Proverbs 18:2 tells us a fool takes no delight in understanding, but only wants to show off his opinions. In the modern world, we see this kind of foolishness a lot. You only need to find a religious or political post on a social media site, or a forum, or even a news organisation that has a comments section, to see this. Everyone expresses their opinions, but no one seems to listen. People speak, but don't listen to replies. People reply, yet don't seem to have read the original comment. We all know what we believe, yet not what our opponents believe. Often, we don't seem to want to know why we believe what we believe, never mind why others disagree.
The result is effectively societal collapse. The ones who get their way become foul, intolerant, and intolerable. The ones who don't get aggressive, and just as nasty. There are sore winners, and sore losers, and because culture tends to swing like a pendulum, everyone gets the opportunity to be both.
Sadly, as I rested on my way home from church this afternoon, an example of this popped up in my news feed. My liberal friend posted an angry rant about the abortion situation in America, which I read, right until her conclusion. What was that conclusion? "This status is also not open for debate so if you disagree feel free to delete me."
Isn't this the very picture of foolishness? How can we call for unity in a world where people basically say "if you do not agree with me, divide from me"? Of course, this from the oh so "tolerant" Left. I would like to take a moment give Joe Biden a rare acknowledgement of praise: He did give a speech in which he encouraged abortionists to protest peacefully. I agree, peace is vital. But it is achieved with dialogue, not with division. So, let's debate that which was "not up for debate." The rest of this article will be dedicated to responding to my friend point by point. Below, I will reproduce her post in full (minus the last line, seen above), with my responses interspersed. If you feel I am in error, do not "delete me", see if you can engage with me.
"I've kept pretty quiet on the abortion situation in America but most of these 'pro-lifers'..."
Already, we have an issue. Pro-lifers is in air quotes. Usually, air quotes are used to signify misnomers. Like when we use "pro-choice" in air quotes. "Pro-choice" is a misnomer, because the abortion issue isn't about choice. Pro-lifers believe in choice, we just think some choices should be off the table. Abortionists must agree. If you want money, you have career choices, but a bank robber isn't one of them. Bank robbers don't get to say they're pro-choice, they're pro-crime. Similarly, there are 4 very easy choices pro-lifers will agree are, if not ideal, at least more tolerable than murder: Abstinence, contraception, adoption, motherhood. Abortion is not a choice you should be allowed to make because this
has more of a right to live than you have to kill it. It has always been that simple. It has always come down to "is this a human life?" If it's a human life, it has a right to keep that life. If it isn't, then fair enough, you have a case. We eat baby sheep, why can't we kill human foetuses?
Because they are human foetuses. Scientifically speaking, a child is human from the moment it is conceived. When that sperm meets that egg, they combine, creating a brand new human being with its own DNA; the very DNA it will have when it is 9 months old, 3 years old, old enough to make babies of its own. So it's a human life. It has rights, just like you. There are a very small number of reasons it is acceptable to take a human life. "I created it with some stranger who picked me up in a nightclub" isn't one of them. So yes, it is entirely accurate to describe the pro-life position as pro-life. We are in favor of (pro) protecting innocent lives.
"...more than likely chose to refuse to wear a mask and chose to not get the covid vaccine because they were being 'forced' into it by the government."
As tempting as it is to go down that rabbit hole (see the "Medical Freedom" heading in the Politics section if you're interested in my thoughts on vaccine mandates), suffice to say for now, the two are not even remotely connected. For one thing, these measures were shown to be ineffective. Numerous studies showed masks had no effect on the spread of Covid, and the so-called "vaccines" were so abysmal, even the CDC changed their definition of "vaccine" to accommodate them.
But even if that wasn't the case, we're comparing action and inaction here. Abortion is the action of deliberately ending an innocent life. Not wearing a mask, or not taking a (failed) experimental jab, are actions with a non-existent chance of killing anyone. The most effective vaccines save one life: The life of the person who took it. If I take a vaccine that works, I've protected myself, not you. If you take a vaccine and it works, you don't need me to take it too. So how are these things even remotely comparable?
"Now imagine being forced into having a baby you never wanted due to being raped..."
It is very sad how abortionists use rape victims as pawns for their agenda, but it also betrays their innate knowledge that abortion is wrong. If abortion was ok, you wouldn't need to parade rape victims around, you could just say "imagine being forced into having a baby" (not that that's logical either, we'll get to that in a moment), but no, you have to go to the saddest possible situation. Why? Because it has emotional appeal.
Human beings are emotional creatures. When we're angry, we lash out. When we're happy, we're distracted, blinded to even the most obvious threats. When we're sad, our ability to think clearly is diminished. Rape is awful, so abortionists score points by acting sympathetic to rape victims, especially if they can paint pro-lifers as if we don't care.
