A much anticipated event just occurred at the annual Politicon gathering. Political commentators Ben Shapiro and Cenk Uyger debated each other for the first time.

Both analysts are very well admired within their respective political wings, and very disliked among the other. Both have very influential platforms, and so the debate was lively, with around 3,000 people in attendance.

As these Politicon debates typically go, whenever one debater makes an argument, those in attendance who agree waste a lot of time shouting, demonstrating they cannot control their most basic human emotions. It has gotten to a point where, like immature parents at high school athletic events, out-cheering the other side becomes the next best thing to winning.

cenkPolitically, Mr. Uygur is very far Left (making Shapiro the Right wing opponent). During the debate, Cenk was attempting to make the point that the “big government vs. small government” caricature of the liberal, conservative dialogue is a false dichotomy. His claim is that there are some issues where liberals want big government, there are certain issues where conservatives want big government, and so it goes with small government as well.  While making the attempt to justify this point, Cenk began naming a few political issues that republicans apparently desire to have big government for. One of them was abortion.

“Republicans say, ‘We don’t like big government, but we like to be inside your uterus.'”

This is common rhetoric among the pro-abortion ilk, and it of course incited wild and hysterical applause from the pro-death portion of the audience. The implication being that anyone who wants limited government is hypocritical if they want abortion outlawed, since it would require a massive federal government to legislate for all women.

Although I have dealt with this argument before, as long as it continues to be spewed, Christians must continue to respond. Laying aside Cenk’s well-spoken and rhetorically stimulating argument about big and small government tendencies among the two major American political parties, I would like to address the more specific assumption of the government’s role as it relates to the euphemism known as “abortion.” Does it require a “big” government to outlaw abortion? Is forbidding abortion an accurate description of an overreaching government, or is it the bare minimum requirement for any government, no matter how small? The answer is certainly the latter.

Limited Government

Consistent with nearly every other pro-abortion argument, this claim simply ignores the obvious and revealed reality that abortion is killing an innocent, living child. This argument only succeeds in anything while it operates within a scenario where the uterus of the woman is empty. If that were the case, then the government should, as the pro-abortion crowd phrases it, “stay out of her uterus.”

A small government certainly would never have the kind of authority to mandate and legislate what a woman does with her uterus. A limited government would not have the clearance to demand every woman must have three children, nor would it be able to demand she may only have up to three children. Women can have as many children as they would like, including none.

The government would not be permitted to demand each and every woman receive at least two pap smears a year. Women should be allowed to pursue that whenever they please.

Without getting into unnecessary and (potentially) vulgar examples, the argument holds: limited government should be smaller than a women’s uterus.

However, that is not the issue here at all. The second an innocent, baby finds him or herself in the uterus, any meaningful understanding of government would require the protection of that innocent little baby.

While women and their doctor’s engage in financial exchanges for services like slaughtering those babies, sucking their brains out with vacuums, poisoning them, burning them, snipping their spinal cords, crushing their skulls, or dismembering them limb for limb, any government of any size has the obligation, under God, to do whatever it can to prevent those ruthless murders from happening. (In America, our government subsidizes it.)

It has always been the government’s prerogative to protect innocent human beings from being murdered. Laws, police forces, and judicial systems exist because all governments, big and small, recognize their right to stop the innocent from being murdered. And that is why, in the case of abortion, it is necessary to have a government bigger than your uterus.

That innocent baby inside that uterus did not ask to be there, and did not commit any crime. Any government that would not seek not to protect that child is no government at all; that is actually anarchy.

Houses and Uteruses

The government has no right to come into my house whenever its representatives want. It’s my house; it’s my private property.

However, if I kidnapped a child, and many witnesses saw it, and I drove that child to my house, and many witnesses followed me, and I tied that child to a chair in the middle of the living room where all can see through the window, then when the police finally show up, the above principle would no longer exist. I expect (and hope) the hinges on my hypothetical front door would be broken off in their efforts to rightfully save that child. And that is not Marxism.

Likewise, during an abortion, we know with certainty a child is being murdered. We know that in 100% of all abortions the outcome is a dead child. Thus, all of those private rights and private ownership arguments do not mean anything because the life of an innocent child is at stake.

Were a kidnapper to steal a child home, he loses his rights once had in regards to his house. Likewise, if a woman tries to murder the innocent baby in her uterus, she has forfeited the rights she previously maintained in regards to her bodily freedom. If there is a baby in that uterus, it is absolutely the government’s business. And that is stated clearly in the bill of rights; that is no big government mantra.

The Irony of It All

The most difficult portion to swallow was the obvious contradiction of Cenk’s position. While making an argument for universal medicare in his opening statement, Cenk actually argued that healthcare must be universal because…

“If you don”t have good healthcare you die. I view it as not something capitalism should deal with…but something that is about equality of opportunity. And you cannot have equality of opportunity if you’re dead.”

I would like to personally thank Cenk Uygur for making a great anti-abortion argument.

Abortion is not about “women’s rights,” it is about human rights. Therefore, abortion is not for the free-market to solve, or for democracy to deal with in a vote. The government has the obligation to protect every single person’s right to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness.

The 50 million people Cenk and other pro-abortion advocates are so cheerfully glad are dead were stripped of all three of those inalienable, Divinely-endowed rights the government is bound to defend.

Abortion is something the government should legislate against; it is the government’s business. After all, as Cenk said, you cannot have equality if you’re dead.

2 thoughts on “Government Bigger than Your Uterus

  1. I have to be honest, you’re a terrible writer. Which is too bad considering i agree, in principle, with most of what you’ve said in this post. Try taking your blog down for a bit while you improve your mediocre (at best) form. Maybe take a few writing classes as well, you’d greatly benefit from it. Right now, though, you’re weakening all of our righteous arguments by posting this rubbish and acting as though you’re some sort of expositor. You have a lot to learn, which is fine because i can tell you are very young. No shame in ignorance so long as you constantly seek to grow and learn. Good luck to you and i hope you can take criticism positively. God bless.

    Like

    • I would fix your lowercase “i” issue. It’s especially ironic in the middle of scathing critique on writing skills.

      Your criticism is heard. My feelings are not hurt despite the very uncharitable way you chose to articulate it. I certainly do not consider myself to be an Orwell or a Lewis when it comes to writing (style, form, grammar, voice, etc.). Many people much more helpful than you have been able to critique and assist me through the blog. I do believe my writing is improving due to this (slowly, but surely). I am sorry my poor writing skills offend you so much, and I would love to take additional classes, although they are typically very expensive, and I would need to pay for many sessions before they had a meaningful impact on my writing.

      What I do take issue with is your accusation that I’m not an expositor. I think you need to defend that. Where is your evidence that my exposition of any biblical text is not consistent? I am not proud of my writing skills, but I am proud of my exegesis and exposition of Scripture. How about you show me the text I blundered so badly, and demonstrate to me how it should have been dealt with?

      Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s