In the abortion debate, cases of rape and incest are often brought up as reasons as to why abortion rights are a necessity. It’s always used as somewhat of a trump card for the pro-choice side.
This week, in the wake of Alabama’s new abortion law, I’ve read different testimonies of people who were conceived in rape. It’s tragic that they’re often the poster children for why other children can be aborted. Their worth and lives are so easily cast aside in this discussion, as if it’s just a given that they didn’t have the right to be born because of the circumstances in which they were conceived. (more…)
On Wednesday, Alabama passed the most restrictive abortion law in America. On the same day, Alabama also executed a man who was a participant in a grizzly quadruple murder in 1997.
It was interesting seeing how those two stories are being taken together in the media. The New York Times ran an article titled “a day after banning abortions, Alabama executes a murderer.” The LA times ran a headline that said, “Alabama’s antiabortion governor urges respect for life, will oversee 7th execution.”
I’ve hard this argument before levied against those who are pro life but also support the death penalty, as if it’s some sort of moral inconsistency. For the life of me, I don’t understand why this position should have to be defended.
It’s really quite simple. I believe a baby should be allowed to live. I believe a quadruple murderer should not.
I think that a person who supports abortion and opposes capital punishment is the one who needs to answer for that stance. Because it treats a murderer as being more deserving of life than a baby.
Some people oppose both abortion and capital punishment. I respect that view. There are a number of thoughtful arguments that can be made on that subject, and at least it has consistency to a moral principle.
I hold my view because I believe that life is precious. Every human is created in the image of God and is worthy of dignity. The most fundamental right that humanity has is the right to life (because all other rights presuppose a right to the life through with other rights are exercised.) And so I believe that a baby has the right to be born and to live.
If a person deprives someone else of their right to life, that is so wicked, so grotesque, so heinous of a thing to do that in the process of depriving someone of that right, the assailant has forfeited their right to life.
I don’t expect everyone to agree with my view, but that’s how I look at the issue.
As a Christian, the Old Testament certainly allows for capital punishment. Genesis 9:6 is a good example of this: “Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed, for God made man in his own image.”
Thanks for reading! I’d love to hear what you think, and don’t forget to subscribe!
Josh Benner has a Master of Divinity from Trinity Evangelical Divinity School. He has served churches in Minnesota and Illinois. He enjoys writing about faith and culture. He lives with his wife Kari in St. Louis.
Last night, the state senate in Alabama overwhelmingly approved an abortion bill which would enact the strictest abortion laws in the nation. The bill passed the Alabama house earlier this month. The ball is now in governor Kay Ivey’s court. She has six days to sign or veto the bill.
From the text of the Alabama Human Life Protection Act:
This bill would make abortion and attempted abortion felony offenses except in cases where abortion is necessary in order to prevent a serious health risk to the unborn child’s mother.
The senate voted on the Born Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act today. It was a bill that would have required medical care for babies who survive failed abortion attempts.
This bill should not be controversial. It should have 100 votes.
It didn’t need 100 though. It needed 60. And the bill couldn’t even get that. In a heavily partisan issue, the bill failed, receiving only 53 votes. (more…)
We’re continuing to see how radical the democratic party and the pro-choice movement are getting on abortion. They keep denying how radical they are. Two weeks ago, it was the late term abortion ban in New York. People argued that it wasn’t really all that radical. It was a law that was strictly meant to provide late term abortions just in situations where it was medically necessary (which was already legal in New York), and that the only reason a person would even have a late term abortion would be situations where it was medically necessary.
Then why change the law when it was already legal? The new law was an expansion of abortion protections that has a wider scope than many wanted to acknowledge. The new law broadened circumstances when late term abortion was legal to vaguely include “health,” which was not necessarily merely referring to a life-saving procedure. (more…)
