Crush Liberalism

Liberalism: Why think when you can “feel”?

Christian AND pro-choice?

Last week, San Fran Nan opined that the Catholic church didn’t quite understand abortion properly.  She attempted to set the church straight, but as her colleagues demonstrated, she is either woefully uninformed or lying through her teeth.

This begs the question: can a person be a born-again Christian and pro-choice?  Well, quite simply…no!

Hey, I understand the reality that abortion is legal, and it likely will be legal for quite some time.  To the best of my knowledge, the only way to make the practice illegal is either by (a) passing a constitutional amendment banning abortion (highly unlikely, given the supermajorities needed for that); or (b) passing a law banning it, having the law declared unconstitutional, and getting the U.S. Supreme Court to overturn Roe v. Wade on appeal (highly improbable, but probably slightly more doable than the former option).  In other words, abortion is going to be legal for the foreseeable future.

Having said that, you cannot be a born-again Christian and be pro-choice.  A politician that claims to be both is a false prophet and bears “rotten fruit” (spiritually speaking).  Just because the world says it’s OK doesn’t mean that God does.  The Nuremberg defense won’t work on Judgment Day.

If you’re not a Christian, then this fact shouldn’t bother you.  And if you’re a true born-again Christian…then this fact shouldn’t bother you, either.


August 27, 2008 - Posted by crushliberalism | Christianity, Pelosi, abortion

4 Comments »

  1. Do you think the Archbishop of her home diocese will tell Pelosi to either get in line or get excommunicated? Me neither… but he should.

    Comment by PabloD | August 28, 2008

  2. Pablo, they didn’t do it with Kennedy or Kerry….why start now?

    Comment by Kanaka Girl | August 28, 2008

  3. Given the framing of the positions as an “either/or,” “black and white,” “true or false” binary opinions, it leaves out the middle ground. The current labels operate as such: Pro-Life-no abortion anytime for anyone under any circumstances anywhere, and the government would never pay for abortions; Pro-Choice-abortion is allowed anytime for anyone under any circumstances with no limits on time, and the government will pay for abortions.
    I am an evangelical Christian and I oppose the pro-choice position. I also reject the pro-life position where there may be other factors beyond the scope of this posting for which abortion should not be made illegal.
    Where ultimately there is legislation to ban abortion, I will rally for the most restrictive and “criminalizing” language possible–that it would apply to all who have been involved in its practice (the woman, the doctor, the nurses, etc), and as an act of premediated murder, the parties would be subject to capital punishment. This would also apply to anyone in a state with such laws to their travels to another state for the purpose of obtaining an abortion.

    Comment by Richard C | September 29, 2008

  4. Given the framing of the positions as an “either/or,” “black and white,” “true or false” binary opinions, it leaves out the middle ground. The current labels operate as such: Pro-Life-no abortion anytime for anyone under any circumstances anywhere, and the government would never pay for abortions; Pro-Choice-abortion is allowed anytime for anyone under any circumstances with no limits on time, and the government will pay for abortions.
    I am an evangelical Christian and I oppose the pro-choice position. I also reject the pro-life position where there may be other factors beyond the scope of this posting for which abortion should not be made illegal.
    Where ultimately there is legislation to ban abortion, I will rally for the most restrictive and “criminalizing” language possible–that it would apply to all who have been involved in its practice (the woman, the doctor, the nurses, etc), and as an act of premediated murder, the parties would be subject to capital punishment. This would also apply to anyone in a state with such laws to their travels to another state for the purpose of obtaining an abortion. (The effect of such an approach would essentially put those who have been strident in their pro-life positions to defend anything less than the most criminalizing language.)

    Comment by Richard C | September 29, 2008


Leave a comment

« Previous | Next »