Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘Abortion’ Category

If ignorance is indeed bliss, then those Americans unaware of this year’s presidential primary are of all people most blessed! One major Democratic candidate could (and probably should) be facing a federal indictment over how top-secret state communications were handled. The other top Democratic candidate is a self-described socialist. Not long ago, he would have been relegated to an asterisk as an inconsequential third-party extremist. This is a different America, indeed.

The leading Republican candidate has boasted of his adulterous “conquests.” He appeared on the cover of “Playboy” with a model wearing only his tuxedo jacket covering her body. His casino in New Jersey was the first in America to open a strip club. He attempted to displace a widow through eminent domain to build a limousine parking lot for his casino. And he has been personally endorsed by the president of Liberty University, the world’s largest evangelical university. These are strange times, indeed.

The almost universal mantra of Christians who support the leading Republican candidate goes something like this, “We’re electing the Commander-in-Chief, not the Pastor-in-Chief.” If one says that often enough, one can use it to cover a multitude of sins. Indeed, Americans are not voting for the nation’s chief pastor and no candidate is perfect, but does that mean that character, virtue, and vice do not matter?

The Democratic primary is down to two contenders. Both are vocal supporters of abortion and same-sex marriage. How can Christians support such candidates? Again, people say, “My candidate believes in other things that are good. Besides, even though I personally don’t agree with abortion or same-sex marriage, I must not impose my Christianity upon other people.”

Here is the question that Christians must answer: Does the lordship of Christ over their lives matter outside the church? Does the lordship of Christ carry over to decisions we make at our voting precinct?

Let’s be clear: the Bible knows nothing about dichotomizing one’s life into realms of “sacred” and “secular.” For the Christian, all of life is sacred. Nothing exists outside the Lordship of Christ. For those who disagree, think deeply about these stark words of Jesus: “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. On that day many will say to me, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?’ And then will I declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from me, you workers of lawlessness.’” (Matt 7:21-23).

To the one who protests that Jesus is referring to “religious” things (the ones condemned speak of their prophesying, exorcising demons, and doing miracles in Christ’s name), think about 1 Corinthians 10:31: “So, whether you eat or drink, or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God.” If activities as seemingly banal as eating and drinking are to be done to the glory of God, then surely our vote for leaders of our country ought to be done to the glory of God.

What we must do is think deeply about those for whom we vote. The best candidate may not be a Christian, but at least he should be a person of common decency and virtue, a person who has demonstrated a consistency lifestyle and decision-making that does not blatantly contradict scriptural precepts. Is this person honest? Does he exhibit a concern for others? Has he been faithful in his most intimate relationships with others? How does he treat his opposition – with grace or retribution? Does he exhibit, not merely with words but with life, that there is a just and righteous God who rules over us and to whom we are accountable?

This is the question that we need to answer about our decision: Can I justify to God the reason for my vote? Superficial answers won’t do.

Read Full Post »

It is distressing to be led by ungodly leaders, especially when they consistently pronounce as good that which is evil. President Obama continues to do so, as illustrated in his recent affirmation of a woman’s right to choose to end the life of her unborn baby:

As we mark the 39th anniversary of Roe v. Wade, we must remember that this Supreme Court decision not only protects a woman’s health and reproductive freedom, but also affirms a broader principle: that government should not intrude on private family matters. I remain committed to protecting a woman’s right to choose and this fundamental constitutional right.

While this is a sensitive and often divisive issue—no matter what our views, we must stay united in our determination to prevent unintended pregnancies, support pregnant woman and mothers, reduce the need for abortion, encourage healthy relationships, and promote adoption. And as we remember this historic anniversary, we must also continue our efforts to ensure that our daughters have the same rights, freedoms, and opportunities as our sons to fulfill their dreams.

Notice the President’s argument. The Roe v. Wade Supreme Court decision affirmed “that government should not intrude on private family matters.” The ending of an unborn child’s life is a “private family matter.” What if the baby were brought home and the mother decided that there was more involved in caring for this child than she had anticipated? She had thought she could continue her college education without too much of a problem, but now she realizes she had miscalculated. This is “a private family matter,” right? Why is it now suddenly government’s matter to say that taking the life of a two-week old baby is murder, but the government blesses the taking of a two-month old unborn baby’s life?

The President calls this “a woman’s right to choose.” To choose what, Mr. President? Please complete that infinitive phrase? To choose what? To choose to end the life of her unborn child. Then again, putting it that way sounds much less innocuous than simply saying “a woman’s right to choose.”

The President informs us that a woman’s having an abortion is a “fundamental constitutional right.” A fundamental constitutional right? Something fundamental would be spelled out, right? Not only does the Constitution not explicitly affirm a woman’s right to end the life of her unborn child, it does not even imply it. There was never, to my knowledge, a document written in the latter 1700’s concerning the Constitution which even discussed the idea that having an abortion is a legitimate right. Put quite simply, such a notion was unthinkable.

The final sentence in the President’s quote almost defies description: “And as we remember this historic anniversary, we must also continue our efforts to ensure that our daughters have the same rights, freedoms, and opportunities as our sons to fulfill their dreams.” Again the President makes an illogical statement based on unmitigated emotion. The lives of our sons are not detoured by bearing a child, so evidently neither should the lives of our daughters. If we want equality, why don’t we make the biological father really accountable for his actions? Why must the unborn child pay the price for selfish pleasure of others.

The taking of the life of an unborn baby, unless the physical life of the mother is unquestionably jeopardized, is murder. Those who seek it and those who agree to it, as well as doctors and abortion clinic owners who profit by it, have blood on their hands. Do not legislators who approve and defend abortion on demand have blood on their hands? Does not a president who defends abortion have blood on his hands? Does not an America which refuses to raise its voice about the barbarism of a “woman’s right to choose” have blood on its hands?

Read Full Post »

Here are two YouTube videos which comprise Gianna Jessen’s 2008  address at Queen’s Hall, Parliament House in Victoria, Australia. Her testimony is incredible and puts a face on the debate over abortion.

Read Full Post »

A thoughtful post entitled “The Role of Law: It is reasonable and necessary for society to outlaw certain ‘choices'” on abort73.com takes issue with the commonly accepted mantra that abortion is simply a matter of a woman’s choice.

The fundamental role of every government is to provide security for its citizens and to maintain public order. This cannot be done without legislating against certain choices. Even in free countries, citizens are not free to choose in any absolute sense. Some choices are lawful and some are not, which is why it is impossible to justify abortion by simply arguing that women should be “free to choose”.

This, of course, has not stopped people from building their defense of abortion on the abstract defense of choice. You’ll hear things like, “This is a free country…You can’t legislate morality… My body, my choice!” In fact, many abortion-rights advocates will openly admit that abortion is “bad”, only to turn around and argue that women must be free to make their own decisions, even if they’re bad ones. On the surface that might sound noble. You’re giving people a choice. You’re letting them decide what’s right for themselves, even giving them the freedom to fall.

The problem is, there is a big difference between a “bad” decision and a “criminal” decision. Getting sunburned is a bad decision. Burning your neighbor’s house down is a criminal decision. Refusing to study for a big test is bad. Refusing to stop when there is a pedestrian in the street is criminal. The law generally leaves people the legal freedom to make bad choices, but the law must do all it can to prohibit criminal choices.

Read the rest of this post here.

Read Full Post »

According to the Associate Press, “South Carolina legislators Wednesday [3-17-10] rejected plans to ban abortions in the state’s health insurance plan in cases of rape or incest or when they’re needed to protect a mother’s health.” The debate was heated and the vote was close: 57-54. My understanding is that the provisions of rape and incest were later included in the ban, while the mother’s life was the only exception allowing abortion in the state’s health insurance plan. What struck me, though, was this quote attributed to Representative Bakari Sellers as he railed against the proposed ban:

When you are that person that is pinned down in the back alley and raped; when you are that person that is actually assaulted sexually by your father–this is not a time for us to play political games. This is not the time for me to say my God is better than yours. This is a time to do what is right.

The self-righteousness of Mr. Sellers’ comment is palpable. “This is not a time for us to play political games” charges his pro-life opponents with unconcern for women while he and his pro-“choice” comrades alone really care about women who have been victimized. I cannot help but wonder how many tears Mr. Sellers sheds for the baby who had no part in the crime but who is condemned to death because of the sin of his biological father. Incredibly, the heinous crime of rape is compounded by the legal murder of the innocent child.

Mr. Sellers, the politician, turned theologian: “This is not the time for me to say my God is better than yours. This is a time to do what is right.” Unfortunately, pro-choice politicians and theologians ceased caring about God and what is right when they decided that women could women usurp the role of God in deciding which child should live and which child should die.

My question for Mr. Sellers is simply this, “How do you determine what is right?” Putting it another way: “By what standard do you choose what is right?” Never mind. We know the standard. Political correctness. The spirit of this age.

My unsought advice to Mr. Sellers and his fellow legislators is this: Stop playing politics with the lives of the unborn. Stop ingratiating yourselves to radical feminists who see children as an impediment to a woman’s self-seeking pleasure and personal advancement. If you really care about women who have been raped, make sure their attacker never is allowed back into society. And I suggest that we all be careful about cavalierly invoking the name of God.

Read Full Post »

The murder of abortionist George Tiller in Wichita, Kansas, on May 31 comprises some of the hottest debate taking place the day after. Unfortunately, but unsurprisingly, many in the pro-abortion crowd are using it to make Tiller a martyr and the pro-life position sinister.

George Tiller may have served as an usher in his Lutheran church, but he was no saint. Thousands of unborn children never saw the light of day because of Tiller’s abortion business. The doctor was a murderer, a wicked man who met a wicked end.

Still, the man who murdered Tiller is no saint. What he did was a cowardly, despicable act. There is no place for vigilante acts in the pro-life movement. It is not “pro-life” to murder abortionists.

Pro-choice activists reveal their lack of shame by portraying Tiller as a hero, a martyr, and a protector of the rights of women. A sympathetic national media will give them plenty of broadcast time and print space. Their spin, however, will fail to see the obvious: a murderer was gunned down by another murderer. There is no saint, no martyr, and no winner in this.

Read Full Post »

It seems that evangelicals are falling all over themselves to become accepted by mainstream American society. Discussions about creation in the first two chapters of the book of Genesis are deemed “distractions.” The plight of the unborn is considered “yesterday’s battle.” It is considered fashionable to support a United States President who pontificates about the need to defend the weak but turns his back upon the most defenseless of humanity–the unborn.

It is encouraging to see concerted efforts to recover the biblical gospel and to emphasize a biblical view of doctrines such as justification. It is discouraging to see that many of those rightly concerned about the gospel accept the tenets of old-earth creationism and are deafeningly silent about the slaughter of the unborn.

Many rightly see that evangelicalism has been more concerned about culture wars than about the gospel. Far too many pro-life evangelical church members are relatively clueless about the gospel. They may be staunchly anti-homosexual while remaining quite fuzzy about salvation by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone.

That said, it is wrong to neglect what has been emphasized in order to emphasize what has been neglected. Conceding creationism today will result in conceding the atonement tomorrow. Forgetting the unborn today will result in forgetting justification tomorrow.

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »

%d bloggers like this: