some states, an HIV-carrier can be criminally tried for willfully spreading HIV if they don’t reveal their HIV status to their partner. Though his or her disease may, in some sense be “his body,” and “his own business,” it becomes a public issue when, under false pretense, he infects others. Similarly, a smoker may be allowed to smoke at home, but not necessarily at public restaurants or at work. It may be one’s personal right to smoke a cigarette, but since that private behavior has public consequences there is no universal right to smoke just anywhere one wants.

Furthermore, there are certain behaviors that are illegal even among consenting adults who, regarding their right to privacy, have no personal objections. Illegal drug use and prostitution are considered such pressing public health issues that we have governing prohibitions in place.

It might be exaggerating things a bit to call abortion a “public health crisis,” but that assessment has merit. In a brutally literal sense, medical abortion, among preventable causes, is by far the single leading killer for human beings of any age or race.

 

[1]* According to CDC reports for 2011, abortion claimed the lives of 1,058,490 children in utero, meanwhile malnutrition claimed 3,009 lives, various accidents (firearms or otherwise) claimed 126,438, suicides and homicide claimed 55,756.

[Editor’s Note: the current total, is now around 66,000,000 abortions from 1973-2025. And the yearly average is, again, around 1,000,000.]  

Doubtless, there are preventable cases of heart disease and Type II diabetes that could be added to those numbers, but it should be clear that the million plus deaths annually from abortion easily tips the scales when compared against other preventable deaths. Were there more than a million deaths from salmonella poisoning, or malnutrition, or suicide, or drug trafficking, or medical malpractice, then hardly a politician in Washington would fail to join the campaign against such preventable fatalities. Those numbers would easily count as a public health crisis in any other field. Even when a basic right to privacy is granted, public health crises present a plausible boundary line for personal autonomy. People might have a general right to do what they want with their bodies, but not necessarily if their actions constitute a public health crisis and especially not if their behavior extends that health crisis into killing other human beings.

2) There is no privacy right regarding child-abuse.

It is widely granted that parents have a right to raise their (minor) children how they see fit. Their home is a private bastion of liberty where they can talk, think, feel, hope, believe, and generally act as they see fit. This includes child-rearing, discipline, character formation, and even naming one’s children with most any name one sees fit. This domain of freedom has also been touted in justifying home schooling and personal choice of religious or non-religious education. Yet in spite of all that liberty at home, there is no “privacy right” allowing sexual, physical, or gross verbal abuse. The children are still individual human beings with their own rights even if their status as minors nuances their legal autonomy. In these circumstances, the general right to privacy for parents is bounded by a more basic right of the child’s right to life, liberty, and his/her pursuit of happiness. Phrased ethically, the parents have a moral responsibility to care for and support their children towards health and well-being and not treat them like slaves, robots, sex partners, or punching bags.

Regarding the subject of abortion it is common parlance to refer to a pregnant woman as a “mother” and to refer to her gestating human fetus as her “child,” i.e., “mother and child.” There is legal precedence for referring to the preborn human being as a “child-in-utero” and to the pregnant woman as “mother” (see, The Unborn Victim of Violence Act, 2004). To be fair, she may prefer not to be a mother, she may scorn motherhood, or otherwise dislike being called a mother, but biologically she has begun motherhood as soon as another human being has begun inside of her. She does indeed have great and rightful freedom to conduct herself how she sees fit, but now that another human being is involved – and biologically there’s no dispute over whether the child-in-utero is a genetically distinct homo sapien – she is a mother and any abusive acts on that human inside of her is literally child abuse. Admittedly, the legal system, via the Unborn Victims of Violence Act, does not deem assaults on children-in-utero as “abuse” unless the child is harmed by an aggressor besides the mother.[2]

The child’s physiological status, however, is the same regardless of whether the child is killed by an assailant or by an abortion doctor; whether the child is wanted or not. He or she is still an abused child in terms of the malicious and fatal harm inflicted on them. He or she is no less harmed regardless of who is doing the abusing, or what their intentions might be.

3) There are competing responsibilities of parenthood

Similar to the last point, it should be noted that parental behavior regarding their own bodies can still harm their children. While parents have a general right to privacy regarding their own bodies, their bodies, nonetheless, are part of their person so that gross negligence of their own bodies or abandonment are unethical and sometimes illegal.

If a single parent says, “It’s my body, and I want my body to be in California” but their 5 year-old child is in Maryland, then that parent’s autonomy is competing with his or her legal responsibility as a parent. To leave that child unaccompanied in Maryland is child abandonment. Moreover, if that parent participates in illegal drug activity, prostitution, or otherwise extremely risky behavior the state can rightly take that child away from that parent for his or her gross negligence. One could even be ethically and legally culpable for willfully self-destructive behavior like suicide attempts, morbid obesity, abusing over-the-counter drugs, or any number of behaviors that leave children with a dangerously unreliable parent. That parent’s right of privacy infringes on his or her responsibility as a parent, and in some cases that parent’s behavior is both criminal and unethical.

Regarding abortion, a woman might not want to think of her preborn child as a “parasite” or wish any harm on it, but she does want it out of her body to let “nature take its course.” In that sense, she may seek a more gentler characterization of the abortion process so that her behavior is construed passively, selflessly, or in otherwise nicer tones. In that way an abortive mother may try to baptize her intentions so that she’s not willing any harm, or she is aiming for the “greater good.” These efforts have some ethical value, but do not necessarily counterbalance the fact that a mother’s children have some rightful expectations that she will not deliberately destroy herself or harm them through her body.

For example, it is unethical for a smoking mother to give her prenatal child cancer or birth defects, or for her to use illicit drugs and deliver a crack baby, or to acquire HIV and knowingly confer it to her pre-born child. These acts are not just done to one’s self, but directly affect someone else. It is no longer a strictly “private” issue now that someone else is involved. Abortion, as such, is not just an act on the mother’s body but also harms the child. For example, some abortificients (abortion medications) are known to reduce the mucosal lining in the uterine wall where the embryo would otherwise implant. This leaves the embryo with nowhere to go, it is expelled from the womb. The pill was an action of the mother, affecting her own body, but its effects did not rest with the mother. The effect was a silentabortion, where another human life was taken. In this way, abortion can be ethically similar to other actions of mothers that harm their babies–even if the action was intended to be of a different sort, like smoking for pleasure, or drinking for fun, or taking recreational drugs to hide from the world. These acts might have different ethical weight themselves, but all of them also carry the ethical weight of child-abuse when they harm the child-in-utero.

4) There are competing responsibilities of citizenship

Some minimal responsibilities are expected in exchange for the many rights and privileges of citizenship. For example, one is not at liberty to plot treason against one’s president nor to attempt to assassinate the president, even if one is only “planning” such a thing without yet acting. It is illegal to even conspire to do such anti-government activities. It does not matter if one’s activities are all contained within personal journals with the materials kept in one’s home. One may have a right to bear arms, but not to bear the schematics for an assassination attempt. Frankly, a person might even be “joking” yet if the threat looks real enough, that behavior could be grounds for criminal charges. The right to privacy does not grant unqualified liberty to mobilize one’s private domain for public harm, as that is no longer a merely private matter.

Ever since Roe v. Wade pre-born children are not considered legal persons and therefore do not have the rights of citizenship. [Editor’s Note: And while the Dobbs decision overturned Roe, it did not establish federal “personhood” status for children-in-utero. Abortion policy reverted to the states, along with any related “personhood” amendments.] The mother, presumably, would still have that right of citizenship qualifying her for special privileges granted to U.S. citizens like miranda rights or voting rights in U.S. elections. She would also be subject to the laws of the land, and so she has laws which prevent her from child abandonment and child abuse, and of course child mutilation, and serial murder of children. Her privacy is already infringed upon regarding her motherhood, such that she has civil duties as a mother.

[Editor’s Note: All these duties apply to fathers as well, as bodily autonomy and the right of privacy do not, normally, entail any “license to kill” innocent human beings, especially one’s own child. Abortion-choice policy, of course, remains the lone legal exception to that humanitarian basic.]

The preborn child is at least analogous to the born child such that it’s no stretch of the imagination to think a real mother should act like a real mother, even if she’s only pregnant right now. Also, if any further legal precedents are established that raise the relative legal status of the child-in-utero, then they might come closer in status to “citizens” and be a more rightful boundary on the “right of privacy.”

5) It is illegal to use one’s body to injure or kill other people without other overriding justifications

It is illegal in many cases, and unethical in more cases, to use one’s body to harm others. A person has the right to go skydiving, but not to willfully land on another person killing them. In that case, both parties are killed. Two evils have been done – both being a kind of homicide. Of course, successful suicides can’t be prosecuted, but it’s still a criminal act, and there’s little dispute about whether it’s generally evil to kill oneself, especially if someone else is killed too.

On a lesser scale, a person might jokingly fall all over people at a party receiving bumps and bruises and giving them as well. The person might be amusing, but he’s still harming other people by use of his body. One’s right to privacy is restricted by the general principle of non-malfeasance: that is, do no harm to others. Even if one’s own very body becomes the instrument of harm, it is still unethical and in many cases illegal, to harm other human beings with one’s body. Abortion involves a mother’s instrumental use of her body, by a doctor’s assistance, to create a hostile environment for the child-in-utero. To use one’s body for harm is still unethical, and not a natural privilege within the “right of privacy.”

6) Rights to privacy can be abdicated

In the case of Bowe Bergdahl American audiences were scandalized, in part, by his reported treachery, as his “right to privacy” did not include the privilege to endanger his fellow soldiers. Bergdahl, a soldier for the U.S. Army, who legally swore allegiance to the U.S. Army, and allegedly betrayed his fellow soldiers abandoning his post, going AWOL, with intent to ally with the enemy. If those reports are validated and Bergdahl is found guilty, he will not have a strong “right to privacy” defense in his favor.

[Editor’s Note: Bergdahl He was held captive by the Taliban from 2009-2014 despite his alleged efforts ally with the enemy. He was court martialed and found guilty in 2017, fined, and dishonorably discharged. In 2023 his case was appealed and his conviction overturned].

By swearing allegiance and signing his respective contracts he made a substantial commitment to the United States of America to loyally serve as long as he is able and allowed. He retains his freedom of conscience throughout (he could agree with the enemy if he wants). He retains some freedom of speech (he can say what he wants in his journals). He retains freedom of religion (he can worship or not worship however he sees fit). But his body is not fully his own, since he abdicated certain privileges of free citizenship for the sake of becoming a soldier.

Bergdahl is not unique here either. Most every working man or women abdicates some degree of personal freedom and privilege for the sake of conforming to a work environment. That’s the price people pay so they can bring home a paycheck. People can exercise their right to privacy by not working in those jobs. If they don’t want to agree to their terms they don’t have to work for that business. Fashion and film industry can have rigorous expectations of their employees, “You must dye your hair,” or “You have to be willing to do nude scenes,” or “you cannot let your body weight exceed 115 pounds.” People may also abdicate certain privacy rights as legal punishment. Some criminals are forced to wear trackers monitoring their location in the event of trespassing on a restraining order. One of the paradoxes of the right to privacy is that as a facet of bodily autonomy, people can exercise their bodily autonomy by sacrificing certain aspects of privacy.

Regarding abortion, a parent’s right to privacy might be restricted by parental duties but that very privilege to choose to get pregnant or raise a child is itself a rightful exercise of one’s privacy. Even if the pregnancy was forced on the woman, through violent rape, molestation, or incest, those horrific evils don’t implicate the child. It’s not like the child-in-utero did anything deserve a death-sentence. The mother’s right to privacy and bodily autonomy are grounds for prosecuting the rapist, not for punishing the child.

Parenthood has always been a normal constraint on one’s privacy. It’s a heavy blessing people assume when they are willing to invest some of their freedom as a sacrifice for the benefit of children. Reluctant parents may have a harder time coping with the lifestyle change, but that doesn’t change the fact that they are parents and parenthood naturally constrains our privacy. Those who do not want that constraint would do well to avoid parenthood. Killing one’s child, however is not “avoiding parenthood,” since parenthood has already begun at conception. That is more like willful failure as a parent.

So, What’s Left of ‘My Body My right’?       

Bringing all these different qualifications together, a stiff critique emerges against certain liberal uses of the “right to privacy.” We can, and should, grant a qualified sense of the right to privacy without assuming that that right includes the license to kill innocent human beings by way of abortion.

References:

[1] The CDC reports the total deaths for the U.S. population as ranging between 1.9 million and 2.5 million between 1970 and 2011 per year not including abortions. In that same time frame, abortion rates ranged from 0.74 to 1.3 million abortions. In 2011, those reports estimate that there were 2,515,458 deaths (not counting abortions) and 1,058,490 abortions, making abortions about 1/3 of all fatalities in the U.S. Yet even these numbers are skewed because natural abortion (miscarriages) are not counted whereas natural deaths that occur as complications from old age are counted. Abortions might be better compared to preventable circumstances like workplace accidents, traffic fatalities, or preventable diseases like Type-II diabetes.

[2] One could argue that our legislation is due for updating since 1973. Some things that have since been legalized in the name of abortion create inconsistences for established laws, precedents, and ideals within our legal system. For example, mutilating a human corpse for the sake shipping purposes is illegal, but if it’s in utero then that is standard practice of dilation and curettage abortions. Likewise, a pregnant mother who is woefully derelict of her maternal duties cannot be legally tried for all the negligence and abuse inflicted on her preborn-child, yet if it’s a “wanted” baby that would seem to make her the aggressor against the child as in the “Lacy and Connor Law” so that if she kills the baby through drug and alcohol abuse, she could be tried for negligent homicide, manslaughter, or at least child abuse. Likewise, if a pregnant woman is assaulted on the way to the abortion clinic, intending to get an abortion, and miraculously the thief forgets to take her wallet but does push her down, killing the child on impact–he actually saved her time, and money by killing the baby in a much shorter fashion. He can be criminally charged for killing the child, for assault,  and for theft, yet the thief was only incidentally involved in an abortion procedure intended by the mother. The mother’s “intentions” did not change the nature of that child any more than it changed the ethical status of that assault.

Recommended Resources:

Correct, NOT Politically Correct: How Same-Sex Marriage Hurts Everyone (Updated/Expanded) Book, DVD Set, Mp4 Download by Frank Turek

Sex and Your Commanding Officer (DVD) (Mp4 Download) by Dr. Frank Turek

Legislating Morality (DVD Set), (PowerPoint download), (PowerPoint CD), (MP3 Set) and (DVD mp4 Download Set) 

Does Jesus Trump Your Politics by Dr. Frank Turek (mp4 download and DVD)

 

Dr. John D. Ferrer is a speaker and content creator with Crossexamined. He’s also a graduate from the very first class of Crossexamined Instructors Academy. Having earned degrees from Southern Evangelical Seminary (MDiv) and Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary (ThM, PhD), he’s now active in the pro-life community and in his home church in Pella Iowa. When he’s not helping his wife Hillary Ferrer with her ministry Mama Bear Apologetics, you can usually find John writing, researching, and teaching cultural apologetics.

Originally posted at: https://bit.ly/4mBhosw

/by
Abortion Pro-Life

59 Reasons Men Should Speak Out Against Abortion Part 2

If you are a pro-life man, like me, then you’ve heard a hundred times that men need to shut up about abortion. Apparently, we men have no right to talk about abortion unless, perhaps, we’re voicing pro-choice solidarity. #girlpower. In part 1 of this series, we looked at 25 reasons why men should still speak up, despite being told, “No Womb, no Say!” In part 2, we can dig even deeper and see even more reasons why women, families, and society at large desperately need men to speak up against the horrors of abortion.

More Reasons Why Men Need to Speak Out Against Abortion

26. Some women don’t want to make the abortion-decision for themselves – I’m a married man, and I grew up with a mother and sister. And from my experience, sometimes, women can feel too close to the situation to make a decision, or perhaps she doesn’t trust her own judgment, or she may even have a conflict of interest that makes her feel unsure. In that case, she may prefer to have a trusted man in her life help her make that decision, or even make the decision on her behalf. The “no womb, no say” position handicaps those women by demanding that all the men in their lives stay silent, even if they are strong, wise, loving, and great decision-makers for the family. I’m sure there are lots of women who balk at the very idea of letting man make an important decision her behalf. But, that woman isn’t every woman. Some women have healthy father figures, a good husband, and other decent and redeeming men in their lives. For those women, they are often more than happy to share the burden of a big decision with the men in their life. And when a strong and vocal husband, brother, or father is lending his strength in selfless support, she might just have the encouragement she needs to make the right decision.

27. Truth doesn’t have a sex/gender – If something is true about abortion, it’s still true even if a man says it. Moral facts are still the facts, no matter if a man or a woman is speaking.

28. Men have access to moral facts just as much as women do – just as moral facts don’t care what sex/gender you are, knowing moral facts is likewise open to men and women.

29. There are sex/gender-neutral reasons for doubting the “my body, my right” argument undergirding this “women only” mentality – It’s never been clearly shown, legally, that the right of privacy includes the privilege of intentionally killing one’s own, innocent, non-threatening, non-combatant, child-in-utero. Also, Roe v. Wade was argued on the belief that we aren’t sure when biological human life begins. But that question has long been settled: new human life begins at conception. Moreover, the “my body, my right” argument promotes extremism and contradicts normal guardian responsibilities. If bodily autonomy isn’t enough to even justify abortion, then it’s not enough to justify silencing all male voices on abortion either.

30. “No womb, No Say” is sexist against men – The “no womb, no say” position is blatant sexism, discriminating against millions of people because of their sex/gender. It’s not the tame kind of discrimination either, like when employers discriminate against job applicants for being lazy incompetent nitwits. We’re talking about the lame kind of discrimination, attempting to restrict freedom of speech and marginalizing men even if the man was permanently handicapped in a botched abortion, or when he’s been traumatized by watching, assisting, or conducting an abortion, or if they’ve walked their wives through the long-term side effects of a past abortion.

31. Abortion-Choice Policy Promotes Sexism against women – Not only is the “no womb, no say” position sexist, but abortion choice policy itself is sexist. Sex-selective abortion is currently legal, and that means girls in utero are sometimes aborted just because they are girls. Abortion also has a bad history of promoting negative health outcomes for women. Abortion itself is a violent act against women, especially when the mother’s “consent” is blurred with heavy pressure from parents or partners. And perhaps the most glaring problem of sexism in abortion is how it enables reckless man-boys males to exploit women. They can “love ’em and leave ’em”.

32. It’s hypocritical to encourage pro-choice men to speak up and prohibit pro-life men from doing the same – NARAL, URGE, and other supporters of the “Bro Choice” movement encourage men to speak up so long as they are supporting abortion-choice.

33. It’s hypocritical to accept the verdict of Roe v. Wade (1973) and then say that men shouldn’t have a voice on the issue – Seven out of nine old white guys, on the Supreme Court, decided that abortion should be legalized across the nation.

34. If pro-choice advocates tried to undo the hypocrisy, and still keep men silent about abortion, they would have to reject what men have already said on abortion – besides just the Roe v. Wade ruling, if male voices were muffled then that would mean rejecting the established insights from men in the past, regarding abortion, including expert testimony from doctors, judges, scientists, attorneys, pollsters, technicians, politicians, academics and scholars.

35. “No womb, No Say” is a veiled attempt to stifle opposition – Pro-choice powers don’t really want men, generally, to be silent, they want pro-life men to be silent. It’s not a matter of ethics and rights, it’s a matter of convenience. It’s easier to advance a pro-choice agenda if roughly half of the opposition is silent.

36. It takes two to tango – men are half of the pregnancy equation. Having a role in creating the child, it’s not clear why men would have no role when it comes to the (preventing the) fate of their offspring. Ideally, childbearing should be a team effort and not a lone burden for women.

37. The Good Samaritan Rule – Morally, we’re responsible to do the good that we can do. Tim Brahm of Equal Rights Institute explains this point with a story about watching a depressed woman attempt to drown her newborn child, then Brahm says, “Now, I’m a man. I’ve never been pregnant. I’ve never been a mother. I will never know what she is going through. . . But even though I can’t understand what she’s going through, shouldn’t I try to do something to save that kid?” Good question!

38. Some women cannot get pregnant – By the logic of “no womb no way” those women would be denied a voice on the abortion issue.

39. Men have freedom of speech, just like women do – If women can speak out about prostate cancer, and they have every right do so, then men can speak about abortion. The First Amendment works either way.

40. Abortion contradicts paternity rights – It is legally inconsistent for women to be able to “walk away” from a pregnancy (abortion), while men are denied that right. Instead, men can be forced to pay child support even when they didn’t want to be fathers. This inconsistency might be unjust, and so, men have reason to speak up.

41. Men should use their privilege in society to offer solidarity with good causes – Supposing that men have a lot of privilege in society, we, therefore, have a moral duty to exercise our privilege in support of good. Fighting against the deadliest act against fellow human beings in world history is a worthy candidate.

42. It’s good to defend those who can’t defend themselves, regardless of sex/gender – Their silent scream cannot be heard, so people with a voice need to speak up for them. Men and women alike can intercede for the voiceless.

43. Abortion is an intersectional issue so that silencing men is too simplistic to represent it fairly – There are several different inequalities tied into abortion-choice policy. There are potential inequalities between men and women. But we can also point to inequalities along racial lines, or health, age, and so forth. Some of the most influential and expert witnesses for age discrimination, ableism, and racism are males. Silencing males on the issue of abortion restricts the voices protesting ableism, ageism, and racism.

44. Men can help deter the jerks who pressure women towards abortion – Male influence can be positive or negative. It’s true that some males are horrible human beings: abusive, predatory, deviants, who exploit women and coerce them into abortion. These jerks need every societal corrective we can throw at them – police, prosecutors, jailers, therapists, etc. But often they descend into deviancy for lack of a healthy father figure or positive male friends. When decent men are involved as Big Brothers, for example, they can help counteract many of the factors driving women to abortion, such as coercion, poverty, abuse, abandonment, etc. That won’t work in all cases, but it will work for some. Decent upstanding men can help create a family-friendly pro-life culture just by modeling redemptive manhood.

45. Men can work with women in teaching a family-based model of pregnancy – It’s no surprise that most women seeking abortion are not married or even in a healthy stable family. Healthy stable families are a historically well-established way to raise up the kind of people who don’t have unplanned pregnancies. Men and women together can promote healthy marriage, and parenting as a means of curbing abortion.

46. Men are justified in wanting to defend women from harm – if chivalry is dead, it’s because feminism killed it. But good men can always resurrect it, especially if it means protecting women from the violence in and around abortion.

47. Men can speak up through their actions – Male culture is more than words. A healthy masculine voice is not just spoken, it’s modeled. Raising a child is hard work anyway, but it gets even harder when men don’t step up as fathers, friends, and husbands. Far too many men already lack the maturity, courage, and commitment to come alongside the women in their lives to help them choose life. Sometimes the most powerful words we can share about abortion are voiced in silent strength and quiet commitment.

48. Fathers should be able to talk with their daughters about abortion – Fathers have a natural right and responsibility to raise their daughters, and that includes talking about sex, love, marriage, parenting, and of course the immeasurable value of human life.

49. Husbands should be able to talk with their wives about abortion – healthy marriages should share decision making, and work as a team in their family planning. Silent men would be a disservice to wives who want support and input from their husbands.

50. Brothers should be able to talk with their sisters about abortion – Healthy sibling relationships are another family tie where guys can have the rapport with their sisters to talk about important things like sexual health, pregnancy, and abortion.

51. Women should be free to get counsel and advice from males – Male counselors, religious leaders, and caring friends can be a tremendous help for women in a crisis pregnancy. If men are supposed to shut up about abortion, then they are handicapped in their ability to help.

52. Silent men are a waste of resources –Disenfranchised males can be incredibly dangerous. Every society has an enormous burden in deciding what to do with the boys. When boys don’t have to mature, settle down, or become gentlemen to be accepted in society, then they will tend to settle for adolescence, never marrying, never committing to fatherhood, slinking towards addiction, apathy, violence, and crime. The problem isn’t as simple as “toxic masculinity.” Males are a resource in society; they can spoil if neglected and explode when broken. But when they are mobilized and directed towards human flourishing they are an irreplaceable source of innovation, defense, and development. With the issue of abortion, men can be incredibly useful. Besides lending strength, compassion, and service, they can have insights, research, and sage counsel to help struggling mothers in their time of need. It would be a pity to lock away all those resources just because of casual pro-choice rhetoric.

53. Excluding men reduces diversity – We can learn a lot if we listen to a diverse array of voices sharing insights into issues that matter. Silencing all (pro-life) men artificially restricts that diversity.

54. Men who care about the health and direction of the nation should speak up about abortion as it ties into our founding principles as a nation, i.e., an equal right to life from our creation onward – It has been said that the price of freedom is eternal vigilance. The benefits of a free and humanitarian society will not defend themselves. We the people have a duty, as citizens, to protect the better parts of our society, and that includes the notion of “equal rights.” The Declaration of Independence says, “all men [humans] are created equal . . . endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights . . . life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” Our founding fathers didn’t know, at that time, that the biological moment of creation is at conception. And if we are going to avoid infusing some spiritually weighted notion about souls, then we have to legally treat that moment of creation as a biological question – the moment of conception, the onset of biological human life. See more about this point in my debate at UT-Arlington (TX).

55. It’s not humanitarian to restrict whole demographics from discussing a human rights issue – the history of human rights legislation has, for the most part, been a gradual unveiling of our equal rights as human beings. But that process has had many pitfalls and perils. We cannot trust that any one group will safely lead the way without vital corrections arising from other groups. In this way, all of us are part of an ongoing conversation about the nature, extent, and grounding of our human rights. There is no settled and final conclusion, whether in the court of law, in the classroom, or in the science lab, dictating that men need to stay out of the abortion issue. It would contradict our humanitarian values as a nation to silence whole sectors of humanity because of their race, age, sex/gender.

56. Silencing men is close-minded – No one on earth is 100% right all the time. We should be open-minded enough to where we can keep learning and correct our mistakes. Silencing an entire demographic does not signal open-mindedness. It’s dogmatic and close-minded

57. Silencing men forces weird results with the LGBTQ movement – Do biological females lose their right to speak if they identify as a male? What if they have been pregnant before, but still identify as a male? What if a biological male identifies as a female, does that person get their voice back?

58. “No womb, no say” discriminates against intersex people – Some people are born with male and female sex organs, or with some other gender-ambiguating condition. Yet, the “no womb, no say” argument operates on a simple binary notion that women can speak up but not men. How traditionally “male” must a man be before he’s “man” enough to qualify in the eyes of pro-choice tone-police? Intersex people, just like everyone else, have the same general right to speak out about abortion, no matter who is trying to silence them.

59. Silent men have done enough damage already – Far too many men are passive, wimpy, indifferent loafers, too selfish and scared to protect, support, and honor the women in their lives. So, it’s no surprise when those women end up having an abortion because they never had the support network they needed. No gentleman stepped in as a husband, a brother, a friend, or a father, to lend the support she needed to choose life. Brothers, this should not be.

These are just the first 59 reasons I could come up with. But that’s more than enough to prove that “no womb, no say” is a myth. Silencing men is a popular pro-choice tactic designed to smother opposition and shame men into silence. It’s worked well over the years. Perhaps if more men had stepped into the mix with a gentle voice of concern or a careful word of wisdom, then we might not be in this predicament, staring at an abortion total that dwarfs the holocaust eleven-fold, literally. Men, your voice matters. Don’t just stand quietly on the sidelines hoping that your wives, sisters, daughters, and female friends will all do the right thing. Speak up! A word of compassion and truth just might make the difference between life and death.

Recommended Resources: 

The Case for Christian Activism (MP3 Set), (DVD Set), and (mp4 Download Set) by Frank Turek

Is Morality Absolute or Relative? by Dr. Frank Turek DVD, Mp3 and Mp4

Legislating Morality (mp4 download),  (DVD Set), (MP3 Set), (PowerPoint download), and (PowerPoint CD) by Frank Turek

Defending Absolutes in a Relativistic World (Mp3) by Frank Turek

 

Dr. John D. Ferrer is a speaker and content creator with Crossexamined. He’s also a graduate from the very first class of Crossexamined Instructors Academy. Having earned degrees from Southern Evangelical Seminary (MDiv) and Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary (ThM, PhD), he’s now active in the pro-life community and in his home church in Pella Iowa. When he’s not helping his wife Hillary Ferrer with her ministry Mama Bear Apologetics, you can usually find John writing, researching, and teaching cultural apologetics.

Originally posted at: https://bit.ly/4lO8jwi

/by

59 Reasons Men Should Speak Out Against Abortion

If you are a pro-life man, like me, then you’ve heard a hundred times that men need to shut up about abortion. Apparently, we men have no right to talk about abortion unless, perhaps, we’re voicing pro-choice solidarity. #girlpower.

 

Why should men be silent? – The “No Womb, No Say” Position   

Just being honest here, some men probably do need to shut their pie hole, but that’s because they’re lying, manipulative, idiot, blowhards. I’m sure you’ve met a few of those. Fortunately, that’s not every man. Some men have a word worth hearing. They can even have a timely word of protest against abortion. Sadly, a lot of people still believe that men have no right to protest abortion. This is the “no womb, no say” position.

Now “no womb, no say” is all sorts of wrong, but it’s not entirely wrong. We have to admit a kernel of truth to this popular maneuver. According to Captain Obvious, “Men can’t get pregnant.” Men don’t know what it feels like to be pregnant, carry a child to term, or have an abortion. We’ll never squirt out a seven-pound chunk of living flesh unless we have an organ removed. Abortion directly impacts women in the most intimate way. But, for men, it’s always indirect and it’s never as intimate.

There’s also a history of sexism getting in the way of things. Even today, it’s not hard, to find dark alleys, studios, and industries where women are treated terribly. Liberals and conservatives can debate about the extent of that problem, but we can all agree that there have been many cases of genuine sexism against women. We can also agree that one of the key reasons for the Roe v. Wade (1973) ruling was an attempt at equalizing rights for women. Today, most all of us can agree, across political aisles and in every sector of society, that women have (or should have) an equal or greater voice on the subject of abortion.

But no one, in good conscience, should grant that women have the only voice on abortion. Given the scale of abortion (66 million in the U.S., 1.7 billion globally), and it’s profound and lasting effects on families, communities, nations, and the whole world, it is unconscionable to exclude fully half society from that pregnant conversation. Here are…

59 Reasons Why Men Need To Speak Out About Abortion

  1. If men can make abortion-choice policy they can unmake it – seven old white guys legalized it nationally in Roe v. Wade (1973), and four white guys and one black guy helped overturn it.[1] If the men on the Supreme Court were to refuse to comment on abortion in pertinent cases, that would amount to a miscarriage of justice and dereliction of duty.
  2. Men played a huge role in creating abortion-culture, we owe it to society to clean up our mess – Men have been known to support abortion policy, coerce women into abortion, abuse women, abandon families, and do various things that pressure women into having an abortion. Not all men are doing this, but all men should be working to undo the mess we’ve made.
  3. Men can protest abortion just as non-slaves can protest slavery, and white people can protest racism– if we don’t have to be black or a slave to oppose racism and slavery, then we don’t have to be women to oppose abortion. Bear in mind, abortion-choice policy currently permits race-based and gender-based abortion. So, abortion is not just analogous to racism and sexism, abortion policy is racist and sexist. And everyone should oppose those things.
  4. Men can support the pro-life cause just like they supported women’s suffrage (voting) – Early feminists (A.K.A., First Wave), were committed to women’s suffrage and openly rejected abortion. They argued that it would lead to exploitation and violence against women. Men can unite with the better parts of feminism by agreeing with voting rights, and opposing abortion, just like they did.
  5. For men to comply with abortion-choice policy is suspiciously self-serving – Man-boy syndrome is real folks, and abortion is a factor. The latest numbers on marriage show our marriage rate is declining. Traditional marriages haven’t been faring too well since the sexual revolution, and definitely not since Roe v. Wade (1973). Yet across world history, the most effective means for civilizing males on large scale is with marriage and fatherhood. Abortion-choice culture makes it easier to avoid both. In the old days, unplanned pregnancy led to a shotgun wedding. That’s not the best way to do things, but at least no one died from it. Now, abortion-choice interrupts the ceremony, “Stop the Wedding! She’s not pregnant!” Plus, abortion-choice is also portrayed as liberation for women, like it’s some great equalizer, empowering women to be on level ground with men in society. In reality, abortion standardized a roving “masculine” sexuality that never served well for women’s flourishing. Women have been lamenting ever since 1973 how much harder it is to find a good man who’s willing to settle down and start a family. Why on earth would a man settle down and start a family when his aggressive, roving, independent nature yearns to spread his seed wherever he can and virtually nothing in society discourages him from doing so? It’s not like he needs to procreate a boy child to inherit his kingdom, or have a gaggle of kiddos to help him run the farm. Abortion did not dignify the feminine distinctives of child-birth and motherhood. Instead, it weaponized maternity, aiming the kill shot at their own child-in-utero. Meanwhile, non-committal man-boys can slink into the night without even a paternity suit to reel them back in. Abortion-choice works like a “get out of jail free” card for all the immature, predatory, and boyish males who think marriage and fatherhood are prison.
  6. Abortion is not just a women’s issue – the fallout from abortion isn’t limited to women, so it’s not just a “women’s issue.” It’s an “everyone issue.”
  7. Abortion kills males too (in utero) – Its effects aren’t limited to women
  8. Abortion impacts family court and paternity rights – Its effects really aren’t limited to women.
  9. Abortion hurts boyfriends, lovers, and male friends – It still isn’t limited to women.
  10. Abortion can traumatize fathers and grandfathers too – Did I mention it’s not limited to women.
  11. Abortion can traumatize brothers, sons, and extended male family – Yup, it’s not limited to women.
  12. Abortion can traumatize male medical professionals – Yet again, if you haven’t gotten the picture yet, its effects aren’t limited to women.
  13. Abortion can hurt marriages and families – Oh yeah, the effects aren’t limited to women.
  14. Abortion can harm churches, neighborhoods, and communities – Ditto.
  15. Abortion can damage the moral health of culture, society, and whole nations – Ditto times two.
  16. Some abortion survivors are men – Ditto times three. It would be patently absurd to claim that a man who has been maimed by a botched abortion, like Nik Hoot, has no right to speak against abortion. People who’ve been harmed by abortion have a vested personal interest in trying to protect others from abortion.
  17. As long as abortion is about human rights then all humans have a rightful voice on the matter – Abortion is about women’s rights, but it’s also about human rights broadly since it presses the question about when exactly do developing humans in utero acquire human rights.
  18. Female-led Organizations like Live Action , Eagle Forum, and Silent No More, encourage men to speak up on the issue – There is no unified voice, from women, telling men to shut up about abortion. Quite the opposite, females who are mobilized vocal and influential can be found encouraging pro-life men to speak up.
  19. Many other women don’t want men to be silent on abortion – Feminists are divided on several issues, including this one. Some women are happy to let a gentleman open their door, carry their groceries, and speak out against abortion. Often these women are quite liberated, empowered, and flourishing without any concern whatsoever about patriarchal oppression or toxic masculinity. They are too busy enjoying their family and exercising their freedom to be bothered with p*ssy hats and progressive politics. Maternal feminists, like Christina Hoff Sommers, typically appreciate the role of active, vocal, and even protective men in their lives, especially when it comes to issues as big as abortion.
  20. Medical experts, on abortion, are often men – Silencing them amounts to willful ignorance. They are worth hearing.
  21. Legal experts, on abortion, are often men – Ignorance is bad. Male experts are worth hearing.
  22. Scientific experts, on abortion, are often men – Ignorance is still bad. And male experts are still worth hearing.
  23. It’s an overreach – Neither women nor men have the right or the authority to demand each other to collectively shut up about anything.
  24. Men can offer relational and emotional support – When a pregnant woman wants to choose life so long as she can find some encouragement from a trusted male friend or family member, in that case, the “no womb, no say” position muffles those men, leaving that woman less support in their time of need. Women often see trusted male friends as allies, not enemies. So, they welcome a male perspective as words from a trusted friend.
  25. If men can help a woman have an abortion, then they should at least be able to help her not have one – Demanding that men show support or stay out of it, even at the expense of their conscience, is to demand that they be cowards, immoral, or both. Civilized society should not wish for men to be immoral cowards.

***Stay Tuned for part 2  with reasons number 26-59 on “Why Men Need to Speak up!” ***

References:

[1] Dobbs v. Jackson (2022) overturned abortion-choice policy at the federal level, finding that there is no constitutional protection for abortion. This ruling overturned Roe v. Wade (1973), Doe v. Bolton (1973) and subsequent cases built on those rulings like Casey vs. Planned Parenthood (1992). The Dobbs decision did not however overturn abortion-choice policy at the state level. States still have the legal right install, regulate, or ban abortion-choice at the state level.

Recommended Resources:

The Case for Christian Activism (MP3 Set), (DVD Set), and (mp4 Download Set) by Frank Turek 

Is Morality Absolute or Relative? by Dr. Frank Turek DVD, Mp3 and Mp4

Legislating Morality (mp4 download),  (DVD Set), (MP3 Set), (PowerPoint download), and (PowerPoint CD) by Frank Turek

Defending Absolutes in a Relativistic World (Mp3) by Frank Turek

 

Dr. John D. Ferrer is a speaker and content creator with Crossexamined. He’s also a graduate from the very first class of Crossexamined Instructors Academy. Having earned degrees from Southern Evangelical Seminary (MDiv) and Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary (ThM, PhD), he’s now active in the pro-life community and in his home church in Pella Iowa. When he’s not helping his wife Hillary Ferrer with her ministry Mama Bear Apologetics, you can usually find John writing, researching, and teaching cultural apologetics.

Originally posted at: https://bit.ly/4lO8jwi

/by

Christianity and Abortion, Part 2: The Early Church’s View of Abortion

In Part 1 of this series on abortion, we discussed that abortion has been practiced for millennia. It is nothing new although the means of destroying a child in the womb have varied. We also briefly looked at why abortion has been a human preoccupation throughout history. For philosophers like Plato and Aristotle, they firmly believed it was to ensure that the best progeny would be born and eventually be leaders of the state. It was also because they feared possible overpopulation. For these reasons and several others, they thought abortion was justified.

 

Contrary to these pro-abortion views was the Christian view. Throughout the history of the church, abortion has been viewed as a wicked, sinful act, specifically because it was considered murder (i.e., the unjustified taking of an innocent life). The early church (second through fifth centuries) was known for its condemnation of abortion. From the early Christian document the Epistle of Barnabas to the theologian Augustine, Christianity viewed abortion to be murder, and as such, it should never be performed.

The Epistle of Barnabas

The earliest extant reference to abortion in Christian writing is the Epistle of Barnabas. Most scholars have dated this letter between the late first to early second centuries. The letter was viewed by many church Fathers, like Origen and Clement of Alexandria, as being associated with the Apostle Paul’s colleague Barnabas. Although it is uncertain whether the letter was penned by Barnabas, it was often included in some early copies of the Bible. Jerome, known for the Latin Vulgate translation, commented that it was valuable for instruction and edification but is not canonical.

The Epistle of Barnabas condemns abortion clearly. “Thou shalt not slay the child by procuring an abortion,” it says.[1] “Nor, again,” it continues, “shalt thou destroy it after it is born.” We see here a clear command not only to avoid abortion but not to kill a child by exposure after birth, which is in contradistinction to Aristotle and other Greek philosophers.

Barnabas does not end with this simple command but goes on to explain why abortion and exposure are not permitted. It states, “Thou shalt not withdraw thy hand from thy son, or from thy daughter, but from their infancy thou shalt teach them the fear of the Lord.”[2]  In other words, the duty of Christian parents is to raise their children in the instruction of the Lord, not kill them (“withdraw they hand from they son, or from thy daughter”).

Tertullian

One of the earliest church Fathers, Tertullian, lived and wrote in the mid-second to early third centuries. Many of his writings are extant. One of the most well-known is his Apology in which he defends Christians against unfounded accusations from Roman culture.

In a section where he expounds upon the sin of murder, he explains, “Murder being once for all forbidden, we may not destroy even the foetus in the womb, while as yet the human being derives blood from other parts of the body for its sustenance.”[3] Clearly, Tertullian is referring to abortion as his language of the fetus being in the womb when destroyed suggests. And if there is any doubt about his reference, he makes it clearer when he states, “To hinder birth is merely speedier man-killing; nor does it matter whether you take away a life that is born, or destroy one that is coming to the birth. That is a man which is going to be one; you have the fruit already in its seed.”[4]

Athenagoras

Writing at about the same time as Tertullian is Athenagoras. In the midst of Roman persecution under Marcus Aurelius, Athenagoras writes his Apology, also known as A Plea for the Christians. In a similar manner as Tertullian, Athenagoras defends Christians from unfounded accusations, like murder (!).

In part of his response to such a ridiculous idea, Athenagoras asks, “And when we say that these women who use drugs to bring on abortion commit murder, and will have to give an account to God for the abortion, on what principle should we commit murder?”[5] In effect, Athenagoras attempts to undercut the accusation of murder by explaining that Christians do not even practice abortion. How does this undercut the accusation? Because abortion is murder, and the person who commits such an act will have to give an account to God.

He further explains the reason why abortion is murder. He says, “For it does not belong to the same person to regard thy very foetus in the womb as a created being, and therefore an object of God’s care, and when it has passed into life, to kill it.”[6] Furthermore, Christians are “not to expose an infant,” that is to say, give birth to a child and expose it to the elements to die. The reason? “Because those who expose them are chargeable with child-murder, and on the other hand, when it has been reared to destroy it.”[7]

The Didache

Probably the next earliest Christian writing to refer to abortion is the Didache (Greek, “teaching”), also known as The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles. It is unknown when the document was written, but we know it must have been before AD 300 since the church Father Eusebius of Caesarea quoted it in the early fourth century, and it is the basis for some of the fourth century document Apostolic Constitutions.[8] The Didache primarily provides instructions on church practices (like baptism and communion) and moral guidelines.

Considering that the Didache constitutes moral teachings, it is not surprising that it includes instructions on the teaching of children and catechumens. What may be surprising to some, however, is the clear prohibition of abortion. It states, “Thou shalt not murder a child by abortion nor kill that which is begotten.”[9] Note that the command isn’t merely to not kill a child who is born (“begotten”) but specifically a child not born yet (“abortion”). Moreover, it considers such action as murder as all the previous writings.

Augustine

One of the greatest Christian theologians and prolific writers, Augustine, did not leave the subject of abortion untouched. Amid a discussion on marriage, he chastises those who marry for the purpose of having sex only and finding children undesirable.

One reason Augustine chastises this action is because it may result in the conception and birth of unwanted children, who will then be left for dead via exposure. “Having also proceeded so far,” he reasons, “they are betrayed into exposing their children, which are born against their will.” This leads to “[hating] to nourish and [retaining] those whom they were afraid they would beget.” Such an “infliction of cruelty on their offspring so reluctantly begotten,” he continues, “unmasks the sin which they had practised in darkness,” i.e., the sin of marrying for purely sexual gratification.[10] The end result is leaving the child for dead.

But Augustine also argues that the sin of marrying for sexual gratification alone, or “cruel lust” as he refers to it, often results in the practice of abortion. In particular, it entices women to ingest abortifacients. “Sometimes,” opines Augustine,

“this lustful cruelty, or, if you please, cruel lust, resorts to such extravagant methods as to use poisonous drugs to secure barrenness; or else, if unsuccessful in this, to destroy the conceived seed by some means previous to birth, preferring that its offspring should rather perish than receive vitality; or if it was advancing to life within the womb, should be slain before it was born.”[11]

Because of this, those who marry ought to align their desires and passions with God’s intent for marriage: the propagation of children. To do otherwise, opens the gate to the sin of killing a child in the womb (abortion) or even infanticide. Those who practice such things are “flagitious,” Augustine says.[12]

Summary

From Parts 1 and 2 on this brief survey of abortion, we see (1) abortion has been practiced for millennia—it is nothing new and certainly not unique to our modern world, and (2) Christians from the earliest centuries have viewed abortion (and infanticide) as murder, and therefore it is a sin and ought not be practiced. The Christian view of abortion throughout the history of the church is consistent and clear. In Part 3, we will continue the discussion of abortion as it relates to contemporary arguments and objections.

References:

[1] Epistle of Barnabas, XIX, trans. Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson, in The Ante-Nicene Fathers, eds. Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson (Buffalo, NY: The Christian Literature Publishing Company, 1885; reprint, Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 2004), 1:148. All references to The Ante-Nicene Fathers hereafter will be ANF.

[2] Barnabas, XIX, in ANF 1:148.

[3] Tertullian, Apology, IX, ANF 3:25.

[4] Ibid.

[5] Athenagoras, Apology, 15, ANF 2:147.

[6] Ibid.

[7] Ibid.

[8] See the good short article on the Didache in the Britannica Encyclopedia here: https://www.britannica.com/topic/Didache

[9] Didache, II, ANF 7:377.

[10] Augustine, “On Marriage and Concupiscence,” I:17; accessed at https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/15071.htm

[11] Ibid.

[12] [Editor’s Note: Flagitious is a 19th century English adjective meaning “criminal, villainous.”]

Recommended Resources: 

Correct not Politically Correct: About Same-Sex Marriage and Transgenderism by Frank Turek (Book, MP4 )

Stealing From God by Dr. Frank Turek (Book, 10-Part DVD Set, STUDENT Study Guide, TEACHER Study Guide)

Legislating Morality: Is it Wise? Is it Legal? Is it Possible? by Frank Turek (Book, DVD, Mp3, Mp4, PowerPoint download, PowerPoint CD)

Is Morality Absolute or Relative? by Frank Turek (Mp3/ Mp4)

 

Peter J. Rasor II is presently the Senior Pastor of Lilburn Christian Church in Lilburn, GA and is an adjunct professor of philosophy at Grand Canyon University (GCU). He previously served as Assistant Professor of Philosophy at GCU (2015-2023). He is co-author of Controversy of the Ages (2017), author of the fantasy novel The Plague of Kosmon: Rise of the Seer, and has a multiple-authored forthcoming book An Introduction to Philosophy: A Christian Guide to the Things that Really Matter (Zondervan; 2025). He holds a ThM in theology and PhD in philosophy from The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary (Louisville, KY) and a MA and MDiv from Cincinnati Christian University.

Originally posted at: https://bit.ly/4hQcZje

/by

Christianity and Abortion, Part 1: A Brief History of Abortion in Antiquity

It is always a temptation in an industrial and technological society such as America to fall into what C.S. Lewis called “chronological snobbery.” This is the belief that the present ideas and practices are superior to, or could never have been imagined by, those who went before us. This is no less true concerning the practice of abortion. Many believe abortion is a relatively new idea and that those who preceded our advanced age could never have imagined having the means to abort a human person in the womb. They did not, after all, have the biological and medical knowledge we have today. Right?

 

Nothing could be further from the truth. Abortion, or some equivalent practice, is just about as old as humanity. Those in antiquity may not have had the technology or medical practices to insert chemicals into a child in utero to kill her or even the means to pull off her legs, head, and arms and then vacuum out her parts from the womb. Nevertheless, they had their methods of performing abortions, and they had similar reasons for doing so as some do today.

The Long History of Abortion

Abortion has had a long history, dating back thousands of years. The earliest reference to the practice, notes ethicist John Jefferson Davis, seems to be during the time of the Chinese Emperor Shen Nung (ca 2737-2696 BC).[1] Evidently, some kind of oral abortifacient was recommended to kill a child in utero.

Others promoting abortion (both the child in utero and disposing her after birth, i.e., infanticide) included the two Greek philosophers, Plato and Aristotle, in the third and fourth centuries BC. Both argued that abortion was a necessity in certain instances for the benefit of the State. Plato, for example, believed that the State was to be governed by the most intelligent and knowledgeable philosophers, and one of their duties was to regulate births of those who benefitted the state and dispose of the infants who were born to “inferior breeds.” In Nazi-like eugenic reasoning, Plato stated, “The offspring of the inferior, and any of those of the other sort who are born defective, they [i.e., the governing officials] will properly dispose of in secret, so that no one will know what has become of them.”[2]

In fact, the State was to oversee every aspect of the marital and sexual relationship of every citizen. Once men and women were past their “prime” for begetting children, Plato desired that the State regulate men to have sexual relations with whomever they wished (outside familial relations) as long as they did not “bring to light anything whatever thus conceived.”[3] If they were unable to “prevent a birth,” they were to dispose of the child.

Aristotle, like his mentor Plato, effectively agreed. The “lawgiver’s duty” was to develop children in the best physical way possible. To do this, he was to consider who ought to get married and when they ought to have children. Like Plato, Aristotle believed husband and wife ought to conceive children during their prime for the best chance of conceiving a strong, physically healthy child. In what sounded like an anticipation of some Americans’s view of abortion, Aristotle argued, “Let it be lawful that no cripple child be reared.”[4] If a crippled child was born, then she was to be abandoned.

Aristotle, also like many Americans today, worried about population size. To control human population, Aristotle contended that if “a copulation takes place and a child is conceived,” then “abortion should be procured before the embryo has acquired life and sensation.”[5] In an attempt to establish an ethical guideline, he concluded, “The presence of life and sensation will be the mark of division between right and wrong here.”[6]

Abortion Is Nothing New

As can be readily seen, abortion (and infanticide) is nothing new. It has been around for thousands of years. It seems to be one of the preoccupations of sinful humanity. To summarize the longevity of the practice, comments from John Rasmussen can serve as a good summary:

“Abortion was, then, a familiar practice in the ancient Mediterranean world. One of the most learned of Greco-Roman gynecologists, Soranos of Ephesus (c. A.D. 98-138), discussed two main categories of abortion. Abortion was practiced through an abortifacient (phythorion), which would destroy what had been conceived, or through (ekbolion), which would expel what had been conceived. . . . The conventional Roman attitude toward the fetus and infant was strikingly callous. Seneca referred to the drowning of abnormal or weakly children at birth as a commonplace and as a reasonable kind of action (De Ira, 1.15). Philo noted that it was not unusual for parents to strangle their infants, drown them with attached weights, or expose them in deserted areas to wild beasts and carnivorous birds.” [7]

We may ask at this point, why is it important to consider that abortion was practiced in antiquity? Primarily because it helps us understand how a Christian ought to view abortion. How so? Precisely because if abortion has been practiced for thousands of years, we would expect to find Christians responding to and interacting with the topic. And this is exactly what we find. In part 2 of this series, we will briefly look at what some of the early Christian Fathers and teachers had to say about it.

References: 

[1] John Jefferson Davis, Evangelical Ethics: Issues Facing the Church Today, 3rd ed. (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R, 2004), 139.

[2] Plato, The Republic, Book V, 460, c in Plato: The Collected Dialogues including the Letters, ed. Edith Hamilton and Huntington Cairns, Bollingen Series LXXI (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2005), 699.

[3] Ibid., 461, c; 700.

[4] Aristotle, The Politics, Book VII.16, trans. T.A. Sinclair, Penguin Classics (Baltimore, MD: Penguin Books, 1962), 294.

[5] Ibid.

[6] Ibid.

[7] John A. Rasmussen, “Abortion: Historical and Biblical Perspectives” Concordia Theological Quarterly 43 1979:19, 21.

