Josh Benner

Category: prolife

  • Religious leaders sue in Florida arguing that having abortion is an issue of religious liberty

    Religious leaders sue in Florida arguing that having abortion is an issue of religious liberty

    The Washington Post has an article about a group of religious leaders in Florida who are suing the state over abortion restrictions with the argument that it violates their religious freedom. 

    Florida’s new abortion laws do not ban abortions outright (unfortunately). But they do ban abortions after 15 weeks unless there are risks to the health of the mother. But that doesn’t go far enough for these folks. 

    The article begins: 

    When the Rev. Laurie Hafner ministers to her Florida congregants about abortion, she looks to the founding values of the United Church of Christ, her lifelong denomination: religious freedom and freedom of thought. She taps into her reading of Genesis, which says “man became a living being” when God breathed “the breath of life” into Adam. She thinks of Jesus promising believers full and abundant life.

    Interesting that the article begins by talking about life and the breath of life, and abundant life in an article where pastors are arguing against the right to life of the unborn. We’re alive before we’re born so I’m not sure exactly when all of these rights begin. The Bible also talks about God knowing who we are prior to physical birth. 

    Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you (Jeremiah 1:5). 

    For you formed my inward parts; you knitted me together in my mother’s womb. I praise you, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made (Psalm 139:16). 

    The Lord called me from the womb, from the body of my mother he named my name (Isaiah 49:1). 

    he who had set me apart before I was born, and who called me by his grace (Galatians 1:15). 

    I could continue, but you get the point. 

    The article continues with the “pastor” saying, “I am pro-choice not in spite of my faith, but because of my faith.” 

    Ah yes, that great Christian virtue of taking life of the unborn. There is no taking of innocent life to the glory of God. It is a backwards misrepresentation of Christianity to argue that it is this great thing to support. I can appreciate that there are Christians who believe in the gospel and who are misguided and have a wrong view of abortion. But it’s a sad commentary when a person is a member of the clergy and is advocating against the rights of the unborn. Not only is she arguing against these rights but she’s arguing that supporting the killing of a baby is something which her faith compels.  

    In the article, Hafner says, “​​I think the religious right has had the resources and the voices politically and socially to be so loud, and frankly, they don’t represent the Christian faith,”

    I wouild argue that culturally, it is the left who has the loudest voice and they’re the ones who have largely brainwashed our society into thinking hat abortion is this great good. Not just ab ortion but radical beliefs on abortion such as late term abortion, and for any reason. That’s the stance of the Democratic Party. 

    She says the religious right does not represent the Christian faith. I can appreciate the room for critique, but the Christian left certainly does not represent the Christian faith when its proponents advocate for a whole host of beliefs which are antithetical to historical (and more importantly, Biblical teachings) on sexual ethics. 

    From the article: “Look biblically; Jesus says nothing about abortion. He talks about loving your neighbor and living abundantly and fully. He says: ‘I come that you might have full life.’ 

    Jesus does say nothing about abortion. So then why ought a professing Christian advocate for it? Shouldn’t we er on the side of life rather than on the side of death?

    Love your neighbor? Abundant life? They’re the ones advocating for killing the unborn. I would say to love your neighbor is also to love the unborn.

    Jesus said Let the little ones come to me (Luke 18:16). 

    Jesus said Whatever you did for the least of these, you did for me (Matthew 25:20). Surely the unborn, who are unable to protect themselves and advocate for themselves fall into that category. 

    There are things that can be done to support the mothers. Christians adopt at higher rates than non Christians. I’m all for also supporting mothers, but not at the expense of the life of the baby. 

    The article also interviews a Unitarian pastor named Tom Capo who argues,” “It has to do with the belief in the inherent worth and dignity of every human being,” Once again, that’s incoherent. Inherent worth and dignity of every human being? You’re arguing in favor of abortion. You do not believe in inherent worth and dignity. If you believed it was inherent, you’d be pro life. That’s why I am pro life! Because I believe that we actually have inherent worth and dignity. He believes we have acquired worth and dignity at some point.

    It’s disgraceful. 

    Also, I thought we were supposed to have separation of church and state? That’s what I always hear. Being pro life is not an inherently religious position. But these religious leaders are the ones beating their chests about how “It’s because I’m religious that I’m pro choice.”

    I have no doubt that these people are all very religious but the problem is that their religion is the religion of liberalism and liberalism great sacrament is the right to kill the unborn.

    Thanks for reading! If you liked this post, please share and subscribe.

  • “You’re not pro-life, you’re pro birth:” And other ridiculous arguments

    “You’re not pro-life, you’re pro birth:” And other ridiculous arguments

    A common argument I hear in the abortion debate is that pro life people aren’t really pro-life, we’re pro birth. That if we were really pro-life, we’d support all sorts of government programs. Federally backed universal pre-K, expanded maternity leave, etc, etc, etc. Furthermore, we also must personally be adopting and fostering babies and donating to help support mothers who don’t want to have babies. 

    To be fair, many pro-life people do those things. Christians, for instance, adopt babies at a rate that is twice the national average. Pro-life people open up pregnancy centers to care for mothers. There are also innumerable government programs which help provide food, healthcare, and other necessities. During this formula shortage (and as the father of an eight month old, I’m in the thick of it), I learned that like half the babies in America qualify for WIC . 

    Could these programs be expanded even more? Sure. I’d be on board with that. But here’s part of the issue. There’s always one more government program people can think of.

    I also think that it should be easier for people to adopt. If it wasn’t prohibitively expensive, many more people would adopt. But just because I haven’t adopted a baby, that doesn’t mean that I’m just pro-birth. 

    That’s like saying that if a person didn’t personally host a Jewish person in their home during the reign of the Third Reich, that they didn’t really oppose the Holocaust. Yes, I realize that’s not a perfect analogy (as far more babies have been aborted than people died in the Holocaust). I know people will say it’s not the same. But it’s a sad thing that we can’t at least agree that tens of millions of aborted babies is a tragedy. 

    It’s such a bizarre exercise where pro-choice people try to dictate what pro-life people must do in order to actually be pro-life. And if we don’t, then people should be allowed to kill their babies. So basically, it’s a hostage situation. 

    Now for the person who’s pro-choice, if pro-lifers did all of these things, would the pro-choice person then be pro-life too? Of course not! (At least, not anyone I’ve ever talked to who’s pro-choice). Because it’s not simply about a lack of resources, but it’s about a fundamental belief that it’s morally acceptable (and even laudatory) for a person to kill their not yet born baby. 

    For that reason, the argument has always seemed to be to be disingenuous. 

    So pro-life people aren’t really pro-life if we’re not progressive liberals. That has always seemed pretty convenient. But here’s the thing. 

    If you’re pro-choice, then that means you are just as supportive of a woman choosing to abort OR to have the baby. But if you’re truly supportive of a woman having the baby, then what are YOU doing for that child? You also need to adopt him or her. 

    I mentioned earlier in this piece that tens of millions of babies have been aborted in this country. In the wake of the Roe reversal, I’ve wondered if the radicalism of the abortion movement was part of what led to the pro-life movement having the political will to see numerous states pass laws which are pro life.

    We had been told it could never happen. Abortion went from being something “safe, legal, and rare,” something that was an unfortunate reality to something that became glorified. Not among everyone who’s had an abortion, but you’d see the “shout your abortion” movement and those talking about having had multiple abortions and treating abortion as birth control. It became grotesque. Blue states pushed for late term abortion laws where a fully developed fetus could be killed.

    I’ve heard people talk about how much of a step back this is for America. The Mississippi law that led to the legal challenges that led to the overturning of Roe challenged a Mississippi abortion ban (unless there was an emergency situation) after 15 weeks. That’s later than most of Europe allows abortions. 

    But it wasn’t good enough. The radical abortion movement in America fought any limitations on abortion. Even with a fully developed fetus, even with a fetus that had a developed nervous system and that could feel pain. And we were told that such actions were good things. 

    The taking of innocent life was never good.

    Thanks for reading. If you liked this post, please share and subscribe.

  • Roe overturned

    Roe overturned

    I still remember the moment when my wife got an update on her phone about a leaked Supreme Court document that SCOTUS was going to overturn the historic Roe v Wade decision from 1973.

    Before that, I never thought I’d see the day. Today, it became official as the court overturns a constitutional right to abortion.

    The aftermath of this decision will lead to intense debate. From the most ardent supporters of abortion, there will be sackcloth and ashes. Over the past several weeks, we’ve heard the various talking points about how necessary abortion is, and about how women will just do them illegally.

    Overturning Roe doesn’t make abortion illegal. But it does give states broader authority to limit abortion. Numerous states already had laws to limit abortion already in place in case Roe was overturned.

    Sadly, all abortions will not yet be stopped and there is still more work to do. But lives will be saved.

    Before Roe v. Wade was decided by the Supreme Court in 1973, 30 states had made abortion illegal and it was only allowed under certain circumstances in 16 more. We hear a lot about democracy and “threats to democracy.” Roe was a threat to our humanity. Roe went against the will of the people and in the process, led to horrendous casualties. 

    We’ve made termination the easy way out over choosing life. We’ve undermined the value of life of those conceived in cases of rape and incest and made them political pawns as if their lives are expendable. We’ve talked about people being raised in less stable families as if they’d be better not being able to live at all. Millions of people who have lived through similarly challenging upbringings would beg to differ. 

    In the 50 years since Roe, I think of the sixty millions of babies who have been aborted and I don’t understand how all people aren’t heartbroken by that number. Tens of millions of lives have been created and terminated. Tens of millions of lives have been created yet never got to be lived. We’ve devalued life. We’ve taken something precious and made it a problem to be dealt with. We’ve taken something as tragic as abortion and turned it into a big business, both for abortion providers and those who work to lobby on its behalf. 

    Fifty years of this barbarity. I think of the millions of lives lost but also the kids and grandkids those people would have had. At the end of the movie Schindler’s List, they give Liam Neeson (who plays Oskar Schindler) a ring with an inscription from the Talmud which says “whoever saves one life, saves the world entire.” 

    Thanks for reading!

  • Leaked Supreme Court docs point to a potential end to Roe v. Wade

    Leaked Supreme Court docs point to a potential end to Roe v. Wade

    Many years from now, I think I’ll remember where I was when I heard the news that documents had been leaked related to a Supreme Court opinion on Roe v. Wade, the controversial landmark decision from 1973 which made abortion legal throughout the country. 

    I feel like I can’t let myself get too excited until the decision is officially overturned. Justices who have reportedly sided with reversing Roe can still change their minds. But it is exciting that overturning the decision looks to be a real possibility. 

    To be honest, it’s not something I ever thought I’d see. 

    If the changes go forward, the work will not be done for either side as the issue would go back to the states. It’s estimated that 20-26 states could ban abortion. Blue states like California and New York would allow abortion full term. Other states would be in between and allow abortions to ceratin points or under certain circumstances. 

    Before Roe v. Wade was decided by the Supreme Court in 1973, 30 states had made abortion illegal and it was only allowed under certain circumstances in 16 more. We hear a lot about democracy and “threats to democracy.” Roe was a threat to our humanity. Roe went against the will of the people and in the process, led to horrendous casualties. 

    We’ve made termination the easy way out over choosing life. We’ve undermined the value of life of those conceived in cases of rape and incest and made them political pawns as if their lives are expendable. We’ve talked about people being raised in less stable families as if they’d be better not being able to live at all. Millions of people who have lived through similarly challenging upbringings would beg to differ. 

    In the 50 years since Roe, I think of the sixty millions of babies who have been aborted and I don’t understand how anyone doesn’t find that number heartbreaking to every American. Tens of millions of lives have been created and terminated. Tens of millions of lives have been created yet never got to be lived. We’ve devalued life. We’ve taken something precious and made it a problem to be dealt with. We’ve taken something as tragic as abortion and turned it into a big business, both for abortion providers and those who work to lobby on its behalf. 

    If this decision goes well, many will demonize the Supreme Court. There will be those who talk about adding more justices, about trying to pass federal laws which allow abortion, of trying to ban the fillibuster. But for the justices who look set to reverse Roe, if they hold true to that decision, millions of lives will be saved. 

    Fifty years of this barbarity. I think of the millions of lives lost but also the kids and grandkids those people would have had. At the end of the movie Schindler’s List, they give Liam Neeson (who plays Oskar Schindler) a ring with an inscription from the Talmud which says “whoever saves one life, saves the world entire.” 

    Tonight at dinner, I was looking at my six month old son and I thought “for all I know, this decision could save the life of his future wife.” 

    Again, there is work to be done and the pro-choice side will never let this go and will fight fiercely for a woman’s so called right to have an abortion. But for those who stand for life, this is an exciting day. 

    Thanks for reading! If you liked this post, please share and subscribe! 

  • Supreme Court strikes down abortion restrictions

    United States Supreme Court Building

    In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court has struck down June Medical Services v Russo, a Louisiana law which required doctors who provide abortions to have admitting privileges at a nearby hospital. Chief Justice John Roberts sided with the court’s four liberal justices. Roberts said he disagreed with the ruling but voted with the majority because of a legal doctrine of stare decisis which calls for following establish precedents.

    Opponents of the law argue that admitting privileges are unnecessary and that it adds an extra layer of difficulty for abortion providers and reduces wren’s ability to pursue abortions.

    In 2016, the Supreme Court overturned a nearly identical Texas law. For that decision, Roberts had ruled against the majority but overturned his prior ruling to go along with precedent. While the laws of the two states were similar, it has been argued that the situation of the states was different as Louisiana hospitals do not have the same admittance standards as Texas.

    Roberts wrote:
    “The legal doctrine of stare decisis requires us, absent special circumstances, to treat like cases alike. The Louisiana law imposes a burden on access to abortion just as severe as that imposed by the Texas law, for the same reasons. Therefore Louisiana’s law cannot stand under our precedents.”

    I’m not a lawyer or a jurist. I understand that precedents matter. But it’s a bad precedent. States don’t have a right to decide minimum healthcare standards for doctors who perform abortions?

    Daniel Horowitz of Conservative Review points out: states regulate the standards for licensed professionals all the time – everything from lemonade stands to mowing grass – even when “an objective assessment might suggest that those same tasks could be performed by others.” But when it comes to the sacred ideals of abortion, the state is somehow powerless to regulate.

    He says that a precedent can’t be changed without special circumstances.

    We can’t overturn a bad decision from four years ago for a ruling which favors life, and safety, and state’s rights? Precedent matters but it’s not the end all be all.

    Thanks for reading! Don’t forget to share and subscribe.