God, Abortion, and Us

Share

The abortion debate has been at a fever pitch in recent days due to the leaking of a Supreme Court opinion which would, if released as the final and official decision, overturn Roe vs Wade. If this ends up being the case, the next (and essential) frontier for those like me who align with “pro-life” thinking will include building the kind of world, and ensuring access to the kind of maternal support, that would drastically decrease the number of women who would consider abortion in the first place.

Below is a newly-updated essay I wrote about what achieving such a vision will, at minimum, require: a comprehensive, mother and child, “womb to tomb” moral ethic. For as Martin Luther King, Jr. famously said, injustice anywhere—whether it happens inside or outside the womb—is a threat to justice everywhere.

I hope my words will help you as you navigate these important concerns in your own heart and context.


I have never enjoyed publicizing my thoughts about the pro-life vs. pro-choice debate. It’s a heated issue. To take one side or another is to invite what often ends up being contentious, fruitless debate.

I don’t enjoy stirring up a hornet’s nest. But my calling as a minister is to teach the word of God, whether in season or out of season, whether convenient or inconvenient, whether culturally acceptable or culturally offensive. More than I want to be popular, I need to be faithful.

My thoughts on abortion have been helped by several healthcare professionals, most of whom are “pro-life” and some of whom are “pro-choice,” including an open discussion and debate with a handful of abortion providers. If I am going to speak publicly on this issue, it is only fair that I should first hear directly from all the perspectives.

I have done my homework. And, after studying the Scriptures and listening to every perspective imaginable, here are a few thoughts I would like to share.

The Core Issue

I believe that the core issue in the pro-life vs. pro-choice debate is whose care matters most. Is it care for the mother or care for the child in her womb? I believe that the answer is yes.

In his letter to the early church, the Apostle James writes that we must show no partiality and reiterates what Jesus said was the greatest commandment in relation to our fellow human beings—to love our neighbor as we love ourselves (James 2:1, 8).

Here, James was addressing a problem he saw in the first century church. Partiality was being shown toward affluent, successful, famous people because everyone was trying to climb the social ladder. While these received VIP treatment in the church, the poor, marginalized, and weak were overlooked and pushed to the periphery. This, according to James, was wrong. In the church, every person is supposed to receive VIP treatment because every person, wealthy or poor, obscure or famous, strong or disabled, mother or infant, is a carrier of the divine imprint. Every human bears God’s image.

As Martin Luther King, Jr. aptly said, “There are no gradations in the image of God…God made us to live together as brothers (and sisters) and to respect the dignity and worth of every (hu)man.”

This is where the pro-life vs. pro-choice discussion breaks down. Neither side is known for honoring the dignity of every human in the equation. Furthermore, neither side is seen by the other as being truly and consistently pro-choice or pro-life. Although there are exceptions, in many instances the use of the terms “pro-life” and “pro-choice” can land as more euphemistic than honest.

For example, pro-life folks believe that pro-choice is dishonest terminology because only one person gets to choose the destiny of all people in the equation, namely the mother. She has 100% decision making power and the child inside her has no power, no voice, and no ability to defend or advocate for her/himself. The idea that a woman should “get to choose what she does with her own body” breaks down, because half of infants in utero are female who have no choice over what happens to their bodies. In fact, what the language of “a woman’s right to choose” suggests, especially when her own life is not threatened by the pregnancy (as in a tubal or ectopic pregnancy, for example), is that her right is not only to choose but also to shed innocent blood, which the Lord hates (Proverbs 6:16-17).

On the other hand, pro-choice folks believe that pro-life is dishonest terminology. To them, the so-called pro-life position seems focused on only one kind of life. After an infant is born, pro-life people don’t seem to have much else to say. The pro-life voice seems silent about the fact that over sixty percent of women who come in for an abortion are alone and live below the poverty line. In rarer cases, some come in after being date raped or incestuously assaulted by a sick, older man in her family. Still others come in with fears such as lack of adequate healthcare, lack of support from spouses, partners, or loved ones, or an at-risk pregnancy that threatens the health or even the viability of the mother, the child, or both. If pro-life people seem ambivalent about showing up for and helping solve these and other, complicated forms of crisis-pregnancy-related distress, their advocacy for unborn life loses credibility in the eyes of many.

Now, it is an indisputable fact that pro-life people, and especially those who are Christian, are doing more to care for their poor, distraught, and/or at-risk neighbors than the rest of the world combined. As secular journalist Nicholas Kristof has written in The New York Times, evangelical and Catholic believers are leading the world in mercy and justice efforts on virtually every front. This includes providing meaningful support to women who are facing crisis pregnancies, as well as counseling for those who are facing shame, regret, and trauma after choosing to abort (one such organization, whose free counseling services are accessible in person and online, also led by a good friend to my wife and me, is Avail).

But even where good work is being done, there is often still a perception that pro-life folks are too passive about the very real distress that certain pregnant women face. Here is where they (we) must consider Jesus’ urging to “let our light shine before men that all may see (and thereby also gain access to and become beneficiaries of) our good works and glorify our father in heaven” (Matthew 5:13-16).

And so it goes. Both groups are right in advocating for fellow humans in a weak and distressed position. And both sides are challenged—whether in truth or perception—for advocating on behalf of mother or child versus advocating on behalf of mother and child. Wherever this is the case, there is a deficit of what James called “true religion,” which attends meaningfully to the needs of widows and orphans—to vulnerable women and children—in their affliction and distress (James 1:27).

If deep concern isn’t shown for both mother and child, James seems to be saying, then our religion is lopsided. Until we become both/and on this issue, our religion falls short of being true.

According to Pro Life Folks

Pro life folks are compelled by the words of James who wrote, “He who said ‘do not commit adultery’ also said ‘do not murder’” (James 2:11). If only people would abstain from unmarried sex and stop murdering, the thinking goes, then the abortion problem would be solved.

For some, this raises the question of whether terminating a pregnancy is murder. Can it be considered merciful in certain situations to terminate? Is there something to be said for sparing mother and/or child from public embarrassment, economic burden, disability, and other pains that can sometimes come with carrying a pregnancy to term?

Two major Old Testament figures wrestled over this very question. Both wondered if life is worth living if one’s quality of life is burdensome.

Job was a terror victim who lost all of his assets, his business, his wife’s respect, and ten children. Jeremiah was a prophet living in exile, a bereaved widower, and hated by virtually everyone that God had called him to love and serve.

Both men made the same statement: “Cursed be the day that I was born.”

Jeremiah took the thought further when he said, “Cursed be the day when my mother bore me…Cursed be the man who brought the news to my Father, because he did not kill me in the womb…why was I born to see toil and sorrow and spend my days in shame?” (Jeremiah 20:14-18).

Some pro-choice folks might say, “See? Even one of God’s prophets said that he should have been aborted!” That is to say, they might understand Jeremiah’s words as a quality of life argument. If inordinate suffering is probable, says the quality of life argument, then it is more merciful and just to terminate life rather than it is to sustain it.

But if Jeremiah or Job truly believed this, each would have followed through with the thought and taken his own life, yes? If the merciful and just thing to do with a life wrought by endless suffering and sorrow is to end the life and thereby end the suffering, why did neither of these men take matters into his own hands? I think it is because in cursing the day they were born, both of these men of God were venting their raw emotions—emotions that were real but that they also knew were not true.

Deep down, in spite of expressing a desire to not go on living, both Job and Jeremiah understood that the chief deciding factor is not the quality of life but rather the value of life. Because every human bears the image of God, s/he is of inestimable value.

Jeremiah did not take his life in his own hands, no doubt because God had declared to him years before, “Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you; I appointed you…” (Jeremiah 1:5).

Similar thoughts are expressed elsewhere in Scripture. “You formed my inmost parts,” the Psalmist prays, “you knitted me together in my mother’s womb…Your eyes saw my unformed substance; in your book were written, every one of them, the days that were formed for me, when as yet there was none of them” (Psalm 139:13, 16).

“He will be filled with the Holy Spirit, even from his mother’s womb,” it is said about John the Baptist (Luke 1:15).

The Old Testament Hebrew word used in reference to a born infant or toddler (yeled) is the same Old Testament Hebrew word used in reference to a fetus.

The testimony of Scripture is unequivocal that from the moment that sperm and egg unite, you have a new living soul and carrier of the divine imprint. An embryo is never spoken of as a potential life, but is only and always spoken of as a life. Personhood begins at, and continues on from, the moment of conception.

Even the abortion provider I referenced above recognizes this. In the course of conversation, he said that every abortion he has performed over the years has made him feel sick to his stomach. When his grandson with Down Syndrome was born, he resolved that he would never abort a child with Down Syndrome again.

He went on to say that he believes human life begins at conception, and that terminating a pregnancy ends human life. These were his words, not mine. While many (myself included) are deeply opposed to the doctor’s willingness to perform abortions on demand in spite of his beliefs about life in the womb, at least he is honest enough to admit that as long as he provides abortions, he will be choosing to live in moral inconsistency.

Some other relevant things I learned recently:

> Approximately 2 million couples in America alone are on adoption waiting lists.

> The abortion industry is very profitable. People and organizations make a lot of money terminating pregnancies, thus incentivizing providers not to make abortion rare.

> 66% of abortions are performed on the 30% minority of Blacks and Hispanics. Notably, Margaret Sanger founded Planned Parenthood in part for the purpose of exterminating Black babies. Historically and today, there are significant racial implications concerning abortion.

> A disturblingly disproportionate percentage of children with Down Syndrome are aborted, even though people with Down are known to be among the happiest people groups in the world.

> 98% of abortions are purely elective due to an unwanted pregnancy in which the mother’s health or life is not at risk.

> 90% of women considering an abortion who see a sonogram choose to keep the child.

> At conception, the full set of DNA is present23 genes from the mother, and 23 from the father. Scientifically, an embryo is human from the start.

As we can see, there are various and troubling moral dilemmas for those on the side of “choice.” The question is sometimes raised, how is it even possible, in the name of justice, to advocate for a woman’s right to choose abortion when the weakest human being in the equation is left without a choice and without a defense? Justice and mercy, to be truly just and merciful, demand that the most vulnerable, powerless, defenseless, and voiceless ones receive the strongest defense, advocacy, and protection.

As James writes, “There will be judgment without mercy to those who show no mercy” (James 2:13).

This is no small thing. There is much at stake.

According to Pro Choice Folks

Whereas pro-life folks believe that pro-choice folks support violence against children in the womb, pro-choice folks believe that pro-life folks can be indifferent, even cold, toward mothers in distress. Even though, as highlighted above, 98% of abortions occur when the mother’s life or health is not at risk, the remaining 2% is significant, representing roughly 10,000 mothers and children in crisis. Where there is greater complexity due to a crisis situation, pro-life folks must do more than merely advocate for anti-abortion legislation.

Anyone can cast a vote. Anyone can share their pro-life views on Facebook. But do pro-life people think they have done justly and loved mercy by merely working to get the law on their side?

Pro-life folks, too, must grapple with the imperative to “Love your neighbor as yourself.” Loving your neighbor calls for showing mercy, which requires showing up meaningfully and supportively for women and children in distress. Otherwise, we are fooling ourselves. We may be pro-infant, but this does not mean we are pro-life in the truest and most comprehensive sense of the term.

To show mercy is to lift a burden off of afflicted people and assume some of that burden upon our own shoulders. Mercy puts itself in the shoes of those who are ashamed, alone, and scared. What if it was us or our loved ones facing an unexpected, crisis pregnancy?

What if we were the unmarried woman living in poverty?

What if we were the college student who was a victim of date rape?

What if we were the woman with a husband or a boyfriend demanding, “Take care of it, or else…?”

What if we were the teenage girl whose parents have made it clear that they will not support the birth or adoption route, but will only support termination, “otherwise she is on her own?”

What if we were the mother who has been told that the child has zero chance of surviving outside the womb, or of surviving the pregnancy itself?

These are real situations.

A friend of mine who is a pro-life gynecologist, who has never and will never perform an abortion, relayed an in-real-life patient situation to me that was devastating. A young pregnant girl came in to his office distressed because a few thugs decided that they would force her into a private room and then, one after the other, take advantage of her ten year old body.

Yes, you read correctly. The girl was ten.

If you are pro-life, for a moment put yourself in the shoes of this girl or in the shoes of her parents. Would it be enough to merely achieve pro-life legislation to protect the unborn baby? What about the child who is carrying that baby in her underdeveloped uterus? Or would something much more, something that is comprehensive and “womb to tomb” in its moral ethic, be called for?

Referencing James again, it would not be enough to simply look at this ten-year old girl and her parents and say, “You shall not murder. Now that we have that settled, go in peace, be warmed and filled—Take care of yourselves while I go about my own life”—without offering to come alongside them to help bear their varied, complex, and gut-wrenching burdens (James 2:16)?

This is what the scribes and Pharisees were known for doing. They demanded that people keep God’s law…don’t commit adultery, don’t murder, and so on…but they would not lift a finger to help people carry the burden (Luke 11:46).

Said another way, faith without works is dead.

“There will be judgment without mercy to those who show no mercy.”

A Way Forward: Becoming Comprehensively Pro-Life

I believe that the only way forward is to adopt a Kingdom vision that transcends the civic vision on this issue. If we continue to hold the pro-life vs. pro-choice debate hostage by treating it as merely a political issue, we will get nowhere.

What might such a Kingdom vision look like?

The Pax Romana can teach us something about this. Pax Romana or “Roman Peace” was a euphemistic (dishonest) term coined by the people in power during the first and second century Roman oppression. Social Darwinism was the rule of the day, in which the terms of justice were decided by the powerful, who made certain that the terms of “justice” privileged them. Those in a weaker position had no choice but to live according to those terms.

One historian described the Pax Romana as a coerced compliance in which all opponents had been beaten down and had lost the ability to resist, and in which the weak and afflicted had no legal protection.

As in Hitler’s Germany, certain classes of humans were seen as a drain on society and therefore disposable. Widows, the infirm, people with special needs, the poor, and unwanted children (especially girls)…all were vulnerable and none had the assurance that their human rights would be honored.

Archaeologists discovered a letter written by a traveling Roman businessman to his pregnant wife. Unable to make it back home in time for the child’s birth, he wrote to her that if the child is a boy, she should keep it. If it is a girl, she should throw it out.

In came the people of Jesus. Compelled by a Kingdom vision, “No one said that any of the things that belonged to him was his own…There was not a needy person among them, for as many as were owners of lands or houses sold them and brought the proceeds of what was sold…and it was distributed to each as any had need” (Acts 4:32-35).

In ancient Rome, people of the Way said to the Roman Caesar something similar to what Mother Teresa once said at a National Prayer Breakfast to a sitting U.S. President:

“Please stop aborting your babies and give them to me.”

This is also what the early Christians said to the Roman Caesar. “We will take care of your sick. We will feed your hungry. We will shelter your widows. We will adopt and raise your children with special needs and disabilities. We will take care of your pregnant mothers.”

By the third century A.D., the moral and social fabric of Rome was transformed. The Roman world was “infected by love,” as one historian has said. Even the Emperor Julian, famously known and feared for his murderous disdain for Christians, conceded in a letter that the growth of the “Christian sect” had gotten out of control because Christians took better care of Rome’s afflicted than Rome did.

What could this look like for us? I think I will leave you with an excerpt from a doctor, also a Christian, because I cannot find a way to improve on his words:

The centerpiece of our life and faith is the One who so loved us that He died for us…Where does that leave us? First, don’t murder. This is true for both sides of this issue. While exerting one’s autonomy and taking of innocent life in abortion is clearly wrong and disallowed by Scripture, so is being vitriolic and hating others on the other side of an issue. Second, do unto others as you would want for them to do unto you—assuming your positions were reversed. Imagine that you are the one making a decision on the other side. As we fight about life in utero, let’s not forget the person standing in front of us.

Build relationship and community. There is enough hurt to go around…I believe that abortion is wrong. I believe that God is the Giver of life. As a Christian, I want to support a politic that does give preference to Biblical views on this matter, because I believe that they make for flourishing of humans. I also must believe that government, Biblically speaking, must make room for dissent.

Wouldn’t it be great if communities existed where ANY mother, married or unmarried, would feel welcomed and loved and known that her needs and the needs of her child would be attended to? If the Church does what the Church is called to do, then there will be no poor or disregarded or demeaned in our midst.

In short, I would rather build community and dialogue and live in a society where abortion, due to the love ready to be given to any child and any mother, is not merely illegal…

…but unthinkable.


Scott’s latest book, Beautiful People Don’t Just Happen,
releases June 14, 2022.
Sign up to receive Scott’s weekly post in your email inbox.

Browse and learn about all of Scott’s books.
Learn about Christ Presbyterian Church in Nashville.
Connect with Scott on TwitterInstagramFacebook, or YouTube.
Share

27 responses to “God, Abortion, and Us”

  1. […] the abortion question, I have written a lengthy answer which can be found here. But the short answer is that we need to be pro-life in a comprehensive way, not a partial way. […]

  2. Sandra says:

    This!!

    So good and can be applied to so many other current issues we are now debating.

  3. A. R says:

    One word of clarification. I think it is unfair to further the “you’re just pro birth” argument. It may be true for some individuals, but as a whole, it is not true. Pro life Evangelical christians are statistically likely to give more.money, to volunteer more time to humanitarian causes. They are also more likely to adopt or foster.

    Often the “just pro birth” argument is used to mean that the pro lifer doesn’t agree with specific government programs. I think you could call christians to be generous while still celebrating how much they are doing now.

    Overall great article, but I don’t think it’s helpful to further the falsehood that christians don’t care about being comprehensively prolife ( I know you were not saying that, but it seemed.to further that misconception). Thank you for dealing with this tough topic with Grace and truth.

  4. Krupal Prabhaker says:

    Hi Scott, Thanks for sharing. Miss you. I’m working PT. Please pray for my bro-in-law, Steve, in Phoenix for his healing. He was operated for brain cancer. Never sick in his life before. Now under my sister’s and day time home care. Please send me an email that you got this. I want to talk with you soon. Blessings.
    Krupal

    krupalpr@gmail.com

  5. Josh says:

    Hey Scott,

    Thank you for this post. I deeply appreciate you treating this issue with the nuance it deserves and asking hard questions. As a New Yorker and someone who was 30 minutes away from being aborted 35 years ago, this recent legislation has been on my mind a lot. As well as recent articles like these that highlight deep complexities – https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/12/28/opinion/stillborn-murder-charge.html and https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/06/15/business/pregnancy-discrimination.html

    I do have a question as to why the only people quoted in this post are men? I’m aware that it could be for a number of factors, but I also know that, within the PCA and the larger church, that we men like to talk on issues that we know nothing about — like being pregnant. This is why I ask this question. How do we amplify and listen to our sister’s and other women’s voices on this topic and not come across as tone deaf? While I appreciate your thoughts and insights as a pastor, is it not important that we hear from women who work in clinics and are gynecologists? Looking back in history, it has been primarily if not exclusively men who have made the laws about something that is unique to being a woman.

    Again, thank you for this post, and my above question is in no way meant to subvert the fact that I appreciate what you wrote and treating this issue with the nuance and complexity it deserves.

    Warmly,
    Josh

  6. Debbie says:

    Wow. Very insightful and true. Thank you for the all around info and opinion gathering. It hit me in my heart and inspired me to do better, to be better; to love my neighbor better. I cannot tolerate hate speech and it grieves me to hear it especially coming from people who are supposed to be a part of Christ’s body. Your comments were spoken in truth with love. A hard thing to do sometimes.

  7. MaryJane Sobel says:

    Satisfyingly nuanced and humble, just what I’d expect from you. Sending it to my three grown daughters who are on the other side of the issue. Don’t want to call them pro-choice any more as you say it’s inaccurate by 50%. Thanks so much! A lot to ponder and face up to.
    PS congratulations on new book.

  8. Lee says:

    There is a principle in American jurisprudence that holds, unBiblically, that a person can be judged “not guilty” for the most heinous crimes by reason of insanity. That since he doesn’t know or understand what he has done, he can’t be held accountable. But, on the other hand, if a person certainly knows that what he is doing is wrong, he is clearly guilty. So when Scott said that the abortion doctor who admitted he believed life begins at conception and that abortion is taking a life, is he not guilty of murder by his own admission? So I don’t get where or how Scott can give the abortion doctor “credit” for admitting he lives in a world of contradictions. To me the doctor admitted he is a murderer. I would like my Christian brothers to view abortion for what it is according to God. At the Nuremberg trials, despite the officers making the excuse that they were following orders, half of those men were hanged for their crimes of murder.

  9. Kevin says:

    Like slavery, abortion is an issue that must be forcefully rejected without negotiation. While the conclusion of this post is edifying, the “nuanced” analysis contains problematic assumptions. In framing the issue, it recycles and assumes as true talking points from Planned Parenthood (e.g., evangelicals don’t really care about children after they are born). Statistically speaking, this is false. It also appears to assume that the “rape/incest” counter is a legitimate counterargument. Statistically speaking, rape and incest account for less than one percent of abortions and, in any event, it is not a legitimate counter. Destroying an innocent life is absolutely repugnant–in all situations. Nonnegotiable.

    Moreover, the post implies a problematic moral equivalence between (a) the premeditated taking of an innocent life and (b) not holistically caring for someone else’s child after it is born.

    This type of false equivalence legitimizes the pro-abortionist position of: “if you don’t care for my child, then I’m justified in aborting it.”

  10. Ben Robertson says:

    This is wonderful. Made me think of a point Jemar Tisby made recently on his Footnotes podcast about Fathers. Often we say, “What about the Father’s choice?” But Jemar was the first person I’ve heard ask, “What about the Father’s responsibility?” In the age of easily accessible DNA testing, it seems that we ought to hold men accountable for the care of the child every bit as much (if not more) than the mothers. So often abortions are sought out of the desperation of being alone. While your point about the church as a whole building communities and systems is perhaps the more realistic and bigger issue, the missing character in the narrative is so often the fathers, as though these women seeking abortions got pregnant all on their own. Who’s the dad? Where’s the dad?! With 23&Me etc we now live in a time where specific men can be found and named and called to care for their son or daughter along with the mother. A big push for legalizing abortion originally was to give women the same “freedom” men “enjoyed” with regard to sexual consequences. It’s time men faced the consequences (and subsequent duties and obligations- think of powerful men and leaders who’ve been exposed later for coercing mistresses into abortions to save their own reputation and careers) of “unwanted” pregnancy as well, all along with the church loving and serving mother, child, and father in distress with mercy, love, and justice.

  11. Steve Bowman says:

    Thank you, Scott. You’ve convicted me to more actively support my fellow humans who are hurting. (By the way, not that it’d make much difference, but it might be more honest to call the two sides “pro-abortion rights” and “anti-abortion rights.”)

  12. RhondaLouise Diamond says:

    Thank you for your very thoughtful article. I would like you to know that an “infant” (term used more than once) is a baby that is alive, outside the womb, already born. I think ‘fetus’ or ’embryo’ is the correct word to use for the unborn. The word ‘infant’ instantly gives many a warm, sweet image of cradling that helpless, defenseless, tiny little new life. As a mother of four adult (one disabled) children, I cherish those close moments, whether nursing or walking the floor trying to calm a colicky baby for hours on end. I loved my babies fiercely.

    I’m a Jewish woman who was chosen and called at age 28. I’m 70 now, and burning with His Love and Spirit increasingly over the last 42 years. Hallelujah to our Lord God, in Jesus’ Name!!

    I’d like to share my thoughts on abortion: it’s killing a life. A sin, of course. BUT—- one that women must be able to decide for themselves whether to commit. There’s not an active civil law against gluttony, fornication, lying without crime, etc. The USA is a Democracy, NOT a Theocracy. We Jesus lovers deeply yearn for the time we live completely in His Kingdom. Come quickly, Lord Jesus!

    Women alone should be making decisions about their bodies and their baby, and whether to sin or not. God’s not surprised when people kill or do evil: we have “all sinned and fallen short of The Glory of God”. Our” Righteousness is as filthy rags (used menstrual pads!!) to Him.

    Eternal praise, Love, and worship to our Heavenly Father, through Jesus Christ, our Lord and Salvation. Amen and Amen!

  13. Vicky Benton says:

    Abortion appears to be our culture’s solution to our demand for sexual “freedom” with no complications. I’m sorry to say that I don’t have much hope for our culture developing boundaries so here we are. . . .

  14. Carole B Starr AS BS MBA RICP® says:

    Pastor Sauls – I feel as a lone voice “out there” for I keep posting what I am about to say here and there again and again,and NO ONE’s are picking up the banner – Firstly, I’ve spent my lifetime in healthcare, so that being said…

    when you study Embryology following the union of sperm and egg is a period of dividing, building cells upon cells into finally a “zygote” STILL NOT an embryo even! So, WHY why why do our leaders NOT take up the banner of INCREASED EDUCATION AND AVAILABILITY of the “morning after pill” Make it available 24/7 behind the pharmacy counter??? THEN we would not even COME to the “debate” of a beating heart. Is this suggestion too simple? Too logical?? Not divisive enough to win votes/voters???

    You have a greater audience and connections with persons of community/political voice than I; therefore,
    could you please consider spreading this idea around?

  15. Kathy Tucker says:

    Pastor Saul’s, the 10 year old who got raped and pregnant, is there no recourse, then, for her but to undergo a pregnancy or be arrested?? That is why I feel there are exceptions to every rule and that abortion simply cannot be 100% illegal. It’s a terrible choice to make but…….
    Just my thoughts.

  16. Gayle Wilson says:

    Scott, great insights into this topic. I would also like to touch on your statement – “This is also what the early Christians said to the Roman Caesar. “We will take care of your sick. We will feed your hungry. We will shelter your widows. We will adopt and raise your children with special needs. We will take care of your pregnant mothers.” When will the “church”, the called out open their eyes and see that by doing what you referenced about the early Christians will we find church buildings filled to the brim? Isn’t this our call? Love, love, love ALL.
    I recently read that when a Christian young couple, who were employed by their church, had a child with special needs, they found themselves without emotional support from the very people that employed them. I know that my own daughter has struggled with finding a church that has programming for our special needs grandson. The ray of light for the young couple I read about is that they started their own home church and soon had their own group meeting of parents of children with special needs and now they also have camp programs.
    God bless the congregation that you lead for seeing needs and answering the call of our Lord.

  17. […] Abortion, Then and Now | Scott Sauls — Read on scottsauls.com/blog/2021/12/05/thoughtsonabortion/ […]

  18. FT says:

    Thanks as always Pastor Scott for your gracious handling of a heated subject. Ben Robertson above expressed my sentiments exactly. It occurs to me that no pregnancy – planned or otherwise – happens without two people involved; a mommy and a daddy. For some reason however, the male party has been left out of this conversation. On the pro-life side, t’s always about the mean mommy who kills her baby, but in reality, we ignore the fact that many times they are coerced into ending the pregnancy by their boyfriends. The so-called ‘sexual revolution’ has been and continues to be detrimental to women. Children are a gift from God, and it breaks my heart to think of those innocent lives being tossed away so mercilessly. It seems to me that we can’t talk about abortion without addressing the sexual licentiousness that is at the root of this issue.

  19. Michelle Moore says:

    Even knowing adoption is an option will not sway some who are determined to have an abortion. Many do it because they don’t want other people to know they are even pregnant. It is mostly done because they don’t assign worth and value to the child that they are carrying. If they did, then women would be more likely to second guess their decision. The problem then lies in the lack of worth and value they see in themselves. At the pregnancy center I work at, that is what we work on shining a light on.
    A miscarriage can be called a spontaneous abortion. These are grieved and mourned over publicly when mothers lose babies at 8,9,11, 15 weeks. But when a mother elects abortion and goes into a clinic to end its life it’s celebrated. It’s astonishing how wanted children have tears shed over them or if killed in the womb, their killer prosecuted to the furthest extent. But a mom who doesn’t want her child, we’ll ok, if it’s not wanted, then it’s ok.

  20. Nate says:

    These are good thoughts for those who believe that the Bible is true to which unbelievers do not, nor do most Christians, in my opinion. If you took these thought to God’s throne room and asked Him I believe He would agree to some extent. Of course, the basis of the problem is sexual immorality, which is the basis for all perversions.

  21. Elizabeth says:

    Amen! I say this often – we must be the Church, be the light. We don’t change hearts by yelling, but by being faithful to what the Lord asks of us, generous in time and finances, have conversations with those around us, and truly value life!

  22. […] God, Abortion, and Us | Scott Sauls — Read on scottsauls.com/blog/2022/05/09/god-abortion-and-us/ […]

  23. Kara Schorstein says:

    Thank you, Scott. One fact I didn’t see is this: “Some sources estimate that there are about 2 million couples currently waiting to adopt in the United States”, quoted from American Adoptions.

  24. Robby Myrick says:

    Thank you pastor Scott. I love your wisdom, your grace, and your compassion. Your ministry has touched our family in so many wonderful ways.

    My wife had an abortion prior to our marriage. It has haunted her our entire married life. We have three beautiful adult children, all of whom believe and vote “pro-choice”, and who love one another, and who love all their friends, with tremendous grace. My wife also experienced a miscarriage before she delivered our third child. We have grieved over her aborted baby, and over our miscarried child, and we continue our emotional healing from both incidents. We believe we will be welcomed by both these beautiful children when we reach Heaven. What a Day that will be!

    My wife has counseled hundreds of young girls, some due to their personal sexual promiscuity, and some of whom are victims of molestation or abuse in a relationship. All of these young girls ask the same question: “How could God love someone ‘like me’.”?

    I pray that our core message to every young woman, of every race, creed, and social standing, is that “God loves you”. Blessings, pastor Scott, and Christ Church. We love you!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *