My response to mudslinging pro-choice religious leaders
A pro-abortion religious committee responded to my Courier Journal op-ed with a slough of baseless accusations. Here's my reply.
In my previous article, I answered the most substantive point that the Kentucky Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice's Faith Leaders' Advisory Committee offered in response to my April 21 Courier Journal op-ed. Now, I must briefly address their other points, if they can be called points, which came in a final flurry of baseless accusations, for which the authors provided no support.
Referring to my perspective on abortion law, the last line of their article asserts,
It’s also misogynistic, patriarchal in the worst sense, totally lacking in the compassion God’s people are called to exhibit, and downright cruel as a willingness to deny women their bodily autonomy, even to the point of putting them to death if they stray from one’s own misguided sense of righteousness.
This statement is an example of empty rhetoric that is undoubtedly moving to those whose opinion it represents, but has no basis in reality. Here is a breakdown.
“Misogynistic” denotes a contempt for women, but my view is that women should be treated equally to men. That is, if a woman unjustly ends the life of her child, she should be subject to the same legal penalties as a man who does the same. Moreover, I believe that anyone, man or woman, who is involved in murder in any way should be charged accordingly. If any position is misogynistic, it's one that treats a woman with kid gloves when it comes to matters of justice merely because of her sex.
“Patriarchal in the worst sense” implies a tyrannical dominance of men over others, but my position seeks to protect others, preborn boys and girls alike. If anything, it’s patriarchal in the best sense—in the sense that it's a father’s role to protect children.
“Totally lacking in the compassion God’s people are called to exhibit” implies that it would be compassionate to let someone get away with murder. Letting murder go unpunished is neither compassionate to the victim, who deserves justice, nor to the murderer, who would be well served to understand the gravity of his or her crime. If a murderer is convinced he did nothing wrong, how will he repent and find forgiveness in Christ? Plus, the lenient treatment of such a heinous act only encourages others to do the same, thereby creating more victims.
“Downright cruel as a willingness to deny women their bodily autonomy” ignores, as fans of abortion often do, that there is a body involved that is not the woman’s body. As should be obvious, the principle of bodily autonomy is limited to one’s own body. A pregnant woman’s autonomy over her body does not give her the right to destroy her progeny’s body, which is inside her body.
My position on abortion law defends bodily autonomy—namely, that of the preborn child. If the willingness to deny people their bodily autonomy is downright cruel, my critics condemn themselves. Their position goes so far as to ignore the existence of a child’s body in order to justify his murder. By contrast, the mother’s bodily autonomy is not violated by my position any more than it is when we obligate her not to kill her already-born children but to provide for them. That is to say, it's not violated at all.
“Even to the point of putting them to death if they stray from one’s own misguided sense of righteousness” effectively calls God’s sense of righteousness (not mine) misguided. Here is what He says:
And for your lifeblood I will require a reckoning: from every beast I will require it and from man. From his fellow man I will require a reckoning for the life of man. Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed, for God made man in his own image. (Genesis 9:5–6)
With these words, God established human government and mandated capital punishment as the penalty for murder. Was God misguided? For the sake of your soul, be careful how you answer.
Of course, my hope is that no woman or man would be put to death or punished in any other way for having an abortion, because I hope that the threat of punishment would be enough to deter everyone from murdering their offspring. This hope is part and parcel of every legal penalty. Laws are not only meant to punish but also to deter. However, if anyone is not deterred, the penalty is in place. Unfortunately, Kentucky abortion law fails to penalize or deter abortions sufficiently, resulting in the unjust killing of thousands of preborn children each year.
Bottom line: Don’t be fooled or intimidated by these common, vapid pro-abortion buzzwords. The logic of passing a law to abolish abortion and establish equal protection for the preborn is unassailable, while the logic of these pro-choice religious leaders’ allegations is nonexistent.
P.S. If you don’t know me, I’m a Louisville local, a graduate of Southern Seminary, and the founder and writer of Project 18:15, a weekly briefing of news, Bible, and church history. Get the next briefing in your inbox this weekend:
Then, subscribe here on Substack for highlights and extras: