It may be true that you are against an abortion here or there. You conveniently break it down into categories and statistics such as the life of the mother, rape and incest, abortion for convenience, for sex selection, or do so by method of killing, the age of the child, if they partially born or have birth defects, etc. But the baby doesn’t know or care about any of those things – neither does God.

You are supposedly against those over there, but don’t oppose those over here. But you are really not against the concept, just its application (in certain cases).

Your language and your actions prove you are not against abortion in principle.

First, it is quite apparent from statistics and common sense that Christians are snuffing out their own children and grandchildren at an alarming rate. (If you find the bluntness of the idea that professing Christian families are “killing their own children” off-putting, consider yourself already worked over by the evil one.) Many evangelicals are using abortifacient (child-killing) forms of birth control without batting an eyelash, too.

Second, if you believe in any exceptions, it means you are pro-choice. It ought to be cold comfort to you that you have a smaller dumpster full of dead babies that have your stamp of approval than Barack Obama does. Imagine if you tried this foolish logic concerning any other segment of the population: “I’m against killing high school quarterbacks, except those whose fathers have a criminal record? or I oppose school shootings except in Texas” These exceptions matter because God says “Thou Shalt Not Murder” and these are people.

Can you imagine Mitt Romney, receiving the conservative’s vote if he said publicly, “I’m against terrorists murdering our ambassadors in our own embassies, except for when….” We are rightly angry at Barack Obama for his apparent silence or acquiescence in the face of the brutal murders in Libya, but don’t hesitate to cast a vote for Mitt Romney who has said—nay, fought for—the right of tens of thousands of mothers to brutalize and murder their own children, because of the crimes of the father.

Would you vote for Romney if he said that it was okay to murder businessmen, Jews or anybody in a wheelchair?

What if Romney said he wouldn’t oppose new legislation that gave further protection to all of our American embassies except for those in Israel?

Conservatives are outraged that Obama singles out the wealthy for his taxing wrath and rightly so, because we know the rich deserve the equal protection of the law. Yet, Romney gets a pass on his willing failure to protect all of the little people. It is because Republicans are pro-choice, too. See who we are choosing to be our standard-bearer and our next president?

Subscribe For Latest Updates

Sign up to receive stimulating conservative Christian commentary in your inbox.

Invalid email address
We promise not to spam you. You can unsubscribe at any time.
  1. One thing I’m curious about is how perceptions have changed among Christians during the modern era. In the 1800s, for instance, how many Christians would have considered it acceptable for a woman who became pregnant during a rape to try to induce an abortion? I suspect very few.

    1. Oh, meant to add something, but Disqus isn’t recognizing me so I can’t edit my post:

      Back in that area and earlier, could a woman who had found a way to abort her child have faced criminal charges?

      1. Criminalization of abortion in the West and US started in the 1800s. Prior to that there seems to be a mishmash of when and under what conditions abortions were considered acceptable. It seems to have been infrequent among marred women but the stats for those out of wedlock was likely higher, considering the stigma attached to children and mothers in that situation.

        As a medical procedure abortion was much less safe and effective for women before modern times and the general adoption of aseptic techniques. That probably reduced earlier demand.

        Criminalization of contraceptives is a bit odd too. It was until relatively recently that access to contraceptives couldn’t be prohibited by states. Go figure.

  2. More fun stuff. Romney surrogate Norm Coleman (former MN senator, lost to Al Franken), assured Jewish voters in Ohio that Roe v Wade won’t be overturned, making arguments that it didn’t happen under Bush or other conservative presidents of the last few decades (so why would Romney be any different?).

    This is a complete flip from Romney’s claimed position in the primaries (which itself was a flip from his days as MA Governor and his earlier run for US Senate). Romney’s surrogates can’t seem keep track of their candidate’s positions but I think it’s a remarkably easy task: 1) Ask yourself who Mitt is talking to today. 2) Consider what the audience wants to hear. 3) That’s Romney’s sincere, long-held position of the moment.

Comments are closed.

You May Also Like

Young Evangelicals Are Not Experiencing a Sexual Revolution

A study completed by Mark Regnerus, a sociologist from the University of Texas, suggests that young evangelicals still embrace biblical teaching on sex.

Working in the Public Realm Does Not Negate Religious Freedom

Shane Vander Hart: Significantly burdening religious liberty without considering if there is a compelling government interest is not “fair and equitable.”

What Does Love Look Like In Marriage?

Andy Neselli summarized chapter 2 of Paul David Tripp’s new book What…

Juda Myers: Protect Children Conceived in Rape

Juda Myers, a woman conceived in rape, spoke to a group of Iowa Legislators and concerned citizens at the Iowa Statehouse for CWA-Iowa’s Day at the Hill.