Recommended Resources: 

Correct not Politically Correct: About Same-Sex Marriage and Transgenderism by Frank Turek (Book, MP4 )

Stealing From God by Dr. Frank Turek (Book, 10-Part DVD Set, STUDENT Study Guide, TEACHER Study Guide)

Legislating Morality: Is it Wise? Is it Legal? Is it Possible? by Frank Turek (Book, DVD, Mp3, Mp4, PowerPoint download, PowerPoint CD)

Is Morality Absolute or Relative? by Frank Turek (Mp3/ Mp4)

 

Peter J. Rasor II is presently the Senior Pastor of Lilburn Christian Church in Lilburn, GA and is an adjunct professor of philosophy at Grand Canyon University (GCU). He previously served as Assistant Professor of Philosophy at GCU (2015-2023). He is co-author of Controversy of the Ages (2017), author of the fantasy novel The Plague of Kosmon: Rise of the Seer, and has a multiple-authored forthcoming book An Introduction to Philosophy: A Christian Guide to the Things that Really Matter (Zondervan; 2025). He holds a ThM in theology and PhD in philosophy from The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary (Louisville, KY) and a MA and MDiv from Cincinnati Christian University.

Originally posted at: https://bit.ly/4hSpsmx

/by

Why I am Pro-Life

Before I go any further, I must state that this is not an attempt to apply guilt or condemnation to any woman who has had an abortion, or any man who has encouraged it. The Good News is that grace is extended to all willing to accept it by grace, through faith in Christ. With that said, I now hope to clearly explain why I am pro-life and hope to encourage you to consider your own views as you read further.

Early Ambivalence

I wasn’t always pro-life. I was more ambivalent than anything until I was in my 30’s. Yes, I am a man and I had never been in a scenario to have to consider the idea carefully. However, something happened to me to cause me to come completely to the point that I am now involved in supporting pro-life ministries locally, and share my beliefs openly, such as in this writing.

I, like many men and women I speak to, had certain preconceived notions in my head about abortion before doing the research for myself. I assumed abortion was rare, that it was almost always very early in pregnancy, that it was almost always done because of incest or rape, danger to the mother, or due to extreme hardship with no way to provide for the child. I assumed that it was also beneficial to prevent overcrowding and starvation, as well as keeping crime at bay. I also assumed that the fetus was not a human at the point of abortion.

I also understood the whole thing to be a woman’s constitutional right. These are all common talking points of pro-abortion advocates, and unless you look for yourself, there is not much to question these ideas in the mainstream of American public thought. While I wasn’t avidly pro-choice, I was at least agnostic.

I had been a Christian for many years at that point, but still never gave the issue much thought as it was never brought up in church or among friends in any meaningful way. In thinking more about the question, and with a little research in reading books like Abortion and the Conscience of a Nation by Ronald Reagan and The Case for Life by Scott Klusendorf my mind was opened to the logic and sound morality of the pro-life movement. Yes, the fact that this whole line of thinking combines religion and politics together is scary, but when are the two really not together anyway?

It was my understanding that the pro-life side had a bad reputation for being hateful to women who have had abortions, and that thought continues to keep many from expressing thoughts or questions about abortion. As a certified sinner myself, I continue to do all I can to make the issue about the sin and not the sinner. But once I thought the matter through to the end, I could not help but find my way to the most important part of the question.

In my decision to come to a decision on abortion, I eventually came to ask what the foundational question of abortion was – what was the most important thing that needed to be answered? Is abortion a question of a woman’s rights, population control, and the greater good of society? Is it about equal opportunity for women in the workforce, ridding ourselves of poverty, or is it about the mental health of the mothers?

Even as a Christian, I struggled to understand how to view this divisive subject and balance what I felt made sense with what seemed like persuasive, emotional arguments for what many consider to be the ending of a non-human entity for the greater good of society and the mothers involved.

And there it was. Is it a non-human entity? 

I discovered the real question to ask in this debate, thanks to the work of pro-life writers and my own journey. The foundational question turns out to be what is the thing that we are terminating. Here is why: everyone knows that we shouldn’t intentionally take the life of an innocent human being. If the fetus is an innocent human being, we should not take their life.

My findings

It didn’t take long to come to a conclusion on the question that I determined needed to be answered for my own conclusion on the question of abortion. There is no longer a debate in science or even among more and more pro-choice advocates. The bottom line is that whatever name you call it, a zygote, an embryo, a fetus, or a “product of conception” is absolutely human, even if not fully developed, by the time the pregnancy is detectable. It is a human life before you can intentionally end it.

So, if you will grant me that the baby inside the womb rather than outside the womb is a human (not to mention an innocent human), is there something different about the same human baby before it makes its entrance into the world outside the womb? The arguments among pro-choice advocates are typically broken down into four issues that Scott Kluesendorf applies in a helpful acronym. Below is the SLED argument.

Size

The fact that the human being in the womb is tiny at first, and still very small for much of the pregnancy (thankfully!), is not in dispute. So, does the size of the human allow for the taking of its life? For all of you human beings who are smaller than other human beings, I sure hope not. A human life is a human life, no matter the size. In fact, it is usually considered noble and right to protect those humans who are considered small and vulnerable. I believe the same is true of humans prior to birth, as well as those 60 seconds, 60 months, or 60 years after birth. The size of a human does not ever give us a license to end that life.

Level of Development

The standard pro-choice argument says the unborn are nothing but a “clump of cells”. The definition of a clump of cells could be just as accurately applied to a grown person considering the complexity of even the tiniest of detectable human life. Between 10 and 30 hours, after the sperm penetrates the egg, the nuclei combine, and the DNA is already sequenced for a unique human being, the new and genetically mapped offspring of both the mother and father together. The baby’s gender is already in place, and the cells divide rapidly. Within 5 weeks, the heartbeat can be detected. I think we can agree that anything with a heartbeat is a life, and thanks to science, we know that it is a human life. So, when can we take the life of a human based on its level of development outside the womb? Never. Why should this be different inside the womb?

Environment

Somehow the fact that an unborn child is not yet in the outside world, beyond the birth canal, has become a test to see if a human is worthy of life. Many states allow abortion right up to the point of natural birth.[i]

What exactly is the difference of that baby from the time it is in the mother’s womb to the time it is outside the mother? What makes the baby’s life outside the mother different from its life inside the mother? Is there another example of when it is justified to take an innocent human life solely because of where it is located? I cannot find a logical way out of this problem for abortion. If it’s an innocent human, shouldn’t we care about it no matter where it is? Human beings risk their lives and earn their livings every day by going to very dangerous places to try to rescue human beings from the harm they walked themselves into. Why would we not extend the same courtesy to our tiniest and least guilty brothers and sisters still inside what should be the safest place on earth?

Degree of Dependence

Many on the pro-choice side argue that the fact that the baby is unable to survive without the benefit of the physiological protection and nourishment of the mother while in utero. The fact that, at least for the first half of pregnancy, the child is dependent on the mother is said to be an unwelcome and unfair burden on the mother.

While many used to say that the baby is not human until it is born, that argument has been lost to the scientific facts we now know, especially when compared with 1973, the year of the Roe v. Wade decision that legalized abortion in every state. Now the argument is more often stated that the woman does not have to allow her body to be used by an unwelcome, dependent little human. It is her right to scrape off this unwanted “parasite” as they are often referred to by some pro-choice advocates.

While it doesn’t necessarily have to be the mother of the child that cares for them, every human born is for the first years of its life in constant need of bigger, more mature humans to care for and nurture them to survive, but not just for the nine months in the womb.

If you saw someone leave a two-week-old baby on the street and heard them tell the baby, “Good luck, you’re on your own now”, you would likely (and rightly) grab the baby and seek a caretaker for it. You would also likely be incensed that someone would leave a two-week-old baby on the street. Would you also not be incensed if someone put a gun to the same two-week-old’s head and pulled the trigger?

While not in public view, why is it different if taking the baby’s life occurs inside the womb? What has changed about the baby, or the responsibility humans typically feel to care for other vulnerable humans?

The difference in the analogy above is that the baby is simply unseen in the womb as opposed to being seen in the street. I believe that is why human beings have not wholly rejected abortion – they can’t see it happen. It is out of sight and out of mind.

The Numbers

According to the Guttmacher Institute, which is the research arm of Planned Parenthood, 18% of pregnancies in the United States ended in abortion in 2017.[ii] That amounted to approximately 862,320 abortions in the US that year. 18% of pregnancies ending in abortion means that almost 1 in 5 human beings conceived were not born due to the intentional termination of their lives.

[Editor’s Note: The Abortion rate, after a trending downward since the 1990’s, has risen in recent years, including an 11% increase since 2022. There were 1,037,000 abortions in 2023 according to Guttmacher institute.[iii] This might be attributed to reactions against the Dobb’s decisions, but is undoubtedly boosted by the proliferation of Do-It-Yourself/at-home abortions by way of the Abortion Pill].

Also, according to the Guttmacher Institute, adolescents made up 12% of abortion patients in 2014: those aged 18–19 accounted for 8% of all abortions, 15–17-year-olds for 3%, and those younger than 15 for 0.2%.

White patients accounted for 39% of abortion procedures in 2014, black patients for 28%, Hispanic patients for 25%, and patients of other races and ethnicities for 9%. This is certainly not a statistically balanced fact. African Americans are aborted at rates that far exceed other races, and it is easy to see how that occurs with many Planned Parenthood abortion clinics positioned in places with high African American populations. As an example, in New York, more African American babies are aborted than are born. [iv]

And what about those conceived in rape or abortion? Shouldn’t we allow abortions for cases such as these? I used to think we should. When we consider these questions of abortion, however, we can “trot out the toddler” as Kluessendorf says. What about their situation gives us the right to take their life?

In no other situation would we have a judge or jury come to the conclusion that the son or daughter of a rapist should be murdered because of the offense their father committed? We would also not legally take a child’s life if we found out that the parents were kissing cousins after the child was born. Might that cause genetic defects in the child? Maybe, but we all have genetic defects and nobody has the right to kill us for ours.

It is lauded in the world now that certain Scandinavian countries have eliminated Down Syndrome. The truth, however, is that they have not eliminated Down Syndrome. They have only eliminated children with Down Syndrome thanks to tests determining potential issues prior to birth. Do people with Down Syndrome or any other imperfection deserve death? What makes us different from the Third Reich when we simply do this in the womb instead of the gas chamber? I know this seems harsh, but abortion is a harsh topic. Especially to those who have been its victim.

I should note here that I do understand the need for abortion in cases when the child is a clear and real threat to the life of the mother, though cases like that are rarer than I previously realized. I encourage you not to take my word for it and to explore stats from reliable sources on reasons abortions are sought.

There is nothing in our constitution about the right to have an abortion. That so-called right was really a collection of a few Supreme Court cases starting with Roe v. Wade that mandated legal abortion in every state, and now in many states, it is allowed for any reason. I grant you that the right of a woman to have an abortion currently exists, even if our legislators have been unable to craft it into a constitutional amendment. The right of slaveholders to own slaves used to exist too. Just because something is a right or a law does not make it morally righteous.

According to a recent Pew Research poll, Americans have remained divided consistently on the issue, with the approximate ratios of 59% pro-choice and 39% pro-life since 1995.[v] The percentage of people surveyed revealed that only 25% of Americans believe abortion should be legal in all cases, while 26% believe it should be illegal in most cases. 34% believe it should be legal in most cases, while 13% believe it should be illegal in all cases.

In case you were thinking that I had no right to weigh in on this issue as a man, I must point out that around half of those aborted humans we are talking about would have grown into men. Therefore, I and every other man have standing. As for the statement that if you don’t like abortion you shouldn’t have one, this same saying was applied to slaves prior to the great emancipation.

Since Roe v. Wade was decided, there have been at least 44 million babies aborted in the U.S. In my home state of Illinois, there are regularly over 40,000 per year aborted. This does not speak to the total amount of abortions worldwide, where the U.S. continues to be a frontrunner in the practice, along with Russia and China. According to WHO, every year in the world there are an estimated 40-50 million abortions. This corresponds to approximately 125,000 abortions per day.[vi]

I do hope you note that, aside from my introduction, there has not been much made of my faith in the body of this writing. I absolutely believe that mankind was made in the image of God, and I also believe that all men and women in America have the Constitutional right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. While I believe that God is at the beginning and end of this argument, you do not have to be a professing Christian, or Muslim, or Jew to care about the welfare of other human beings. Many atheists put Christians and other religious claimants to shame on a regular basis. I believe that being pro-life should not be seen as a purely religious stance, but rather as a human civil rights issue that can be led by the faithful and the secular alike.

But since I did bring up religion, I must note some other items from the research cited above that Christians may be interested in. Seventeen percent of abortion patients in 2014 identified themselves as mainline Protestant, 13% as evangelical Protestant, and 24% as Catholic, while 38% reported no religious affiliation and the remaining 8% reported some other religious affiliation. So, 37% of those obtaining abortions identify themselves as Christians.

Those numbers should not come as a shock, considering that the same poll found that 63% of those who identified as protestant, non-evangelical Christians said abortion should be legal in all/most cases. Of those who described themselves as Catholic, 55% believed abortion should be legal in all/most cases.

While I insist this is not just a religious issue, if the churches in America don’t provide the foundation for changing public opinion on this matter, who will? Just as the churches were a driving force in the abolition of slavery in the world, the church must work to help its congregants, and then society, see the truth in this most serious attack on the image of God in our lifetime.

To reiterate with all the love for you that I can send through writing to a stranger, if you have had an abortion or encouraged one, I pray that you know that there is real forgiveness for this and any other sin you can imagine. Jesus simply asks us to repent and trust in Him. To repent means to stop and turn away. We have all sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. (Romans 3:23) I pray we all repent of our acceptance of this assault on God and His image-bearers soon.

My prayer is that the end of abortion comes about not from a Supreme Court decision or (God forbid) a civil war but instead as a result of all people seeing the wrong of our doing and moving as one people toward life as God designed.

References:

[i] Editor’s note: The original post says “Many states allow abortion right up to the point of natural birth” but adds the following, “and actually allow for partially exiting the child from the mother to end its life so that it will count as an abortion for those who wait too long for a “normal” abortion.” Perhaps the author had some rare or obscure abortion-method in mind, but it sounds like he’s describing partial birth abortion which remains under a federal ban making partial-birth abortion illegal across the United States. See: S.3 – Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003

[ii] https://data.guttmacher.org/states/

[iii] https://www.guttmacher.org/2024/03/despite-bans-number-abortions-united-states-increased-2023

[iv] https://www.wsj.com/articles/lets-talk-about-the-black-abortion-rate-1531263697?msockid=2fe0aed392d664f11b30bdf6934565ef

[v] https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/fact-sheet/public-opinion-on-abortion/

[vi] https://www.worldometers.info/abortions/

Recommended Resources:  

Correct not Politically Correct: About Same-Sex Marriage and Transgenderism by Frank Turek (Book, MP4, )

Stealing From God by Dr. Frank Turek (Book, 10-Part DVD Set, STUDENT Study Guide, TEACHER Study Guide)

Legislating Morality: Is it Wise? Is it Legal? Is it Possible? by Frank Turek (Book, DVD, Mp3, Mp4, PowerPoint download, PowerPoint CD)

Jesus vs. The Culture by Dr. Frank Turek DVD, Mp4 Download, and Mp3

 

Tony Williams is currently serving in his 20th year as a police officer in a city in Southern Illinois. He has been studying apologetics in his spare time for two decades, since a crisis of faith led him to the discovery of vast and ever-increasing evidence for his faith. Tony received a bachelor’s degree in University Studies from Southern Illinois University in 2019. His career in law enforcement has provided valuable insight into the concepts of truth, evidence, confession, testimony, cultural competency, morality, and most of all, the compelling need for Christ in the lives of the lost. Tony plans to pursue postgraduate studies in apologetics in the near future to sharpen his understanding of the various facets of Christian apologetics

Originally posted at: https://bit.ly/4faZKsc

/by

Fired for Faith? Media Deception? Frank Ignoring Facts? Plus Q&A

Frank responds to listener questions and a charge that he is ignoring facts. He also exposes media deception in this election cycle, and shows the shocking connection between the abortion pill and Zyklon B (the gas the Nazis used in the gas chambers). Questions include:

  • What is the most important question that humans can ask and why can’t we discuss it in public schools?
  • What’s the best way for Christian teachers to discuss faith matters with students without referring to the Bible?
  • How can Christians vote for someone who doesn’t act like a Christian? Does that make us hypocrites?
  • How has the media repeatedly taken Donald Trump’s statements out of context?
  • What are some good and fair media sources?
  • If the majority of abortions are “pharmaceutical” what’s the big deal?
  • Are late-term abortions a myth?

You’ll also want to see Seth Gruber’s revealing documentary about the history of abortion and Planned Parenthood called The 1916 Project (NOT the bogus 1619 Project) which is available for FREE for a short time on X. It has over 1 million views in 24 hours!

And as you continue to prepare for the upcoming election, be sure to visit VoteYourFaith.net where you can use the iVoterGuide and other helpful resources to get a breakdown of all the candidates and their policies on your local ballot!

Did you enjoy this episode? HELP US SPREAD THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY BY SUPPORTING THE PODCAST HERE.

Resources mentioned during the episode:

Seth Gruber’s The 1916 Project: https://bit.ly/4hkJUgu
Helpful Resources & Voting Guide: VoteYourFaith.net
Just Facts: https://www.justfacts.com/
Does the Media Lie About Donald Trump? https://bit.ly/3Yarxli
NewsBusters: https://newsbusters.org/
AllSides: https://www.allsides.com/
The Parasitic Mind: https://a.co/d/c0gFqtF
Undercover Planned Parenthood video: https://bit.ly/3BFt6jQ
Calling a Late-Term Abortion Facility: https://bit.ly/3BWfDEo

/by

Fired for Faith? Media Deception? Frank Ignoring Facts? Plus Q&A

Frank responds to listener questions and a charge that he is ignoring facts. He also exposes media deception in this election cycle, and shows the shocking connection between the abortion pill and Zyklon B (the gas the Nazis used in the gas chambers). Questions include:

  • What is the most important question that humans can ask and why can’t we discuss it in public schools?
  • What’s the best way for Christian teachers to discuss faith matters with students without referring to the Bible?
  • How can Christians vote for someone who doesn’t act like a Christian? Does that make us hypocrites?
  • How has the media repeatedly taken Donald Trump’s statements out of context?
  • What are some good and fair media sources?
  • If the majority of abortions are “pharmaceutical” what’s the big deal?
  • Are late-term abortions a myth?

You’ll also want to see Seth Gruber’s revealing documentary about the history of abortion and Planned Parenthood called The 1916 Project (NOT the bogus 1619 Project) which is available for FREE for a short time on X. It has over 1 million views in 24 hours!

And as you continue to prepare for the upcoming election, be sure to visit VoteYourFaith.net where you can use the iVoterGuide and other helpful resources to get a breakdown of all the candidates and their policies on your local ballot!

Did you enjoy this episode? HELP US SPREAD THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY BY SUPPORTING THE PODCAST HERE.

Resources mentioned during the episode:

Seth Gruber’s The 1916 Project: https://bit.ly/4hkJUgu
Helpful Resources & Voting Guide: VoteYourFaith.net
Just Facts: https://www.justfacts.com/
Does the Media Lie About Donald Trump? https://bit.ly/3Yarxli
NewsBusters: https://newsbusters.org/
AllSides: https://www.allsides.com/
The Parasitic Mind: https://a.co/d/c0gFqtF
Undercover Planned Parenthood video: https://bit.ly/3BFt6jQ
Calling a Late-Term Abortion Facility: https://bit.ly/3BWfDEo

 

Download Transcript

 

/by

Dear Friend: To Those Choosing to Abstain or Vote 3rd Party in 2024

Editor’s Note: This post from Dr. Robert A.J. Gagnon was originally posted on October 14, 2024 at FreeThinking Ministries, in the form of an open letter to everyone who is tempted to abstain from voting in the 2024 election. We’ve tried to preserve that format here at CrossExamined.

Dear friend who is inclined not to cast a vote for either Harris or Trump,

I agree that Trump deserves criticism for his weakened stance on abortion. His position on abortion has probably changed for the worse since coming to the conclusion that he can’t get elected by holding a consistently pro-life position.

But consider Abraham Lincoln in the 1860 election. Even Lincoln was not a declared abolitionist in 1860 (and also by our standards today a racist). He couldn’t have been an abolitionist and still have had a prayer to get elected. I don’t think that is a perfect analogy (even apart from the character differences of the two men) because Lincoln deep in his heart thought that slavery was a high moral evil, whereas Trump probably isn’t convinced in his heart that abortion is an evil at all stages. But the point is that *even* Lincoln had to compromise his principles in running for office. Abolitionist William Lloyd Garrison wouldn’t vote for him as a result, but Garrison was wrong (as ex-slave Frederick Douglass pointed out). (Note: Garrison eventually did come around and support Lincoln in the 1864 election.)

Trump’s position on abortion is still significantly better than that of Harris. For one, Trump will still leave matters to the states. He is not going to push for a federal “reproductive freedom” bill. For another, he is not going to appoint justices who want to reinstate Roe and Doe. He would support a Born Alive bill. He would likely support additional protections for the fetus in the viability phase. He will probably continue to be a thorn in the side of Planned Parenthood. He is not going to let the Justice Department go after pro-life protestors. He is not going to sick the Justice Department on states that put various restrictions on abortion.

That is not as much as you or I want, not by a long shot, but it is far more than we will get with Harris. Trump will also carry through with his promise to put an end to the transgender insanity perpetrated on minors. He opposes chemical castration and surgical mutilation of minors, as well as compulsory indoctrination. He opposes males in female restrooms and sports. He is a big supporter of Musk’s X and he is not going to do anything to cancel or criminalize free speech or free exercise of religion.

I too wish that DeSantis had been given the nomination, but since that ship has sailed, I have to do what I can to prevent the far worse alternative. I think that Vance can be reached for a stronger pro-life position after Trump leaves office.

In my view, there is a real possibility that if Harris is elected, Republicans may not win the presidency for the foreseeable future, owing to the massive illegal immigration scam and active suppression of free speech. We really don’t have a choice but to cast an effective vote against Harris, don’t you think?

Recommended Resources:

Correct not Politically Correct: About Same-Sex Marriage and Transgenderism by Frank Turek (Book, MP4, )

The Case for Christian Activism (MP3 Set), (DVD Set), and (mp4 Download Set) by Frank Turek 

Legislating Morality: Is it Wise? Is it Legal? Is it Possible? by Frank Turek (Book, DVD, Mp3, Mp4, PowerPoint download, PowerPoint CD)

Is Morality Absolute or Relative? by Frank Turek (Mp3/ Mp4)

 

Robert A. J. Gagnon, Ph.D., became a Wesley Biblical Seminary Visiting Scholar in the summer of 2024, teaching remotely from Pittsburgh, PA. Among his many academic publications, he is best known for The Bible and Homosexual Practice: Texts and Hermeneutics (Abingdon), widely regarded as the “gold standard” work defending the biblical view of a male-female foundation for sexual ethics. He is currently working on a popular concise book on the same subject, as well as a book tentatively entitled The Fifteen Most Important Texts in the Bible. Dr. Gagnon received a B.A. from Dartmouth College (1981, cum laude, highest honors in history), a Master of Theological Studies from Harvard Divinity School (1987), and a Ph.D. from Princeton Theological Seminary (1993, magna cum laude). His first full-time teaching experience was as a Visiting Professor at Middlebury College (1993-94), then taught at a PCUSA school, Pittsburgh Theological Seminary, first as an Assistant Professor of New Testament, then as a tenured Associate Professor (1994-2017). After defending at PTS for 23 years the orthodox Christian position on the atonement and on homosexual behavior, he and the new PTS President “mutually agreed” to end his employment there. From 2019 to July 2024 Dr. Gagnon was a professor of biblical theology at Houston Christian (formerly Baptist) University. A number of his publications pre-2018 can be found at www.robgagnon.net (needs redesigning and updating!); and he is active on Facebook and X. www.robgagnon.net

Originally posted at: https://bit.ly/3NILB9z

/by

Personally Prolife, Politically Prochoice: A Response

Can we be pro-life personally but pro-choice politically? The quick answer to this loaded question is: No, we can’t really be pro-life personally if we are pro-choice politically. That’s because pro-lifers recognize that the child-in-utero is a human being, so the decision to abort isn’t a strictly personal decision at all, it’s an interpersonal decision. In that sense, it’s not a “private” decision (for just one person to decide). It’s a public decision (where at least 2 people are involved). Since abortion is an interpersonal act, it bears upon society and politics. Some people might not want to have an abortion, for themselves, but that does not qualify anyone as pro-life. Pro-choicers themselves recognize a “freedom to choose,” even when that includes choosing against abortion. In summary, if you are only “personally” pro-life, then you aren’t really pro-life.

What does “personally pro-life politically pro-choice” even mean?

The good news is that if you are “personally pro-life” that means you would never go through with an abortion. Congratulations! That’s an important and heroic stance. We can disagree and argue over the “politically pro-choice” part, but if you have taken any stand against abortion, then I commend you. Perhaps if more abortion-choice advocates were to go at least as far as “personally pro-life” then we’d have even fewer abortions than we currently do. Saving baby’s lives is worthwhile, no matter who is doing it. I would rather have someone personally pro-life than totally pro-choice. Most of what follows is aimed at the “politically pro-choice” part. If it’s not clear later, then let me make it clear now, I celebrate, encourage, and wholeheartedly support the fact that some pro-choice people have let the pro-life cause take root in their personal convictions. If they are “personally” pro-life, then they are a step closer to being fully pro-life (personally and politically). My whole effort in this article is to help extend that conviction further, beyond merely personal conviction, and into a fully formed pro-life outlook.

It’s Code Language for “Pro-choice”

Just to be clear, pro-lifers typically identify as anti-abortion both on a personal and public/political level. They can say, “I would never have an abortion and abortion should be generally banned.”[i] So when people try to drop the second half of that, wanting to blend pro-life and pro-choice, they are typically trying to sample the best of both worlds. Unfortunately, this hybrid, usually means they have a pro-choice perspective overall. To say you are only “personally” pro-life is often code language for, “I won’t go as far as the most radical pro-choicers, celebrating abortion or acting like it’s no big deal, but in point of fact, I’m still entrenched in the middle of the pro-choice camp.”

Most pro-choicers, by the way, admit that abortion is “bad.” They are not “pro-abortion.” Only the most radical/extreme pro-choice figureheads will act like abortion is commendable. Pro-choice advocates, generally, aren’t trying to promote more abortions or celebrate abortions.[ii] Most everyone on all sides admits that any given abortion is regrettable. So, it’s not terribly impressive when a pro-choicer says that abortions are gross, ugly, bad, or traumatic, they just think – contrary to pro-lifers – that abortion is a “necessary evil.” Abortion is not “good” but, so they say, it is good for women to have that choice.

Often, people don the hybrid position because they are pro-life at heart, but they are politically progressive and there just aren’t any solid pro-life platforms within the Democrat party (or Libertarian, or Green, or Socialist parties for that matter). In other words, they’d support a pro-life candidate if there was ever one campaigning within their party, but when left to choose between their pro-life convictions and their political party they are too allied to the Democrat party (for example) to stop fighting in the pro-choice army. Their pro-life convictions are burdensome and expendable. With the slightest threat of turbulence, they can throw their pro-life sentiments overboard for the sake of political expediency.

If you lean pro-life but can’t find a political candidate you’d support in your party, instead of sacrificing the pro-life cause for political expediency, I encourage you to let your candidates know how you feel! Press and pressure them to hear your voice. And withhold your vote till your party can offer a pro-life candidate worthy of your support. Abortion is a big enough issue to where it deserves to be a deal-breaker like that.

It’s Confused Compassion

To be sure, this hybrid position can flow from noble motives. People may don the hybrid position as an effort to balance compassion for both the child and the mother. Conventional pro-lifers often focus attention on the child-in-utero and don’t clarify just how much compassion and concern they have for the mother. Pro-choicers often focus attention on the mother while dehumanizing and delegitimizing her child-in-utero. Both of these extremes are problematic.

With the hybrid position, however, one may be trying to draw attention to both the child and the mother. This hybrid may sound like any of the following:

“I’m personally pro-life, but I vote pro-choice”
“I would never have an abortion, but I’m politically pro-choice.”
“Abortion is wrong for me, but we shouldn’t tell women what to do with their bodies.”

Notice the word “but” in between each of these clauses. The hybrid position tries to merge two camps, bridging a hostile divide. It has the tone of a strategic compromise. Indeed, this hybrid position is amenable to almost every stripe of pro-choice politics, except perhaps for the most radical population-control advocate. But pro-lifers, cannot, in good conscience, relegate abortion to the realm of merely “personal choice.”

The hybrid position treats abortion like an entirely private personal decision, so only the pregnant mother has moral standing in deciding the fate of her child-in-utero. This line of thinking suggests that we individuals can pick and choose whether abortion is right for us, but we should not try to tell anyone else that abortion is wrong for them. Supposedly, we all decide our own ethics of abortion. And abortion is such a personal decision that even if we conclude that it’s a terrible, horrible, very bad, no good practice – what we really mean is “it’s wrong for me.” It may be “right” for someone else in a different situation, or with different needs and interests. If this smells like relativism to you, I smell it too.

Compassionate motives are great, and we should celebrate compassionate concerns for mother and child alike. But no amount of good motivations are safe from spoilage in a cauldron of relativistic ethics. Apply this kind of logic to something that we can all agree is wrong, and you’ll see how this relativistic framework is shaky. For example, “I would never own a slave, but I would never tell someone else what they can or can’t do with their property [slaves].” If we start treating the most basic human rights like they aren’t absolute, then we end up with moral absurdities like say abolishing slavery is, “True for me, but not for you,” or “murdering gay people is, bad for our society, but is good for some other society.”

It’s Emotionally Pro-life but Intellectually Pro-choice

Another reason people may choose the hybrid position is because deep down they feel abortion is wrong but for whatever reason they believe that pro-choice is still a rationally sound position because of women’s privacy rights. The loss of a little baby is awful, but abortion isn’t bad enough to deserve civil abolition – like we’ve done with murder, slavery, rape, and a host of other evils. At a heart level, they sympathize with the pro-life position, but they know too many objections and defenses for the pro-choice position, and they still care about struggling mothers, so they hold steady to pro-choice politics.

One might say this person is emotionally pro-life but intellectually pro-choice. When they look at the facts of abortion, and weigh their own conscience on the matter, they see that abortion is wicked awful stuff. And they can’t comfortably support that action. But, when they look away and trust the commercials, the articles, and word-of-mouth they’ve gathered from liberal intellectual friends, professors, and authorities on TV, they find the pro-choice position compelling.

I’d suggest that usually when people hold this position they don’t understand the pro-life side very well and they’ve been duped by pro-choice rhetoric. They may have been pro-life in their younger days but the only arguments and evidence they’ve seriously considered have been from pro-choice professors, or political advocates, or both–politically partisan academics who aren’t interested in giving the pro-life position a responsible treatment. Sadly, if you formed your current views on abortion at college or graduate school there’s a good chance that your exposure to the abortion debate has been one-sided in favor of abortion-choice. Gallup Polls have shown that the longer you spend in college, the higher the chances you’ll declare yourself pro-choice.

If you aren’t sure about the solid ground supporting the pro-life position, I commend to you: Abort73.com, AbortionFacts, Lozier Institute, LiveAction, Equal Rights Institute, AbortionHistoryMuseum, TheAbortionMuseum. Having spent most of life in pro-life apologetics, I’m convinced that the only way people can reject the pro-life position is (1) they didn’t know it’s true, or (2) they don’t want it to be true. Getting informed can help solve the first part. Getting God in your life can help with the second.

“the only way people can reject the pro-life position is (1) they didn’t know it’s true, or (2) they don’t want it to be true. Getting informed can help solve the first part. Getting God in your life can help with the second.”

It’s the Muddy Middle

Other times, I find people adopt a hybrid position because they see themselves as “moderates,” trying to find the golden mean between extremes. These same people often avoid “labels,” and don’t like to be lumped into “categories” These middlers can boast that they aren’t extremists. And they may try to mitigate and avoid conflict by finding compromise positions in every debate. Abortion is a live debate in bioethics, politics, and society. So, it’s no surprise to find some conflict-avoiders mediating the debate with a compromise position trying to affirm the dignity of mother and child, dignifying the importance of life and liberty, and equally valuing both pro-life and pro-choice positions. There’s a general wisdom in seeking moderation, balance, and middle-ground where possible.

Unfortunately, the middle isn’t always a safe place to camp. Some battles don’t permit any neutral “sideline,” so everyone is already on the battlefield presently affected by the socio-political fallout of abortion-choice policy. Permitting some rhetorical flourish, those committed to both sides are entrenched in the middle of an open battle, subject to crossfire from both sides. Having meandered into and encamped in the middle of an active battle, they are torn between two allegiances. Effectively, they are casualties waiting to happen. The hybrid position is not a friend to both parties, it’s an enemy to everyone. In a battle of ideas, playing both the pro-life and the pro-choice position is akin to a turncoat, a double-agent, an enemy in the gates committed ultimately to an irrational contradiction, at best, or a dangerous compromise, at worst. Now, that person can save the life of her own child – and that heroism deserves praise – but she betrays her efforts by refusing to intervene and protect other imperiled human beings in utero.

This warfare analogy might sound harsh, extreme, or misleading but imagine someone trying to play the moderate position regarding sex-slavery: “I would never own a sex-slave, but I’m in no position to tell someone else what they can or cannot do with their sexual property.” Clearly, that “moderate” position has granted too much to the pro-slavers because they grant that human beings can be treated, ethically, like property. Pro-choicers, similarly, treat living human beings in-utero, like property that can be disposed at the will of his or her owner. Obviously, slavery is very different from abortion, but both should teach us that human beings aren’t property and should not be treated as such.

Or imagine a moderate position on the holocaust: “I would never gas a Jew, but who am I tell tell people from a different country, in a different culture, what they can and cannot do with their citizens.” The moderate has assumed that mass slaughter of unwanted human beings is not a crime against humanity, and it could be ethical in one society but unethical in another. This “moderate” position isn’t moderate at all. Unfortunately, it’s not uncommon either – moral relativism is quite popular in many circles. Yet moral relativism betrays the very notion of human rights, and has historically played a major role in the holocaust, slavery, and in recent times, abortion.

These ugly examples demonstrate that the middle ground between two politically charged positions is not always a golden mean. Sometimes, it’s a horrific compromise. The real “moderate” position should not be between pro-life (anti-abortion) and pro-choice (abortion-on-demand), but rather between which exceptional cases of abortion should be legal–ex., rape pregnancies, or imperiled pregnancies (threatening the mother’s life).

Remember that if abortion is a moral right of women, the pro-choicers are justified in fighting adamantly for it. If abortion is morally wrong, however, then pro-lifers are justified even moreso, as the scope of this evil is deadlier than any other act of violence in world history. Abortion in the United States has already claimed far more lives, in far less time, than the entire North American slave trade ever claimed. Yet slavery had no chance of abolition if “enlightened” northerners were committed to both slavery and abolition. Slavery was too entrenched of an evil for the abolitionists to play the moderate position as if slave ownership was an excusable “necessary evil.” In the Civil War, there was no strategic advantage in trying to say that slavery deserves to be abolished and yet it shouldn’t be abolished. That position is not only a logical contradiction, it’s morally unsound and politically foolish.

This same muddy middle makes no more sense when applied to apartheid South Africa. It would be equally foolish to say, “I personally oppose apartheid, but I’m not in any position to judge whether South Africa should or should not have apartheid. That’s for South Africa to decide for itself.”

Or we could apply it to infanticide and readily see the same contradiction: “I personally oppose murdering one’s newborn baby, but who am I to judge a struggling mother who feels like she needs to smother her inconvenient little baby for squirming too much. It’s her baby, so it’s her right to kill it if she wants.”

It’s Relativism

This hybrid position also carries a tone of moral relativism. As we saw above, the hybrid position easily retreats into individual or cultural relativism where some moral principle is only as authoritative as a group vote (cultural relativism), or a personal preference (subjectivism). For one person abortion is unethical, for the next person it’s ethical, for another person it’s sometimes ethical sometimes not. There would be no factual wrongness about abortion except with respect to one’s own personal standards of right and wrong. This brand of easily slips into “might makes right” ethics, committing the “popular appeal fallacy,” and it cannot distinguish consistently between “legal” and “moral.” In cultural relativism, slavery was ethical–as long as it was the legal convention of the time.

But truth isn’t decided by vote. And evil is still evil, even when it’s popular.

There are lots of problems with relativism. But I’ll just note one more important objection here. Abortion bears upon human rights, and human rights are not the kind of thing that qualify for relativism. If women have a human right to full autonomy over their own body, up to and including abortion, then abortion is ethically permitted – and that would be an objective moral fact, regardless of what any given women should “feel,” “think,” “believe,” or “prefer” within her own subjective or conventional ethics. Now that’s a pro-choice rebuttal to relativism.

The pro-life rebuttal runs even deeper. Beneath the right of autonomy, exists the right to life, as in:

“We hold these truths to be self-evident that all men are created equal. . . endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights . . . life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.”
Preamble to the Declaration of Independence, 1776

Notice the right to “life” appears before the rights of liberty and the pursuit of happiness. This order is sensible because only living individuals have liberty, and only living individuals with some measure of liberty can pursue happiness as they see it. These three rights do not necessarily exhaust all our fundamental human rights, but they are sufficient to show how the rights of life and liberty relate. Pro-lifers have a strong, principled, and historic case that the most basic of all human rights is the right to life. I would argue that the abortion-choice camp hasn’t even come close to satisfying their burden of proof here. They have not yet shown that the mother’s claim of liberty (i.e., personal sovereignty, privacy, autonomy) gets deep enough to undermine and nullify the child’s potential, alleged, or possible right to life.

Furthermore, since killing a human being is an irreversible, final, and permanent act against a fellow member of the species, it should never be doled out for trivial reasons or in the presence of reasonable doubt.

In summary, abortion bears heavily upon human rights, human rights are too foundational to surrender to the flight and fancy of relativistic ethics, and so, abortion is a poor fit for relativism. Subjectivism and conventionalism just aren’t serious enough among the schools of ethics to account for the moral weight of that child’s life.

It’s Pragmatism

This hybrid “logic” could also sound persuasive if you understand pro-life policy to be too impractical to work for society. Many abortion-choice advocates will use the threat of “coathanger abortions” to intimidate people into agreement. The threat is something like, “If you ban even the safe abortions, then women will be forced to get unsafe abortions.”

There’s a cold logic to this. Pro-life advocates as well abortion-choice advocates all have to weigh the practical implications of their ideals. Anyone making society-wide policy needs to consider practicality. The abortion debate is not merely moral, it’s also a judicial and political debate. It’s a legal matter, and legality is bound on all sides by practical issues of enforcement.

Real-world policies, however, should not be measured against utopia either. Banning abortion won’t stop all abortions, nor will legalizing abortion stop all coat-hanger abortions. Practical concerns pull both ways, tempering both the pro-life and abortion-choice positions. Legalizing abortion hasn’t stopped illegal and unsafe abortionists from finding scared imperiled women to prey on. We know of prolific mass murderers like Dr. Kermit Gosnell, whose abortion-mill generated hundreds and thousands of illegal abortions, post-birth abortions (infanticides), and subjected patients to unsanitary, injurious, and even fatal conditions. But besides just his case, we could cite many more clinics, doctors, and nurses who prove that the abortion-industry is intrinsically unsafe, and many of its worst offenders operate with little to no regulatory oversight regulation due in part to the knotted political landscape of abortion.

We also know, from history, that legalizing abortion at a state level in the late 1960’s and then nationwide in 1973 radically multiplied the number of abortions. Restated, that means, the prior ban on abortions radically reduced the number of abortions. That fact points out that banning abortion would greatly serve women’s health interests since the very nature of abortion is medically and psychologically dangerous for women.

Even legal and relatively “safe” abortion is inherently risky for the mother. In 98-99% of cases the abortion is not protecting the mother’s life so it’s medically unnecessary. Being medically unnecessary, all of its inherent risks of its inherent risks are unnecessary risks. The physical risks are many including cuts, punctures, bruising, heavy bleeding, disfigurement, drug interactions, incomplete abortions (leaving parts of the deceased child behind), and all the subsequent side effects that may occur with those problems including infection, sepsis, fever, headaches, dizziness, nausea, scarring, blood clots, coma, heart attack, and even death.

Possible long-term side effects and complications are often disputed but are thought to include sterility, pre-term birth, miscarriage, malfunctioning cervix, menstrual irregularities, and correlation with breast cancer. There are also a range of psychological risks – even for “safe” and “legal” abortions–which have been demonstrated in multiple studies. Pro-choicers tend to focus on the short-term sense of relief reported by abortion patients, but in long-term studies abortion patients report post-traumatic stress disorder, depression, anxiety, thoughts and attempts at suicide, broken relationships, drug and alcohol abuse, divorce, broken relationships, self-destructive behaviors, and a constellation of problems correlated with serious emotional trauma. Of course, the abortion-choice industry has tried to dispute all these claims about the dangers of abortion, but it’s medically naive to think of abortion as medically inert. And, even if child-birth were just as risky or riskier, the dangers are heavily mitigated by the birth of live child. Abortion isn’t safer than childbirth. It’s not safe for the mother. And it’s just not safe.

We should also consider how the abortion industry influences our sexual choices. First wave feminists at the turn of the 20th century, for example, decried abortion as a mode of exploiting women. Instead of reigning in men and calling them to take responsibility for the women and children in their lives, abortion is one more legal excuse for males to treat women like sex objects; love ’em and leave ’em. Given the preponderance of illicit sex, sex-trafficking and pornography, combined with the declining rate of marriage there is a strong case to be made that abortion-choice policy hasn’t been very “practical” at all. It set up countless women for exploitation, loneliness, and trauma, while setting the heaviest and fatal consequence on defenseless children-in-utero.

We have more than enough reasons, therefore, to think that pro-life policy would serve women’s health fare better than pro-choice policy has. Pro-life policy is practical.

It’s Cowardice

Other people may take the “personally pro-life” position because they aren’t terribly pro-life in the first place. No abortion choice advocate wants to be seen as a barbarian or a villain. And donning some of the terminology and tone of a pro-lifer may lend a sense of tolerance and compassion. Wearing the facade of an outspoken pro-life advocate doesn’t take a lot of courage, but it does take some courage. And some people just don’t have enough courage to take a consistent pro-life stand. Perhaps they lack the conviction or the knowledge. But whatever the cause they are too timid to fully align with the pro-life position. They may still think abortion is bad but they lack the fortitude to take a firm stand against it.

It’s easy to understand why people would be timid when they aren’t well-informed on the issue. If knowledge is power, then ignorance is crippling. Courage turns to cowardice when we don’t understand the issue well enough to have an informed opinion on it. In that event, a “moderate” pro-lifer or pro-choicer may be scared to explain or defend their pro-life position. By default, they gravitate toward the muddy middle, imagining it safer to appease both camps and avoid having to state, explain, or defend their position beyond a few shallow talking points.

Many pro-lifers and pro-choicers, in my experience, stay fairly moderate on the issue and aren’t terribly informed about the risks involved in abortion, or about the size and scope of abortion, or about the wider effects of abortion on society, or the history of abortion in America. Often, they don’t even know what an abortion looks like, or what the developing child looks like in a first-term abortion. It is no surprise that people may claim to be “pro-life” but, for fear of offending a pro-choice friend or family member, they immediately buttress that position with a fatal concession to pro-choice policy. They are “personally pro-life” – which is politically neutral, and wholly non-threatening to anyone else – but they are tolerant towards anyone else’s pro-choice politics or policies. They won’t even stand against abortion-choice legislation because their “pro-life” stance is effectively hidden from the world, squirreled away in the private recesses of their personal preference within their own bedroom at home.

In other words, to be “personally pro-life” is often ignorance-fueled cowardice. Now, I don’t say that lightly, but neither do I intend this as a mean-spirited insult. All of us have something to learn about this issue, and to the extent that we don’t understand or we just don’t know the specifics we can be crippled in our convictions and prone to cowardice. The simple solution then is to get informed. Study a bit. Guard our claims, saying what we know, admitting what we don’t know, and allowing ourselves to learn in the process. We can grow in our convictions and our courage as we learn. And through it all, we should maintain an attitude of humility, grace, and love.

It’s Ignorance

Ignorance poses another problem here besides inspiring cowardice. Sometimes people simply don’t realize how incompatible are the two camps. They may ascribe to the hybrid position because they believe that being “pro-life” is nothing more than saying, “I find abortion distasteful.” But since many pro-choice advocates find abortion distasteful, then that’s hardly a defining feature. That limp and flimsy form of “pro-life” may be due to ignorance.

A more troubling trend is when people affirm the hybrid position because they really don’t want to know what is involved in abortion. They may regret that some people choose abortion, but they don’t want to get informed enough to get involved in any solution. For them “ignorance is bliss.” Ignorance is an evasive maneuver, so they don’t have to take any responsibility. Just as good samaritan laws obligate competent bystanders to help people in dire situations, a person may be morally obligated to help a pregnant friend or neighbor choose life. But they are only responsible if they are competent to help. If they don’t know enough to help, then they aren’t morally responsible to help.

The straightforward solution for ignorance is knowledge, but of course, that’s a difficult task whenever it’s willful ignorance. There’s no knowledge so penetrating that people will receive it against their will.

It’s Political Confusion

Few issues have been as politicized as abortion. So, in many people’s eyes “abortion” is just another political issue. Some people may claim to be only “personally pro-life” but not politically because the political law of the land is pro-choice and they don’t want to fight about it. In their eyes it’s expedient or even ethical, to be “tolerant,” and “open-minded” on the issue. They don’t like arguing about politics or religion, so they don’t say anything is wrong with abortion-choice policy.

There’s some cold logic to this position, as it’s part pragmatism, and it can swirl in elements of “compassion,” and “tolerance” (i.e., often in the form of relativism). For people who are wishy-washy in their politics, or they aren’t willing to disagree with flawed party platform, then the hybrid option may sound very appealing.

There is, however, nothing intrinsically political about abortion, Democrats can and have been pro-life. Republicans can and have been pro-choice. Ideally, all major parties could agree that killing one’s own innocent defenseless family members is unethical and should be banned. But, unfortunately, the political lines have been drawn and the rhetoric has been loaded like artillery so that any democrats will be fired upon like an enemy spy plane if they dare question the value of Planned Parenthood or if they suggest that abortion is barbaric. Political liberals, in this way, would do well to distinguish themselves from the Democrat establishment so they are never pressured and pulled into a party platform that they can’t support in good conscience. Likewise for political conservatives, they shouldn’t be so married to the republican party that they cannot stiff-arm any foolish unethical policies popular within the establishment. Republicans may, generally, have a better record on pro-life policies, but they have not always sided with life, especially when it’s unpopular.

I should add, that even though Democrats should accommodate the pro-life position I don’t think Republicans should be open to abortion-choice policy. Republicans should be no more open to abortion-choice than they should be open to reinstating slavery. I know that’s a touchy comparison, but policies which treat human beings like objects that can be used and disposed at will are intrinsically wrong at the level of human rights, regardless of one’s politics. We don’t even need to haggle over the definition of “person” or when “consciousness” begins. Abortion kills biological human beings as if those humans were some disposable property. Objectifying humans is wrong, whether by slavery or abortion. Just as no self-respecting democrat would support slave laws that allow for the objectification of human beings, they should likewise be able to renounce their party platform and stand on the side of life.

Abortion is the single deadliest act, institution, or event in world history.

Also, we do well to remember that we are talking about the single deadliest act, institution, or event in world history. In this way, abortion is a bigger issue than party politics. Democrats would do well to take the pro-life platform more seriously, especially since they missed the boat 150 years ago when the Democrat party sided with the biggest human rights crime of that era too. I don’t care to defend or promote republicanism or democrat politics here. All political parties have a mixed history on human rights issues. Democrats aren’t all wrong, and Republicans aren’t all right. Pro-lifers, unfortunately, have few voting options on the Democratic side these days. When it comes to the anti-abortion position, the Republican party has a better record–though not by much.

A Final Word on Being “Personally Pro-life”

Clearly, there are some glaring problems when people attempt to straddle the fence on the abortion issue. We have plenty of reasons to broadly reject the hybrid position. But it’s still better to be personally pro-life than totally pro-choice. If you personally would never go through with an abortion, I applaud you! If you refrained from an abortion because you are generally pro-choice but personally pro-life, then you still saved a life. Choosing life merits celebration every time! It is better to have a political pro-choicer personally abstain from abortion than to have a pro-lifer who betrays their conscience and aborts their unborn child. When all the smoke settles, we each still have to answer for the decisions we make in our own lives, regardless of our ideologies.

If you are “personally pro-life” but “politically pro-choice” then I encourage you to consider going the whole way and just be pro-life. Abortion is too devastating, too deadly, too violent, too harmful to women. It doesn’t even deserve half-hearted support. We all do well to consider and commit to a genuine pro-life stance. The pro-life cause goes beyond just personal opinions, preferences, or relativistic ethics. “Pro-life” refers to a fundamental recognition that the child-in-utero deserves protection; not just your child or my child, but every child. If you are only “personally” pro-life then I plead with you, don’t let your compassion stop with your own family planning prospects. Care for all the women and children imperiled by abortion. If we don’t speak for the voiceless, they will never be heard.

References: 

[i] By “generally banned,” I mean the banning of convenience abortions where the mother’s life is not in danger. Other mitigating circumstances might include cases of “rape” or “severe deformity.” Pro-lifers usually, however, oppose abortion even in these exceptional cases of rape and fetal deformity, although most consider abortion justified as “life-saving” if pregnancy imperils the mother’s life.

[ii] While most pro-choice advocates do not knowingly support an increase of abortions, it’s a well known fact of groups like Planned Parenthood that abortions are a major source of revenue, and more abortions spells more profits. In this way, clinics may encourage higher numbers of abortions–but not because of any belief that “more abortions is morally better,” but merely because of profit incentive. This profit-incentive is the substance behind allegations of “abortion quotas” at Planned Parenthood clinics. Former Planned Parenthood clinic directors have attested to the quotas, but these claims have been disputed by opponents.

Recommended Resources: 

Correct not Politically Correct: About Same-Sex Marriage and Transgenderism by Frank Turek (Book, MP4, )

Does Jesus Trump Your Politics by Dr. Frank Turek (mp4 download and DVD)

The Case for Christian Activism (MP3 Set), (DVD Set), and (mp4 Download Set) by Frank Turek 

Legislating Morality: Is it Wise? Is it Legal? Is it Possible? by Frank Turek (Book, DVD, Mp3, Mp4, PowerPoint download, PowerPoint CD)

 

Dr. John D. Ferrer is a speaker and content creator with CrossExamined. He’s also a graduate from the very first class of CrossExamined Instructors Academy. Having earned degrees from Southern Evangelical Seminary (MDiv) and Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary (ThM, PhD), he’s now active in the pro-life community and in his home church in Pella Iowa. When he’s not helping his wife Hillary Ferrer with her ministry Mama Bear Apologetics, you can usually find John writing, researching, and teaching cultural apologetics.

Originally posted at: https://bit.ly/48dVzcJ

/by