informedchoice.us

A Biblical Strategy to End Legalized Abortion

John C. Rankin

[excerpted from chapter ten of  Changing the Language of the Abortion Debate, linked at johnrankinbooks.com]

 A Biblical Strategy

The goal is to end legalized abortion, and the central theological reality is that the Bible is based on informed choice and Roe v. Wade is based on stated ignorance. In order to win legal protection for women and their unborn equally, we need to define life and choice honestly, and as a counterweight to stated ignorance. There are three salient realities:

  1. None of us can choose apart from first being alive.
  2. Biologically discrete human life begins at conception. The word “abortion” comes from the Latin ab + oriri, “to cut off from rising.” \
  3. The overwhelming “choice” for human abortion resides with men who choose not to marry the women they get pregnant, men who choose to reject fatherhood.

How do we bring these realities into honest political discourse? And how do we change the language of the abortion debate to place ourselves in the driver’s seat of honestly defining the terms?

   Step #1: Educate the church, the purpose of this book.

  • Also, employ the Sacred Assemblies for the Unborn everywhere possible, not only at abortion centers, but in places with political, media and university exposure. The questions used here are compelling to any and all people. Pro-abortion advocates silence themselves in the presence of honest questions.

   Step #2: Place a legally non-binding question before the U.S. Congress and all the State Legislatures for public debate; and from there, onto public referenda as possible.

   Human Abortion and a Process of Informed Choice.

We recognize that the U.S. Constitution defines three principal arenas of unalienable human rights, and with a specific order – life, liberty and property.

The 1973 U.S. Supreme Court Roe v. Wade decision left the beginning of individual biological human life undefined. We believe this matter should be addressed. If there is no consensus on the biological beginning of individual human life, let it be shown, and the status quo of Roe v. Wade will hold and be strengthened. If, however, a clear consensus emerges, let it be instructive.

In biological terms, when does an individual human life begin?

Mark a cross X next to the answer you prefer. Only mark one.

  1. Conception [  ].
  2. Viability [  ].
  3. Birth [  ].
  4. Write-in [  ]: specify a different biological term ___________.

Here is the power of this question:

  • An honest definition of terms leads to the power of informed choice relative to human life, whereas Roe v. Wade is the opposite, based on a pretension of ignorance.
  • Political leaders and others who choose not to answer it, or say they “don’t know,” are in de facto agreement with the 1973 U.S. Supreme Court Roe Wade decision which legalized human abortion. They become pro-abortion.
  • In Roe, the Justices employed a “we don’t know” argument as to when “life begins.” This is a statement of chosen ignorance, just like Cain using the “I don’t know” argument as to the whereabouts of his brother Abel whom he had just murdered. And this is just like some enemies of Jesus using the “we don’t know” argument to avoid answering him on the source of John the Baptist’s authority, as they sought pretext to have Jesus crucified.
  • This “we don’t know” rationale – again, the very essence of Roe – is the intellectually and morally weakest form of argument in history, and can easily be overcome through the power of informed choice.
  • At a prior theological reality in Genesis 2, we are given the true definition of terms of a) good and evil, b) freedom and slavery and c) life and death. We are thus given a level playing field to choose between these parallel opposites. A true definition of terms yields the power of informed choice.
  • One political reality of biblical theology is this: Informed choice serves the humanity of women and their unborn equally; misinformed choice (or worse, stated ignorance) serves human abortion which also rips women’s lives apart.

   Step #3: Place another legally non-binding question before the U.S. Congress and all the State Legislatures for public debate; and from there, onto public referenda as possible.

   Human Abortion and Male Irresponsibility.

We recognize that the 1973 U.S. Supreme Court Roe v. Wade decision does not address the role of fathers or male responsibility. As well, we recognize that in the overwhelming number of abortion decisions, the man has left the relationship and refuses accountability.

To what extent is human abortion driven by male irresponsibility?

Mark a cross X next to the answer you prefer. Only mark one.

  1. Very Much [   ].
  2. Somewhat [   ].
  3. Very little [   ].

   Here is the power of this question:

  • Of those who give answer, the majority will likely answer “A.” Some women will not answer because the pain of broken relationships with men is too deep, and/or they support other women who have yielded to male chauvinism in the name of feminism. Not to give answer is the de facto affirmation of Roe in their conflicted pains. Many men with guilty consciences, including legislators, will likely choose not to vote on the matter, thus voting for the logic and ethics of Roe.

Thus, these two questions address the biological and sociological realities of human abortion. As legislators and citizens consider these questions, we will gain the driver’s seat, initially framing the new language of the abortion debate.

   Step 4: A Human Life Amendment to the United States Constitution.

  • This prepares the way to win the necessary 38 state legislatures to pass a Human Life Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Here is the comprehensive language: The unalienable rights of life, liberty and property belong to all people equally under the rule of law. The first order of human government is to protect human life for its entire natural duration, out of which liberty and property rights become possible.
  • And let the debate on “entire natural duration” ensue. Law cannot be changed until the hearts and minds of men and women are changed, and this strategy will energize such a process.
  • When abortion is made illegal, the law needs to simply hold all men accountable for the children they procreate, according to the variables at play. It is such irresponsible or outright chauvinistic men who overwhelmingly force the abortion “choice” on women. If such a man refuses to provide for the woman and their child, and an abortion results, he is liable to charge of manslaughter.

♦ ♦ ♦

 

Join Our Mailing List            John’s Speaking Schedule

logo_linkedin             youTube