Is The Pro-Life Position Religious?

Should we throw out the pro-life position due to being religious? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

When I have seen debates going on about abortion now, something that seems to come up consistently is that this is a religious position. We have separation of church and state. We are not to be controlled by religious laws.

Is this the case? After all, many people who are explicitly religious are pro-life. Would these people be pro-life if they abandoned their religion? If their reasoning is religious in nature, can we rule it out? Even if it isn’t, surely that is their motivation. Right?

To begin with, there are many laws that we have today that are found in religious texts. Most of us seem to think that murder and stealing are wrong and to some extent, lying, such as in cases of perjury, lying under oath. While there are people who are more loose than I think should be with sex, we generally tend to think you shouldn’t cheat on the person you’re with and condemn adultery.

Who among the most radical atheist would like to abandon the law against murder because it is found in the Ten Commandments? Anyone? Do you think it should be allowed for people to steal what belongs to you? Do you think your partner should be just fine with cheating on you?

Christians are often falsely accused of picking and choosing, but atheists do the same thing. They don’t want us to be ruled by ancient laws in the Bible, but they don’t seem to mind some of those laws. Let’s also keep in mind that those laws are not given as if they are new information.

Before the Ten Commandments, we see murder being condemned, even at the very beginning with the story of Cain and Abel. The Ten Commandments were not giving new information for the most part. They were giving beliefs that the Israelites already knew of and understood. It’s not as if they got the commandments and said “Whoa! Turns out murder is wrong!”

Now let’s suppose though that my motivation is largely religious, even if my argument is not. So what? That doesn’t matter. Imagine if you had myself here and with me was atheist Albany Rose. She is a well-known pro-life atheist on social media.

Let’s suppose that we each give the same argument for why abortion is wrong. Now my perspective you could believe was religious and that was my motivation. The same could not be said of Albany Rose. Is the argument valid when it comes from her but not when it comes from me?

Of course not. Arguments stand or fall on the merit of the argument and not on the merit of the person giving it. Now if you think that someone is untrustworthy and a liar, you can be possibly rightly suspicious of their evidences. However, suppose that those evidences do turn out to be true. If that is so, then the argument stands or falls on its own.

If it is the case that the person is not one who has a reputation of being untrustworthy, then pointing out the motivations of the person doesn’t matter a bit. Arguments are either true or false. They don’t have motives. Only the people presenting them do.

Saying someone is religious in their argument is not a refutation. It is just a dodge. Sure, if I quote the Bible and you don’t believe it, then you could say you reject on those grounds, but if I give a more natural law or scientific argument, that still stands or falls on the data itself. Dealing with the person will not deal with the argument.

In Christ,
Nick Peters
(And I affirm the virgin birth)

To Lysistrata: Your Terms Are Acceptable

Will the move of Lysistrata work? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

There is a Greek play called Lysistrata where the women get sick of the men fighting in wars all the time so they decide to hit them where it hurts. No. I’m not talking about a well-placed kick, but a much harder hit to the body part in reference. They agree to have a sex strike. Now the women are unsure of this idea at first as they don’t want to give it up, but that is what they do. It does get the attention of the men and I leave you to read it to see how it turns out.

And in the world today, that idea is seeming to be popular.

Women are now saying that they will have a sex strike until “Women’s rights” are restored. Not only that, they are including a number of radical ideas.

These include ideas such as being extremely selective about who you have sex with as that person could be the father of your baby. This means practicing abstinence. (That idea that we were told will never work.) This means also not participating in the hook-up culture. This will get men all around the world to champion women’s rights to abortion.

To which many of us pro-lifers to this Lysistrata strategy of something to say.

Your terms are acceptable.

Seriously. For many of us, this is what we’ve been telling women all our lives. Take responsibility for your lives and your bodies. You’re demonstrating to us that abortion has made it easy for men to use you. (And you’re also showing us that all along, abortion has been a form of birth control.) If there are serious consequences to illicit sexual encounters, then strangely enough, people might become more responsible with sex and make wiser choices about who they sleep with.

This might sound strange, but maybe sexual joy could be found in not treating sex as if it was a casual activity.

Now I suppose someone could come along to me and say “Okay. Are you willing to avoid sex too?”

Yeah. Been doing that since I got divorced. Plan to do that until I marry again.

Women have said that sex is practically the holy grail for men. Well you know what? If you make it harder for men to receive that prize, you know who it will eventually go to? It will go to the men who prove themselves worthy. It will go to the men who show that they can provide for you and any children that they have with you.

Maybe also you will find a guy who doesn’t want you for just sex, but wants you for you and has decided that he only wants you. Maybe you will find a guy who isn’t saturated with porn and will treasure every time he gets to see your body. Maybe you will find that real joy doesn’t come from casual hook-ups, but it comes from being in a commitment with someone who really loves you and isn’t interested in using you and doesn’t have to make the consequences go away if you get pregnant.

Abortion is not enabling to women. It’s disabling. It allows women to be used by men who don’t want to take responsibility.

You see, the ideas in this sex strike, they are actually what many of us have told you all along. We have told you to take sex seriously, take your bodies seriously, and take yourselves seriously. We have told you abortion is not your ally. Pregnancy is not a weakness for you. It is what sets you apart. A woman should not want to be equal to a man in every way. She should want to be a woman because being a woman is something unique for her and what sets her apart.

Not only that, but with the transgender movement, women forgot that if they think that they are equal to men automatically, well, that means men are equal to women. This is why we have transgenders winning at women’s sports easily and then using the women’s facilities and locker rooms. Women have not been the victors here but have been the victims. Feminism has not uplifted women but torn them down. Men and women are different, but neither one is superior.

Women. Please take your sex strike. Go super far and declare that you won’t have sex until the man commits to you and provides for you and shows he can provide for a family. If you think sex with you is a holy grail, treat it like that. You’ll find who the real men are. They are the ones willing to do the work because they consider the woman a prize worth fighting for and working for. They will be the ones who are self-sacrificial.

Here’s to Lysistrata!

In Christ,
Nick Peters
(And I affirm the virgin birth)

%d bloggers like this: