Have you witnessed this disturbing trend? Pro-life Christians are voting for pro-choice candidates. I am compelled to respond to the many illogical arguments Christians are using to defend this and expose the lies being sold to well-intentioned, but misguided individuals.

What is the source of these erroneous assumptions and arguments flooding social media, appealing to pro-life voters? Staunch, devout pro-death advocates! Yet, and I find this shocking, this fact does not seem to cause those who are reposting these lame arguments pause. I choose to assume that the reposters are unaware that they are disseminating deception and will be responsive to hearing facts. So here are the facts. I pray that those who are truly desiring to see abortion end will read this entire article through to the end.

View Comments (13)

CORRUPTED DATA

The data in this chart is problematic for many reasons, but let’s start with the “nonhospital abortion patients.” Hmmm…what does mean? Simply, that means the data they are putting forth did not come from hospitals. Abortion data is NOT publicly accessible for any and all to locate and corroborate. Consequently, the only place it could come from is abortion clinics.

Is this really a reliable source of information?

Abortion providers target young women and girls

Those clinics that make money from encouraging young women and girls to brutally kill their babies are the ones we are to rely upon to give us the compelling data that is supposed to somehow justify the continuation of abortion policies? Note, they do not just push for continuing to keep abortion legal, but actively work to expand it.

And yes, I did mean to say young girls. Even according to their own data above (although I completely doubt its accuracy), 72% of the over 60 million abortions since Roe have been young women and girls in their teens and 20s. That means that over 43 million young women and girls have been victimized by the abortion industry. And the 12% they seem to throw off as nominal, or even worse 4% of minors, translates into 7.2 and 2.4 million respectively, as if we are supposed to turn a blind eye to 2.4 million underage minors having been encouraged to kill their babies. Do we look at this data and simply shrug off the trauma of 43 million young women and girls, knowing that their lives have been devastated at a time when many of them were too young to know better?

And I remind you, this so-called “compelling” data is being collected by the same moral bastions who have no issue with profiting financially from barbarically dismembering defenseless, innocent babies? Really? That is like taking compelling data from the Nazis to justify the economic benefits from the Holocaust or taking all of our data as to the benefits from the institution of slavery solely from the evil masters on the plantations. And yet, we have tons of seemingly well-intentioned people, even Christians, blindly quoting this data, as if it is objective, and worse yet, as if it is compelling.

The Guttmacher Institute Is NOT an Unbiased Nonprofit

If you want to see the heart and motives behind the Guttmacher Institute, it isn’t hard to find. It doesn’t even take a lot of digging. They tweet it out for us to read.

They are advocating that bodily autonomy trumps sanctity of life, abortion in later pregnancy shouldn’t be vilified but rather allowed after 22-weeks (which is at the end of the second trimester and entering the 6^th month of pregnancy and despite the fact that it is medically documented that babies undeniably feel pain at 20 weeks), and they even call those of us who are pro-life “Abortion Opponents.”

All abortion data comes from abortion providers

Seriously, does that sound like it is coming from an unbiased and objective research-based non-profit? Calling the Guttmacher Institute a reliable source of data would be like calling the Southern Poverty Law Center an objective source of terrorism and hate crimes. And for those who say, “Well, the same data is on the CDC,” of course it is. The fact that it is the exact same data should immediately tell you from where the CDC got its data. It’s not like there is some objective pool where this type of information on the women and girls who are having abortions is kept. Those who are compiling the data are the very people who are performing the abortions. So, relying on them for factual accuracy and then disseminating it to justify policy positions is literally us being blind enough to allow the fox to guard the hen house. Do we really want to be that naive?

“Data” should not justify what is unjust

Every serious researcher knows that you can prove anything with data, the relevant questions are the controls that are put in place to verify the credibility and logical conclusion. But what should be even more obvious to those of us as Christians is it is data. Meaning, when do we ever allow unjust laws or policies to be put in place because of data? Murder is wrong. It is always wrong. Slavery is wrong. It is always wrong. Those who would attempt to make the argument that we should legalize murder in an effort to reduce the number of murders that take place and then use data to justify their argument should rightly be disregarded as misguided at best, and evil deceivers at worst.

Some Christians are advocating socialism as the most effective means of reducing abortion

And for those Christians who point to policies of advocating for government socialism as a viable means of reducing abortions rather than making them illegal, let me expose all the errors and fallacies within that argument. As Christians, we cannot advocate for government welfare and providing women’s reproductive care through taxpayer funding of Planned Parenthood. (Watch Unplanned.)

First, the Bible instructs civil government to protect the innocent. Benevolent civil government is an oxymoron. The role of civil government, according to the Bible (Romans 13), is to be the terror of the sword to those who do evil. What that means, plain and simple, is the proper role and function for the civil government is security. It is to function like a shepherd who beats off the wolves from harming the sheep so that the sheep may live their lives in peace. So, the proper roles of the civil government are national security, military, and police power. Therefore, it is completely within its proper role of jurisdiction to make laws that criminalize behavior that directly harms another human being, such as murder, theft, assault, battery, etc.

What is sad is that Christians who say they are pro-life are actively advocating for the government to NOT pass laws to protect the innocent, which in fact the Bible details civil governments should do.

Second, the Bible teaches that the Church is responsible for benevolence to the poor. It is completely unbiblical to advocate for the government to take on the responsibility for benevolence to the poor, when the Bible appoints the corporate body of Christ to be responsible as the hands and heart of Jesus.

True religion undefiled is to care for the widows and the orphans. Yet, many in the church are unashamed to punt this off to the civil government. Further, there are those who boldly try to shame those of us who want the church, not the government, to fulfill this biblical call to compassionate care, as though opposition to socialism is indicative of not being benevolent. In reality, the church in America is quite giving and has many ministries in place that are much more effective in helping with poverty and unplanned pregnancies than the government. But even if that weren’t the case, should we ever have the following response? “We know the Bible teaches us to care for others, and we know the Bible doesn’t want the civil government to do it, but since we’re not doing a good job, let’s not challenge ourselves to do better, let’s just shift the burden to the government and shame the rest of the church who wishes to actually care.” I apologize if I am stepping on any toes of those who have out of a sincere heart put forward the above argument not realizing what you were actually saying. But in light of the urgency of the current situation, I do not feel I can mince words in an effort to spare feelings.

Inherent racism in Planned Parenthood, Roe and abortion in America

Justice Ginsburg said that Roe was about “population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don’t want to have too many of.” We must not allow these racially charged remarks to be brushed off as not meaning what is plainly stated.

Abortion advocates point to data of higher rates of abortion in impoverished inner-city areas as proof that poor mothers are victims of a lack of government funding. In reality, abortionists choose where they place their clinics. The disproportionately high rate of abortions within black America is proof of the selective genocide that was always intended. They target the poor and then use the higher numbers of poor abortion victims to justify the continuation of their “services.” This selective genocide is Planned Parenthood’s intended goal; it is not an unintended result of lack of funding. We should not allow PP to strategically plan the holocaust, then use the data of the holocaust to justify the continued need for its “services.” We must face the harsh reality that these poor, inner-city girls have always been the intended victims, to get rid of those “we don’t want to have too many of.”

The Supreme Court overturning Roe is all the more (not less) reason to vote pro-life

It is not true that even if the Supreme Court overturns Roe, it will not end abortion as the issue will pass to the states. Think about the fallacy of this argument. Prior to Roe v. Wade, various states had laws outlawing abortion. After Roe, no states were allowed to do so. Why? Because the Court in Roe created a constitutional right to abortion, in the absence of any specific language, but as part of an amorphous right of privacy, vaguely drawn from arguably either the 9^th or 14^th amendments. This ruling requires strict scrutiny of any state law that might infringe upon the alleged and concocted right of abortion, which has discouraged states from passing abortion laws. It is disingenuous to say that the Supreme Court can rule one direction and extremely limit the actions of the state, but a decision that would overrule this would not equally limit state actions.

Many people do not realize that there actually is constitutional language through the legal doctrine of incorporation by reference taken from the Declaration that directly confers an unalienable right to life at the point of creation. This constitutional legal argument is much more defensible than the subjective argument in Roe that “guarantees in the Bill of Rights have penumbras, formed by emanations from those guarantees.” This is the logic, or lack thereof, upon which Justice Blackmum, relying upon Justice Douglas, put forward in Roe to justify the existence of a right to abortion. What does that bizarre language even mean? Well, a penumbra is “the partial or imperfect shadow outside the complete shadow of an opaque body,” and an emanation is “an abstract but perceptible thing that issues or originates from a source.” So, “guarantees in the Bill of Rights have shadows beyond their complete shadow, formed by abstract things that originate from those guarantees” is the argument the Supreme Court used to concoct a fundamental right to abort innocent babies. Should the Supreme Court rightly interpret the Constitution to include an unalienable right to life, then undeniably, such a proper ruling would definitively end abortion, and the issue would not pass as a principle of federalism to the states.

The burden of caring for a baby NEVER justifies killing the baby

If we allow the argument to be made that when, due to poverty or other circumstances, the burden of caring for another human baby justifies the killing of that baby, then what principle have we embraced? Take a moment and think about what assumption is behind the argument that to effectively combat abortion we must address poverty. This assumption makes no sense in the absence of accepting the belief that children are a burden and as a burden mothers are justified in looking to abortion as a solution.

We must never accept the assumption that abortion is justified on the basis of a burden, economic or otherwise, to the parent. That we accept such an assumption is obvious if we make arguments to reduce abortion by using data at the beginning of this article showing that 75% of abortions are had by those in poverty. And that 62% of them are religious, so our faith necessarily should have no baring or impact upon our morality.

Any society that morally accepts such an underlying assumption is doomed to encounter arguments for euthanasia of older children. Why? It’s simple, at what point do we morally switch to magically giving life value such that children cease to be vulnerable to being viewed as a burden to the parent? And for those who say an argument for euthanasia would never be made out of sympathy and concern to the parent, you need to ask yourself, what would be the distinguishing factor to prevent such an argument in a society where even Christians accept as defensible that the burden to the parent that comes from having to care for a child is sufficient justification to kill that baby? I can answer that question, NOTHING. The vile devaluing of the sanctity of human life once made has no logical end. This is proof by the following statement by the Gov. of Virginia who himself is a pediatric neurologist. “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.” So, this gruesome scene of discussing whether or not to kill your already born baby is supposed to somehow make us okay because it is being had by the mother with her all-wise, all-moral physician?

Let me make this issue as simple and as clear as it really is. Death is bad. Life is good. Satan is the one who comes to steal, KILL, and destroy. Jesus came that we may have LIFE and LIFE abundantly! Therefore, may we as the body of Christ fall on the right side of history on this issue as we cast our ballots on November 3.

May the spirit of confusion not cause us to cancel out the votes of our brothers and sisters in such a way that we as the body of Christ have no influence upon the outcome of this most-crucial election.

More about being salt and light in the culture from Cynthia Dunbar–watch this compelling video created by Cynthia and her husband Jake.