Before beginning, I would like to declare this a disagreement free zone. No reader is permitted to disagree with any portion of this blog.
Many around the country are hearing about the shootings of Christians at a college in Oregon. Pray for Oregon.
Of course, people are taking no time to turn this in to a gun-rights debate. That’s a horse my arms are tired of beating. However, in the wake of Planned Parenthood’s recent trial in congress, people are trying to demonstrate inconsistency on behalf of those who are anti-babykillers, and that is a horse I am happy to beat until I die.
On social media, jokes are being made about conservatives who are apparently inconsistent because they don’t want to take away guns from citizens, they don’t want to abolish the death penalty federally in all states, yet, they don’t want to fund and legalize baby killing. The argument is essentially claiming conservatives can’t call themselves pro-life because they simply don’t care about the lives of criminals or college students.
These jokes would burn quickly given all that straw. But look what happens when one steps into the hypothetical with both feet. If the GOP would scramble to stop the shooters, given they were classified as abortions, that means the liberals would fund them. The GOP would be caught scrambling, the liberals would be caught applauding. Perhaps a slogan like “His body his choice!” would make its way onto their signs.
When it comes to the gun control debate, liberal minds are upset with how conservatives are trying to prevent gun crimes. They are (thankfully) not having to deal with arguments from conservatives on why mass shootings are good for society. In other words, the conservative argument has been something along these lines:
Murder is against the law; therefore, murderers don’t follow the law.
Since murderers do not abide by the laws, they won’t follow gun laws.
This means the safest way to stop them is to arm non-murderers who can respond quicker than police officers.
One doesn’t have to believe that line of argumentation; however, the point is that the argumentation is set up as an attempt to stop gun crimes like the one that took place in Oregon. The difference is that the abortion debate is not about methodologies on stopping abortion, they are about abortion. Conservatives and liberals both hate mass shootings but have conflicting opinions about how to prevent them. The abortion debate is not conservatives and liberals fighting tooth and nail to end abortion, but crawl in different directions.
Death Penalties and Abortion
Although the death penalty is not a core Christian belief, and there is nothing wrong with a Christian preferring reconciliation over death, the purpose of this post is to demonstrate that for Christians who do hold to the death penalty (like myself) that the two positions are not contradictory. Nothing new about Christian views on abortion and death penalties will be offered, but reminders are good.
There are two reasons that these positions are able to be contorted into contradictory positions: The first is because politics requires titles and slogans. Thus , “pro-life” has taken the crown for representing those who stand against baby-murder. The second is due to intentional ignorance about the substance of the argument.
In the former, the term “pro-life” means for life, and then people among that group want to kill certain criminals, meaning they aren’t always pro-life. That’s why I prefer “Christian.” For many Christians, the death penalty is a biblical, penal sanction and is consistent from the Old to New Testament.
God required the death penalty for many things in the Old Testament. That means it isn’t against His character and nature for a government to practice capital punishment. I mean, at one point in time, He required it. The question remains if it is something God has reversed for New Testament governments. Romans 13:1-4 seems to indicate He has not:
Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment. For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of the one who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval, for he is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain. For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God’s wrath on the wrongdoer (emphasis added).
With all due respect to my Christian brethren who disagree, I don’t know what else “bear the sword” could mean to the Greco-Roman culture this letter was written in and to, especially in the context of being an “avenger” who “carries out wrath” on “wrongdoers.” Let’s put it this way: when wrongdoers incur the judgment of God, the flat side of the sword is not used for a spanking. The death penalty is used by God in both Testaments. The key in the passage are words like “wrongdoer” and “avenger.”
Christians believe that innocent life is not ours to take, the claim is not that there is never a time when a specified group authority can take life at all. Deuteronomy 19:15 required multiple witnesses to convict of someone of a crime. While the Bible requires specific authorities to carry out the penalty., it also reveals that certain requirements on behalf of the criminal must be present as well. Unborn babies fit none of them.
To prove the consistency, I’ll offer up this claim: If two or more independent lines of confirmation could confirm an unborn child willfully committing a capital crime worthy of death, than an abortion would be acceptable. The absurdity is obvious. Babies can’t commit those crimes. They are always innocent, and thus always worthy of protection. It is not a contradiction to be for the righteous, penal sanction toward heinous crimes of guilty people, and simultaneously against the heinous crime of slaughtering an innocent person. It is not a contradiction to be against a government big enough to take our guns, desiring a gun to fight criminals with, and to also be against selling the hacked body parts of babies that were murdered.
Before concluding, something noteworthy: many pro-choicers oppose the death penalty; and thus, would have an intense, knee-jerk reaction to my claim that if a baby could be found guilty of a capital crime, and be charged as an adult, than an abortion would be just. What does that expose? It reveals that some liberals are for the killing of a baby unless the baby is a heinous criminal…
The true inconsistency is to be pro-abortion and anti-death penalty. Apparently, innocent babies having their brains sucked out by vacuums, or being decapitated and sold is no problem at all, but murderers and rapists falling asleep to death is just disgusting immorality. I mean, what are we, monsters?