Do You Think the Willingness of both Political Parties’ Leaders to Acknowledge the Moral Implications and Aspects of Abortion Are an Offering of Good Will and Common Ground?

To say that the acknowledgement of the moral implications and aspects of abortion are “an offering of good will and common ground” sounds nice, but William Wilberforce and his fellow abolitionists were constantly told this by those who wanted to massage slavery and tweak it here and there and maybe improve the conditions a little on the slave ships.

I am frankly weary of the “prochoice” movement attempting to take the moral high ground as it justifies dispensing with children because they are inconvenient and unwanted and expensive (especially when a few million families wait in line to pay for adopting and raising these children). Countless children are unwanted after they’re born. So why not kill them then? Abortion is prenatal child abuse. The solution isn’t abusing children earlier; it’s not abusing them at all.

Slave owners were prochoice. They emphasized physical differences to justify their superiority over the enslaved. They said, “You don’t have to own slaves, but don’t tell us we can’t choose to." Those who wanted slave-holding to be illegal were accused of being anti-choice and anti-freedom, and of imposing their morality on others.

Every movement of oppression and exploitation—from slavery, to prostitution, to drug dealing, to abortion—has labeled itself prochoice. Likewise, they’ve labeled opposing movements that offer compassion and deliverance as “anti-choice.”

The prochoice position always overlooks the victim’s right to choose. Blacks didn’t choose slavery. Jews didn’t choose the ovens. Women don’t choose rape. And babies don’t choose abortion.

I keep hearing prochoice people say that while they personally don’t favor abortion, they think it should be a legal option for others. (Try saying that about rape or manslaughter.) The only good reason for opposing abortion (that it kills an innocent child) is a reason that demands opposing others doing it. Here’s an article where I address “Answering the Argument of Personally Against Abortion, but Still Pro-Choice.”

Abortion is either the killing of children or it is not. If it is not, then why should anyone care about it? But if it is, why should anyone be encouraged by people who claim to “acknowledge the moral implications” of abortion but whose platform expressly states “The Democratic Party strongly and unequivocally supports Roe v. Wade and a woman's right to choose a safe and legal abortion, regardless of ability to pay, and we oppose any and all efforts to weaken or undermine that right”? (And it is every bit as repugnant when I hear Republicans present this as their position.)

What possible "moral implications" about abortion can anyone be acknowledging when you take this unequivocal position stated in the quotation?

I am a person who cares so much about the poor that a large portion of my income goes to helping them. I staunchly defend racial equality, and I am an environmentalist because this is God’s planet, and we have a commission to care for it. I am committed to the humane treatment of animals. And yet I am constantly being told that I need to be flexible and open-minded about the killing of children, and just realize it’s really not as bad as I think.

If only that were true. My life would be much easier, and I would sleep better at night, if I could just believe that lie.

Jesus said, "He [the devil] was a murderer from the beginning, not holding to the truth, for there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks his native language, for he is a liar and the father of lies.” (John 8:44)

Here are some biblical passages on the shedding of innocent blood (not limited to unborn children, but surely including them):

If the people of the community close their eyes when that man gives one of his children to Molech... I will set my face against that man and his family and will cut off from their people both him and all who follow him... (Leviticus 20:1-5)

Do this so that innocent blood will not be shed in your land, which the LORD your God is giving you as your inheritance, and so that you will not be guilty of bloodshed. (Deuteronomy 19:10)

He sent them to destroy Judah... Surely these things happened to Judah according to the Lord’s command, in order to remove them from his presence because of the sins of Manasseh and all he had done, including the shedding of innocent blood. For he filled Jerusalem with innocent blood, and the LORD was not willing to forgive. (2 Kings 24:2-4)

There are six things the LORD hates, seven that are detestable to him: haughty eyes, a lying tongue, hands that shed innocent blood... (Proverbs 6:16-19)

Therefore as surely as I live, declares the Sovereign LORD, I will give you over to bloodshed and it will pursue you. Since you did not hate bloodshed, bloodshed will pursue you. (Ezekiel 35:6)

Randy Alcorn, founder of EPM

Randy Alcorn (@randyalcorn) is the author of over fifty books and the founder and director of Eternal Perspective Ministries