Abortion I: The Demeaning of the Abortress

I had originally planned to make short shrift of this issue – admit that the Maga perspective on abortion was a hands down winner over the pro-choice advocates and move on. I had lunch with Don White yesterday and he messed with my thinking somewhat. So, I may devote two if not three posts to this particular topic:

The sheep and goats passage found at the end of Matt 25 is one of Jesus’ parables that I consider most relevant in answering the question “What would Jesus do?”

33 He will put the sheep on his right and the goats on his left. 34 “Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. 35 For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, 36 I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.’ 37 “Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? 38 When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? 39 When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?’ 40 “The King will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of THE LEAST OF THESE BROTHERS AND SISTERS OF MINE, you did for me.’

When the issue of abortion comes up, my way of thinking has long been that there is no one who is more “least” than an unborn child living in his/her mother’s womb. The child is totally defenseless, he/she has done no wrong to anyone – does not even have a shirt on his/her back. So, I have also long believed that the act of breaking into the sanctuary of the womb and destroying a child must certainly be among the most heinous of offenses from Jesus’ standpoint.

Back in the early 90’s, among the many anti-abortion endeavors I undertook was to found Presbyterians Pro-Life of Louisiana. I organized and sponsored seminars directed at main-line denominational Christians to persuade them to always choose life. For one of the seminars, I brought in two young women who had been faced with unplanned pregnancies. One, who was unwed at the time, chose life. It was a difficult decision, but she had the support of her family (who happened to be quite wealthy) and within a year after the child was born, she met and soon married a wonderful man, who adopted her child as his own and they lived happily ever after.

The other woman who had been married at the time of her unplanned pregnancy, had two other young children. Her husband abandoned the family not long after learning about the new pregnancy. The woman had to take two jobs to support herself and her children. Her former husband offered to pay for an abortion and she agreed. She had little, if any support from her parents. If she carried this child to term, there would have been a period of several months where she simply could not work and would not have been able to pay rent, groceries, etc.

But that is not what she talked about. Her message was, don’t get an abortion – no matter what the justifications are. Because she had chosen the easy way out, she was now so racked with guilt and shame for killing her child that she rarely could sleep through the night. She was now a broken miserable person and a terrible mother to her first two children. She stood in front of the audience and wept.

Ta dah! Do you want to be like the radiant first lady who bore her child or this miserable woman who chose abortion? Choose life and be happy. Applause.

I was quite pleased with that presentation at the time. Today I am very ashamed of what I did. Of those two women, I believe that Jesus wanted me to have more compassion for the latter than the former. And today I think that I would.

To be continued. (remember Brothers and Sisters from verse 25:40)

Most Relevant Comments

  • Thomas L VirgetsThanks David🌹🙏🏻
  • ActiveJC CartwrightThank you David for this story, Jesus used parables to clarify and enlighten us all, I had not viewed this one in this manner and cannot disagree.However, we are starting to see in other posts on this subject of when does a fetus receive their Soul.We start with Genesis and when Adam, made from the mud, received the “Breath of God” (Ruark). Granted, Adam, in one of the Creation Stories was not born of a woman, but that is beside the point, the breath of God (Spirit, Soul) was given to Adam. That Soul was a temporary gift and left the body at the time of death – about 120 years according to Genesis.When is that gift of the spirit, the soul first present in a human being? This is the Christian/Hebrew understanding of why Murder is a sin and why we can slaughter animals who have no soul cannot be murdered.Personally, my belief is that the Soul is given at the time of conception and only God who gave that unique gift can take it away. All the other arguments for abortion are subordinate to that one position.Other views will advance the belief that the Soul is only installed at the time of birth -so, it is okay to terminate the life of a fetus up until that child takes their first breath, after all that mass of tissue is no different than any other animal, a soulless living mass of tissue.The next time we face a pro-choice advocate, ask them if they eat meat. If they do, what do they consider to be a good meal that features meat as an item on the plate. Then ask them why is it not considered a good thing to have an unborn baby all roasted up to perfection as the main course for that meal? I shudder when I even envision that dinner plate. My money would be that the pro-choice person would shudder as well and reject that meal outright, but why would they do that, after all that baby is no different than any other animal.I am thankful that God gave his only son to the world for the salvation of our souls, regardless of when that soul was installed in me. I will have the opportunity to repent of all my sins and If I ask for forgiveness, God will erase them all and I will be admitted to His Kingdom. Even Donald Trump, Hitler and William Jefferson Clinton have that offering and for all those who believe they will burn in Hell, the end may be different and we may all get to spend eternity with “The Donald” or a host of other sinners. Yes, I had to yank that chain. Jesus told us to love our neighbors, that includes all those sinners, even Trump or Clinton and those that believe in abortion. Living into Gods’ vision for his creations is not easy. I blame God for giving us free will. And that is okay too.
    • Hamilton Barrow WillisJC Cartwright Your religious beliefs have no place in formulating laws that affect others who do not share your religious beliefs. The whole reason the founders established separation of church and state in the Constitution was to prevent the beliefs and worship practices of one religious sect from being adopted as an official religion forced on those of a different religion or religious sect. FYI there are many US citizens who do not believe that fetuses are fully persons with souls and spirits until after birth. There are also many US citizens whose religious beliefs include the belief that all living creatures (those drawing breath or deriving oxygen from water) have souls and or spirits. There are many US citizens who believe all things, even rocks, rivers, plants and the Earth herself have spirits. Keep religion out of government as the founders intended
    • Daniel RunkleJC Cartwright the difference is man/woman are created in the image of God, according to God.Unlike many, I do agree with respecting the life of animals, and believe that animals do have “nephesh hayim”, souls of life. That’s in the Bible. They ar… See mor
    • Paul PetersHamilton Barrow Willis , this is the best post yet as religion and politics is an uncomfortable combination in David Treppendahl and Don’s post —- David is a good writer with interesting content when he sticks to issues he is trained in intelligently rather than mixing with radical religion.
    • ActiveJC CartwrightHamilton Barrow Willis I will ask only this, if religious beliefs have no place in the formulation of laws, then why are the 10 Commandments in a frieze in the Supreme Court building. Religious belief were foundational in creating the law. All of the ethical considerations used in crafting laws are informed by religious beliefs.That said, why is it anathema to a vast majority to eat human flesh? What is wrong with it, after all there is nothing special about us, our protein is just as nutritious as a steak from a cow. Why should human flesh be any different from any other animals flesh?The Bible never outright states to NOT each human flesh, but alludes to it in many places – mostly in a negative context (Leviticus 26:29). So, should we not be informed by this belief.So many examples within our laws that have their roots within religious belief.
    • ActiveDavid TreppendahlJC Cartwright I am currently attending a course on the Federalist Papers being taught by a History Professor Emeritus from LSU, Dr. James Bolner. What we discussed in our last session was the importance of Christianity to the founding documents : Dec of Ind, Constitution, and Articles of Confederation. What is really surprising is that in the 81 Federalist papers – some 180,000 words compared to 2,000 in the Constitution – there is not one scripture referenced, not one mention of Jesus or even of God in the Federalist papers. (James Madison, the chief author of the Constitution and arguably wrote 41 of the 81 Federalist papers – 2 more than Hamilton) was a devout Christian. And yet, he meticulously never brings his faith into the establishment of the American government. Ms Willis is spot on in her comments that the Founders had no intent of making this a Christian nation. So when Daniel Runkle and others want to quote scriptures and use them as a source for making laws – realize, particularly if they believe in the originalist interpretation of the Constitution, that they are standing not even on thin ice – they are fabricating something out of thin air. The fact that someone later tacked the 10 commandments up on the Supreme Court building nearly two centuries after the Constitution does not mean we are a Christian or a Judeo Christian nation. Just to clarify, this Maga versus Dems series I am doing where I consider who more closely follows the teachings of Jesus in no way proports to mix politics and religion. I am taking different political issues, identifying the words and actions of the respective parties, and then evaluating which of the two antagonists is more aligned with the teachings of Jesus. But I am not proposing that we take the teachings of Jesus and incorporate them into civil laws. And anyone who is a Constitution originalist should not do so either.
    • ActiveJC CartwrightDavid Treppendahl Wow, I will look for current offerings from Univ. of N. Georgia – they periodically offer free college courses to seniors. I forgot that I am eligible. Blame it on my age. That Federalist Paper course would be interesting
    • ActiveDavid TreppendahlPaul Peters Thanks Paul for your kind words. Radical religion. My friend, like it or not, Jesus of Nazareth was a radical: “Definition of radical. adjective. of or going to the root or origin; fundamental: a radical difference. thoroughgoing or extreme, especially as regards change from accepted or traditional forms: a radical change in the policy of a company.” Jesus brought about so much fundamental change that history has long divided itself into two parts _ BC (Before Christ) AD Anno Domini – the Year of our Lord. And he did it from the left. From a political/economic standpoint, he sought to change the status quo such that the wealthy and the powerful would give more consideration to the have nots. Che Guevara and Karl Marx had similar desires, they just did not have the wisdom and love possessed by Jesus.
  • Dennis LegerAn excellent topic for debate. Mostly, whichever side pro-life or pro-abortion someone is on, that feeling is strong with not much (if any) middle ground. So, I will go ahead and state where I am on it. I am strong on the pro-life side, and because I am, I now have a wonderful 21 year-old son who was born out of wedlock. I think his mother would have at least considered abortion at my request, but that was not going to happen. That boy has brought untold amounts of joy into my life that would have never happened. I am so glad I chose life for him. However, I think perhaps abortion should be allowed — for very special circumstances. I perhaps think it should be allowed (as early as possible into the pregnancy) if it has been medically determined that there is no doubt that the mother’s life is at stake. Also, there should be exceptions for rape and incest. I think it would be a horrible thing to “force” a woman to carry and birth a child conceived via rape or incest. People that want to kill an unborn child up to the very moment of birth are very sick individuals. This current day thinking of “abortion on demand at any time for any reason or no reason” is definitely not acceptable for me. For anyone who is pro-abortion, perhaps one “heart-wrenching” conversation with a former abortionist would change their heart on this. Or better yet, have them go and witness a few abortions, including one that was very close to the moment of birth. If that doesn’t do it, then perhaps nothing will. It is sad to see how many people today “Celebrate” successes in passing abortion laws giving this U.S. society the legal rights to kill innocent unborn children. Having a “legal right” to do something doesn’t make it “right.”
  • Hamilton Barrow Willis
  • Leaving the whole issue that some trying to force their religion’s beliefs on all of us through governmental machinations, laws that are able to be applied solely to one segment of the citizenry merely because of their gender are unconstitutional. I am pro- choice and disgusted that men who lack a uterus continue to opine on a situation that is none of their business. No man should have any say on a woman’s choice regarding pregnancy unless he is responsible for that pregnancy and is willing to support a woman and child until the child reaches 18. If he happens to be one of the millions of men who has caused an unwanted pregnancy because they refuse to be responsible and wear a condom or get a vasectomy, or support the child and his mother during pregnancy and after birth, he should have no say at all.m in the matter. Anti- choice women need to butt out as well unless they want to support a pregnant woman and child until that child is an adult as well. I am tired of those who call themselves pro- life, when in fact, they show total disregard for the lives of women who are already here and breathing, in favor of a fetus who has never drawn breath. These people are not pro-life; they are pro- birth. The same people who want to deny women the right to control our own reproductive lives, are often the same people who oppose any program that helps single women and babies / children born into poverty. These same people who want to use the government through law to force women to remain pregnant no matter what, want to deny marriage to same-sex couples, and to make contraceptives more difficult for women to afford and obtain, are the same people who lobby constantly to prevent reinstatement of laws to ban assault weapons on the grounds that this infringes on their right to own these murder machines. Anti-choice hypocrites need to mind their own business. Anti-choice males need to stop unwanted pregnancies at their source and get vasectomies.
  • ActiveJC CartwrightAll the fun and none of the Responsibility! Why not
    • Hamilton Barrow WillisJC Cartwright Only correct if you are referencing the male impregnators like Hershel Walker who have their fun and shirk their responsibilities — other than offering to pay for abortions they claim to be against women being able to get

Return to links page: https://respectfulpointsandcounterpoints.com/links-to-discussion-on-understanding-progressives/

Scroll to Top