Close Menu X
Navigate

Pastor Jay's Blog

Abortion: “Privately against but publicly for” is to be publicly foolish

 


During the Vice Presidential debate the nation got to hear a particular abortion position articulated. Candidate Tim Kaine stated that he was privately against abortion, but supported the right to have abortions. Is this a morally legitimate position? Is this an aspect of what American Christianity can look like? Can we support policies that are sin against God?


There is a logic behind this position that has legitimacy. We can and will support policies that protect the right to do sinful and foolish things. Pride is a great offense before God, but I support the policies of free speech where pride can been reveled in. Greed is the source of all kinds of evil, but I support the policy of capitalism where greed has a great opportunity to take root. I think flag burning is foolish on many levels, but I support the policies that allow such public expressions. A nation that promotes liberty will always have to deal with the sinful and foolish choices that liberated people will make. As Evelyn Beatrice Hall said, “I do not agree with what you say but I will defend to the death your right to say it.”


This is not to say that morality cannot be legislated. Legislation is almost totally about morality. Laws are based upon the concept of right and wrong. So while you cannot legislate true heart change, a culture and a nation will always legislate morality.


Therefore, we face the question of when the concept of “privately against but publicly for” breaks down. There is a line that is crossed when trying to hold an “against/for” position where it becomes a refutation of sound reason. What is that line? This can be difficult to decide in some situations. In fact, this is why some states have laws that require motorcycle riders to wear helmets, and other states do not. Should helmets be required or not? Some states say liberty is most important, and other states say the preservation of life is most important. Some states say a loss of liberty is justified to saves lives, and other states say the loss of lives is justified to save liberty.


But abortion is different. Why? Because it is murder. Some issues are truly difficult when it comes to balancing private rights with the common good. But murder is not difficult to discern. Fetuses are tiny, fully human lives that are hidden in the womb, but nonetheless full persons. Public acceptance of murdering innocent people is unthinkable. Imagine someone making the case for being privately against rape, but publicly for the right to rape someone. There is no justification for this. Laws that protect the right to harm innocent people are the very opposite of what laws must be about.


Now just to be clear, this same argument of “privately against but publicly for” is also growing for other issues such as same-sex marriage, pornography, and more. Those arguments fail as well because of the massive harm they create. Same-sex marriage will destroy the lives of children who need to know what the roles of men and women roles. Pornography exploits women, undermines marriage, and fuels massive underworlds of perversion. Much could be said about these topics. But there is something particularly evil about murder. Innocent blood cries out before God in a special way. Lives wrecked by false marriage and exploitive porn can be healed. But when the fetus is pulled apart and discarded into the orange biohazard bag, there is no coming back.


We live in a country where politicians can make an argument for being privately against abortion but publicly for it. I would defend his right to make that argument. This is what freedom of speech is about. But when a country embraces that kind of broken moral logic, it is on a path to embrace laws that can wreak havoc on life and liberty in ways we have only begun to see.

Leave a Comment

SPAM protection (do not modify):
SPAM protection (do not modify):
SPAM protection (do not modify):