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?

  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.

Get CT In Your Inbox!

Don't miss a single update.

You May Also Like

Five Reasons Why We Shouldn’t Punish Women Who Get Abortions

Shane Vander Hart gives five reasons why pro-lifers should not seek to punish women who receive an abortion should abortion become illegal.

Hey Evangelicals: Support The Truth Phil Robertson Told

When I first saw the news about the suspension of Duck Dynasty’s…

In 2020, Hold Tightly To The Great American Idea

Kelvey Vander Hart: In 2020, let’s let the beauty of the American experiment fuel us to do the hard work of keeping it alive.

Caffeinated Thought of the Day: Our Upside Down World

Brian Myers: With everything being turned upside down it’s at times like these it’s comforting to know that the Kingdom of God is not of this world.