As Alabama Governor Kay Ivey and Missouri Governor Mike Parsons pass pro-life legislation that says you can’t murder children conceived in rape or incest, the pro-choice movement has predictably been responding like this:
With the tidal wave of recent pro-life legislation coming from states like Missouri, Georgia, Alabama, Kentucky, Mississippi, and Ohio, we have been hearing again all the ridiculous and repeatedly refuted pro-abortion arguments. Leading this fallacious charge is the argument that says, “abortion needs to remain legal because women will get them anyway, and criminalizing abortion will force women to obtain unsafe illegal abortions, and thousands will die like they did before Roe.”
Putting aside the fact that abortion is never safe because being killed is never safe, this argument makes several dangerous missteps in its reasoning. Assuming the crazed feticide apologists will have a rational conversation with you at all (a big assumption), here are the three reasons why this argument is misleading, deceptive, and sexist.
The pro-life position is the only position that accounts for human equality. If you care about protecting the value and dignity of ALL human beings, the pro-life position is your only option.
But are all humans even equal in value and dignity? This is a question as old as time itself, and it’s a question our country is currently divided over.
Virginia Governor Ralph Northam has publicly defended infanticide, the US Senate refuses to pass an anti-infanticide bill protecting babies born alive during botched abortions (thanks to Democrats), and every Democrat Senator running for president voted against protecting these babies.
On his campaign trail last week, former Texas representative Beto O'Rourke, was asked a bombshell of a question from what appears to be a student. This student carefully summarizes the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act by pointing out that the bill would have required babies who are born alive during failed abortions to be given the same level of medical care and attention aimed at saving their life, as any other baby born during a normal delivery.
Student: "Would you support this bill, that does not in any way limit abortion, it simply seeks to keep babies alive that have been born alive?"
Beto O'Rourke: "The way that I would approach your question and this issue generally is to trust women to make their own decisions about their own bodies."
Monday evening (02/25/19), the United States Senate voted in majority favor (53-44) of legislation that would protect the lives of babies born-alive during a failed abortion procedure. Shockingly, the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act didn’t gain the 60 votes necessary to overcome the filibuster initiated by Democrat senators.
This proposed legislation came on the heels of the firestorm surrounding Virginia Governor Ralph Northam who publicly defended Virginia Delegate Kathy Tran's bill that would legalize abortion to point of birth. Northam went a step further though, saying that mothers and physicians should be able to have conversations about whether babies born-alive during botched abortions should be left to die or not. This is infanticide. The silence from the Democratic party following Kathy Tran’s proposed legislation and Northam’s public comments on infanticide has been deafening.
There was a time when the Republican and the Democratic party agreed on many of the same things. It used to be that Republicans and Democrats agreed that there were only two genders, that socialism was inherently evil, that religious people should be allowed to live out their faith and values free from government discrimination, and that a nation should guard its borders. And yes, there was even a time when Republicans and Democrats were both opposed to abortion. In fact, early feminists and suffragettes were anti-abortion! Naturally, the Democratic party has never explained why they changed their beliefs and position from having many anti-abortion Democrats serving in Congress and the Senate prior to 1973 to ostracizing any and all pro-life Democrats.
Over the weekend, Virginia Governor Ralph Northam was thrown back into the limelight over a photo that surfaced from a page dedicated to him in his medical school yearbook. The photo shows two men standing side-by-side; one dressed in blackface and the other dressed in a KKK outfit. On Friday, February 1st, Northam confessed he was one of the men in the photo and issued a public apology. However, less than 24 hours later, Northam rescinded his apology by stating that he was not either of the men in the photo and that he has no idea how that photo ended up on his yearbook page.
Naturally, countless Democrats are calling for Northam's resignation as Governor of Virginia. So the party that used to support slavery and racism is calling for the resignation of Northam over a school yearbook photo of him dressed in blackface.
Regarding the use of graphic, disturbing abortion imagery; many pro-life advocates oppose the use of such imagery by arguing that it's too offensive, too graphic, too disturbing, and too triggering for post-abortive women.
As a proponent of the strategic use of such visuals, I would like to offer 9 brief thoughts on why the use of such visuals is not just justified, but required if we are to maximize our effectiveness in changing minds and saving lives.
It is 1808. Secretary of State, James Madison, is running for the 4th President of the United States against federalist candidate, Charles Cotesworth Pinckney. Already a political heavyweight for his role in drafting and promoting the Constitution and Bill of Rights (earning him the name “Father of the Constitution”), James Madison is by far, the more seasoned and favored choice.
I mean, there was that whole part about Madison supporting and likely authoring the three-fifths compromise (reminder: the three-fifths compromise told African Americans that their vote only counted for three-fifths of what a white man’s vote was worth). But who cares, right? James Madison is responsible for the very fabric of our nation’s laws.
Oh, wait. Didn’t James Madison own about a hundred slaves? Slaves, which he didn’t even free in his will, upon his death. But it’s not all bad. He clearly has experience and cares about America’s citizens.
So, do you vote for him?
A favorite verse used by pro-life advocates to exhort the Church to action on behalf of the unborn is Proverbs 31:8:
"Speak up for those who cannot speak for themselves, for the rights of all who are destitute."
Christians should see this verse as a command to engage in pro-life advocacy on some level. While Proverbs 31:8 isn't specifically talking only about abortion, there is no getting around the fact that the unborn cannot speak up for themselves. There is no larger group of people so utterly incapable of speaking on their own behalf than the unborn. We have the privilege and obligation to speak up for these little ones. God commands it and there is no ignoring Him. If that were the end of the story, that should be enough for us because the creator of the universe has spoken; but to isolate Proverbs 31:8 is to forget the larger narrative of scripture and how the Gospel functions as our lens to interpret scripture.