Tuesday, February 21, 2012

NO Child Left Behind: The Abortionist’s Creed

The following is an exchange I had with a Facebook friend who is a professing Christian and who is also socially and politically liberal or left-leaning. He is angry with the Komen foundation for its stance towards Planned Parenthood. [Due to the massive outcry from abortion proponents, I understand Komen has reversed its position.] I began the discussion by asking him if he was prochoice/abortion. His first comment is in answer to that question.

For clarity, his words are bold and italicized. May God add His blessing to your reading.


I hate abortion. But I don't want to see woman die of cancer because 5 of 9 Republican judges gave America legal abortion, and now to get elected Republicans start their Election year abortion banter.
Just a quick point of clarification: I asked you if you were prochoice/abortion. You answered: "I hate abortion." This doesn't really answer my question. (I know many folks who say they "hate abortion" but support a woman's "right" to abortion.)

So...if you would be kind of enough to clarify: Do you take a prochoice/abortion position or a prolife/anti-abortion position? Do you believe a woman should have the "right" to abortion on demand?

"I said I hate abortions and so how could I hate abortions and then support a woman's right to choose abortion?
It's very simple. I've known folks who say that they are personally opposed to abortion and would NEVER have one...that they "hate" abortion and wish such things weren't "necessary." HOWEVER, they still support a woman's right to abortion (sort of like President Clinton's desire that abortion be "safe, legal, and rare").

"If it is murder from the first cell, then who is responsible if the fetus dies in the womb naturally? Nature does that many times, so is that murder?"
There is no moral equivalence between miscarriage and abortion. Similarly, there is no moral equivalence between natural death of old people and active euthanasia of old people. Would you argue, "Well...old folks die of natural causes all the time...so it's ok for us to inject the elderly with drugs to kill them?" I don't think you would.

(Just an aside...I notice you use the term "fetus"--which is ironically Latin for "baby." Have you ever heard a mother who's experienced a miscarriage say, "I lost my fetus?" They always say, "I lost my baby." And yet, abortionists and their ilk use the term "fetus." This is just semantics, isn't it?)

Looking at the word of God I see God telling me that if I go and murder someone, I am charged and that is a capital offense, calling for my death. But if a man strike a woman and causes her to abort, he is not charged with murder, but instead must pay as her husband demands, to be unforced by the judges. Why is that not murder in God's eyes?
Your understanding of Exodus 21:22 is wrong. The text reads:
If men fight, and hurt a woman with child, so that she gives birth prematurely, yet no harm follows, he shall surely be punished accordingly as the woman’s husband imposes on him; and he shall pay as the judges determine.
Also, you should consider the very next verse: "But if any harm follows, then you shall give life for life" (Ex. 21:23).

A proper understanding of this passage is this: If a pregnant woman is hurt by men who are fighting and she gives birth prematurely; if the mother AND baby are okay ("no harm follows") then the woman's husband can impose punishment. HOWEVER, if the mother or baby dies: "then you shall give life for life."

So, obviously, to injure a pregnant woman--to the effect that she gives birth prematurely, if this premature birth results in the death of the woman or her baby or both--is to commit murder. (Hence, when the State charges a person who kills a pregnant woman and her baby with double murder--e.g. Scott Peterson--the State is in accordance with scripture.)

"If you asked me: 'OK will you go out in the street with a sign?' My answer would be no because then I would be fighting against the Laws of America and God's word tells me I must not do that."
Once again, this is not entirely accurate. People of God in both Testaments raise their voices against unjust government. For example, the Apostle Peter tells the ruling body called the Sanhedrin: "Whether it is right in the sight of God to listen to you more than to God, you judge" (Acts 4:19).

Indeed, we are to obey "magistrates" because they are God's "ministers" (c.f. Romans 13). However, only God's authority is absolute. The authority of the State is limited and derivative. Thus, we are to obey the government unless or until the government commands what God forbids or forbids what God commands.

For example, the "midwives" of Egypt disobeyed the Pharaoh by NOT killing the male Hebrew babies. In so doing, they obeyed God (c.f. Ex. 1:15-17). Above all things, the Christian must obey God and His Law.

"How sinful is it to deny woman the right to birth control and then rail against her because she has to get an abortion or starve the children she already has."
This is a false dilemma. She either starves her children or gets an abortion? There are simply NO options other than "abortion" or "starvation"? There's no such thing as adoption now? There's no possible way to increase income or receive assistance? I think real world statistics show that the overwhelming majority of abortions are performed as matters of convenience--birth control, if you will; not to avoid starvation.

"I am still trying to reason out what abortion really is from God's word."
The scriptures are abundantly clear concerning the personhood of preborn babies. Samson was a "Nazarite to God from the womb" (Judges 13:1). Therefore, his mother couldn't eat anything unclean or drink wine while he was in her womb. Samson wasn't simply part of her body. No, he was his own person.

And what of the prophet Jeremiah? God knew him as a person before he was born (c.f. Jeremiah 1:5). Then we find Jacob and Esau--human persons within the womb of their mother. We see the personhood of John the Baptist in Elizabeth's womb; and of course, the Son of God in His mother's womb.

Biblically, children are a blessing from the Lord. Godless, secularistic philosophies [and certainly industrialization] have altered how the West views having children. It is inevitable: Anti-theistic worldviews result in anti-human applications. Hence, abortion is seen as a "cure" for what ails us.


Subsequent to this irenic exchange, my Facebook friend found himself in agreement with my treatment of Exodus 21 and I believe he better understood the biblical position concerning the personhood and individuality of the preborn. That being said, I see no evidence of him discontinuing his enthusiastic support for pro-abortion politicians and their causes.

Two closing thoughts: 1) I fear my friend’s ignorance of how the Bible addresses the scourge of abortion may be all too widespread among professing Christians. 2) I see an overabundance of evidence in our culture that all too many Christians have a GLARING disconnect between their profession of faith and their politics of choice.


  1. "If you asked me: 'OK will you go out in the street with a sign?' My answer would be no because then I would be fighting against the Laws of America and God's word tells me I must not do that."

    You might also have pointed out that, as a voter, he is part of the body that appoints that government and therefore shares in responsibility for its acts. Also, he misrepresents what the bible says about obedience to rulers, none of whom at that time were in any way democratic. Obeying rulers is enjoined, if it doesn't lead one to disobey God, but that is not a command not to oppose bad laws.

    1. Very true. We in the West are in a different political situation than the early Church.

      Thanks for reading and commenting, Oliver.