“But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction. And many shall follow their pernicious ways; by reason of whom the way of truth shall be evil spoken of.” – 2 Peter 2:1-2
A “minister” and feminist religious studies professor says Christian advocacy of any restriction on abortion “flies in the face of Jesus’ teaching that he came to bring abundant life.”
Rebecca Todd Peters, a professor at Elon University in North Carolina, is referring to John 10:10, in which Jesus says: “The thief cometh not, but for to steal, and to kill, and to destroy: I am come that they might have life, and that they might have it more abundantly.”
It’s hard to imagine a more inappropriate Bible verse to cite to justify the killing of an unborn baby in the womb, yet that’s what she came up with. This, she explains, is part of her research to develop a “Christian ethic” on the larger issue of reproductive choice. She suggests a pregnant woman shouldn’t need to provide any reason or justification for aborting her unborn child.
She says, “Trusting women to make abortion decisions is a Christian norm.” She denies the validity of the “dominant belief that Christianity and Christians are against abortion” on the grounds that most Christian denominations tolerate abortion under exceptional circumstances.
In other words, if there are any exceptional circumstances when abortion should be permitted – like the mother’s life being endangered – there is no justification for any restrictions. Make sense? Apparently to this Ph.D.
What if a baby is full term – a day or two away from birth? Apparently not an ethical concern for Ms. Peters. Rather, for her, the problem is her disagreement with the overwhelming majority of Christians and non-Christians alike who don’t think like her.
It begs the question as to why it would be inappropriate, even unthinkable, for a mother to take the life of her newborn – a question she dares not raise herself.
“There is nothing Christian about requiring women to ‘justify’ their reasons for abortion,” she asserts. “And there is certainly nothing Christian about forcing women to continue pregnancies against their will.”
She calls any moral opposition to any abortion “intolerance and misogyny.”
“Only 1 percent of abortions are a result of rape and less than 0.5 percent the result of incest,” she concedes. “About 12 percent are sought to protect a woman’s health, and 13 percent for prenatal health issues. That means that what legal scholar Kate Watson calls ‘ordinary abortions’ make up nearly three-quarters of abortions in the United States.”
Peters claims that “ordinary abortions stand outside acceptability in the justification paradigm that conservative Christian voices have established for our public conversation about abortion.” And that’s her problem. “This justification framework supports a view of abortion that holds that when women get pregnant, we expect them to have babies.” What indeed should we expect them to have when they get pregnant?
Peters is very concerned with “shaming” of women who choose to abort their babies, yet, apparently inadvertently or because of her own lack of cognitive clarity, actually participates in creating such a paradigm. Watch carefully:
Choosing to have a child, she says, is “a profoundly moral act” signifying “a significant moral commitment to that child to raise it or to place it for adoption.” She doesn’t explain why that is, but notes “only 1 percent of women place their children for adoption.” Yet, if it is a profoundly moral act to carry a child through pregnancy, raise the child or place it for adoption, isn’t that a shaming mindset against those who don’t? Color me confused.
But perhaps the most twisted, incoherent, hideous and damnable assertion by Ms. Peters is that Jesus’ teaching about “abundant life” inspires abortion on demand.
“A Christian vision of abundant life requires that we recognize and support the development of healthy and robust families,” she explains. “It requires that we respect women and the moral decisions that they make about their families. A Christian approach to supporting healthy families recognizes that only individual women and their partners are able to determine their ability to parent a child.”
If she’s right, that would lead inevitably and logically to the conclusion that only individual women and their partners should be able to determine whether torturing their children, physically abusing them or killing them postpartum is an appropriate choice.
Peters adds that if Christians “truly value women and healthy families,” they must accept that not wanting a baby “is an imminently [I believe she means “eminently”] appropriate reason to end a pregnancy,” adding “we must trust that pregnant women are the only ones who are capable of making these decisions.”
“As a Christian ethicist, I believe very strongly that abortion is a moral decision,” she says. “Just as having a baby is a moral decision. Because pregnancy represents the potential for human life — I believe that we ought to take the decision to have a child far more seriously than we do.”
Last month, Peters cited the preamble to the Declaration of Independence to justify her extremist beliefs about abortion. I believe that preamble forbids it nationwide. It unequivocally states: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.”
If we are endowed with the unalienable right to life, who can take it away? Yet in the morally warped and intellectually bankrupt world of Rebecca Todd Peters, the Declaration of Independence is not a document protecting life but denying it. Coupled with the preamble to the Constitution, these two documents not only specifically defend the right of those who are fortunate enough to survive through birth, but the unborn. The preamble to the Constitution asserts: “We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”
What is the definition of “our posterity”? Future generations, or those not yet born.
To me, that means unborn children legally have an absolute right to life in these United States of America – not only because God ordains it, but because our Constitution and Declaration of Independence affirm it.