# Feminism and Abortion



## greenbaggins (Sep 8, 2022)

The WHO says that there are about 73 million abortions every year worldwide. The main driving force behind abortions has always been feminism (just reading _The Feminine Mystique_ by Betty Friedan, one can see that women have to be gotten out of the house and into the workforce in order to be fulfilled. For this to happen, abortion has to be an option). So, a simple syllogism yields the following: 

1. Abortion is murder
2. Feminism drives the abortion train
3. Hundreds of millions of babies have been aborted in the last 50 years
4. Feminism is the most murderous worldview in history

Reactions: Like 6 | Amen 3


----------



## jw (Sep 8, 2022)

Molech sacrifice in attempts to evade the consequences of unbridled lust & indulgence, which begins with pride, fullness of bread, and abundance of idleness.

Reactions: Like 7


----------



## Taylor (Sep 8, 2022)

Feminism might surpass Marxism as the deadliest disease in history.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Phil D. (Sep 8, 2022)

greenbaggins said:


> 3. Hundreds of millions of babies have been aborted in the last 50 years


The cumulative total, worldwide, is likely in the billions. As Rush L. used to say, abortion is the sacrament of feminism.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Sep 8, 2022)

_Recent_ history, seems a more accurate 4th statement, relating to those 50yrs just past. 

A word of caution about the sweeping nature of your conclusion. It sounds similar to claims that "nationalism, " or "militarism," or "religion," or "capitalism," or "socialism" is THE _worldview_ responsible for numerous wars that killed hundreds of millions of souls over the last +100yrs.

It isn't just the existence of a _zeitgeist_ that kills at mass scale, but a combination of historical circumstances that render it virulently pathogenic.

"All those who hate me, love death," Prv.8:36.

Reactions: Like 5


----------



## greenbaggins (Sep 8, 2022)

Contra_Mundum said:


> _Recent_ history, seems a more accurate 4th statement, relating to those 50yrs just past.
> 
> A word of caution about the sweeping nature of your conclusion. It sounds similar to claims that "nationalism, " or "militarism," or "religion," or "capitalism," or "socialism" is THE _worldview_ responsible for numerous wars that killed hundreds of millions of souls over the last +100yrs.
> 
> ...


I think I'll stick to the original. While feminism is not the sole cause of abortions, it is the main driving force. Without it, abortion would not have gone into the billions of infants slain. Do you know of any other worldview in history that is even partially responsible for billions of murders?

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## SolaScriptura (Sep 8, 2022)

greenbaggins said:


> I think I'll stick to the original. While feminism is not the sole cause of abortions, it is the main driving force. Without it, abortion would not have gone into the billions of infants slain. Do you know of any other worldview in history that is even partially responsible for billions of murders?


Genghis Khan is reported to have killed about 25% of the world's population at the time. What worldview did he possess?


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Sep 8, 2022)

I suppose I see feminism as downstream from the sexual revolution and divorcing sex from marriage. Feminism is a "cousin" to this problem because men and women are seeking their own ends apart from a Creation order that would see them marrying and being given in marriage. Thus, both sexes (not just women) seek their own personal ends and sexual pleasure outside the Created order of marriage.

The sick logic is that a woman needs to be a "un-pregnant" as a man in this transaction. That is to say that a man can be promiscuous in this new order without sanction. He can fornicate and (aside from sexual diseases that are killing him) is able to abandon the responsibility of marriage and child-rearing that intercourse entails. He pursues his own ends and career and serves himself.

The woman is a similar participant in this twisted order and argues that if a man can engage in sexual intercourse with no consequences then a woman must be likewise "free" or "inequality" exists. All it takes is to de-humanize the infant in the womb. Since both the man and the woman agree that they hat the Created order in this new order it is a small step to rejecting the humanity of the unborn child on the altar of individual fulfillment. All that matters is the idolatry of the individual.

Reactions: Like 4


----------



## greenbaggins (Sep 8, 2022)

SolaScriptura said:


> Genghis Khan is reported to have killed about 25% of the world's population at the time. What worldview did he possess?


Estimates are anywhere between 4 million and 60 million that Khan killed. Estimates of world population at the time are between 360-400 million, which means he is responsible for killing anywhere between 1% and a little under 17% of the world population. Even the most extravagant claims for his kills are fewer than one year's worth of abortions in the world today. His worldview is unknown, although his court was known to have people from many different religions as part of it (including even some Christians).

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Sep 8, 2022)

greenbaggins said:


> I think I'll stick to the original. While feminism is not the sole cause of abortions, it is the main driving force. Without it, abortion would not have gone into the billions of infants slain. Do you know of any other worldview in history that is even partially responsible for billions of murders?



Obviously it's your call; I only offered a suggestion. Generally, if the conclusion to a syllogistic series is not _contained_ in the premises, formally speaking your conclusion as stated _exceeds _logical parameters. In part, my refinement was intended to comport with your initial characterization. Conversely, perhaps you might want to add to your propositions.

Rhetorically, it can be satisfying to "go big." Even in your rejoinder, you move toward inflation, from "hundreds of millions" in your first post to "billions." This may not be any exaggeration whatsoever; however it summons the reader (me in particular) to accept a stipulation that is _at least_ 10X the first proposal and to argue to meet that challenge. This is more of a rhetorical play than an actual game of numbers.

It has been well said: lesser catastrophes are tragic; larger ones are statistics. Human minds resist being overwhelmed by volume. We can barely grasp the magnitude of our individual sin total. Better to be convicted of one sin as the supreme affront to holiness that it is. The fact I have a billion sins to account for is a statistical enormity that, if simply confronted with the fact, would lead either to excusing/minimizing or despairing. Abortion has produced a mountain of human bones. That's a single horrific image that summarizes for me the human toll, whatever the actual count comes to.

Probably not every "feminism" conceived could have led to the murderous modern abortion regime, but the particular historical development combined with various other currents of western cultural degeneracy have combined to bring it to pass. Remove the feminism we know (in whatever vague definition we're using here) and maybe we don't have the fetal hecatombs--or maybe we do anyway, only with some other main driving force. I suppose, if you plan to develop your thesis into an article or essay, premise 2 calls for the most work to establish and defend.

I tend to think of "communism" as one of history's most merciless ideologies. Communism historically embraced abortion, whether as an instrument of personal liberation or as a means of population control. Communism could be described as a form of "totalitarian socialism." Curiously, we're learning in today's world that other systems of political-economy can be shifted toward totalitarianism. Totalitarianism will give or take away abortion, depending on the whims of the authoritarians in charge. Feminism as it is known in western society will "get in line" with whatever the rules are, or it will disappear. In other words, future feminism may well be _anti-abortion, _as hard as that may be to believe today.

The export of abortion to other parts of the developing world from the West has come through a fusion of western 3rd-wave feminism with the power of the US Dollar to purchase influence abroad. It has come packaged with numerous other "rights" promotion, over against more tradition-minded cultures' resistance. As the buying power of USD craters, so too trails off the ability of the elite with access to dollar-denominated wealth to bribe and corrupt. "Feminism-pushed-abortion" viewed through this lens is not so much a coherent worldview for explaining a significant set of facts in human experience, as it is an instrument of social and political power and control.

If a population went to war over abortion, it would seem to me the equivalent of going to war over slavery. Slavery is surely something that has killed billions of people; and just as surely it has had not one, but a multitude and a variety of worldview and philosophical motivations. The same may be said for abortion, in my judgment. Modern feminism has been weaponized in order to funnel anyone who fancies her/him self of that ilk into a unified, ideological and political force; not serving feminism as an end, but using feminism as an interest bloc in service of other interests. In this sense, feminism stands in an obvious parallel to politicized-evangelicals.

Reactions: Like 4


----------



## CathH (Sep 8, 2022)

There do also exist feminists who oppose abortion, for what it's worth.


----------



## Phil D. (Sep 8, 2022)

CathH said:


> There do also exist feminists who oppose abortion, for what it's worth.


Oddly true, with my daughter-in-law being one...


----------



## Jake (Sep 8, 2022)

CathH said:


> There do also exist feminists who oppose abortion, for what it's worth.


I've heard Carl Trueman described as the arch-feminist of the OPC, and he is pro-life.

Reactions: Funny 2


----------



## Physeter (Sep 8, 2022)

The whole driving force behind the sexual revolution - and feminism, which is one of its fruits is selfishness and not wanting to be responsible to a higher law. Abortion is the fruit of that. Women - and the men in most cases that father these children don't want to take responsibility. They want to be 'unshackled' to use their terminology. They give no thought to the welfare of the child being murdered. Instead they change words. The child becomes a fetus then a blob of tissue to numb them to what is being done.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Sep 8, 2022)

Jake said:


> I've heard Carl Trueman described as the arch-feminist of the OPC, and he is pro-life.


This sounds like a joke of some kind... unless it was meant as a slur. It also shows how imprecise the term _feminism _is. It means a number of different things to a lot of different people. For 50yrs or so, conservative/traditionalist Christians have mostly been opposed to the moniker and presumably everything associated with it. That stance has everything to do with the 1960s and how movement-feminism was led and shaped.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Scynne (Sep 8, 2022)

Taylor said:


> Feminism might surpass Marxism as the deadliest disease in history.


The feminism of the last 60ish years is really just a re-wording of oldschool economic Marxism. Capital becomes masculinity; the bourgeois, patriarchy; the proletariat, women. So, score millions more dead for Marx's brain disease.

Reactions: Like 1 | Amen 1


----------



## Eyedoc84 (Sep 8, 2022)

Scynne said:


> The feminism of the last 60ish years is really just a re-wording of oldschool economic Marxism. Capital becomes masculinity; the bourgeois, patriarchy; the proletariat, women. So, score millions more dead for Marx's brain disease.


Yes, feminism was bred from Marxism. The earliest movers and shakers of feminism said as much. The sexual revolution was also part and parcel of the feminist movement.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Miss Marple (Sep 8, 2022)

greenbaggins said:


> I think I'll stick to the original. While feminism is not the sole cause of abortions, it is the main driving force. Without it, abortion would not have gone into the billions of infants slain. Do you know of any other worldview in history that is even partially responsible for billions of murders?


Men support legalized abortion more than women do. https://pulpitandpen.org/2019/11/26/fact-men-more-likely-to-support-abortion-than-women/

Males were the main force promoting it in this country. https://www.liveaction.org/news/8-ways-men-pushed-abortion/

Early feminists opposed abortion and some feminist group(s) still do.

The Supreme Court which codified abortion in 1973 was all male.

And in my experience, counseling at a crisis pregnancy center for three years, anecdotally, I will say the main reason women chose to abort was, the father did not want the child. He was either indifferent, or, pushing abortion. 

Virtually every woman I counseled, I estimate 99%, were unwed. They did not impregnate themselves.

This does not excuse women for aborting, especially in America, where it is their signature on the dotted line. But if it's "feminism," the men have a great deal to do with it.

Reactions: Like 5 | Amen 1


----------



## Elizabeth (Sep 9, 2022)

Miss Marple said:


> Men support legalized abortion more than women do. https://pulpitandpen.org/2019/11/26/fact-men-more-likely-to-support-abortion-than-women/
> 
> Males were the main force promoting it in this country. https://www.liveaction.org/news/8-ways-men-pushed-abortion/
> 
> ...


Indeed! America's abortion enabling is hedonistic man's dream come true. 
And all served up with a wonderful, piquant side of righteousness: "As a man, I have no right to tell a women what to do with her body!"

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## Ed Walsh (Sep 9, 2022)

greenbaggins said:


> The WHO says that there are about 73 million abortions every year worldwide. The main driving force behind abortions has always been feminism (just reading _The Feminine Mystique_ by Betty Friedan, one can see that women have to be gotten out of the house and into the workforce in order to be fulfilled. For this to happen, abortion has to be an option). So, a simple syllogism yields the following:
> 
> 1. Abortion is murder
> 2. Feminism drives the abortion train
> ...



Feminism is _very_ religious in nature.

Just last night I read this portion of Philip Ryken's Commentary on Jeremiah and Lamentations: from sorrow to hope.
It's a bit long for a post, but you may find his take very interesting. I also attached a PDF of this 6-page excerpt. It's titled:

The Valley of Slaughter
JEREMIAH 7:30—8:3​
Placing yourself in the hands of the prophet Jeremiah is something like getting a ride from a friend who turns out to be a more reckless driver than you expected. Once you are in the car, the only thing you can do is grab on to the dashboard and pray for God’s mercy. Nowhere is this more true than in Jeremiah’s sermon on the Valley of Slaughter.

*Temples of Doom*​
The end of chapter 7 through the beginning of chapter 8 is a horrible passage of Scripture, in the sense that it describes horrible actions and contains horrible images. It is one of the low points of Jeremiah’s book.

The way the passage begins is bad enough. “ ‘The people of Judah have done evil in my eyes,’ declares the Lord. ‘They have set up their detestable idols in the house that bears my Name and have defiled it’ ” (Jeremiah 7:30). They had taken idols made of stone and wood and placed them in the temple of the Lord God. “If one God is good,” they said to themselves, “two would be better, and three would be better yet.” They were hedging their bets. They were putting their trust in the Lord God of Israel, but at the same time they were trusting in Baal, the Queen of Heaven, and anyone else they could think of.

Of course, trusting in God plus any other god is not trusting in the one true God at all. The gospel is Christ plus nothing. To start adding to the gospel is not to improve it, but to destroy it. You cannot walk down two or three roads at the same time. It is either God’s way or the highway. As Jesus said, “No one can serve two masters” (Matthew 6:24).

When the people of Judah brought their idols into the temple, they were defiling it, profaning it, and making it completely unsuitable for the worship of the one true God. What they did was detestable; it was an abomination in God’s sight. It would be like setting up a Shinto shrine or opening an adult book shop in your church fellowship hall. Even if everything else in the church remained the same—pews, Bibles, songbooks—the place of worship would still be defiled. What the people of Judah were bringing into the temple was such an affront to everything God stands for that it made the temple uninhabitable. worshipping extra gods does not enhance worship—it makes true worship impossible.

All of that was bad enough, but the other thing the people of Judah did was even worse: “They have built the high places of Topheth in the Valley of Ben Hinnom to burn their sons and daughters in the fire” (Jeremiah 7:31).

The “high places” of Biblical times were not always very high. These particular high places, for example, were down in a valley. It was an inaccessible rocky ravine south and west of the City of Jerusalem. But a “high place” is a shrine, a raised platform built out of stones for the purpose of worship.

In Jeremiah 7 the high places are called by the name “Topheth.” Topheth is not the name of a god, but means something like “fireplace” or “oven.” It is not hard to see why that name was appropriate for this place. Topheth was the place where the people of Judah took their sons and their daughters and cast them into the flames.

Child sacrifice was practiced in ancient Near Eastern places such as Cyprus, Sardinia, Sicily, and Tyre.1 The remains of hundreds of children have been discovered at Carthage, apparently sacrificed to Baal.2 But child sacrifice also had a long history in Israel. Already in the book of Leviticus the children of Israel had been warned not to sacrifice their children to Molech (18:21), an offense punishable by death (20:1–5). Molech, the god of the Ammonites, had a way of turning up in Israel. Ahaz, King of Israel, sacrificed his own son in the fire (2 Kings 16:3). The same thing happened in Manasseh’s day, when children were sacrificed to the gods of Canaan (21:6).

People conducted child sacrifices when Isaiah was prophet too, for he said, “you sacrifice your children in the ravines and under the overhanging crags” (Isaiah 57:5b). When Josiah reformed temple worship in Jerusalem, one of the things he had to do was to tear down the high places of Topheth (2 Kings 23:10). But even that does not seem to have solved the problem, because the theme of child sacrifice comes up several times in the book of Jeremiah. Later Jeremiah explains that these sacrifices were offered to both Baal and Molech: “They built high places for Baal in the Valley of Ben Hinnom to sacrifice their sons and daughters to Molech” (32:35).

There is little need to press home the horror of the imagery in this passage. Understand that it describes a real fire, a literal holocaust. Down in this valley, almost within sight of the temple of the Lord, the people of God were committing their infants to the flames.

What possible justification could they have had for these unholy flames and unspeakable sacrifices? Calvin writes, “It was a horrible and prodigious madness for parents not to spare their own children, but to cast them into the fire; for they must have been seized with a diabolic fury as to divest themselves of all human feelings.”3 I am not sure Calvin is right. I do not think that we can attribute the sins of the Valley of Ben Hinnom to either insanity or demonic possession.

To understand this passage is to recognize that these people thought they were doing what God wanted them to do. Very likely, these mothers and fathers loved their children. They had the natural feelings of care and protection that made them recoil at the very thought of harming their kids. They did not commit atrocities for the sake of committing atrocities. Instead, they carried out child sacrifice as an act of misguided piety and devotion to God. The sacrifice of the child was a religious act. They were killing their children out of the very best of intentions. They thought this was what God wanted them to do to atone for their sins.

This is a theme that recurs throughout Jeremiah: False gods are always harsh taskmasters. God is the only God who actually loves his people. Other gods may promise to save your soul, but they will tear your heart out in the process.

This is also a reminder that not everything done in God’s name is pleasing to him. Not everything done out of zeal for God is acceptable to God. The people of Judah loved themselves more than they loved their kids. They were trying to buy their own salvation at the expense of their children. This is an extreme example, but it shows what happens when people try to worship God in ways that Scripture does not teach that he wants to be worshiped.

That is why God takes great pains in this passage to make it clear that what the people of Judah were doing was not pleasing to him, that in fact they were doing the very opposite of what he intended them to do. It is something, God says, “I did not command nor did it enter my mind” (Jeremiah 7:31).

The way this is phrased suggests that some of the religious leaders in Judah were claiming that child sacrifice had entered the mind of God, that he did command it. Some scholars point out that the priests of Topheth may have used the Torah to justify child sacrifice: “You must give me the firstborn of your sons… on the eighth day” (Exodus 22:29–30). They were taking that verse out of context; it had nothing to do with child sacrifice. This is why we need to be careful not to tear Bible verses out of their Biblical contexts, especially when we are talking about the way of salvation. What the verse actually meant was that God wanted his people to circumcise their sons on the eighth day, not that he wanted them to kill their sons.

*Topheth in America*​
That way of misreading the Bible sounds utterly foolish. But be careful not to write Jeremiah off. The practices he describes in this passage are so primitive and barbaric, and the reasoning behind them is so unconscionable, that it is tempting to think that they have nothing to do with life in these postmodern times. Where can the Valley of Ben Hinnom be found in America? Where are the high places of Topheth? Where do parents burn their sons and daughters in the fire?

One might go to the Planned Parenthood office at Market East, on the corner of 11th and Filbert in Center City Philadelphia. Some years ago I saw a couple of young girls walk in the door of Planned Parenthood, wearing bobby socks and plaid school uniforms, carrying their books and their lunches. In my mind’s eye, I could see them going down into the Valley of Ben Hinnom.

Jeremiah’s sermon on the Valley of Slaughter suggests important parallels between child sacrifice and abortion-on-demand. The more barbaric Jeremiah’s culture seems, the more obvious the barbarities of our own culture become. Scholars such as M.I.T. psychologist Steven Pinker have gone beyond abortion to argue in favor of infanticide. Writing in The New York Times Magazine, Pinker accepts that “the right to life must come … from morally significant traits that we humans happen to possess.” However, he goes on to say that babies “don’t possess these traits any more than mice do.”4 This is the postmodern barbarism of America.

One does not have to be a Christian to see that abortion is immoral. Anyone who has ever prepared to welcome an infant home knows how a fetus becomes a member of the household as soon as his existence is known, affecting virtually every family decision. Anyone who has ever carried a child in her womb knows how intimate a relationship forms between mother and child, how a fetus responds to the moods and schedules of her mother. Anyone who has ever seen pictures, videotapes, or ultrasounds of children in the womb knows how early the human heart forms, and how the fetus can respond to pleasure and pain. To know those things is to know instantly and instinctively that abortion is the murder of an unborn child. There is no substantive moral difference between the child sacrifices offered in the Valley of Ben Hinnom and abortion as practiced in America.

It is easy to think of the people involved in the abortion industry as barbarians, as cruel and malicious murderers. But thinking about things in this way will not win anyone to Jesus Christ. Jeremiah teaches that abortion is a spiritual problem. The act of abortion is a religious ritual, a form of idol worship. The high priests of the abortion industry tell women that their physical comfort, their economic status, and their career plans are all more important than the life of their unborn child. Every abortion is a sacrifice to those ungodly gods.

Realizing that abortion is an essentially religious activity makes sense of the pro-choice movement. The pro-choice movement believes that pro-lifers are immoral, even wicked. Why is that? It is because the pro-choice position is a religious belief, and people always have a sense of moral outrage when you attack their religious beliefs. For abortion advocates, an abortion is an act of piety, an act of religious devotion. It is a ritual sacrifice to the gods of materialism and pleasure.

That kind of thinking is completely immoral, but the only way to combat it is to recognize that it is a spiritual problem. It is the kind of spiritual problem Paul describes in his letter to the Romans: “Since they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, he gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what ought not to be done” (1:28).

The evil of abortion must be attacked on spiritual terms. It would be good and right if the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, or if the President agreed to ban partial-birth abortions, or if the states adopted a constitutional amendment banning abortion. But the issues at the heart of the abortion debate cannot be solved judicially or legislatively. The battle is a spiritual battle, and our weapons are spiritual weapons: prayer, the Word of God, the peace of the gospel, and the love of Christ.

Norma McCorvey, who was the plaintiff in Roe v. Wade, has become a born-again Christian. How was she won for Christ? Not by pro-life advertisements or by pickets and protests (although those things may have their place), but simply by the love and friendship of a pro-life family.

There is one more place to see a connection between the Valley of Ben Hinnom and contemporary American culture, and that is in your own home. Christian parents should consider whether there are any ways in which they are guilty of the sins of the Valley of Ben Hinnom.

Abortion is not the only form of child sacrifice in our culture. Many parents are guilty of lesser forms of child sacrifice. What Jeremiah teaches is that it is a wicked thing for parents to put their own needs and desires ahead of the needs and desires of their children. Obviously the Valley of Ben Hinnom is an extreme example. But every time a career is put ahead of a family, every time anger prevents the exercise of loving discipline, and every time children must adjust to their parents’ interests rather than the other way around, parents display the same heart-attitude that the people of Judah displayed when they went down to Ben Hinnom.

Parents who love themselves more than they love their children are not parenting the way God intends. How you spend your money, how you discipline your children, and how you use your time all reveal whether you make sacrifices for your children, or whether you offer them up as sacrifices for yourself.

1 Philip J. King, Jeremiah: An Archaeological Companion (Louisville: Westminster/John Knox, 1993), p. 139.
2 L. E. Stager and S. R. Wolff, Biblical Archaeology Review (October 1, 1984), pp. 31–51. See also A. R. W. Green, The Role of Human Sacrifice in the Ancient Near East (Missoula, MT: Scholars Press, 1975).
3 John Calvin, A Commentary on Jeremiah, 5 vols., Vol. 1 (Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 1989), p. 412.
4 Steven Pinker, quoted in LifeLines (Vol. 6, No. 6), p. 8.

Ryken, P. G. (2001). Jeremiah and Lamentations: from sorrow to hope. Crossway Books.
Exported from Logos Bible Software, 6:43 AM September 9, 2022.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## greenbaggins (Sep 9, 2022)

Miss Marple said:


> Men support legalized abortion more than women do. https://pulpitandpen.org/2019/11/26/fact-men-more-likely-to-support-abortion-than-women/
> 
> Males were the main force promoting it in this country. https://www.liveaction.org/news/8-ways-men-pushed-abortion/
> 
> ...


It is my understanding that the men in favor of it were capitulating to feminist arguments. That such coincided with their desire for "unfettered" hedonism was only another inducement for men to be in favor of it (and one with which a lot of women agreed). Lots of men are feminists. Just because men were involved in the decisions doesn't mean it wasn't due to feminism that such decisions happened. Yes, it is true that Betty Friedan was initially opposed to abortion (but later switched) and that some feminists still are opposed. As a whole, however, feminism supports abortion and has since the 1970's. And I still believe that feminism is the main driving force behind abortion.


----------



## Jack K (Sep 9, 2022)

I am admittedly just a journalist observing American culture, not a scholar who's deeply studied it. But for what it's worth, Lane, here's my initial reaction to your assertion. I'm wondering if you might be able to enhance the not-altogether-wrong but perhaps surface-level premise that "feminism drives the abortion train."

It seems that much of American feminism adopts a deeper set of values. It is these values that lead many feminists to the conclusion that abortion is necessary if women are to flourish. The values:

*Personal self-worth comes through personal achievement.* This very American idea is often applied to personal achievement and advancement in the workplace/career. This belief is so engrained in our culture that even conservative-minded Christians are likely to affirm and pursue it despite realizing it is somewhat out of sync with the Beatitudes, Paul's approach to mission-kingdom work, the Bible's teaching that we are not our own but belong to Christ and his family, etc. Feminists tend to latch on by making an idol out of unimpeded career advancement, much as many other Americans do.
*Personal happiness comes through personal enjoyment of what feels good to you.* This idea is often expressed by affirming the rightness, or even the necessity, of following your sexual or romantic desires. Many of us make idols of our sensual enjoyments even if we won't go so far as to do that with sex. But many feminists have latched on to this value by making consequence-free sex a goal for society.
*Personal freedom comes through personal self-expression, which requires creator-level control over our bodies. *This idea means we are inclined to usurp the true Creator's place and do things to our bodies that thwart his design. This happens in the name of personal freedom, which ought to end the argument in the minds of many Americans. Even American Christians can be rousing proponents of individual freedom, as it has led to much flourishing of worship, family, Christian expression, and economic vitality. But the idea taken too far leads to "freedom" to sin against the Creator.
All of this combines to create a sort of *religion of personal flourishing*. For women in particular, abortion access seems to make these particular idols easier to attain, which is why many feminists demand it. Notice the repeated emphasis on _personal_. There is an idolization of self at its center—self-achievement, self-enjoyment, self-expression—that we must all guard against. And there is a heartbreaking absence of God, who alone can truly solve the problems of darkness, emptiness, and craziness (Genesis 1:2) that our culture is trying to solve with the personal self.

So, it seems there are deeper things happening than the application of this false religion found in much feminism. Certainly, much of the feminist movement can rightly be criticized for its role. But especially when it comes to teaching our kids to follow Jesus, I'm not convinced that pointing a finger at feminism is as helpful as pointing out these deeper idolatries. And even when discussing the matter with an abortion supporter, I am inclined not only to ask, "Don't the unborn deserve protection?" but also, "Are you sure the personal choice you cherish is really the path to flourishing?" If that leads to a discussion of what might be a better path, and to Christ—well, then we are getting to the heart of the matter.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## greenbaggins (Sep 9, 2022)

Jack, I could certainly agree with the lion's share of your analysis. But I don't see it as an either/or with regard to feminism/deeper idolatries. I think the form that the deeper idolatries took with regard to feminism is the _sine qua non_ of why abortion got the headway it did. Or, to put it another way, I don't think abortion would have gotten off the ground without feminism. Or, at least it would have looked quite different. I think Rush L was right about abortion being the sacrament of feminism, dissident groups notwithstanding.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## Taylor (Sep 11, 2022)

I just read this wonderful quote from Martyn Lloyd-Jones from his exposition of Romans 7:1-4, and I was reminded of this thread.

Whatever we may think or say about the matter, it is abundantly clear that feminism, and the feminist movement, are utterly unscriptural. That teaching denies one of the cardinal and basic principles of the Bible. Yet you will find that it is quite common among Christians, and it has even invaded evangelical circles... The protagonists of feminism think that they are exalting women, but actually they are not doing so. Man and woman are different, and are meant to be different, and a truly Christian woman always recognizes this.​​—D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones, _Exposition of Chapter 7:1-8:4 – The Law: Its Functions and Limits_, vol. 6, Romans (Carlisle, PA: The Banner of Truth Trust, 1973), 19.​

Reactions: Like 7 | Amen 2


----------



## Physeter (Sep 12, 2022)

Miss Marple said:


> Men support legalized abortion more than women do. https://pulpitandpen.org/2019/11/26/fact-men-more-likely-to-support-abortion-than-women/
> 
> Males were the main force promoting it in this country. https://www.liveaction.org/news/8-ways-men-pushed-abortion/
> 
> ...


Very insightful. Men pushed for it because they wanted the sex without the responsibility for children, without giving thought that abortion leaves behind emotional and physical scars for women. It illustrates human nature. People tend not to think about how what they advocate affects the other person. It's part of human selfishness apart from God.

This harkens back to the early years of my marriage when my husband was less mature than he is now and was focused more of the physical rather than the spiritual. He wanted me to get contact lenses instead of eyeglasses. He didn't need glasses and didn't understand the issue of needing corrective lenses. I had hay fever real bad. Contacts would have made my seasonal allergies worse and would have prolonged them. He was not thinking about the physical problems they would have caused me. It is human nature for people to push for something that does not impact them in a negative way, but rather offers them an advantage. He wanted to see my eyes. Now that he has grown spiritually he does make requests like this that can be harmful, as he has become focused on God.

This is human nature at work when the mind is not focused on God. 

The secularization of our culture, no doubt, has contributed to the abortion issue.


----------



## Barney (Sep 29, 2022)

Jack K said:

"I am admittedly just a journalist observing American culture, not a scholar who's deeply studied it."

So let us consider a first class scholar who did study it. Well at least modern history. Professor Anthony Sutton wrote many books but by his own words his most important one was America's secret establishment,
An introduction to the Order of Skull and Bones. This is occultist/luciferian.
From what I've read there's no indication that Mr Sutton was a Christian.
It's not theories but facts. And he presents many documents.
Organizations like Planned Parenthood will most definitely have links to other organizations so you can build a better picture of what's going on. 
Ed Walsh talks about Old Testament sacrificing children to the god's and ultimately that's what abortion is. Do we think those god's are real? I think they are Satan and the fallen angels. 
But the dark forces behind Skull and Bones and many many other organizations world wide go against God in a miriad of ways.
I heard a talk from a Christian minister yesterday and he mentioned an organized attack on WASPS. I'd never heard of it. It stands for white anglo Saxon protestants. Because traditionally these people have stood up for Christian freedoms and against tyranny. Just one way this is being done in by open boarders. In the UK there are thousands of illegal immigrants flooding in every day. Many of them from the Muslim faith.


----------



## Barney (Sep 29, 2022)

Anthony Sutton's book is still available and there are a few interviews with him on YouTube. I believe it gives a much bigger and better picture of how organizations like Planned Parenthood are part of a much bigger attack on all that God is. I understand that man, as well as Satan, has a responsibility for sin, and God at times allows sin for His own Glory. Correct me if that's not exactly theologically sound!


----------

