Skip to main content

When Abortion Becomes a Deflection Mechanism

I hate abortion.  I really do.  My mother was a pro-life warrior until the day she died, which is one of the only reasons I exist.  So as you read this, don't think that I am supporting abortion in any imaginable way.

That being said, pro-life advocates have a problem.  You see, we take every possible issue and we make it about abortion.  Gun control?  Abortion.  Immigration?  Abortion.  Donald Trump sleeping with porn stars (even though there was no sleeping involved)?  Abortion.  Every time an issue is brought up for discussion, we just remind liberals about abortion like it's some sort of trump card (pun partially intended).  We act like abortion ends every conversation about any political, cultural, or moral issue. 

Again, let me clarify.  There is nothing wrong with pointing out moral and intellectual inconsistencies.  I think it's a good thing to do, both as an evangelistic tool and as a debate tactic.  This point stands: if you believe that it is okay to burn, crush, or dismember children who are still in the womb, you have no place in a discussion of morality.  How can you lecture anyone about family values or caring for the vulnerable when you believe it is an inalienable human right for a woman to murder her own unborn child?

Nevertheless, we cannot allow those inconsistencies to render us myopic.  When presented with the issues that face this nation, we must engage them honestly.  Our current immigration policies (or at least the implementation thereof) are flawed, but how can we improve them?  The answer to that question is not directly tied to what one believes about abortion.  Is it indirectly connected?  Sure, but, then again, all issues are indirectly connected.  We must not use abortion as a deflection mechanism.  We must not allow our zeal for this issue, well-founded though it is, to blind us to the importance of all the other issues that must be solved.     


Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

4 Reasons I Affirm Paedocommunion

If you have interacted with me on social media, you know that I have always been outspoken on the issue of Paedocommunion .  It is a theological position and a liturgical practice about which I am passionate.  Having been raised, and having raised my children, at the Table, I cannot imagine attending a church that didn't allow PC.  I hope that when I am old and gray, I will still be an advocate for bringing little children to the Sacrament. Throughout the 12 years that I have had this blog, I have written scattered thoughts on the topic, but it appears that I have never written a concise summary of my reasons for affirming PC.  I was thoroughly convinced that I had, but I can't seem to locate it, so I guess I never did.  So, to rectify the omission, here are four reasons I hold to PC. 1) Paedocommunion is Biblical.   Any discussion of the topic should start here, and I would hope that both sides of the debate would make this assertion.  However, l...
Post a Comment
Read more

1 Corinthians, the Covenant Hermeneutic, & Paedocommunion

As an adherent to Paedocommunion  (hereafter PC), I have always found it painfully ironic that Credocommunionists use 1 Corinthians 11 to withhold children (among others) from the Table.  One can imagine St. Paul shaking his head as he watches theologians using his discussion of unity at the Table to divide the body at the Table.  You're missing the point! he would say in exasperation.  Not only does 1 Corinthians 11 not forbid PC; I would go so far as to say that there is no better defense of PC in the New Testament than the epistle of 1 Corinthians. Credocommunionist logic is pretty straightforward.  1 Corinthians 11:28 says, "Let a person examine himself, then, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup."  If, they argue, one is unable to fulfill the exhortation to examine himself, then he may not eat of the bread and drink of the cup.  This is a pretty logical deduction, right? Credobaptists would adamantly agree.  Acts 2:38 says, "Repe...
Post a Comment
Read more

The Real Presence & Paedocommunion: A Deeper Rift Between Reformed Churches

You're going back to Rome! Theological disagreements within the Reformed world, especially those of the last half century, often devolve into these sorts of accusations.  As controversialists like Doug Wilson and Peter Leithart began to break away from the larger conservative Presbyterian and Reformed denominations, it became clear that the rift was deeper than semantics and systematic minutiae.  Much like the Reformation four centuries before, the Table was a primary point of conflict.   What does it mean?  Who may partake?  What do we call it?    These questions, along with a few more, divided Reformed brethren as the physical elements of our religion reflected deeper conflicts.  Good men began to understand that the problem wasn't just in our logos, but in our pathos and ethos, as well. Paedocommunion (hereafter PC) has been one of the hottest points of contention.  PC has always been normal to me as I grew up with it.  I underst...
Post a Comment
Read more