Sanctity of Life

24 ARTICLES IN THIS TOPIC


Rachel Held Evans

July 2, 2018

Rachel Held Evans “Ever-Evolving” on Legalities of Abortion

“The business of the Church is God. She is purest when most engaged with God and she is astray just so far as she follows other interests, no matter how ‘religious’ or humanitarian they may be.”  –A.W. Tozer, The Set of the Sail

There is a particular corner of the Church that likes to pat one another on the back, congratulate themselves for being the more enlightened, compassionate, and “ever-evolving” members. They make it their business to appeal to the impulses of secular society, and yet their sanctuaries attract few in numbers and — though they hardly admit it — lack diversity and multiculturalism in their congregations. For the most part the Religious Left looks alike. Older, white, affluent, privileged, and politically liberal, proud of their charitable appearances and less concerned with evangelizing to lost souls. Mirrors of one another.

Rachel Held Evans, a liberal Christian author, fits snugly into this group. The former Evangelical, now Episcopalian recently boasted on Twitter that she is “pro-life by conviction, though my views on the legalities of abortion are complex, ever-evolving, & detailed elsewhere.” Backlash ensued. So much so that Evans deleted her original Twitter thread, maintaining she is pro-life but the issue is “complex.”

Try as she might to construct nuance, there is nothing inherently moral about the murder of innocent life. Evans would likely say she agrees with this statement. She does, after all, call herself, “pro-life.” Her point here, Evans claims, is to point out a hypocrisy between the pro-life voters who supported the election of President Donald Trump and, as she accuses, “ignore or actively oppress communities of color” and so she finds it “hard to believe they want to save lives in those communities.”

To avoid being accused of taking Evans’ tweets out of context, I want to provide you with as much of her original thread as I can find online. Evans’ original thread stated:

Thread: I’m pro-life by conviction, though my views on the legalities of abortion are complex, ever-evolving, & detailed elsewhere.

That said, today I’ve been wondering if most pro-lifers have considered what overturning Roe v. Wade would look like in actuality…  First, it wouldn’t end abortion, which would likely remain legal in several states.

And:

Just like in the past, wealthy women would travel for abortions & poor women would resort to deadly Gosnell-style “back alley” clinics & home procedures….

Continuing on:

…In addition, it’s important to understand that the abortion rate is highest in poor communities of color. The rate among black women is almost 5x that of white women and the rate among Hispanic women more than double…

And then:

…(Racism, income inequality, lack of access to affordable healthcare & contraception all contribute to the disproportionate rates. Most women who get abortions are already mothers who do so because they feel they cannot afford more children)…

Finally:

RHE on abortion

Evans hoped to appear humanitarian and engage and appease her Twitter base (many of whom I suspect support abortion) by discrediting the pro-life movement with a failed attempted to paint ethical inconsistencies. What she actually, albeit unintentionally did was admit that abortion giants target poor, minority communities. Something the pro-life movement has attempted to expose for years.

Here Evans was attempting to be profound by employing a tired, false notion that pro-lifers only care about unborn babies until they are born, then they couldn’t care less after birth, especially if they are born poor or people of color. Never mind that thousands of March for Life participants are young, Hispanic, African American, and Asian peaceful protestors demanding an end to abortion every January along the National Mall in Washington, D.C. Never mind that just two weeks ago several prominent pro-life leaders publicly condemned the separation of families at the border, lending to the pressure on the president to loosen his zero-tolerance position. One might even turn the argument around and ask if the Religious Left doesn’t unconditionally fight for the life of innocent unborn, then how can we trust they care about the dignity of born human beings? But never mind all that, I guess.

It is disappointing to see a popular Christian figure call herself pro-life in one breath and then quickly pivot to bash the pro-life movement, which to me appeared to be her overall goal.

Some might say Evans misspoke. I beg to differ and find it difficult to come to her defense in this case. She implicitly stated that if Roe v. Wade was overturned, then you would be saving the lives of children of color in poor communities. Exactly. That is exactly our goal. To advocate for the dignity and personhood of unborn children of color who are targeted by the innately racist foundations of Planned Parenthood and other abortion clinics. To exhibit a Christian witness that loudly shouts the murder of helpless, innocent life made in the image of their Creator with dignity and worth is abhorrent.

As Evans herself points out, it is easy to call one’s self “pro-life.” Prove it. Cheer us on. Stand beside us as we work to expose the racist driving force behind abortion clinics. My humble advice to Evans is to stop mimicking the mirrors around herself and recognize that hypocrisies and inconsistencies exist among her own political and religious tribe because ultimately sin exists. (Good advice for us all, including myself.)

I pray Evans and American Religious Left leaders eventually step out of their respective cocoons. Step from behind their iPhone and laptop screens. If you are going to call yourselves pro-life, then be brave enough to show up at the March for Life and witness the growing numbers, diversity, and multiculturalism gathered in Washington D.C. each January to commemorate Roe v. Wade’s hand in the death of over 60 million unborn lives. Be willing enough to call for an end to legislation that protects the destruction of innocent life.

Yes, posting a picture of themselves participating in the March for Life or decrying abortion with no strings attached might cause Religious Left leaders to lose out on some book sales, Twitter followers, and daily affirmation from the mirrors set around themselves. But it would also be taking a big step toward making their business God, not “other interests, no matter how ‘religious’ or humanitarian they may be” or, at the very least, appear so by the world’s standards.


19 Responses to Rachel Held Evans “Ever-Evolving” on Legalities of Abortion

  1. Thanks for the link and for educating people about this wolf. Like most SJWs she lies and projects, insisting that pro-lifers are the racists (sure, because pregnancy centers had no idea that they’d been saving minority lives all this time!).

    During the Women’s March (aka the abortion march) last year she gushed non-stop then completely ignored the March for Life. Because she’s so pro-life or something.

    And while she slanders pregnancy centers and pro-lifers, she never does a thing to encourage the “Christian” Left to open their own pregnancy centers.

    She’s a cartoonishly fake Christian. She makes a living mocking the word of God. She is pro-abortion. She is pro-LGBTQX perversions.

    On a recent interview she was asked how she’ll share the Bible with her children. Her response was creepy. ZERO mentions of sin, death, cross, redemption, forgiveness, apologetics, etc. Just some lame jokes about (alleged) genocide and such.

    Of course the Left loves her for all of this. http://bit.ly/EvansWolf

  2. Her entire mission is just radical feminism disguised as religion.

    And her latest book is just more blasphemy. https://wp.me/p5O8SK-7pa

  3. Mark says:

    “I’ve been wondering if most pro-lifers have considered what overturning Roe v. Wade would look like in actuality…”

    Yes, pro-lifers realize that if you peal back the thin clinical veneer that Roe v. Wade provides, you will indeed see the ugly “actuality” of abortion.

  4. Earl LaLone says:

    If you have to delete a tweet, perhaps you’re conviction should be questioned. Don’t say it to score points, say it if you believe it.

  5. Gladys Wisener says:

    I am pro-choice, the reason being, i am against forcing women to remain pregnant against their will, that is exactly what making abortion illegal would do.

    Yes I am a Christian and i am pro-choice. Women do NOT lose the rights to their bodies because of becoming pregnant.

    No i don’t want to go back to where women might have to procur illegal abortions.

    No i don’t want the state forcing women to remain pregnant with the threat of jail or prosecution for trying to exert their bodily automony and terminate an unwanted pregnancy.

    • Loren Golden says:

      But you have no ethical problem with deliberately ending the life of the human being growing inside the pregnant woman’s womb, if she wants to kill him or her?

  6. Ron Dorman says:

    In a post-Roe world, what would you pro-lifers like to see happen to a women who self-administers her own abortion during the first trimester?

    • Loren Golden says:

      That she would get medical attention right away. Abortions of any sort are fraught with danger to the mother’s physical and mental health and are always lethal to her unborn child.

      • Ron Dorman says:

        But no punishment? I think most pro-lifers are hypocritical. They want to make abortion illegal, but they have a hard time facing up to the logical ultimate consequence of that position. In the end, it is the woman herself who makes the final decision. Today, abortion providers make a convenient scapegoat. But, in the future, as providers factor in less and less, it will be only the woman who is left to blame. Thus, if it is really against the law…only the woman remains who must take the consequences of breaking that law. Most pro-lifers can’t countenance that outcome. Phonies.

        • Loren Golden says:

          And so, if we who are pro-life are to be consistent, in your not-so-humble opinion, then if we believe that abortion is murder, then the woman who procures one ought at the very least to have to be forced to wear the modern equivalent of the scarlet letter? Is this the position into which you would force us? Do you believe that with a pro-life understanding that only the life of the unborn child is of consideration? What, then, of the soul of the mother who procures an abortion and then has to grapple with the guilt of having murdered her child? What room would you make for grace and mercy toward her? Or would you try to salve her conscience by falsely telling her that she did no wrong, that her unborn child was not a human being made in the image of God?

          “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.
          Wonderful are your works;
          my soul knows it very well.
          My frame was not hidden from you,
          when I was being made in secret,
          intricately woven in the depths of the earth.
          Your eyes saw my unformed substance;
          in your book were written, every one of them,
          the days that were formed for me,
          when as yet there were none of them.” —Ps. 139.13-16

          And of the abortion providers, whom you claim we regard as “a convenient scapegoat”, do you not think that they, apart from repentance from what they have done and faith in the atoning blood of Christ alone, will be required to stand before the judgment throne of God, to make account for all the innocent blood they have spilt (Prov. 6.16-17, Rev. 21.8)? Those who make abortion available to scared, distraught, pregnant women (often pressured into the abortion decision by family members or the father of the unborn child) are far more morally culpable for the deaths of uncounted millions of unborn children than the women who have agreed to this grave injustice.

          • Ron Dorman says:

            I see now that you are very religious. You have every right to believe whatever you like. I am an agnostic. Therefore all of your religious statements and reasoning, while I’m sure are meaningful to you, are essentially meaningless babble to me. Therefore we really should have nothing further to discuss. If you don’t like abortions, don’t have one. But stop trying to enforce your ideas of religion/morality on other people’s lives.

          • Loren Golden says:

            “Stop trying to enforce your ideas of religion/morality on other people’s lives.” You mean, sir, just as you are trying to enforce your agnosticism/morality on the lives of unborn human beings?

  7. Jim West says:

    RHE is a journalist. She has a BA in journalism. She isn’t a biblical scholar. She isn’t a theologian. Why on earth does anyone care at all about what she thinks about anything? And why are your expanding her footprint by airing her views- even if just to disagree with them? What next? Will you ask a podiatrist what he thinks about ecclesiology or a truck driver her view of theories of the atonement? RHE’s views DO NOT MATTER. Best to stop acting like they should.

    And, before you say ‘but she’s influential’- no she isn’t. She doesn’t influence anyone because those who agree with her already share her mindset.

  8. MarcoPolo says:

    “…abortion giants…” Wow! Is that how we’re to refer to Planned Parenthood from now on? God forbid the Regressive-Right would reduce access to competent, comprehensive Health Care for millions of people, by closing down Planned Parenthood. That would be heartless!

    “Killing” is an objective term that suggests a person was murdered. A fetus, residing inside the womb, is the sole property of the woman with the womb! If she feels the need to abort her pregnancy, then it is purely her decision.

    Pro-Choice is an American’s guarantee of autonomy over their own body. Hands Off to everybody else!

    • Joan Oliver says:

      Marco, since when is one American person another American person’s “property?” A fetus is a human person with his or her own distinctive DNA, gene collection, body.

  9. Nancy Yoder says:

    Marco, since when is a FETUS not a Human Being? Is it since Science decided it is not? When a human man and a human woman create an Embyro/Fetus, they have created a Human Being. If this is not what they wanted to happen, guess what???? Refrain from intercourse. This way neither one of you will have to live with the eventual guilt of killing your child. I know that sounds harsh, but you owe that child a birth and whether or not you keep the child to raise or put him/her up for adoption is your business and you will have saved the life of “A Gift From God” for some blessed parents.

  10. dxturner says:

    A personal story regarding abortion and the challenge of being true to a pro-life position.

    http://afencepost.blogspot.com/2018/06/faith-and-control.html

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *