5 Commands of God which the Pro-life movement currently violated

[Jmsbentley]

I'm honestly not sure which group this point of discussion ought to go in, so general discussion seemed most fitting.

I became convinced of Abortion Abolitionism roughly 2 years ago. For those who aren't already familiar with this discussion, "The Norman Statement," is the summary declaration of the abolitionist particulars and can be found on the Abolitionists Rising website.

For a long time my hang up was not that I believed the abolitionist position was wrong, but that I couldn't justify holding it to the exclusion of pro-life tactics.

However, I have come to believe there are 5 statutes of God which all current pro-life policies violate and I want to present them for consideration and discussion.

1. Thou shalt not lie.
As stated in the WSC "the 9th commandment forbids whatsoever is prejudicial to truth, or injurious to our own or our neighbor's good name." Whether deceit by implication or ommission of the truth, lies dishonor God and I will explain how the following practices likewise violate this principle.

2. We are forbidden from showing partiality in administering justice. Current pro-life laws, may administer penalties for abortion on the physician who performs an abortion or the father/boyfriend/husband who pushes a woman towards having an abortion. But each law includes an intentional exception, preventing any penalty from falling on the woman who had the abortion, even when self-performed, ignoring any willfulness or intent on her part. These are murder rights for mothers written into law. It is intrinsic partiality in justice and it is a lie which tells women they are always the victim and never the guilty party, in need of redemption and grace.

3. We are forbidden from perverting justice. Even when penalties are administered for the murder of the unborn, and even were they to be applied to the mothers, the current penalties for murdering born children and unborn children are not the same. This communicates that abortion isn't really murder, or if it is, then it's not as evil a form of murder. This too lies about the value of human life and perverts justice, making claim that we've served the justice due for murder with a fine or meager jail time.

4. We are forbidden to withhold justice from those owed it. If I hire 10 men to build a shed in my back yard, and choose to pay 8 of those 10 men, I have unjustly withheld payment from those to whom it is due. When a red state passes a heartbeat bill, they may be giving the justice due to those children older than 6 weeks in the womb. But they are withholding it from the child 6 minutes in the womb. Even if they administered equal justice and due penalties for the murder of the unborn, by giving it to some of the unborn and not all, they are denying the equal value and worth of whichever category of children to whom that justice is denied.

5. Finally we are commanded to establish justice. When the Israelites sought to enter into the promised land, and sent out 12 spies to investigate, the wicked spies were not wicked because they were lying, but because they did not trust God to give them the strength to overcome the peoples of the land. When God commands a thing, we cannot use as an excuse, "in God's providence we can't obey His command yet." We cannot commit a sin of omission, refusing to establish justice on the grounds that we do not have the votes to do so. By refusing to call exclusively for the total abolition of abortion and the establishment of justice, we give a bad report as the 10 spies did. We are making the false claim that God cannot enable us to obey Him as He has commanded, due to the very circumstances in which God has placed us.

"The heart of the king is as a stream of water in the hands of the Lord, He turns it wherever He wills." Proverbs 21:1

I think this is a crucial matter of discussion within the modern church. In Louisiana, a bill to totally abolish abortion, simply treating the murder of the unborn the same as the murder of any born person, was blocked, not by the Pro-choice lobby, but by 76 pro-life organizations who wrote an open letter, still available to be read today, calling for the bill to be blocked, on the grounds that it could be used to prosecute mother's who chose to abort. Don't take my word for it, read it for yourself.

I believe abortion is modern child sacrifice and I imagine most of those on this forum would agree. So I offer this as a charge for all those who would see abortion ended, to support justice and only justice, for the Lord says justice and only justice will He serve.

 

[John Nyberg]

Amen.

 

[darrellmaurina]

Basic response: Those who seek perfection can prevent good and allow true evil to triumph.

We're dealing with the sphere of the civil magistrate, not the ecclesiastical sphere. If we believe the Westminster Confession's teaching on the Old Testament civil law, we have only general guidelines and principles on how our modern civil laws should be ordered.

We agree that abortion is murder. We agree that abortion should be ended.

Getting there will take time.

Our Reformed forebears understood that the civil magistrate moves slowly and not uncommonly is motivated by goals which are not godly. The history of the Reformation in Germany, the Swiss cities, France, the Netherlands, and yes, in Scotland and England, is filled with compromises, progress by fits and starts, along with some lapses and failures.

I can show you, for example, that after fighting the far larger armies of the Dukes of Savoy to a draw and forcing them to come to peace negotiations, the Waldensian guerillas in Italy had to agree to all sorts of compromises to be allowed to practice their faith at all. Among the conditions was that they had to swear not to provide any Protestant book to any Catholic, even if he asked for one. That ended four centuries of Waldensian evangelism in Italy dating back over three centuries before the Reformation.

The Waldensians obtained from the Dukes of Savoy the right to live in a limited territory and practice their faith. The alternative was complete and total extermination. But move ahead two centuries, and a successor on the Savoyard throne personally visited the Waldensians, was very impressed, and allowed them to live anywhere they wanted in his territories, build churches, and evangelize, opening the door for the first-ever legal Protestant mission work in Italy.

Should the Waldensian guerilla band, who by the time the Duke of Savoy proposed a peace treaty had been reduced to less than 400 fighting men, have refused the compromise and let their wives and children be massacred or driven into permanent exile?

Politics is messy.

Perfection may be a long-term goal, but it is rarely achievable in the short term. These fights almost always take many years, often decades, and sometimes centuries.

 

[Jerusalem Blade]

Hello John,

I think what Darrell said sheds light on the matter, "We're dealing with the sphere of the civil magistrate, not the ecclesiastical sphere." Having abortion outlawed and the actual perpetrators brought to justice in the civil / criminal courts would be a milestone first step in conforming to God's law. When dealing with states hostile to the law of God such a step would be huge. If the winds of cultural change blow for the better, the mother could be charged. One giant step at a time.

The way things could go in the U.S. it might be those who call for abortion abolition – or, closer to home, call for repenting from wicked unbelief and turning to God and obedience to His word, who could be charged with crimes against humanity.

Have you spoken to those who enact the pro-life policies? What are you proposing ought to be done?

 

[Northern Crofter]

What are you proposing ought to be done?

The same be done that was done for chattel slavery - completely and immediately abolish it.

We agree that abortion is murder. We agree that abortion should be ended.

Getting there will take time.

Is that what you believe should have been done with slavery (a slow, incremental end)?

There are 2 major groups advocating AA. Here are their public testimonies so you can judge for yourself:

• https://abolitionistsrising.com/norman-statement/
• https://abolishhumanabortion.com/declaration-of-sentiments/

 

[Jerusalem Blade]

Hello Andrew,

As I asked above, What are you proposing ought be done?

 

[darrellmaurina]

I was expecting the slavery question.

What we should do on abortion in the American political context is very much like what was done on slavery. Work, on a state-by-state basis, to eliminate slavery, with the goal of building a national consensus to eliminate it. Remember that the Southern neo-Confederates who even today defend the Southern side of the Civil War are right when they point out that in the 1700s, lots of Yankee merchants in Boston were profiting from the slave trade, and that, sadly, even men like Jonathan Edwards were slaveowners. Edwards' son, to his credit, became an abolitionist and wrote a detailed paper exegetically opposing slavery which I believe is unanswerable. It was only after most (not all) of the northern states abolished slavery that we began to get things like the Missouri Compromise that prevented extension of slavery into (most) of the newly opening western territories.

In God's providence, the Dred Scott decision, which also came out of Missouri, blew apart the slow progress toward restriction of the expansion of slavery and ended the possibility of doing in the United States what had happened to slavery in Britain, i.e., gradualism leading to full emancipation of their slaves.

But the result was the Civil War. It may well have been unavoidable. I have an ancestor who was a member of abolitionist organizations in the South and actually left, a few years before the war broke out, for the North, and voluntarily enlisted in the Union Army to fight his former neighbors because of his opposition to slavery. He became a POW in Andersonville, was treated absolutely horribly but survived, moved to far northern Michigan, and hated Southerners the rest of his life.

Right now, we don't have that level of consensus against abortion that we had against slavery in the North by the early-to-mid-1800s, even in some of our most conservative states. Right here in Missouri, we had a "trigger law" to eliminate abortion if Roe v. Wade were overturned. As a result, Missouri was among the first states in the nation to end abortion. But the abortion advocates were able, thanks to widespread confusion and misunderstanding, to get a ballot initiative passed that put into our state constitution one of the most liberal sets of laws on abortion anywhere in the United States. Our legislature is working to address that, and it will require a statewide vote of the people to change our process to amend our state constitution, and it's not going to be easy.

Even in a deep red state like Missouri.

We need to focus on changing hearts and minds on abortion or we are going to have more problems like what happened in our state with legislators passing things without having the necessary popular support or the necessary legal processes in place to defend when challenged.

The same be done that was done for chattel slavery - completely and immediately abolish it.


Is that what you believe should have been done with slavery (a slow, incremental end)?

There are 2 major groups advocating AA. Here are their public testimonies so you can judge for yourself:

• https://abolitionistsrising.com/norman-statement/
• https://abolishhumanabortion.com/declaration-of-sentiments/

 

[Ploutos]

Edwards' son, to his credit, became an abolitionist and wrote a detailed paper exegetically opposing slavery which I believe is unanswerable.

Can you tell me where I might find this?

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

Can you tell me where I might find this?

Here you go: https://archive.org/details/injusticeimpolic00edwa_3

 

[John Nyberg]

As a convinced abolitionist, I have not voted in the last two national elections. It would be great to have a national abolitionist party. The Republican Party has accomplished great strides against the abortion culture in the last several years, but they will never be the platform of abolitionist thinking. And that’s ok! I can appreciate what the GOP has accomplished while recognizing that their understanding of pro life positions are different than mine.

All that said, if absolute abolition is not the ultimate goal of incrementalism then it is not truly pro life, but it is actually moderate pro-choice.

 

[Theoretical]

While this book is about the fight against slavery among the American covenanters, which was a group that punched way, way above its numerical size and influence on this issue, I think it has extremely valuable cross-applications to the abortion issue. It has one of the most impressive primary source bibliographies I've encountered, much of it only discoverable by deep insiders, which the two authors were/are. There are details on the level of antislavery individuals in slave states, to entire congregations' actions, and so on.

A Candle Against the Dark

American Covenanters were very active and outspoken in the abolitionist movement before the U.S. Constitution was even written. Because of their background and convictions, they held what co-author Robert Copeland calls "an outsized role in the crusade against American slavery." They may have...

crownandcovenant.com

 

[DanSSwing]

As a convinced abolitionist, I have not voted in the last two national elections. It would be great to have a national abolitionist party. The Republican Party has accomplished great strides against the abortion culture in the last several years, but they will never be the platform of abolitionist thinking. And that’s ok! I can appreciate what the GOP has accomplished while recognizing that their understanding of pro life positions are different than mine.

All that said, if absolute abolition is not the ultimate goal of incrementalism then it is not truly pro life, but it is actually moderate pro-choice.

That’s why I agree with the OP…but only in so far as it is criticizing the so-called “pro-life” position because it doesn’t want abortion to be abolished. It wants it to be regulated. For reasons that Darrell mentioned, I prefer the third way approach, which I think Doug Wilson coined as “smash-mouth incrementalism,” which I would have rather he called “smash-mouth abolitionism.” The position agrees 100% with abolitionists on the end game and disagrees only on tactics.

in my opinion, the error on all points in the OP is the assumption that we are beginning with perfectly good laws. But the CURRENT law shows partiality, denies justice, etc. While we both aim for perfect laws and would gladly take them immediately if possible, in the meantime, retaining the current laws is worse than modifying those laws to show LESS partiality and provide SOME justice even though they would not be perfect.

The fifth point accidentally raises a case in point that collapses the abolitionist’s case against the smash-mouth incrementalist. When it comes to the conquest of Canaan, the smash-mouth incrementalist would have advocated they kill ALL the Canaanites as quickly as they could but one at a time. Would God not have been pleased with this? But the abolitionist position entails that they would be sinful if they did not kill every one of them that second.

 

[Northern Crofter]

the so-called “pro-life” position... doesn’t want abortion to be abolished. It wants it to be regulated.

Agreed.

When it comes to the conquest of Canaan, the smash-mouth incrementalist would have advocated they kill ALL the Canaanites as quickly as they could but one at a time. Would God not have been pleased with this? But the abolitionist position entails that they would be sinful if they did not kill every one of them that second.

I don't follow - this seems like a simplistic misrepresentation of abolitionism. The position is to call for immediate abolition at every level. If you can get a county or state to do so before making it illegal all across a nation, that would of course be a victory - that is not incrementalism. Incrementalism refers to passing laws (at any level) that perhaps limit but do not abolish the murder of pre-born humans (in other words, passing unjust laws).

I was expecting the slavery question.... But the result was the Civil War.

Just curious what you think Missouri (Union slave state) and neighboring Arkansas (Confederate slave state) were fighting over during the US Civil War.

 

[darrellmaurina]

Just curious what you think Missouri (Union slave state) and neighboring Arkansas (Confederate slave state) were fighting over during the US Civil War.

Good question. However, the underlying presupposition is problematic.

Missouri was a divided state, and the rural southwest of Missouri -- the Ozarks, where I live -- was one of the most dangerous places to live during the Civil War. People were being murdered all over the place, on both sides, by roving bands of supporters of both the North and South. Our county seat had a fort built on a hill over the town center, what we today would call a "forward operating base," but unlike modern levels of troops, the Union Army had ten thousand soldiers, mostly ethnic Germans from St. Louis under the command of a German colonel who had fled one of the German principalities after the failed 1848 revolutions, because Germans were willing to fire on Americans when native-born troops couldn't be trusted to follow orders. The troops had to stay there over a year after the Civil War ended because our part of the state continued to be too dangerous for people traveling on what is now Route 66, but back then was known as the "Wire Road" or "Telegraph Road" between St. Louis and Springfield, and on to parts farther west.

One of the stars on the Confederate flag represented Missouri and there was a "rump legislature" supporting the Confederacy that claimed to represent Missouri and organized pro-Confederate militias. Some of the major Civil War battles in the West were fought in our state, not so much between North and South, but between different factions of Missourians.

I could go into a lot of detail about the split in the Missouri legislature between supporters and opponents of secession, but what counts is that the urban areas of Missouri, which back then meant mostly St. Louis since neither Kansas City nor Springfield were yet large communities, and the rural northern areas closer to Iowa, generally were Unionists. The rural southern part of the state, particularly the southwest in the Ozarks, had significant sympathies for the Confederacy. Our county, for example, briefly flew the Confederate flag over the courthouse before the Union Army in Rolla, which was where the railroad ended, made clear it would attack, and the local Confederate militia agreed to abandon the town of Waynesville and join Confederate armed units farther south to prevent the town from being destroyed. The result was that Waynesville became the location not only of Fort Waynesville overlooking the Wire Road but also of a Union military hospital.

What counts is that support in the Ozarks for the Confederacy wasn't usually because of support for slavery. If I remember right, our county had only 20 slaves in the 1860 census and virtually all of them were either domestic servants or tradesmen, not plantation slavery as was practiced farther south. I would have to check to be sure, but I am not aware that very many of the men in our county who became known as prominent Confederates were slaveowners. A lot of the pro-Confederate sentiment was anti-Yankee hatred, or hatred for German immigrants in St. Louis, or generic support for relatives from places like Kentucky and Tennessee, places from which much of the Ozark population had come only one to two generations earlier.

If the Civil War had gone differently, just as West Virginia was separated from Virginia due to its support for the Union, the Missouri Ozarks would have been a prime candidate for admission to the Confederacy. As a strong opponent of slavery, I'm glad that didn't happen. But I'm not at all convinced that our county leadership in 1860 wouldn't have been happy if they had been offered a "Confederate State of Ozark" as an alternative to armed rebellion.

It's all but certain that the pro-Confederate members of the Missouri legislature would have welcomed the opportunity for peaceful division of the state, even as late as 1861 and certainly by 1862, since trying to control St. Louis quickly proved to be impossible for the Confederates.

To be clear, I am absolutely NOT supporting the "Lost Cause" mythology that lionizes states' rights and denies that slavery was a key issue in the Civil War. It was the dominating factor farther south.

In border states like Missouri, that wasn't necessarily the case, and it wasn't in our county.

 

[DanSSwing]

Agreed.


I don't follow - this seems like a simplistic misrepresentation of abolitionism. The position is to call for immediate abolition at every level. If you can get a county or state to do so before making it illegal all across a nation, that would of course be a victory - that is not incrementalism. Incrementalism refers to passing laws (at any level) that perhaps limit but do not abolish the murder of pre-born humans (in other words, passing unjust laws).

But is it not partiality, using the abolitionist logic, to punish only some Canaanites on the first day and not get around to punishing other Canaanites weeks or maybe even years later? This is what it sounds like to hear the abolitionist critique the smash-mouth incrementalist’s successful legislation to increase the number of abortions punished temporarily until he can pass legislation to ban them all.

 

[Jmsbentley]

But is it not partiality, using the abolitionist logic, to punish only some Canaanites on the first day and not get around to punishing other Canaanites weeks or maybe even years later? This is what it sounds like to hear the abolitionist critique the smash-mouth incrementalist’s successful legislation to increase the number of abortions punished temporarily until he can pass legislation to ban them all.

It is not partiality. Remember what I used to exemplify partiality: not that some children are given justice and others are not, but that women cannot be held guilty at any level for the murder of their children, while the men they hire to murder their children for them may be held guilty. While I'm of the belief that much of the language in the old testament is "war rhetoric" as some have called it, and somewhat hyperbolic in nature, if that is not so then I have no problem saying the Israelites sinned in waiting to wipe out some of the Canaanites.

Regarding smash-mouth incrementalism, where I think we agree is that scripture is the arbiter of truth and must be our standard of what, how, and when we fight evil. Whatever methods of fighting evil are stated themselves to be evil, we may not use. The purpose of the original post is to say regardless of how messy the political sphere is, the standards scripture sets forward seem to rule out the current tactics we employ for the reasons stated above. Even if you disagree with the 5th point, the fact remains that a law which writes in an exception in the execution of justice against the primary agent of that injustice is itself unjust and I do not believe God permits us to advocate for unjust laws on the meager grounds that our current laws are likewise unjust.
[automerge]1758039099[/automerge]

Hello Andrew,

As I asked above, What are you proposing ought be done?

The bill to be passed which has been put forward in over a dozen states, that very simply applies the current laws against murder to the pre-born.

In 2022 this bill was introduced in the Louisiana legislature as HB813 and had the votes to pass until 76 pro-life organizations co-signed a letter demanding that it be rejected on the grounds that it could be used to prosecute mothers who procured abortions.

The primary opposition of abolition in most states pursuing abolition has been the pro-life lobby. That tells me it's not that we don't have enough votes, but that we have the wrong goal.

The letter to the Louisiana legislature along with the signers thereof can be found here: https://www.nrlc.org/uploads/communications/051222coalitionlettertostates.pdf
[automerge]1758039200[/automerge]

The same be done that was done for chattel slavery - completely and immediately abolish it.


Is that what you believe should have been done with slavery (a slow, incremental end)?

There are 2 major groups advocating AA. Here are their public testimonies so you can judge for yourself:

• https://abolitionistsrising.com/norman-statement/
• https://abolishhumanabortion.com/declaration-of-sentiments/

Another resource I've found, and one I prefer, as they are more active in writing and pushing for legislation is Foundation to Abolish Abortion or FAA. Their website is faa.life

 

[Jmsbentley]

I was expecting the slavery question.

.
The result was the Civil War.

I believe the civil war was a judgment from God for our slowness in abolishing slavery. To say it would have been better to wait or to be more gradual in the dissolution of slavery would be to say "God would be more likely to bless slowness in obedience." I say that as the perceived implication of meaning, not an accusation of your intent.

Regarding abortion, I am not saying all compromise in every form is unacceptable. But there are categories, those things with which we may be permitted to compromise without offense to God, and those things which we may not. I do not believe child sacrifice is an area in which we are permitted compromise whilst

Among the conditions was that they had to swear not to provide any Protestant book to any Catholic, even if he asked for one. That ended four centuries of Waldensian evangelism in Italy dating back over three centuries before the Reformation.

Should the Waldensian guerilla band, who by the time the Duke of Savoy proposed a peace treaty had been reduced to less than 400 fighting men, have refused the compromise and let their wives and children be massacred or driven into permanent exile?

passing out protestant books is not a necessary command of God which, if left undone disgraces our Lord and Savior, making it perfectly acceptable as a form of compromise.

Furthermore, even were not an acceptable compromise, the fact that God used to open the doors to the greater success of His kingdom would not be evidence of it, since God uses even our sin unto His glory.

Politics is messy.

Perfection may be a long-term goal, but it is rarely achievable in the short term. These fights almost always take many years, often decades, and sometimes centuries

It concerns me that we have reached such a state that the intent to establish a very simple, all-encompassing form of "Thou shalt not murder" as law, is seen as fighting for perfection. The bar of "Thou shalt not murder," isn't actually very high. We have made it high and then insisted it is unreachable in our lifetime. But the fact is, many states have put forward bills of abolition treating the unborn the same as all others, with the primary opposition being from the pro-life camp.

 

[Northern Crofter]

But is it not partiality, using the abolitionist logic, to punish only some Canaanites on the first day and not get around to punishing other Canaanites weeks or maybe even years later?

Yes. If God has commanded their complete destruction and put you in a position to destroy them completely in one day, not doing so is a sin. See for example I Samuel 15: "Thus saith the Lord of hosts.... go, and smite Amalek, and destroy ye all that pertaineth unto them, and have no compassion on them, but slay both man and woman, both infant and suckling, both ox, and sheep, both camel, and ass....So Saul smote the Amalekites from Havilah, as thou comest to Shur, that is before Egypt....But Saul and the people spared Agag, and the better sheep, and the oxen, and the fat beasts, and the lambs, and all that was good, and they would not destroy them; but everything that was vile and nought worth, that they destroyed. Then came the word of the Lord unto Samuel, saying, It repenteth me that I have made Saul King; for he is turned from me, and hath not performed my commandments."

But I don't like the false comparison you have introduced - where does God say "Destroy them in a day"? It might takes weeks or months of siege to destroy a condemned city, just as it might take years or decades to achieve a just abolition law. It's not the time that matters as much as it is the complete destruction of an evil without compromise.

 

[R. E. Psmith]

I am curious what the abolitionists here think of the following situations (one real world, the other imaginative).

1. The several laws currently being passed in states age-gating p*rn websites.
2. A Christian finding himself in a place of power (somehow) in a Muslim country under Sharia law, able to affect legislation so that there was only a maximum sentence of 1 year for blasphemy against Allah.

 

[John Nyberg]

I am curious what the abolitionists here think of the following situations (one real world, the other imaginative).

1. The several laws currently being passed in states age-gating p*rn websites.
2. A Christian finding himself in a place of power (somehow) in a Muslim country under Sharia law, able to affect legislation so that there was only a maximum sentence of 1 year for blasphemy against Allah.

1. As Mr. Bentley mentioned in the OP, the abolitionist movement is about taking an existing law (regarding murder) and applying it fairly to the unborn. It is already unlawful for anyone to provide minors with explicit material, age verification simply helps enforce that law.

2. I don’t think the second scenario applies to this conversation. It is a bit outlandish

 

[CasualWestminsterEnjoyer]

One reason this debate never made sense to me is that in my state (Wisconsin), pro-lifers, who have a lot of influence in the statehouse, have always argued for abortion to be fully illegal, and for the enforcement of Wisconsin's 1849 abortion ban.

I'm not sure where these pro-lifers are who only want to ban some abortion. Maybe on the coasts?

 

[R. E. Psmith]

1. As Mr. Bentley mentioned in the OP, the abolitionist movement is about taking an existing law (regarding murder) and applying it fairly to the unborn. It is already unlawful for anyone to provide minors with explicit material, age verification simply helps enforce that law.

2. I don’t think the second scenario applies to this conversation. It is a bit outlandish

Part of the reason I brought up the first scenario is I know, generally, of people who at least somewhat protest these laws because they are not making the explicit material illegal for everyone. To me this seemed similar to how I have heard abortion abolitionists argue and I was wondering if there was any overlap.

I realize the second one is an outlandish scenario and may not fit the OP exactly, but both of these scenarios speak to some of my frustrations with the sections of the abolitionist movement I have vaguely interacted with. Abolitionists have specifically voted against a partial pro-life resolution in my state, which then failed. This was because this law would not have completely abolished abortion. It would, however, have greatly limited this evil and been, hopefully, one step on the path to abolition (which I have no problem with as a long term goal). This may have just been my experience and not where any of you are. I understand the appeal of not seeking any sort of compromise on this issue, but in my situation, some children's lives could have been saved, not all of them, and now none of them are. This may just be an emotional appeal and I realize I have not brought any scripture texts to bear so please call me out if I have misspoken.

 

[John Nyberg]

This may just be an emotional appeal and I realize I have not brought any scripture texts to bear so please call me out if I have misspoken.

Thus far it has been a very gracious conversation, I appreciate your input. I can see your frustrations with abolitionism. Personally, I would never vote against pro life legislation like you mentioned (was it in Kansas?) that allows for any abortions. However, I also would not vote for such legislation. This is why I believe we need a strong third party option to begin splitting the vote from the GOP on the abortion issue. The GOP has stayed just pro life enough to satisfy Christian’s while avoiding the politically undesirable consequences of abolitionism. My personal frustrations are not with the pro life movement per se, there is much agreement on many issues, but rather with the GOPs false courting of the evangelical/catholic vote.

This article is pretty informative regarding the current position of the GOP when it comes to abortion on a federal level: https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/how-the-gop-became-pro-choice/

Peace in Christ,

John

 

[Logan]

This article is pretty informative regarding the current position of the GOP when it comes to abortion on a federal level: https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/how-the-gop-became-pro-choice/

Good article. This section here was especially poignant to me:

The justification these organizations give for putting a political party ahead of their pro-life principles is to appeal to pragmatism. They fall back on the reasoning that since “the other side is worse,” they can’t afford to defect. Such political naïveté is astounding and a catalyst for political progressivism. By openly proclaiming the GOP will never lose their support (and votes) as long as the Democrats are marginally worse, they’re providing cover for Republican politicians to embrace pro-choice policies. We see this clearly in the latest draft of the GOP platform.

Herein lies the key difference between pro-life and pro-abortion activists. Pro-abortion activists recognize they’re to the extreme left of the median vote on abortion, yet they force Democratic politicians to cater to their demands by threatening to withhold support. The Democrats know that if their single-issue voters on abortion were to defect, they’d lose elections.

Planned Parenthood and other abortion advocates know this and use it to their advantage. They’re also willing to do something pro-life groups find unthinkable: lose in the short term (an election cycle or two) to advance their cause in the long term.

It’s inconceivable that Planned Parenthood would still support Biden if he suddenly opposed abortion rights. Yet many ostensibly conservative groups offer up a lame excuse: “What choice do we have? The other side is worse.”

Political parties love voters who are willing to hold their noses and sacrifice principles because "the other side is worse."

 

[John Nyberg]

Another important quote from the article:

“Does Trump’s “America First agenda” still oppose abortion? Yes, but only in the last stages of pregnancy. The full passage in the new GOP platform on abortion reads,

We proudly stand for families and life. We believe that the 14th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States guarantees that no person can be denied life or liberty without due process and that the states are, therefore, free to pass laws protecting those rights. After 51 years, because of us, that power has been given to the states and to a vote of the people. We will oppose late term abortion while supporting mothers and policies that advance prenatal care, access to birth control, and IVF (fertility treatments).

This is pro-choice language, in keeping with Trump’s pro-choice position. The sleight of hand is that it seems to claim the 14th Amendment applies to the unborn. But if the GOP believes that’s true, then the federal government, not just the states, has a duty to protect life. The platform does no such thing. It gives broad support for IVF (even when it causes the death of a child) and only lists opposition to late-term abortion.”

I

 

[TheBoringBaptist]

I'm honestly not sure which group this point of discussion ought to go in, so general discussion seemed most fitting.

I became convinced of Abortion Abolitionism roughly 2 years ago. For those who aren't already familiar with this discussion, "The Norman Statement," is the summary declaration of the abolitionist particulars and can be found on the Abolitionists Rising website.

For a long time my hang up was not that I believed the abolitionist position was wrong, but that I couldn't justify holding it to the exclusion of pro-life tactics.

However, I have come to believe there are 5 statutes of God which all current pro-life policies violate and I want to present them for consideration and discussion.

1. Thou shalt not lie.
As stated in the WSC "the 9th commandment forbids whatsoever is prejudicial to truth, or injurious to our own or our neighbor's good name." Whether deceit by implication or ommission of the truth, lies dishonor God and I will explain how the following practices likewise violate this principle.

2. We are forbidden from showing partiality in administering justice. Current pro-life laws, may administer penalties for abortion on the physician who performs an abortion or the father/boyfriend/husband who pushes a woman towards having an abortion. But each law includes an intentional exception, preventing any penalty from falling on the woman who had the abortion, even when self-performed, ignoring any willfulness or intent on her part. These are murder rights for mothers written into law. It is intrinsic partiality in justice and it is a lie which tells women they are always the victim and never the guilty party, in need of redemption and grace.

3. We are forbidden from perverting justice. Even when penalties are administered for the murder of the unborn, and even were they to be applied to the mothers, the current penalties for murdering born children and unborn children are not the same. This communicates that abortion isn't really murder, or if it is, then it's not as evil a form of murder. This too lies about the value of human life and perverts justice, making claim that we've served the justice due for murder with a fine or meager jail time.

4. We are forbidden to withhold justice from those owed it. If I hire 10 men to build a shed in my back yard, and choose to pay 8 of those 10 men, I have unjustly withheld payment from those to whom it is due. When a red state passes a heartbeat bill, they may be giving the justice due to those children older than 6 weeks in the womb. But they are withholding it from the child 6 minutes in the womb. Even if they administered equal justice and due penalties for the murder of the unborn, by giving it to some of the unborn and not all, they are denying the equal value and worth of whichever category of children to whom that justice is denied.

5. Finally we are commanded to establish justice. When the Israelites sought to enter into the promised land, and sent out 12 spies to investigate, the wicked spies were not wicked because they were lying, but because they did not trust God to give them the strength to overcome the peoples of the land. When God commands a thing, we cannot use as an excuse, "in God's providence we can't obey His command yet." We cannot commit a sin of omission, refusing to establish justice on the grounds that we do not have the votes to do so. By refusing to call exclusively for the total abolition of abortion and the establishment of justice, we give a bad report as the 10 spies did. We are making the false claim that God cannot enable us to obey Him as He has commanded, due to the very circumstances in which God has placed us.

"The heart of the king is as a stream of water in the hands of the Lord, He turns it wherever He wills." Proverbs 21:1

I think this is a crucial matter of discussion within the modern church. In Louisiana, a bill to totally abolish abortion, simply treating the murder of the unborn the same as the murder of any born person, was blocked, not by the Pro-choice lobby, but by 76 pro-life organizations who wrote an open letter, still available to be read today, calling for the bill to be blocked, on the grounds that it could be used to prosecute mother's who chose to abort. Don't take my word for it, read it for yourself.

I believe abortion is modern child sacrifice and I imagine most of those on this forum would agree. So I offer this as a charge for all those who would see abortion ended, to support justice and only justice, for the Lord says justice and only justice will He serve.

I too support the complete abolition of abortion. Abolitionist Rising is a great channel. Russell does good work.

 

[TheBoringBaptist]

Good article. This section here was especially poignant to me:



Political parties love voters who are willing to hold their noses and sacrifice principles because "the other side is worse."

Yep. These parties take advantage of Christians too much. I'm done with them until something changes
[automerge]1758146946[/automerge]

Another important quote from the article:

“Does Trump’s “America First agenda” still oppose abortion? Yes, but only in the last stages of pregnancy. The full passage in the new GOP platform on abortion reads,

We proudly stand for families and life. We believe that the 14th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States guarantees that no person can be denied life or liberty without due process and that the states are, therefore, free to pass laws protecting those rights. After 51 years, because of us, that power has been given to the states and to a vote of the people. We will oppose late term abortion while supporting mothers and policies that advance prenatal care, access to birth control, and IVF (fertility treatments).

This is pro-choice language, in keeping with Trump’s pro-choice position. The sleight of hand is that it seems to claim the 14th Amendment applies to the unborn. But if the GOP believes that’s true, then the federal government, not just the states, has a duty to protect life. The platform does no such thing. It gives broad support for IVF (even when it causes the death of a child) and only lists opposition to late-term abortion.”

I

People love promoting Trump even though he supports abortion and LGBT.

If the modern day Republican party is conservative, then I'm The Exciting Baptist

 

[erickinho1bra]

Yep. These parties take advantage of Christians too much. I'm done with them until something changes
[automerge]1758146946[/automerge]

People love promoting Trump even though he supports abortion and LGBT.

If the modern day Republican party is conservative, then I'm The Exciting Baptist

So you don't believe in voting for the lesser of two evils?

 

[Northern Crofter]

So you don't believe in voting for the lesser of two evils?

The lesser of two evils is still evil.

 

[R. E. Psmith]

Thus far it has been a very gracious conversation, I appreciate your input. I can see your frustrations with abolitionism. Personally, I would never vote against pro life legislation like you mentioned (was it in Kansas?) that allows for any abortions. However, I also would not vote for such legislation. This is why I believe we need a strong third party option to begin splitting the vote from the GOP on the abortion issue. The GOP has stayed just pro life enough to satisfy Christian’s while avoiding the politically undesirable consequences of abolitionism. My personal frustrations are not with the pro life movement per se, there is much agreement on many issues, but rather with the GOPs false courting of the evangelical/catholic vote.

This article is pretty informative regarding the current position of the GOP when it comes to abortion on a federal level: https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/how-the-gop-became-pro-choice/

Peace in Christ,

John

Thank you for your patience with me. In regards to the issue in Kansas, the background was that the Kansas Supreme Court "found" a right to abortion in the Kansas Constitution right after Roe v Wade was overturned. The resulting resolution that the populace was voting on was to state that there was no right to abortion in our constitution and that the legislature could pass legislation limiting abortion (or more) if they wanted to.

https://kslegislature.gov/li_2022/b2021_22/measures/documents/hcr5003_00_0000.pdf