But rape victims are actually a minority among abortive women, a mere 2% at most. Heck, I'll be generous: Even if you add incest, I have never seen a statistic as high as 5%. If you ever want to put an abortionist on their back foot when they say this, temporarily grant them rape as an exception; ask if they'll be ok banning other abortions? If they say yes, then begin to explain why rape does not excuse abortion. But you're never going to get that far, because they're not actually interested in protecting rape victims (who actually have a lower rate of suicide if they give birth, but higher if they have an abortion), they're interested in protecting abortion for all women, even a promiscuous (forgive my language) slut who doesn't need to know a man's name before letting him... well, finish that thought yourself, I still haven't figured out the Christian way to describe that kind of sexual immorality in a way that appeals to all probable audiences. The point is, rape is a moot point. We'll discuss possible exceptions when we agree on the rule.
"...or birth control not working..."
I cannot sympathise at this point. When a man and a woman have sex, they know there is a chance the woman will get pregnant. That's just biology. But now you lose the argument of choice, because you have made your choice. You didn't have to have sex, you chose to anyway. You obviously knew the risk, or you wouldn't have bothered with birth control. Even if you're daft enough to think birth control is 100% effective and found out the hard way that it isn't, you still made the choice, and now a life exists. I have a lot more sympathy for the child, who did not ask to be conceived through your recklessness, than for you, who for a mere 9 months, will have to live with the "consequences". You made your choice, you made your baby, no amount of crocodile tears will convince me to say anything more sympathetic than "take responsibility, and chalk it up to experience".
"...or to continue a life threatening pregnancy for whatever reason."
This, again, is a rarity, more so even than rape. In fact, I've heard a significant number of doctors say that this never really happens. With medical science at the point we are now, a woman's chance of dying from pregnancy is next to 0. That being said, I don't know any pro-lifer who wouldn't be at least sympathetic here. I am firmly pro-life, I don't even think rape or incest are an excuse for it, but in cases of self preservation, it's almost easy to make an exception. If it comes down to either the child dies, or both the child and the mother die, I pick the one life lost over the two every time.
In fact, self-preservation is an issue I am very passionate about. In my eyes, any damage done to someone threatening your life or bodily integrity is on their own head. As I will discuss later, I believe it is 100% acceptable for a woman being threatened with rape to shoot the man who is trying to rape her. Now, here's my question: If I believe that, does that mean I have to believe it is ok to shoot people on a whim?
Obviously, no. In my eyes, the only time it is acceptable for a civilian to discharge a firearm in the direction of a human being is precisely for that reason. Someone tries to kill you? Bang, they catch a bullet. Someone wants to rape you? Drop them. Someone is innocently going about their business? You don't get to shoot them. In the same way, I can grant that self-preservation is the one valid reason for abortion without believing "I created this kid in a nightclub bathroom" is too.
"On top of this, they're wanting to ban the rights to contraception?"
Now remember, at the beginning of her post, my friend said it is about "...most of these 'pro-lifers'...". Both in the beginning and the end, she specified it's about America, so we'll assume it's only about American pro-lifers and wouldn't be directly applied outside, but still, this is a sweeping generalisation about pro-lifers in America. Now, do most American pro-lifers want to ban contraception? I've never even heard this as a proposal! Even the most radical right wing organisations I have followed, including those I have unfollowed for being too radical, have always been supportive of freedom, up to and including the use of contraceptives. "Most of these pro-lifers" do not want to ban contraception!
So what's happened here? In all likelihood, this is a straw man. It is the deliberate misrepresentation of the pro-life position in order to make it look weak and appear to refute it. But I believe in generosity, and the benefit of the doubt, so we'll assume my friend has found a rare pro-lifer who wants contraception banned, and assumed it's the mainstream view. I will merely correct it: Pro-lifers tend to be Conservatives. Conservatives believe in small, non-intrusive governments, with personal responsibility for individuals. In other words, if you want contraception, you should have the freedom to... pay for it yourself.
Abortionists tend to be Liberals, and so the concept of personal responsibility is repugnant to them. This is why they want to escape the "consequences" of their promiscuity in the first place. The fact that they would even consider children, which scripture says are gifts from the Lord (Psalm 127:3), as "consequences" is unthinkable. But as despicable as this is, they know that these "consequences" are a likely result of their poor choices. But they enjoy those poor choices! Sex is pleasurable, isn't it? So even though they don't need it, they want it. Well ok, if that's the sin you choose to engage in, go for it. All I can do is pray you repent before you inevitably die and stand before the judgement seat of God. But no one owes it to you to supplement your sex life. Why should a tax payer, or even an employer, be required to guarantee you have a condom in your wallet for when you want it? I can't imagine anyone sensible would want to ban contraception, but no one sensible would ask other people to pay for it. "Pay for your own contraception" and "ban contraception" are not the same. The former is reasonable.
"But contraception is the only way to prevent unwanted pregnancies, even though they don't always work, so women are basically caught up in a loophole without any way out?"
Abstinence always works. A grand total of one virgin has ever gotten pregnant (and ironically, my friend does not even believe that). Even IVF is basically sex without the fun, and it is still quite deliberate. So really, my friend isn't complaining about the lack of choice, but that she doesn't like the choice. Note, the entire pro-abortion argument comes down to "we want the right to sex, but not the responsibility of parenthood". But life doesn't work that way. You may choose your sin, but not your consequences.
"Imagine having your rights stripped away..."
What rights? This is one thing the radical Left will never understand. "I want" does not translate to "I am naturally entitled to". No one has a right to an abortion, everyone has a right to live. Without the right to live, no other right matters, because you cannot enjoy those rights if you are not alive. And without equality, rights become relative. The Nazis took away the rights of the Jews by saying they were sub-human. Either all humans are equal, or none of us are. You literally cannot argue that babies in the womb do not have rights without also justifying the Holocaust, slavery, and every other atrocity committed by arrogant men who believed their demographic was superior to their victims' demographics. Do you really want to go there? It may be fine for you when you have the dominant demographic, but "ain't no fun when the rabbit's got the gun". Obviously, babies aren't going to rise out of the womb and start putting abortionists in gulags or concentration camps, but the same arguments used to deny those babies their rights can apply to you.
Furthermore, since we're talking about America, consider that Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger was a notorious racist. Notice, even to this day, abortion tends to target minorities. Sure, it's dressed up as "low income", but abortion disproportionately affects minorities. In 2014, for example, 33% of abortions were committed against black babies, but only 13% of the female population were black women. Where is Black Lives Matter on this? If black people were systematically murdered like that in any other context, the White House itself would go up in flames!
And obviously, not sticking to America, what about "sex selective" abortions? These are particularly common in China, but abortion on demand obviously doesn't rule it out in the U.S. either. As CMI so eloquently put it, "If it is okay for a mother to abort because she doesn’t want a baby, why is it wrong for her to abort because she doesn’t want a girl?"
So clearly, it is abortion that strips away people's rights. Ironically, this disproportionately affects the rights of people the Democrats use as pawns. They claim to want to protect the rights of minorities, yet it is these minorities who are most damaged by their abortion policies alone! How is this tolerated?
What's most incredible is that the recent SCOTUS ruling doesn't even ban abortion. Not even close! Based on the U.S. Constitution, Scripture, and basic human decency, the ruling does not go far enough, but the point is, it doesn't go far enough. It doesn't recognise a child's inalienable right to life, it simply returns the issue to the states. California, New York, Colorado, these states will easily continue to stain their land with the blood of innocents. Even the contested Mississippi law leaves abortion legal up to a shocking 15 weeks. You want to talk about people's "rights" being stripped away? 600,000 dead babies a year. Only a handful of them will be saved in more respectable states by this ruling. That is what stripping away rights looks like.
"...by men who don't have to go through the pain of labour or being told your baby won't survive outside the womb regardless of if you bring it to term or not."
And here we go with the identity politics, which is by far the most pathetic fallacy you can make. As a Christian, I believe in loving those with whom I disagree. I don't believe it's ok to throw insults around willy nilly, I believe every disagreement should be done with gentleness and respect. But while I still haven't figured out where the line is, I believe there are times when it is acceptable to say "that's stupid". This is one of those clear cut examples. I don't know exactly where the line is, but when you're so stupid that you substitute personal identity for substantive arguments, you crossed it. And this isn't just a religious thing either. The secular world recognises it as a fallacy known as "ad hominem" (which means "to the person").
Simple question: Are there female pro-lifers? Yes! Amy Coney Barrett, one of the judges behind the SCOTUS ruling (as opposed to all the male judges who ruled on Roe v. Wade) is one of them. She's been through the pain of labour 7 times over the last 20 years. So, imagine walking up to Amy Coney Barrett and saying "you shouldn't have an opinion on abortion because you don't have to go through the pain of labour". Does that sound stupid? Of course it does. Because it is. But since truth is independent of identity, if an argument doesn't work against one person, it doesn't work. If men did not exist, abortion would still be wrong. Even if all men were pro-life and all women were pro-abortion, it would still be wrong.
But here's the irony: Men have no motive to oppose abortion. Men want sex without consequence as much as women, if not more so. But the kind of man who will act on that desire is more likely to be pro-abortion. Why? Because then he gets sex without consequence. What do you think that kind of man would rather hear? "I'm having an abortion", or "it's your kid, you should at least be paying child support"?
Of course men would rather support abortion! Some men are even so sick in the head that if their reckless sexual encounters result in pregnancy, they will pressure their partner to abort! Whether through manipulation, gaslighting, or even outright aggression, some men will do what they can to get rid of their children. And there is no law that stops that. One of the darkest abortion facts abortionists will conceal from you is that not every woman aborts of her own free will. And there are no laws in place to protect them. The only law that even would be effective against that is an abortion ban. If you can pressure a woman to abort against her will, you can pressure her to pretend it is within her will.
"Imagine a gun being more protected than women."
Imagine a rapist being more protected than women! Biology is a cruel thing. Men have a significant advantage over women; we're naturally stronger. This is why it's socially unacceptable for a man to even hit a woman. More so than for him to hit another man, or for a woman to hit him. Thus, rapists are usually significantly stronger than their victims.
But predators have two fears: Getting hurt, and getting caught. Guns significantly increase both the impression that this might happen if the predator proceeds with the crime, and the ability to actualise it.
It takes a predator a mere 7 seconds to assess his victim, during which he will attempt to figure out if he will be hurt or caught. An unarmed woman, unfortunately, is an easier target. But a gun makes up for a woman's biological disadvantage. Why? Because it's a mechanical tool. The gun does the work. For this reason, the gun is called the "great equaliser". A large, muscular rapist is no match for even the smallest of women when all she has to do is squeeze a trigger and drop him.
Now, again, I could go down a rabbit trail here, but I've said all of this, and more, in my rape culture article. The point I'm trying to make is you have to be rather ignorant to not know that guns stop rape. Tragically, I even heard of one woman who was raped a mere few feet from her gun, because campus rules said she wasn't allowed to carry it there. That story should have gone very differently. That woman should have been allowed to carry her firearm for her personal defence. If the rapist died? Tough. I'd rather read a story about a dead rapist than a raped woman. And if my friend is consistent, so should she.
But she's not consistent. Frankly, it is a pre-requisite to be on the Left to be inconsistent. You claim to support human rights, but you deny the most fundamental one: Life. You claim to support equality, yet spit in its face in ways you would never tolerate in any other fashion. You recognise life when you're pregnant and want it, but close your eyes to the life of the identical child when you don't want it. You're cool with men having opinions you agree with, yet dismiss them because of their gender when they do not wholeheartedly affirm your beliefs. You claim black lives matter, yet support the most despicable example of ethnic cleansing the world has ever seen. You say only women should have an opinion on abortion, yet when a woman undoes a ruling made by men on abortion, you say something as daft as "you can't endure the pain of labour". You admit rape is bad when it results in pregnancy, all so you can support mass infanticide, but when it comes to preventing rape, you make the issue about the guns, and not the women who use them. The saying is true: "If it wasn't for double standards, the Left would have no standards at all".
"What a joke America is. I'm so sad."
And so we come to the only statement my friend made that I can agree on. How did America fall so far? This is a land whose founding documents famously affirm the right to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness", yet now it even fails to affirm life! A land branded the "land of the free and the home of the brave", yet it is filled with cowards who on the one side, do not stand for life when they believe in it, and on the other hand, cannot tolerate a hint of dissent if they don't. It has a rich history of affirming all men are created equal, and that the rights with which we are equally endowed come from Him, yet that God was cast aside, and with Him gone, even rights explicitly protected by the Constitution are set aside in the name of "progress". "One nation under God"? One nation under God's wrath more like.
Or maybe not. As my friend joins the many radicals lamenting this pitifully minor Supreme Court ruling, it gives me hope for America's future. We may be seeing the fruits of repentance. After all, Covid did have many people talking about God. Perhaps His wrath is turning away. Perhaps His spirit is being poured out. It's a small victory, but it could be the first step in a long path to restoration. What happens next could be the deciding factor in whether America becomes more of an Egypt or an Israel. As the Lord says through Jeremiah, "The instant I speak concerning a nation and concerning a kingdom, to pluck up, to pull down, and to destroy it, if that nation against whom I have spoken turns from its evil, I will relent of the disaster that I thought to bring upon it. And the instant I speak concerning a nation and concerning a kingdom, to build and to plant it, if it does evil in My sight so that it does not obey My voice, then I will relent concerning the good with which I said I would benefit it." (Jeremiah 18:7-10).
I am certainly sad for America, both in the depths of its depravity, and the judgements it has already received. But I do have hope that the God who would spare a city for just ten righteous people will do a great work with the U.S. in the coming years. May stubborn lips which used to brag "abortion is still legal, die mad about it" be stopped, and may stubborn ears, closed by victory, be opened by this defeat, so that they may hear the truth! I am wary, yet hopeful, to openly pray "God, bless America!" And may the world follow suit. The UK, Germany, France, Russia, Afghanistan, Iraq, of course Israel, every country, may they all come to know God, and with that, receive His blessings. History isn't over yet. May Jesus be glorified in the Earth.
Recommended song: ALM - Be Glorified