Abortion: One of many issues? Or a primary issue?

Posted on October 8, 2020 by Pastor Ron

Elections are coming soon, and we are being bombarded with waves of information with varying degrees of accuracy. How then do we make godly, wise decisions when this extreme polarization has clouded virtually all sources of information and there are a multitude of issues to consider? It can be confusing to say the least! One of the ways we can cut through the clutter is to look at each candidate’s stand on abortion. Whether they are pro-life or pro-abortion is a key litmus test that affects almost every other issue and almost every way a candidate will govern. As Mohler, president of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, recently said, if they get the abortion question wrong, they will eventually get almost every question wrong. The reason for this is that abortion hits on the issue of the sanctity of human life which is foundational to most decisions in relating to other people. This issue is also indicative of a worldview that affects most of the rest of life. While abortion is one of many issues to consider, I am arguing that it is a primary issue that rises above almost all other issues. In this age of angry politics, I would ask that rather than just react if you disagree, you read the entire case and then consider if your position matches the weight of these arguments.

I have had this post in the queue for four years now. It is not easy to write on just one aspect of the abortion / life discussion because there are so many different issues that make up the debate and I recognize they often intertwine. However, I chose to revisit this post and finish it this year as I have seen a rise of the acceptance of pro-abortion arguments by people who are pro-life. For instance, a talking point currently showing up in social media is that abortion is just one of many issues that God cares about and so it doesn’t matter if you vote for a pro-abortion candidate if they seemingly get the other issues correct. However, as we will discuss below, not all issues are equal or should be considered equally. This argument minimizes the value of life. Another argument that is often used is that there have been less abortions under pro-abortion candidates, so their policies must help life. We must evaluate the truth or falsehood of the claim as well as if there is causation. Consider that these “stats” generally do not include chemical abortions which have risen from 5% to 39% (2017) in the last sixteen years. Also, California stopped reporting abortion numbers to the CDC in 1998 and at the time they accounted for 23% of the nation’s abortions. The truthfulness of this claim is dubious at best. Regarding the idea that somehow pro-abortion candidates have caused a lessening of abortions is also false. Consider that abortions have fallen under ALL presidents since the 1980s. In fact even left-leaning Snopes calls this claim false as there is no causation that can be found. Also consider that there have been increasing state safety restrictions on abortion that are closely responsible for any drop in abortions. As we will discuss below, the policies of a pro-abortion candidate do not reduce abortions, but generally create an environment where some lives are less valued. This idea that pro-abortion officials somehow help the pro-life side is an deliberate attempt to deceive and obscure by the pro-abortion movement. Nevertheless, these arguments are spreading, and I am deeply concerned at a number of pro-life friends that are being deceived by these lies and starting to accept these arguments and consider other factors above the issue of abortion/life.

Why is the abortion issue a primary issue rather than one considered alongside a multitude of issues? Not only is it a foundational issue to worldview, but in human governance and reason, different offenses have different severity, usually corresponding with the value of the offense. For instance, stealing a sandwich should morally have a different penalty than stealing someone’s car. The value of the offense is different, and so the value or importance of the issue is different. In a similar way, the taking of a human life is inherently different from a host of other issues or crimes. It is much worse to take a human life than to take someone’s TV. Both are wrong, but one has a greater weight than another. While I may disagree with a candidate’s stance on taxes, how to help the poor, foreign policy, crudeness, or a host of other issues, the issue of life is significantly more important. We may very well weigh the secondary issues together and vote for a “lesser of two evils” candidate, but I would urge you to consider that the primary issue of abortion/life is one that rises above those secondary issues in importance and can invalidate a candidate regardless of the other issues. The weight of life is heavier. When a person is willing to morally compromise on an issue, they generally are then willing to compromise on lesser issues as well, even if they haven’t done so already. For instance, if a person can justify murder, then it is a lesser task to justify stealing or lying. The weightier issues requires a more significant compromise, thus making the lesser issues easier to compromise on.

Parameters

There are so many different angles and nuances that can be discussed regarding the pro-life / pro-abortion debate that it is almost impossible to cover them all in a single post. As such, I would like to lay out these parameters as a foundation to this particular discussion. Each of these warrant their own discussion and debate, but that is beyond the scope of this post.

  • An unborn child is a human life

It used to be that the debate was whether an unborn child was a human life, or just a clump of cells that was part of the mother’s body. As science and medicine have advanced, there is more and more overwhelming evidence that the unborn child is a human life, a human being, and it is morally wrong to terminate that life unless the life of the mother is in danger. We now know that the heart begins beating just two to three weeks into the pregnancy. We are seeing babies survive and live normal lives born earlier than we dreamt possible just a decade ago. This little life has its own human DNA, is growing, has brainwaves, and responds to stimulus. This is a human life by virtually any definition. We must err on the side of life. Consider this simple syllogism from Scott Klusendorf that helps us think this issue through.

Premise 1 – It is wrong to intentionally kill an innocent human being

Premise 2 – Elective abortion intentionally kills an innocent human being

Conclusion – Therefore, elective abortion is a moral wrong

Abortion always results in the killing of an innocent human. The truthful question is if we are rationalizing that act as okay. I realize that some of you may disagree with this point. I encourage you to keep doing research and listen to a fuller treatment of whether the unborn is a human life here.

In the horrible case that the mom’s life is truly in danger, it is ethical to save the mother’s life rather than lose both lives. If the little human life is viable, mom’s life can almost always be saved by delivering the baby alive either naturally or via C-section.

  • Rape and incest

There are also incredibly painful special cases such as rape or incest that should break our hearts. While I believe that those do not justify the taking of an innocent human life, for the purposes of this article I would not lump those into the vast majority of abortions that do not fall into that category and that do not endanger the life of the mother. We can disagree on these rare cases and should still agree that the majority of elective abortions are unjustly taking a human life. This post limits the discussion to those favoring elective abortions where the life of the mother is not in danger and the pregnancy did not arise from one of these horrendous situations.

  • Not saying who to vote for

The primary nature of a candidate’s stance on abortion does not tell us who to vote for, but rather who not to vote for. It is misguided to make the logical leap that if I don’t vote for candidate A, I must vote for candidate B. There are many options and many nuanced ways to consider the voting dilemma that good, thinking people disagree on. This post is arguing that a pro-abortion stance should disqualify a candidate from our vote, but that does not mean it qualifies another candidate. That is an ethical discussion for another day!

  • What about pro-all-of-life?

Often, the objection to the pro-life stance is that if we are truly pro-life, we should care about a baby’s life after birth and the mother who is in dire circumstances. Yes! Most pro-lifers would heartily agree. The pro-life person absolutely should care about babies after birth, the foster care system, adoption, etc. Some have tragically not cared beyond the abortion debate, and that is not ok. We all ought to strive to uphold the sanctity of life from womb to tomb. We absolutely should care about the young mother who is wondering how to feed her soon to be born child or worried about an abusive situation. I am grateful that the pro-life community and church community have risen above almost all other communities to support life at all stages. There are crisis pregnancy clinics in almost every city that support all of these situations and provide training and essentials at no cost. Churches are more and more opening doors and finding creative ways to protect and help. This however does not negate the importance of the abortion issue. It is logical to start addressing pro-life issues at whatever stages life is terminated. If life is ended, the remaining life issues don’t matter for them. Ethically, the core and most important issue to address is when life is terminated. The other life issues all depend on getting this primary issue right. I support being pro-all-of-life and, contrary to the narrative often portrayed, I have seen that those that hold a pro-life position are often on the front line in helping these situations. I would encourage us all to continue to improve on this aspect as well.

We also must not forget that this debate is often a deep dilemma and struggle for real people in desperate situations. Let’s work to show grace and sympathy to those mothers suddenly in difficult situations that they see no way out of. Being pro-life means caring for them too and for those that have made difficult decisions. Jesus offers grace to all and, as His hands and feet, we too are to extend grace and help wherever we can. It is not helpful to just tell a mom to keep the baby and deal with it. Simply put, that is not truly pro-life or honoring the sanctity of life.

Seven reasons the abortion issue is primary to governing well

While there may be more parameters worth mentioning, these give a groundwork on which we can explore seven reasons why we should consider not supporting a pro-abortion candidate. I believe any one of these invalidates a candidate from my vote, but all seven together make an overwhelming case.

A pro-abortion stance . . .

  1. Reveals a belief that not all human beings are equal  – Gal 3:28

The very act of allowing one person to choose to end the life of another is a statement of the relative value of the individuals in question. Abortion prioritizes the mother’s opinion over the baby’s life, thus valuing her as more of a human than the baby. This kind of selective prioritization is morally wrong and extremely damaging to a civilization. It is a short step, especially when in power, to valuing someone’s opinion more based on status, race, wealth, or familiarity. As a nation and as rational human beings, we must treat all human beings as equal and not selectively protect certain individuals over others. George Orwell humorously describes this tendency we all fight to view some as less than equal in his animal allegory Animal Farm.  One set of farm animals overthrew the farmer and seized power promising equality for all. It quickly degenerated into actions that showed their priorities were more important than other “equal” animals. Orwell writes, “All animals are equal but some animals are more equal than others.”

  1. Exposes that the official will ultimately not protect the most vulnerable in our society in or out of the womb – Psalm 82:3-4

A moral society must stand up for those that are vulnerable or not able to stand up for themselves. A baby does not have a voice whether in the womb or out of the womb. Government, as society’s tool for justice, must make an extra effort to protect the vulnerable. That is one of their jobs! In this case that includes protecting the lives of the unborn. Even if there is debate about when an unborn baby reaches the state of worth to be protected, a moral society will err on the side of life, not terminating life. If we do not stand for the vulnerable in the clear case of the unborn, other vulnerable groups or people will also fall to expedience. The fight is already moving to the sanctity of the end of life and if those people can be terminated once they cannot speak for themselves.

  1. Calls into question their ability to process information, understand the science of any issue and come to rational conclusions – Isaiah 5:20-21

I recognize that this is a strong statement, but I believe is an important and often ignored concept to consider. The science and medical information regarding the unborn child overwhelmingly supports that the child is a human life. DNA shows that it is not the mother’s body, but rather has its own distinct DNA from conception, thus defeating the “It’s my body” argument. Embryology textbooks show that from the earliest stages, from fertilization, an embryo is a distinct human life. One textbook says, is “A zygote is the beginning of a new human being (i.e., an embryo).” (Keith L. Moore, The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology)(many more resources at end) A 2019 University of Chicago five year study showed that 95% of biologists consider the unborn child a distinct human life. In the words of the study, they agreed that “a human’s life begins at fertilization.” The unborn child has all of the requirements needed to be considered alive.

In addition, the talking point that the right to abortion is about women’s health neglects to take into account that nearly a half a million females were killed last year due to abortion in the US and “health” never includes terminating another life. In fact, abortion is about women’s health and we start with the destruction of the health of half a million people. It is completely inconsistent to be pro women’s health and pro-abortion. Abortion has nothing to do with health and in fact violates the Hippocratic Oath. There is no scientific, rational way around the fact that abortion terminates a human life. We all know a baby is alive, we all know. We don’t call it a tumor, or a mass. We call it a baby, we have baby showers. We have gender reveal parties. It is a little human from day 1.

Circling back to the voting question. If a candidate cannot or will not accept the scientific and medical understanding of the beginning of human life, then we know that they will reject truth on other issues as well if it serves their purposes. We are left with the following choices about the candidate.

  • Either they know the facts and are intentionally supporting the ending of a human life
  • Or they have not done their research on a life and death issue before speaking to it and acting on it
  • Or they are willing to ignore the logical and rational conclusions to appease other people

All of these disqualify them from my vote. 

  1. Shows a willingness to allow special interest groups and an agenda to influence their policies above values and truth – Gal 1:10

This leads us to a fourth reason that a candidate’s position on abortion is a primary consideration in an election. The pro-abortion stance leads to and now requires a submission to pro-abortion special interest groups and agendas for fear of reprisal or desire for their support. Values and truth are trumped for needing to support the cause at any cost. There is no longer any room for contrary ideas in the pro-abortion camp or even common-sense protections and provisions. While this may be critiqued as a slippery slope argument pertaining to what a candidate might do, it is appropriate when we can already see the path down the slope. For instance, there are virtually no Democrats that are pro-life anymore. This is no longer ok if you want to be in the good graces of the party. Illinois pro-life Democrat Dan Lipinski was primaried out of office in March because his pro-life views are not compatible with the party’s platform or doctrine.  It doesn’t really matter if what you believe is true, but rather does it conform to the party agenda. This last year we saw Virginia’s governor support infanticide, the killing of babies after they are born, if that is what the mother wants. In his own words “The infant would be delivered, the infant would be kept comfortable, the infant would be resuscitated if that’s what the mother and the family desired. And then a discussion would ensue between the physicians and the mother.” Every democrat in the senate again this year (2/25/20), including Kamala Harris, voted to not protect babies born alive with medical care the same way you would any other human being. Note, that wasn’t about abortion, it dealt with babies who were already born. It is the intentional, appalling choice to let living babies die if the mother so desires. However, on the altar of not letting anything compromise abortion, the slippery slope is now calling to allow the death of babies outside of the womb. In this case, no senator or official that voted to allow babies to die if the mother desires should receive our votes. This issue is that important.

The slippery slope has also led to the acceptance of the practices of late term abortion even when the child is viable and partial birth abortions which endanger the life of the mother and kill a viable person. We rationally and morally cannot support either of these. These issues should be despicable to both pro-abortion and pro-life supporters, but the adherence to the abortion cause will not allow such a position. Much more could be said here because the evidence is overwhelming, but that is beyond the scope of this post. I encourage you to research this issue seriously along with countries like Iceland who are now aborting (killing) unborn children with Down’s syndrome to eliminate Down’s. This is not a moral way to treat disabilities! The abortion lobby is already seriously devaluing life. Our vote must not only stand against abortion, but against the myriad of places the abortion stance leads to.

Further, a pro-abortion stance represents a willingness to compromise moral choices to achieve desired ends. This is a strong claim but take a moment to think about it. The pro-abortion lobby often filters all choices through the pro-abortion view. This includes supreme court justices even though abortion should not be an issue on the court since they are not to litigate and simply are to enforce the constitution and laws made by the legislature. Parental consent of medical procedures is often sacrificed for the sake of abortions. The health of a woman is often sacrificed for the sake of abortions especially in the case of unmonitored chemical abortions. The clear evidence is a willingness to sacrifice moral rational choices to advance abortion. If a candidate supports this, they prove their willingness to sacrifice morals and will most likely do so or find it easier to do so in other cases.

  1. Displays a disregard of the role of government to defend the rights of all as long as they do not infringe on another’s basic rights – Prov 31:8-9; Phil 2:3-5

A primary role of our government is to protect and defend the rights granted in the constitution based in the fact that every human being is made in the image of God. This includes the rights of the unborn since they are distinct human lives. However, abortion allows one individual to exercise their “rights” to the detriment of another. One is allowed to push their views and agenda on another to the point of death. This cannot be allowed and is of primary importance. As in point 1, this represents giving some members of society power and superiority over others. All lives are important and should be protected, even the unborn. This is a basic function of government and if that is not understood or if it is disregarded, it reflects on the character and views of the candidate and will most likely rear its head in another area of governing as well. We do not want elected officials that value convenience and expediency over human life and are willing to make decisions in that light. This will eventually lead to the infringement of the rights of others and put other lives at risk. Again, remember that we are talking elective abortions and not cases where the life of the mother is genuinely at risk.

An example of this principle in action is the current call to repeal the Hyde amendment which prevents government money from funding abortions. The principle is that we are a divided country and to force half to violate their personal beliefs they have arrived at either through science, reason or faith (or all three) by forcing them to fund abortions with their tax dollars is morally wrong. Opposing this is the very definition of anti-choice. The current call is to remove choice from the pro-life half thus taking away rights and a choice not to support abortion from the ones deemed less important. This kind of bias is shameful.

This is also where the argument of bodily autonomy often enters in support of abortion. A definition of bodily autonomy often cited is from UCSB’s Sociology Dept, “Bodily autonomy is defined as the right to self governance over one’s own body without external influence or coercion”. Again, you start to see the language that puts one person’s rights as more important than another. Thus the argument is that a mother cannot be coerced into keeping the unborn life alive. However, this argument falls down when we consider some obvious limits. Bodily autonomy only goes as far as it does not deprive another of their basic rights such as life. We already know this in current law. For example, if a mother or a father of an infant chooses to get high or drunk with their body (bodily autonomy by almost every definition) and neglects their infant and does not provide nourishment and lets he/she sit in their own waste, that is illegal. The rights of the living baby supersede the right of the parent to do what he/she wants with his body. There are often conflicts of rights in society and that is why we have laws to help define them. Even if I’m tired and don’t want to be forced to care for my children, by law, I must, and I can be prosecuted if I don’t. This same principle should apply to an unborn child. This is a foundational function of government and law. A helpful illustration to show one of the many faults of “My Body, My Choice’ is to think of “My House, My rules.” This is true, but still doesn’t allow me to kill people in my house. That would be morally wrong and illegal. However, the understanding that this unborn baby has rights in no way says carrying and delivering a child is easy and I look for candidates that acknowledge this and find ways to help in difficult situations. But the primacy of life over other rights is vital to a healthy, functioning society.

  1. Reveals that they do not value our Declaration of Independence that guarantees the right to life for all people.  – Gen 1:26-27

From the Declaration of Independence of the United States of America:

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. . .

nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property”

To deprive an unborn human from life is to violate our founding principles. If we are willing to violate this principle, we are willing to violate others as well.

  1. Is rooted in racism and leads to further racism – James 2:1-13

This was an incredibly disturbing point to research as I uncovered the ugly side of racism and its influence in the past and present on abortion. I am not saying that all pro-abortion people are racists or that there are no racists on the other side. I am proposing that we increase our understanding of the ties between racism and abortion and reject both accordingly. It is well documented that the roots of Planned Parenthood with Margaret Sanger were racism and eugenics. As I researched though, it was apparent that racism is still an integral part of the abortion movement. This is why we are seeing a swell of African American leaders calling abortion “attempted genocide”. Consider these facts. (sources cited below)

  • 35-36% of abortions in the US are performed on African American women who represent 13% of the country’s female population
  • Latino-American women account for 20-23% of all abortions but only makeup another 13% of the female population
  • Black women are five times more likely than white women to receive an abortion
  • In some cities like New York, more Black children are aborted every year than are born alive”
  • 79 percent of Planned Parenthood’s surgical abortion facilities are located in or near communities of color.”
  • put to death in abortion facilities, making abortion the leading cause of death among African Americans.

These statistics break my heart. These are human lives that were terminated. Lives with potential and an ability to contribute to society when we value all races. To end these lives is morally despicable. My prayer is that we will come to a place where abortion is seen to be as reprehensible as racism. Dr. Alveda C. King, the daughter of Rev. A.D. King, Martin Luther King’s brother called abortion genocide. Executive director of the Human Coalition Action Rev. Dean Nelson along with 100 Black elected officials, pastors, and attorneys, in a letter to Planned Parenthood, said, “This effort demonstrates the outrage among the Black community that we have been strategically and consistently targeted by the abortion industry ever since the practice was legalized almost 50 years ago.” He’s not wrong and we must stand against any candidate that pledges to continue this practice.

Conclusion

The abortion issue is primary! These are seven ways that a pro-abortion stance should disqualify our vote for a candidate. I urge you to carefully consider the primacy of this issue and see it as a litmus test that informs your vote. If a candidate gets this wrong, they will eventually get almost everything wrong. The laws and policies they propose and support will harm life. The tone they set will harm life. The decisions they make will not honor the worth of every individual. The abortion issue matters in an election. Not just to us, but to 800,000 unborn babies that face abortion this year. Let’s think well as we go to vote.

~ Pastor Ron Johnson (foster parent, adoptive parent, and father of 3)

Additional resources

Introduction

Embryology (pt. 3)

Pro-abortion demands and agenda (pt. 4)

Resources cited on abortion linked with racism (pt. 7)

This entry was posted in Issues and tagged , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *