This is a guest post by Forest Welch. This was originally comment on a YouTube post asking about banning drugs used for abortions. I thought it was helpful in thinking about the question. — Michael
I see some comments here of people saying that the pill should be banned. @HeritageRestored is responding, asking whether those people believe that guns should also be banned, and those same people say no. I appreciate the reasoning of his question, so I’d like to add to it and explain it.
To believe that the pill should be banned but guns should not is inconsistent, in that in one case, we recognize rightly that the problem is the murderer, not the weapon used, while in the other case, many believe that doing away with the weapon (the pill) will protect the victims of those murders.
This is inconsistent and wrong in a couple particular ways:
- The problem with murder is never the weapon used. To ban a particular weapon from being used does not prohibit the murderer from murdering. We’ve seen this, for example, in much of Europe, where guns have been taken, but the homicide rate has not changed as a result. People are simply turning to other weapons. With abortion, it’s even worse. We’ve seen, for example, many pro-life laws cutting down, or outright banning (always with exceptions) one particular weapon (e.g. forceps), but the women who want to abort their babies turn to other means, (such as the pill). In order to protect the babies from murder, we must criminalize the act of murder, not just ban the weapon used.
- The issue here is that fighting abortion is not just about the protection of the babies. It is also about proper justice. When we hear of a school shooting on the news, the whole country cries out that the murderer be justly punished, and this is right. God created us to obey Him—to love Him with all our heart, mind, soul, and strength, and to love our neighbors as ourselves—and He gave us all the natural knowledge that when we harm or kill each other, we deserve just retribution. So, we ought not merely to ban any particular weapon, but to criminalize all murder in this country, unto God’s glory, and for the love of the victims.
To clarify, we are not seeking to “criminalize women”, as many falsely claim. We want to criminalize murder, and every murder will be examined in the courts on a case-by-case basis to determine who is responsible. What does that mean, then for the women? Many believe us to be ungracious to the women who abort their children. No. We long for them to be saved from their sins and turn to Christ, who is the only hope of salvation. If you are a man or woman who has committed murder, turn to Christ! He was murdered that you can have life in His name. And even more, He rose again so that those who are in Him are not only dead to sin but alive in Christ.
I beg of you to confess what you have done and receive the free gift of His grace!
One more clarification—someone responded to the question about banning guns with the claim that we all have a second amendment right, and we also have a right not to be poisoned to death in the womb. Yes, and we also have a right to not be murdered with a gun. Again, the issue here is not the right to bear arms, but the right to life, and the solution to murder is not to ban the weapons used, but to criminalize the act of murder itself, and to enact justice upon those who commit it.
To the believer reading this, examine your position according to the Scriptures, and let us join together in seeking to establish justice, and to love our neighbors as ourselves. May we abolish abortion immediately, without exception or compromise, to the glory of God.
To the unbeliever reading this, God is a just God, and He demands perfect obedience. He also is a gracious God who provided it in Christ. Turn to Him and be saved.
What do you think, reader? Should the abortion pill(s) be banned? Is this an effort worth fighting for?
No.
For those who answer “yes”, are they willing to take the mother and child into their home and support it as needed?
So, “give them money or the kid gets it”? That’s mobster-level extortion, Joan.
We shouldn’t have to pay a ransom for a mother not to murder her innocent child.
I don’t see it as “extortion”, Jay. But rather as an example of Christian kindness. As in, be a doer not just a hearer. As in walk the talk. As in how far are you willing to go to stand for your beliefs? How much do you care for the mother as well as the child?
There’s a difference between that and what you articulated originally. We should love our neighbor and care for the widow and fatherless, I totally agree, but what you originally implied was: “if you don’t want her to kill her baby, take care of them yourself”. There is a tremendous difference. Whether people come around her to help her or not, which they ought to, it still does not justify her murdering her child if they do not.
We have a constitutional right to bear arms, not to traffic or possess poison. The pill should be banned in its own right, but comparing it to “banning guns” is a non sequitur. It’s a category error to equate banning the pill with banning guns.
I agree with the author’s position on abortion. I also think that banning a particular abortion method will not be at all effective and would be a waste of time and resources. There will always be another abortion method developed, a black market in these pills, abortion tourism, etc. The only way to ultimately reduce/stop abortion is for God to change the hearts of people who are considering abortion.
Having said that, I think that his comparison to firearms is a very shallow argument. It ignores that fact that the vast majority of firearms usage is for purposes other than “murder”. Guns can be used for hunting, self-defense, just wars and to oppose a tyrannical government (the original reason for the 2nd Amendment). He needs to work on a better argument.
Hi, Tim, this is Forest, who originally wrote the YouTube comment. I appreciate your criticism of that point. However, it is important to recognize the context of what I was responding to. I wasn’t making the comparison between the pill and guns, but rather responding to someone else who did. I agree that to compare them is a bad argument, and that’s why I responded the way that I did.
I’m not even necessarily against banning the pill–while I am a very strong supporter of the Second Amendment–but I believe that our focus should be on abolishing abortion, not banning the pill. To be clear, because it’s not my focus, I haven’t looked into other possible medical uses for it, which would be my only objection to banning it in the future, after abortion is first abolished.
I hope that helps explain that part of the comment. Let me know if I need to clarify further.
Thanks for the clarification. Sounds like we agree. 🙂
Someone privately texted me, notifying me that my position is somewhat unclear, as stated above. The sentence, “To believe that the pill should be banned but guns should not is inconsistent…”, found at the top of the second paragraph led this person to believe that I want to criminalize abortion, but that I’m fine with stores continuing to sell the abortion pill. The sentence should have read something to the effect of, “To believe that the solution to abortion is to ban the pill, but that banning guns is not the solution to gun violence is inconsistent…”. My position is that indeed, banning guns is not the solution to gun violence, but rather justice carried out swiftly against the criminals. In the same way, I believe that the solution to abortion is not to ban the pill, but to abolish all abortion, and to carry out justice upon the guilty swiftly. That said, I do not believe, as I failed to clarify in the original post, that the pill should remain readily available. I simply reject the pro-life idea that the pill should merely be banned. As an abolitionist, I believe in the total and immediate abolition and criminalization of all abortion.
I hope that helps, and I apologize for any confusion.
Clarify please, Forest: “to carry out justice upon the guilty quickly”..would that be the upon the woman, the doctor, the pharmacist, or the man? Who is “the guilty”?
Joan, sorry for taking so long to respond. I forgot to check for any more responses. That languages from Ecclesiastes 8:11. I also used language from several other Bible verses in that post, but I didn’t know the references off the top of my head. Another that I didn’t reference is Proverbs 18:5, “To show partiality to the wicked is not good, nor to thrust aside the righteous in judgment”. This is my foundation in what I said in the original post, “We want to criminalize murder, and every murder will be examined in the courts on a case-by-case basis to determine who is responsible”. In other words, we want to treat the murder of preborn people the same as that of born people. So, if the principal actor is the mother, then yes, she is the guilty. If the father, for example, slips a pill into the mother’s drink to abort the child, then he is the guilty. If the parent(s) hire someone to kill their child, such as a doctor or pharmacist, then he too would be guilty. This is the same as the murder of born people, and it would be determined in the courts. The law should state that the ACT of abortion is murder.
Solid analogy. I’ll keep this in the back of my mind!