Exposing the Unbiblical Arguments in Election 2020
I have been witnessing a disturbing trend. I do not like to engage in debates on social media as it seems that an argumentative spirit reigns supreme on those platforms. However, I have seen too many Christians reposting illogical arguments defending the position of being a pro-life voter who will be casting their ballot for a pro-choice candidate to not respond.
These arguments are fraught with so many erroneous assumptions that I felt a detailed and full-blown article was merited to expose the lies that are being sold to well-intentioned, but misguided individuals. It is interesting to note that much of the arguments being framed and delivered for reposting are coming from staunchly devout pro-death advocates. Yet such a fact shockingly does not seem to cause those who are reposting these lame arguments pause. I choose to assume that this is not because the reposters are aware of this issue and actively engaging in the dissemination of deception, but that they are completely unaware of the following facts. I pray that those who are truly desiring to see abortion end will read this entire article through to the end.
*The data come from a nationally representative survey of nonhospital abortion patients in the United States.
The above data is problematic for numerous reasons but let’s start with where they admit they acquire it. Hmmm…so what does “nonhospital abortion patients” mean? Simply, that means the data they are putting forth did not come through hospitals. So, where did it come from? Well, it’s not as if the data of who actually has had abortions is publicly accessible for any and all to locate and corroborate. Consequently, the only place it could come from is abortion clinics.
Yay, like that is a reliable source of information! Seriously? Those clinics that make money from encouraging young women and girls to brutally kill their babies are the ones we are to rely upon to give us the compelling data that is supposed to somehow justify the continuation of abortion policies? Note, they do not just push for continuing to keep abortion legal, but actively work to expand it. And yes, I did mean to say young girls. Even according to their own data above, which I completely doubt its accuracy, shows that 72% of the over 60 million murdered babies over the course of the almost 50 years since Roe have been done to the babies of young women and girls in their teens and 20s. That means that over 43 million young women and girls have been victimized by the abortion industry. And the 12% they seem to throw off as nominal, or even worse 4% of minors, translates into 7.2 and 2.4 million respectively, as if we are supposed to turn a blind eye to 2.4 million underage minors having been encouraged to kill their babies. Do we look at this data and simply shrug off the trauma that was done to 43 million young women and girls knowing that their lives have been devastated at a time when many of them were too young to know better?
And I remind you, this so-called “compelling” data is being collected by the same moral bastions who have no issue with profiting financially from barbarically dismembering defenseless, innocent babies? Really? That is like taking compelling data from the Nazis to justify the economic benefits from the holocaust or taking all of our data as to the benefits from the institution of slavery solely from the evil masters on the plantations. And yet, we have tons of seemingly well-intentioned people, even Christians, blindly quoting this data, as if it is objective, and worse yet, as if it is compelling.
If you want to see the heart and motives behind the Guttmacher Institute, it isn’t hard to find. It doesn’t even take a lot of digging. They tweet it out for us to read.
They are straight-up arguing that bodily autonomy trumps sanctity of life, abortion in later pregnancy shouldn’t be vilified but rather allowed after 22-weeks (which is at the end of the second trimester and entering the 6th month of pregnancy and despite the fact that it is medically documented that babies undeniably feel pain at 20 weeks), and they even call those of us who are pro-life “Abortion Opponents.”
Seriously, does that sound like it is coming from an unbiased and objective research-based non-profit? Calling the Guttmacher Institute a reliable source of data would be like calling the Southern Poverty Law Center an objective source of terrorism and hate crimes. And for those who say, “Well, the same data is on the CDC,” of course it is. The fact that it is the exact same data should immediately tell you from where the CDC got its data. It’s not like there is some objective pool where this type of information on the women and girls who are having abortions is kept. Those who are compiling the data are the very people who are performing abortions. So, relying on them for factual accuracy and then disseminating it to justify policy positions is literally us being blind enough to allow the fox to guard the henhouse. Do we really want to be that naive?
But, at the start of the article, I mentioned that there were numerous reasons this data is problematic. The first and most obvious problem is that it is data. Every serious researcher knows that you can prove anything with data, the relevant questions are the controls that are put in place to verify the credibility and logical conclusion. But what should be even more obvious to those of us as Christians are it is data. Meaning, when do we ever allow unjust laws or policies to be put in place because of data? Murder is wrong. It is always wrong. Slavery is wrong. It is always wrong. Those who would attempt to make the argument that we should legalize murder in an effort to reduce the number of murders that take place and then use data to justify their argument should rightly be disregarded as misguided at best, and evil deceivers at worst.
And for those Christians who point to policies of advocating for government socialism as a viable means of reducing abortions rather than making them illegal, let me expose all the errors and fallacies within that argument. As Christians, we cannot advocate for government welfare and providing women’s reproductive care through our tax dollars being given to planned parenthood. Let me break down all the major illogical errors within this argument. First, a benevolent civil government is an oxymoron. The role of civil government according to the Bible is to be the terror of the sword to those who do evil. What that means plain and simple is the proper role and function for the civil government is security. It is to function like a shepherd who beats off the wolves from harming the sheep so that the sheep may live their lives in peace. So, proper roles for the civil government to serve is national security, military, and police power. Therefore, it is completely within its proper role of jurisdiction to make laws that criminalize behavior that directly harms another human being, such as murder, theft, assault, battery, etc.
What is sad is that Christians who say they are pro-life are actively advocating for the government to NOT pass laws to protect the innocent, which in fact the Bible details civil governments should do. Meanwhile, they are actively advocating for the government to take on the responsibility for benevolence to the poor, which in fact the Bible appoints to the corporate body of Christ to be responsible for as the hands and heart of Jesus. True religion undefiled is to care for the widows and the orphans. Yet many in the church are unashamed to not only unbiblically punt this off to the civil government, but they are somehow equally emboldened to try to shame those of us who actually feel the compassion and responsibility for the church to do this ministry rather than the civil government, as though opposition to socialism is indicative of not being benevolent. In reality, the church in America is quite giving and has many ministries in place that are much more effective in helping with unplanned pregnancies than the government’s dollars that go to planned parenthood. But even if that weren’t the case, should we ever have the following response? “We know the Bible teaches us to care for others, and we know the Bible doesn’t want the civil government to do it, but since we’re not doing a good job, let’s not challenge ourselves to do better, let’s just shift the burden to the government and shame the rest of the church who wishes to actually care.” I apologize if I am stepping on any toes of those who have out of a sincere heart put forward the above argument not realizing what you were actually saying. But in light of the urgency of the current situation, I do not feel I can mince words in an effort to spare feelings.
Also, we allow those who have clearly stated that Roe was about “population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don’t want to have too many of” to argue away that their racially charged remarks aren’t what they really meant. But their confessions present a very stark reality. While abortion advocates craft the data of higher rates of abortion in impoverished inner-city areas as proof that poor mothers are victims of a lack of government funding when in reality the abortionists choose where they place their clinics. Should it not be obvious based upon the racist roots of planned parenthood the real reason why they place these abortion mills in select communities? The disproportionately high rates of abortions within black America is proof of the selective genocide that they always intended. They target the poor and then use the higher numbers of poor abortion victims to justify the continuation of their “services.” This selective genocide is Planned Parenthood’s intended goal; it is not an unintended result of a lack of funding. We should not allow PP to strategically plan the holocaust, then use the data of the holocaust to justify the continued need for its “services.” We must face the harsh reality that these poor, inner-city girls have always been the intended victims, to get rid of those that they “don’t want to have too many of.”
Finally, to address another flawed argument being put forward to defend being a pro-life voter voting for a pro-choice candidate, it is not true that even if the Supreme Court overturns Roe it will not end abortion as the issue will pass to the states. Think about the fallacy of this argument. Prior to Roe v Wade various states were making laws outlawing abortion. After Roe, no states were allowed to do so. Why? Because the Court in Roe created a constitutional right to abortion in the absence of any specific Constitutional language but as part of an amorphous right of privacy vaguely drawn from arguably either the 9th or 14th amendments. This ruling has been used to prevent states from passing laws that infringed upon this alleged and concocted right as any such laws have been required to be strictly scrutinized. So, it is disingenuous to say that the Supreme Court can rule one direction and extremely limit the actions of the state, but a decision that would overrule this could not equally limit state actions. And, in truth, there actually is Constitutional language through the legal doctrine of incorporation by reference taken from the Declaration that directly confers an unalienable right to life at the point of creation.
This Constitutional legal argument is much more defensible than the subjective argument that was used by the court in Roe that “guarantees in the Bill of Rights have penumbras, formed by emanations from those guarantees.” This is the logic, or lack thereof, upon which Justice Blackmun, relying upon Justice Douglas, put forward in Roe to justify the existence of a right to abortion. What does that bizarre language even mean? Well, let me try to clarify. A penumbra is “the partial or imperfect shadow outside the complete shadow of an opaque body,” and an emanation is “an abstract but perceptible thing that issues or originates from a source.” So, “guarantees in the Bill of Rights have shadows beyond their complete shadow, formed by abstract things that originate from those guarantees” is the argument the Supreme Court used to concoct a fundamental right to abort innocent babies. Even after clarifying, this argument is undeniably vague and Constitutionally indefensible.
And still many even within the church view this unjust law as the supreme law of the land, meanwhile buying the argument that an unalienable right to life at the point of creation does not exist that prevents any government (federal, state, or local) from legalizing the killing of a pre-born baby. If the Supreme Court were to rightly interpret the Constitution to include an unalienable right to life, then undeniably, such a ruling would definitively end abortion, and the issue would not pass as a principle of federalism to the states. Such a holding is automatic if the Supreme Court upholds the proper legal philosophy that the role and function of civil government are the securing of unalienable rights and that the Constitution can only be rightly interpreted in alignment with those principles as expressed within the Declaration of Independence. We must understand that the right to life is unalienable, meaning that irrespective of what any government decrees, every baby possesses a right to life at the point of creation because the government doesn’t grant us that right; God does!
Alright, I know I already said “finally,” but one last point. If we allow the argument to be made that when, due to poverty or other circumstances, the burden of having to care for a baby justifies the killing of that baby, then what principle have we ultimately accepted? Take a moment and think about what assumption is behind the argument that to effectively combat abortion we must address poverty. This assumption makes no sense in the absence of accepting the belief that children are a burden and as a burden mothers are justified in looking to abortion as a solution. This does not mean that we do not care about the poor. We as Christians obviously care for the poor; it is true religion undefiled to care for the orphans and the widows. It simply means that these two issues are simply that, two separate and necessarily unrelated issues. If we connect them in our arguments, then we automatically are conceding that the value of life is not inherent but rather dependent upon economic circumstances. And while we are talking about caring for the poor, the liberal argument that Christian conservatives don't care for the poor is a red herring. The only issue between liberal Christians and conservative Christians is who we think should care for the poor. Conservative Christians view it as their own responsibility and privilege to be the hands and feet of Jesus to the needy. Whereas liberal Christians want to punt the responsibility to the civil government. Yes, the debate is really just that simple.
We must never accept the assumption that abortion is justified if the baby is viewed as a burden, economic or otherwise, to the parent. The acceptance of this unbiblical assumption is obvious when the argument is made that to reduce abortion we must look at data like that at the beginning of this article showing that 75% of abortions are had by those in poverty. This data also asserts that 62% of those having abortions are religious; presenting a picture that faith should ultimately have no impact upon our morality. Are we also going to accept that faulty argument?
Any society that morally accepts such an underlying assumption is doomed to encounter arguments for euthanasia. Why? It’s simple, at what point do we morally switch to magically giving life value such that children cease to be vulnerable to being viewed as a burden to the parent? And for those who say an argument for euthanasia would never be made out of sympathy and concern for the parent, you need to ask yourself, what would be the distinguishing factor to prevent such an argument in a society where even Christians accept as defensible that the economic burden to the parent that comes from having to care for a child is sufficient justification to kill that baby? I can answer that question, NOTHING. The vile devaluing of the sanctity of human life once made has no logical end. This is proof by the following statement by the Governor of Virginia who himself is a pediatric neurologist. “The infant would be delivered. The infant would be kept comfortable. The infant would be resuscitated if that's what the mother and the family desired, and then a discussion would ensue between the physicians and the mother.” So, this gruesome scene of discussing whether or not to kill your already born baby is supposed to somehow make us o.k. because it is being had by the mother with her all-wise, all-moral physician? Please forgive me if I am not comforted.
Let me make this issue as simple and as clear as it really is. Death is bad. Life is Good. Satan is the one who comes to steal, KILL, and destroy. Jesus came that we may have LIFE and LIFE abundantly! Therefore, may was as the body of Christ fall on the right side of history on this issue as we cast our ballots on November 3rd. May the spirit of confusion not cause us to cancel out the votes of our brothers and sisters in such a way that we as the body of Christ have no influence upon the outcome of this most-crucial election.
Komentáře