Different Christians have different political opinions. I have come to expect and respect that. Some viewpoints are easier to understand than others. For instance, I’m a strong believer in the free market. I recognize man’s fallen nature, and so I want to give them less power over other people’s economic decisions. There are fewer power dynamics in a mutual transaction. However, I think I can understand why other Christians feel differently. The free market can seem, at first, counterintuitive to Christianity. So, I feel that I can somewhat understand the other side’s view, and that the people are generally well-meaning.
Part of this blog is simply saying how I feel, being honest. So the purpose of this post is not to offend anyone, just to relay how I feel. I don’t mean to attack anyone. The stuff I said in the above paragraph, I feel less so when it comes to pro-choice Christians. To me, I feel that allowing abortion is anathema to Christian values.
Here are a couple of reasons. I don’t believe Jesus believes in technicalities or loopholes. He believes in fulfilling the letter AND the spirit of the law as indicated in his Sermon on the Mount. Ending a human life is ending a human life. The fact that a human being is in the womb one second and is out the other does not provide a sufficient technicality to the ending of human life. Even if one has some doubts concerning the humanity of the unborn, does it really sound like something Jesus would be okay with?
Secondly, the Bible continually talks about speaking up for the voiceless. Proverbs 31 says “Speak up for those who cannot speak for themselves, for the rights of all who are destitute.” Who is more voiceless than an unborn baby? Granted, the women in these situations are usually voiceless, oppressed, and destitute as well. Christians should lead the charge in taking care of them. But just because someone has little voice gives them no right to oppress someone with no voice at all.
Thirdly, the Bible, at several points talks about God’s hand in our life even in the womb.
Granted, concerning the first point, here in a somewhat liberal democracy we let things happen all the time that we don’t approve of. However, I see this issue as a human rights and life or death issue. I believe the government should ensure that no one deprives another of life, and that all humans are treated equally under the law.
I just don’t understand how some people can continually talk about standing for the “least of these” if they are not going to be consistent and not apply the philosophy in the most difficult cases. If you want to stand for terrorists not being waterboarded, go ahead. If you want to oppose the death penalty, go ahead. If you want socialism, I will disagree, but at least I feel that I understand your viewpoint. But why is it, when you support these things, by default you are automatically pro-choice? Oh, you don’t eat meat, you must be pro-choice? You want to free Tibet, you must be pro-choice? The very fact that they seem to go hand-in-hand with being pro-choice, in my view, undermines the rest of it. It seems that the same philosophical foundations that result in some of these viewpoints also result, strangely enough, in a pro-choice position. Therefore, it’s a philosophical foundation I want no part of.
Sure, I know that I have some viewpoints that seem to contradict my pro-life position. And if you want to try to convince me to change those viewpoints, go ahead. But at most, you’ll just convince me to be a pro-life socialist, or a pro-lifer who opposes the death penalty. I believe that people not harming others is the very foundation of morality and what government is supposed to do.