“Abortion is the white supremacist’s best friend.”
This brought tears to my eyes.
Aveda King, the niece of Martin Luther King, Jr., has spoken out against the Department of Homeland Security’s report that links pro-life people and organizations with hate groups. The words in the title of this post are hers: “Abortion is the white supremacist’s best friend.” That ought to send a chill up your spine.
She went on to say, “To say, as the Department of Homeland Security does, that white supremacists have exercised a ‘longstanding exploitation of social issues such as abortion’ tells me that either the government, the supremacists, or both are clueless about abortion’s grave impact on the black community.” Percentage-wise, far more black women have abortions than white women. Abortions have claimed the lives of far more African-Americans than the KKK could have ever dreamed.
This came out a few months ago, but it is worth reposting:
HT: Trevin Wax
CT said:
On the other hand, those that lose their lives through abortion receive an amazing blessing. To grow to adulthood in this world is an incalculable risk: if you fail to come to faith in Christ you will suffer for the rest of eternity in hell. Since God presumably does not condemn the unborn to hell, abortion is in their best interest. Many Christians fail to appreciate this, being overly influenced by the shortsighted values of their surrounding culture.
Lon Graham said:
I appreciate your point (and agree with you about God taking care of the aborted unborn), but I must disagree with you in large part. If we followed your logic all the way through, we could say that it is good for anyone (or at least anyone who is a Christian) to be killed at a young age, since they would not have to live through the difficulties of this world. If we conclude that abortion is murder, then we must recognize that the Bible speaks of murder in dark terms, not in good ones. I do not think that it is a shortsighted value of our surrounding culture to speak out against murder.
CT said:
Lon Graham,
Thank you for your thoughtful and generous reply. I would only add that we can and should maintain that abortion is a sin–even while acknowledging that it greatly benefits those whom it most directly affects. There may be other relatively “victimless” sins. Abortion belongs among these. The church has followed quite a rabbit trail in emphasizing this particular sin to such an extent. It is not uncommon to hear of people equating abortion with genocide and the holocaust. This is a confusion. Abortion is a sin; it ought not to be done–but to base one’s politics on this issue, as many have done, makes about as much sense as thinking that that masturbation is the greatest social problem of our era (and unlike abortion, committing adultery in one’s heart doesn’t even benefit anyone).
Lon Graham said:
I think the crux of our disagreement on this issue is that I do not see abortion as a “victimless” sin. No matter what the outcome in terms of eternity, the baby is murdered. There is a victim. I put a lot of emphasis on this issue in my politics for the same reason that I would put a lot of emphasis on the issue of slavery: if a politician said that he favored slavery as a social and legal policy, no matter what his stance on other issues, I could not in good conscience vote for that person. All people are one-issue voters in some sense: if a politician came out in favor of child abuse, most people of conscience would not vote that that politician. That one issue would turn them away.
Abortion is not the unpardonable sin, however, and I believe that Christians must speak with equal passion in several directions: 1) against abortion; 2) to the women who have done it, so as to communicate the gospel to them that they might be forgiven; 3) to women contemplating abortion, so as to help them see that there is another way and to give them the aid that they need during and after pregnancy. I do not believe in merely saying, “Abortion is bad,” but doing nothing more. My view of the issue is, I hope, more holistic than that.
CT said:
So as not to dispute mere terminology, I will grant that abortion has a direct victim–the aborted baby. In describing abortion as “relatively ‘victimless’”, I merely meant to indicate that, in abortion, the baby is greatly benefited by the other’s sin. We can both agree upon this.
I also grant that there are still plenty of reasons to oppose abortion: it violates a commandment; it is inconsistent with God’s ideal plan; it violates the sanctity/dignity of life; etc. Nonetheless, when opposing abortion, it would be a confusion to add to these reasons that we are opposing abortion on behalf of the unborn, that we are protesting for the sake of the innocent victim.
By conflating abortion with other forms of killing or murder, we confuse ourselves and we mislead others. And this is not merely a problem of establishing our priorities, politically and otherwise. It is not uncommon to hear of pro-life advocates comparing abortion with genocide or the holocaust. I’ve even heard of Christian pro-lifers comparing Obama to Hitler. This is shamefully irresponsible. Some of those who are persuaded by such rhetoric may share sympathies with Dietrich Bonhoeffer. Thus, it is no wonder that pro-life organizations are associated with hate groups. Sadly, it is rightly so.
Lon Graham said:
Let me make this clear: I do oppose abortion for the sake of the unborn, the victim. Someone must give a voice to the voiceless. I do this alongside the other reasons you gave: violation of God’s command, inconsistency with God’s plan, violation of the dignity of life/the image of God, etc.
To make the fact that the aborted child is benefited from the sin of abortion opens a door that I do not think you want to open. If we applied that logic, we could say that the persecution of Christians is no big deal, since, after all, the Christians are benefited from it. Yet this was not the apostle Paul’s viewpoint, who lamented his own past persecution of Christians. Or, you could apply your logic to the murder of any baby, born or unborn. It simply will not do as a defense of abortion (or a defense of not making abortion a central issue).
CT said:
Lon, thank you for being so clear and straightforward about your position. Since you do oppose abortion for the sake of the unborn, I think we’ve found the real crux of our disagreement. Let me present, therefore, and argument for why I disagree with you. You can then tell me where you take the argument to go wrong.
(1) Unborn babies do not deserve far worse than bodily dismemberment.
(2) God does not condemn people to worse than they deserve.
(3) Hell is worse than bodily dismemberment.
(4) Therefore, God does not condemn unborn babies to hell.
(5) Hundreds of millions of unborn babies have been aborted.
(6) Had they not been aborted, some of these would have survived to adulthood.
(7) It is unreasonable to believe that all of these survivors would have come to faith in Christ.
(8) Adults who do not come to faith in Christ are condemned to hell.
(9) Therefore, if some had not been aborted, they’d have gone to hell.
(10) Therefore, abortion has saved some from hell.
(11) We can correspondingly conclude that abortion saves an unborn baby from the risk of hell.
(12) Hell involves eternal suffering and separation from God.
(13) There is nothing in the earthly life for which it is worth risking eternal separation from God.
(14) Therefore, abortion is in the unborn baby’s interest.
(15) Therefore, it is silly to oppose abortion on behalf of the unborn baby.
Lon Graham said:
I understand your argument. I disagree with at least some of the wording of it, but that disagreement is beyond the purview of what we are presently discussing. Let me see if I can show you why I have a problem with your argumentation:
(1) Six-month old babies do not deserve far worse than bodily dismemberment.
(2) God does not condemn people to worse than they deserve.
(3) Hell is worse than bodily dismemberment.
(4) Therefore, God does not condemn six-month old babies to hell.
(5) Many six-month old babies have been killed by abusive parents.
(6) Had they not been murdered, some of these would have survived to adulthood.
(7) It is unreasonable to believe that all of these survivors would have come to faith in Christ.
(8) Adults who do not come to faith in Christ are condemned to hell.
(9) Therefore, if some had not been murdered, they’d have gone to hell.
(10) Therefore, murdering six-month old babies through abuse has saved some from hell.
(11) We can correspondingly conclude that murdering six-month old babies saves that six-month old baby from the risk of hell.
(12) Hell involves eternal suffering and separation from God.
(13) There is nothing in the earthly life for which it is worth risking eternal separation from God.
(14) Therefore, murdering a six-month old baby is in the baby’s interest.
(15) Therefore, it is silly to oppose abusing and murdering a six-month old baby on behalf of the baby.
Do you see why I find your way of thinking unsatisfying? It leads to consequences that are reprehensible, however unintended they may be.
CT said:
Lon, it is quite true that the conclusion of your parallel argument would be unintelligible to the atheist, or even to the Christian who is overly influenced by the shortsighted values of his/her surrounding culture, which is blind to everything except this earthly life. We are also unintelligible to such people when if say with the apostle, “To die is gain.”
For us it is quite understandable why is good for a child to die before the so-called age of accountability. The eternal wrath of God is a fearful thing. Despite it being a sin, it is surely true that infanticide is like abortion in its effect on the immediate victim (though this is not true of the mere “abusing” of the fetus/infant). And we should not be surprised that God’s truth guarantees protection to the very young against the cruelest sins of this world.