Most abortions are committed by women destined to remain childless. A vast majority of normal American women intend never to commit an abortion, never do, and instead want to start a family. Rejecting abortions is normal. Having abortions is not.

Recently in Ohio, a constitutional amendment to allow some abortion-on-demand narrowly passed a popular referendum. The amendment would have failed had only about seven percent of voters switched from “yes” to “no.” This contrasts with recent pro-life wins in states that are in some cases arguably less red than Ohio such as the traditional swing state of Florida, Texas, and the blue-leaning state of Georgia. There, Republicans who passed laws that protect unborn babies with heartbeats have lately won statewide and even won big.
The Ohio setback is what results when the political right argues law instead of culture. The right outsourced its arguments on abortion mostly to its kindly Christian women, who have so far avoided using one of the most powerful tools they have: Shame. But shame is the way to train abortion proponents to care about the unborn, and shame comes from culture.
The political left knows this well. The left for a century has changed culture before law, turning the unimaginable into the standard, through relentless campaigns of public shaming. That’s how it trained a generation to avoid fanciful horrors of the so-called “politically incorrect,” even though no one ever believed it. The political right, if only it is willing, can far more quickly teach a generation to avoid real horrors everyone already knows are wrong.
The Median Abortion Seeker Is Far from the Median Woman
Trained to avoid the politically incorrect, much of the right assumes that condemning women who get abortions is like staring at a solar eclipse: something you just can’t do. But the left’s cultural wins are reversing. As more and more reject the bizarre racial and sexual pities of the aughts and the vapid norms of the nineties from which they sprang, now is the time to question whether it really is bad to shame women when they kill their children. Now is the time to break free from the Millian paradigm that negates historically normal enforcement of social norms and morality: shame and stigma. These things are always operative anyway. It is just a question of which morality governs and what “lifestyles” are elevated. 
There aren’t many women to shame anyway. The typical woman is far from the typical woman who commits abortion. Roughly half of all abortions are committed by women who have already had at least one. About a fifth of women who get abortions have several. Overall, only about one in ten who get pregnant ever go on to commit even one abortion.
Read More
Related Posts:

Misconstruing God’s love begins by misapprehending human love and then projecting that defective notion onto God. To ascribe our character qualities to God, as if we were the model after which God is patterned, is idolatry. Such reasoning inverts reality by fashioning a god after our human likeness. Thus, John Calvin rightly observes, “Man’s nature, so to speak, is a perpetual factory of idols.”[8] 

Proponents of the sexual revolution of the 1960s glommed onto Freudian psychoanalyst Wilhelm Reich’s designation “free love.” Reich reasoned that sexual liberation would destroy the morality inherent to capitalism. Others, especially Herbert Marcuse, embraced the notion and capitalized on it in Eros and Civilization: A Philosophical Inquiry into Freud. As the sexual revolution’s new intellectual, he coined the slogan: “Make love, not war.”[1] “Free love” practitioners engaged in casual sex without commitments, reflecting the contemporary expression, “friends with benefits.” Love, lacking self-governance, a moral compass, and boundaries, became eroticized. This only led to bondage, enslaving and ruining individuals, families, churches, governments, and whole societies. Witness the tragic and predictable collapse of the American society that has reached every level of our culture.
“Free love,” a euphemism for “morally unrestrained conduct,” takes root and flourishes wherever belief in the fullness of God’s character revealed in Scripture is compromised. Where theological mischief occurs, there you will find behavioral mischief. When God’s love is preached and believed apart from his holiness and justice, the erasure of moral boundaries invariably follows. When people imagine that God bestows his love without moral commands, sin-corrupted reasoning justifies their immoral conduct. Distorted notions concerning God always lead to distorted human behavior.
“Free love” does not acknowledge any external morality as it ignores boundaries of right and wrong and is covetous, self-absorbed, impulsive, heedless, and amorphous. Unlike “free love,” true love patterns itself after God’s love. It embraces what his character establishes as right versus wrong and is self-giving, others-oriented, unchanging, kind, and structured.
It is fitting for this essay to feature two parts: (1) a short accounting of our society’s spurning of God and its abandonment of the true nature of love for others; and (2) a consideration of God’s love and our Christian role in calling our society to repentance concerning love for others.
Government-Sponsored Erotic Love
Since the 1960s, “free love’s” calculated evisceration of public and private morality has taken its long march through the institutions, ensconcing itself in the Clinton White House and attaining critical mass with presidential candidate Barack Obama who declared, “Change will not come if we wait for some other person or if we wait for some other time. We are the ones we’ve been waiting for.”[2] Five days before the election of 2008, he announced his mission, “We are five days away from fundamentally transforming the United States of America.” At first, he and Vice President Joe Biden feigned opposition to same-sex so-called “marriage.”[3] Yet, transformation of America began in earnest near the end of President Obama’s first term.[4]

On May 6, 2012, VP Biden goes rogue, strongly endorsing “gay marriage” on NBC’s Meet the Press.
On May 9, 2012, Obama, in an interview on ABC News says, “I think same-sex couples should be able to get married.” That evening, rainbow colors bedecked the White House.

Peter Jones of TruthXChange aptly wondered, “May 9, 2012: The Official End of Christendom?”
Read More
Related Posts:

There may be considerable overlap between the American political right and the Christian church in moral values, especially in matters like abortion, sexual morality, euthanasia, and the like. But at the end of the day we serve Christ, not any party or social movement; for such things are temporal and of human origin, and therefore are never free of sin, whereas God’s kingdom which the church represents (albeit imperfectly) endures forever and is of his Spirit.

The Presbyterian Church in America (PCA) saw controversy recently due to David French’s invitation to participate in an upcoming General Assembly seminar. That immediate controversy I elide here, for prudence commends dropping the matter with the Administrative Committee’s decision to cancel the entire seminar as unhelpful. But controversies are often helpful in revealing auxiliary matters of import, some of which are arguably more important than the immediate controversy itself.
One such matter in the recent controversy that merits comment is the readiness with which our church’s affairs were discussed in political organs. The affairs of the PCA are ecclesiastical in nature, not related to the wider culture and its civil politics. They are, in short, none of the business of outlets such as The Federalist, and their commenting on them (as here) is blamable on various grounds.
If the people doing so are members of our church, then they are violating the principle that our affairs should not be discussed before unbelievers. In cases of apparent fault we are to handle our affairs internally:
When one of you has a grievance against another, does he dare go to law before the unrighteous instead of the saints? . . . So if you have such cases, why do you lay them before those who have no standing in the church? I say this to your shame. Can it be that there is no one among you wise enough to settle a dispute between the brothers, but brother goes to law against brother, and that before unbelievers? (1 Cor. 6:1, 4-6)
Discussing our affairs in outlets concerned primarily with culture and politics exposes us to ridicule by unbelievers (no doubt a large readership of such outlets), who are only too ready to find apparent confirmation for their unbelief. We shouldn’t be giving infidels occasion to justify their unbelief, and so no believer should discuss the church’s affairs in an outlet that does not have an explicit, credible Christian character.
If the people doing so are not members of our church, then they are prying where they have no business and doing us a real disservice. Ask yourself, dear reader, what someone who reads an outlet like The Federalist is likely to think about us when he reads a statement like this:
If the PCA knew this [i.e., various concerns about French] and invited him anyway, shame on them. And if they somehow didn’t know because their heads are buried that far in the sand — unlikely, especially considering the PCA’s leftward decline, but I repeat myself — double shame.
Probably he will think that we are a feckless institution of questionable honesty that has compromised with the wider culture and which is not, as such, worthy of a serious consideration as a reliable moral authority. Whatever its intentions, that article exposed us to opprobrium that has proved unjustified given that the event was promptly canceled after an enormous backlash from many in the denomination (inc. some whole presbyteries). But the harm to our reputation has already been sown in many minds, for the taint of “leftward decline” is not easily shed in many quarters of the very sensitive and reactionary conservative movement in this country, and no one is better for that harm to our reputation—except Satan, who is keen on discrediting faithful churches, of which the PCA is full.
Now I assert all this because the church has a spiritual, other-worldly character, and because her independence on that point is transgressed when outsiders discuss our affairs in their own forums. The PCA is not a wing of any party or platform, and when a political publication of any stripe meddles in our affairs they are implying they have some legitimate concern in them, that we should hold their line and only approve things that they approve. Nonsense. We shall determine whom we associate with or not, and on the basis of our own moral-doctrinal and ecclesiastical criteria, not those of any political movement.
In brief, if you’re a believer and reading this, please do not discuss church affairs in non-Christian forums, and repent if you have been in the habit of doing so. And recognize that when politicians or journalists discuss our internal affairs, they are disregarding the true nature of the church and infringing upon her independence. They are implying that we are somehow allied with or subordinate to them, a part of their ‘base,’ and that as such they have a legitimate interest in our affairs. They don’t, and even if their concerns are understandable or their values are largely the same as ours, there is still wrong in them directly commenting upon our doings or exposing us to ridicule.
Now this is prescient especially because it serves to rebut a mistaken impression that many people have that this ‘spirituality of the church’ I have asserted here is simply a convenient fiction.[1] There are people who say that the ‘spirituality of the church’ is just a dodge to justify a sinful status quo, a thing behind which the church shelters lest she offend the powerful. In the 1800s this allegedly meant the Southern churches refused to denounce domestic slavery as an institution, for fear lest they so offend the planter aristocracy as to be rendered of no account.[2] Today it purportedly means the church declines to support various ‘social justice’ causes which are associated with the political left because of various selfish concerns.
But actually the church’s spiritual independence means that she is to be aloof not merely from leftwing causes, but also from being a direct subservient entity of the political right. Even where the right is in the right, it is not proper for her to act like she can use the church as a subordinate, nor for the church to allow herself to be regarded as such. This is so because the church is Christ’s institutional embassy on Earth. Her loyalty is to him alone, and only to any other thing insofar as he commands it. (E.g., he commands us to honor and pay taxes even to pagan empires like Rome, Rom. 13:1-7, for this is in the best interests of his people.)
An ambassador can only serve the interests of his lawful sovereign, doing otherwise being rank disloyalty. He does not take the part of any faction of the foreign country where he serves, and only involves himself in the affairs of that place with a view toward advancing his sovereign’s interests, and at his explicit instruction. Believers are spiritual sojourners and pilgrims in every earthly nation they inhabit (Heb. 11:13; 1 Pet. 2:11-12), and in all places they are Christ’s representatives, beholden to do his will and not that of others.
There may be considerable overlap between the American political right and the Christian church in moral values, especially in matters like abortion, sexual morality, euthanasia, and the like. But at the end of the day we serve Christ, not any party or social movement; for such things are temporal and of human origin, and therefore are never free of sin, whereas God’s kingdom which the church represents (albeit imperfectly) endures forever and is of his Spirit (Dan. 2:36-45; Rom. 14:15; Heb. 12:28). Then too, from a practical standpoint, political movements so much emphasize the things of this life as to drive out concern for eternity and Christ’s kingdom (Matt. 13:22), which has not come in its fullness (Lk. 17:20-21) and is not a thing of this world (Jn. 18:36). Once wed politics and piety and politics becomes your piety.
For that reason the church must resist at every turn all people who attempt to meddle in her affairs. Our Lord is a jealous God (Deut. 4:24; 5:9) who will share his glory with no other (Isa. 42:8), and who declined to intervene in domestic squabbles (Lk. 12:13-14) or outrages (13:1), but instead found in them occasions to instruct people morally (12:15-21) and to urge them to repent (13:2-5). As his embassy on Earth, his church must take care lest the politics of this life cause her to forget her mission and her loyalty to him. That means she must insist on her right to be free of the interference of those who would have us do their bidding, just as Christ refused all overtures that mistakenly regarded him as an earthly king (Jn. 6:15) or interfered with his redemptive mission (7:1-14).
Tom Hervey is a member of Woodruff Road Presbyterian Church, Five Forks/Simpsonville (Greenville Co.), SC. The opinions expressed in this article are solely those of the author and do not of necessity reflect those of his church or its leadership or other members. He welcomes comments at the email address provided with his name. He is also author of Reflections on the Word: Essays in Protestant Scriptural Contemplation. 

[1] Some idea of the doctrine of the church’s spiritual nature and independence can be gleaned in my article here.
[2] Keyword “as an institution.” The churches did defend slavery in theory, and appealed to scripture in so doing. But there is a difference between defending slavery in theory and doing so as it was actually practiced. The churches also criticized Southern slavery as it was actually practiced, as Eugene Genovese recounts in his A Consuming Fire: The Fall of the Confederacy in the Mind of the White South, though we could naturally wish they had done so much more effectively than was actually the case.

Related Posts: