Editor’s note: The originial version of this article was published by the Christian Post.
Too often I hear faithful Christians say, “I’ll stay out of the government’s business if the government stays out of my business.” Well, it’s safe to say that the murder of innocent unborn babies, aided by our tax dollars, is our business.
Caught red handed, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) found that Americans’ tax dollars are subsidizing abortions under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, a.k.a. ObamaCare. At least 1,036 plans cover abortions despite President Barack Obama’s promise that “under our plan, no federal dollars will be used to fund abortions, and federal conscience laws will remain in place.”
Are we really shocked? Christian citizens cannot expect honesty, morality and courage from our elected leaders and their policies if we refuse to elect honest, moral and courageous leaders at the polls. Don’t forget that in 2012, 6.4 million Evangelicals voted for President Obama, an outspoken supporter of abortion on demand, tax-payer funded abortions, partial-birth abortions, and the list goes on.
Being pro-life goes far beyond cool bumper stickers pasted on our car bumpers. So does being a follower of Jesus Christ. Both identities call for speaking out and standing up for our convictions even when it causes us discomfort or discrimination. This is convictional Christianity in action, but I fear too many in the Church have opted for couch-potato Christianity instead.
The pro-life movement cannot save unborn lives by employing couch-potato Christianity when it comes to the governments abusive, and in some cases, deadly public policies. Remember that it is not only ethically decent to oppose abortion, but a Biblical duty to act on behalf of the helpless. Proverbs 31:8 instructs, “Open your mouth for the mute, for the rights of all who are destitute.”
When it comes to choosing between obeying God’s commandments and adhering to Caesar’s policies, every convictional Christian must recognize its time to practice what we preach. As followers of Christ we know that Biblical truths and principles transform and save lives. So why keep God’s truths to ourselves, closeted in our chapels? Why keep His truths out of government?
Convictional Christians cannot “stay out of the government’s business” because the role of government affects each one of our lives. So as our nation moves beyond legalizing abortion to collectively paying for it, it’s time for Christian citizens to ditch their couch-potato mindset. The murder of helpless unborn babies is always our business.
Comment by MarcoPolo on September 19, 2014 at 11:54 am
But the unborn are not YOUR property to protect!
And separation of Church and State still exists as our Constitutional standard.
Comment by Sandy Naylor on September 19, 2014 at 5:43 pm
Separation of church and state have nothing to do with abortion. If a man causes the death of a fetus in the womb, he can go to prison. If a woman kills her own fetus, she walks free. This is wrong. Clearly the laws that prohibit the death of a fetus recognize that an unborn child is a human being, not a thing to be tossed out at will. The left is the party of death.
Comment by MarcoPolo on September 19, 2014 at 6:12 pm
Sandy,
I’m not learned enough to say that there are NO laws that prohibit the death of a fetus, but our current laws do allow the freedom of any woman who wishes not to be pregnant, to undo that status.
My point was intended to encourage more efforts to be spent on those individuals already born, and to allow women who are wrestling with their pregnancies to be left to make their own decisions.
Comment by the_enemy_hates_clarity on September 19, 2014 at 7:17 pm
Should the baby have any input in the decision?
Comment by MarcoPolo on September 20, 2014 at 9:18 am
No!
The unborn fetus is a developing human that only becomes a ‘person’, with rights, after delivery.
I’m sorry if that seems cruel, but that’s a distinction that marks the event of any animal on earth.
Comment by the_enemy_hates_clarity on September 20, 2014 at 4:29 pm
A 5 day old baby is also a “developing human” that morally is no more and no less entitled to rights than a baby one day before delivery. The law says the latter may be killed but the former may not. Legally you are right. The unborn baby is not a “person.” Morally, you are wrong. Killing innocent babies, whether in the womb or out, is evil. A society is judged by how it defends the most vulnerable among them.
In Christ,
The enemy hates clarity
Comment by MarcoPolo on September 20, 2014 at 6:50 pm
Thank you for acknowledging the facts regarding this sensitive, and contentious issue.
On the issue of morality, I can’t fault you for your endeavor to defend the unrepresented, but as long as our laws stand, it will continue to be a hot-button topic that finds support for both sides.
My efforts will not wane when it comes to defending the need for assisting the “Already Born”, and in my world, I have to decide at what point in human development, the line exists. I know that’s simplistic, but I’m being honest.
Just like having to hold one’s tongue during Big Family Holiday meals regarding the discussion of politics and religion, we’ll all have to agree to disagree on the abortion issue for sure!
But I’m not saying you, or anyone else should not be heard! I hear you!
Comment by the_enemy_hates_clarity on September 21, 2014 at 8:25 am
“…I have set before you life and death, blessings and curses. Chose life, so that you and your descendants may live.” Deuteronomy 30:19.
In Christ,
The enemy hates clarity
Comment by Dana Kerns on September 22, 2014 at 9:54 am
Marco, suppose we accept your “developing person” premise. We all know the baby doesn’t change DNA at birth. We all know that an unborn baby does not get delivered as a cat or cow, but as a human. We all know there exists zero, nada, no evidence, scientific or otherwise, for the alleged mutation from not-human to human at birth (via whatever means, natural or early deliver C-Section, meaning time from conception does not count). We all know that people depend on this fabrication so that they can maintain the pretense of avoiding the awfulness of agreeing it’s OK to murder people. We all know that this definition of not-human is no more than a legal fiction (found in the edge of the shadow of a penumbra = created out of a vacuum with no legal precedent). But, whatever, let’s accept the premise.
What’s to prevent further change in the humanity defining event? The totally arbitrary change was from conception to birth. Why not make it go on to, say, age 17 yrs 364 days, just before voting age. Then we’d have the ability, you know, to decide whether there really has been the development we want.
Think that arbitrariness absurd? Think it screwball, as how could any civilization make such a savage choice of declaring some humans to be not human? I’m betting you can all by yourself fill in some nations (plural) that did just that in the 20th C.
Ours, the USA, joined that group in 1973.
Comment by MarcoPolo on September 22, 2014 at 12:35 pm
Dana Kerns,
I agree with your supposition, and I can see how one might presume those events to eventually or possibly occur.
Having said that, I also think that there would have to be an enormous shift in our collective thinking as a nation to further the definition of person-hood, but I am aware that there is already an effort afoot, to establish that.
One thinks of Nazi Germany when the “slippery slope” is mentioned, and for good reasons, as we must resist that kind of dehumanizing practice before it becomes a trend.
My position on the abortion issue (perhaps obvious), rests most exclusively FOR the woman carrying. The vast number of abortions are for the purpose of ridding the womb, and the subsequent lifelong commitment to mothering.
For those who elect that path, I don’t shame them, or fault them, as it is not my body, property or business.
Thank you for such a cogent exchange. Your post makes one think hard…and that’s healthy!
Comment by Kay Glines on September 22, 2014 at 5:55 pm
No, it doesn’t “seem” cruel, it IS cruel.
Comment by AmyB on September 22, 2014 at 3:41 pm
Mr. Polo, for your argument to stand up then your other comment about turning our efforts to the homeless and hungry would not stand the test of your own argument. The homeless and hungry are not our property to protect either. But we do. We do protect them. Because they are a human life. We protect human life. Not just our property. i rue the day when we say because someone is not our property we do not protect them.
Comment by MarcoPolo on September 22, 2014 at 7:50 pm
AmyB, You are quite right.
The paradox of whether the ‘already born’, or the ‘unborn’ merit the same action is always going to be a vital question.
I can only thank you for your input at this point, but I suspect that there are areas of discrepancies for either argument.
Comment by Kay Glines on September 22, 2014 at 5:55 pm
So you are OK with killing?
Why do liberals call themselves “compassionate”?
Comment by MarcoPolo on September 23, 2014 at 12:10 pm
To answer your question bluntly, Kay Glines, YES.
And I guess by your definition, aborting even a zygote would be considered murder. So call me whatever fits that profile, but as long as we honor the law as it is written: Roe v Wade will ensure that women who wish to be made “Un-pregnant”, still have a safe, legal option.
Signed: “Still Compassionate”
Comment by MarcoPolo on September 19, 2014 at 11:58 am
I would love to see the dollars spent on fighting abortion, be spent instead, on helping those already born….like say, food pantries and homeless shelters for families. THAT would be a more realistic approach for convictional Christians to act upon.
Comment by katiehippie on September 29, 2014 at 8:32 pm
“for the rights of all who are destitute.”
It says it right there.
Comment by Arimathean on October 6, 2014 at 9:27 pm
You are inventing a false dilemma. There is no reason dollars cannot be spent on both.
Comment by the_enemy_hates_clarity on September 19, 2014 at 1:04 pm
Mr. Polo, the unborn are not property, they are human beings that God loves as much as He does you and me. And for a Christian, helping the homeless/hungry humans and the unborn humans is not “either/or.” It is “both/and.” In my community, the homeless shelter, the pregnancy resource center and the food pantry are staffed almost entirely by Christian volunteers.
In Christ,
The enemy hates clarity
Comment by katiehippie on September 29, 2014 at 8:34 pm
The women are people too. People that already have lives. Too bad they get no say in your world.
Comment by Sandra K Jenner on September 19, 2014 at 7:51 pm
NARAL (National Abortion Rights Action League) awards Lifetime Achievement awards to certain people. The fact that an organization dedicating to snuffing out human lives bestows an award with “lifetime” in its name is a sign that we are a very sick and perverse society. You’re regarded as a Lifetime Achiever for killing.