Lincoln’s Logic on Slavery Applied to Abortion

January 23, 2009

On January 12, 2009 Samantha Heiges, age 23, was sentenced to 25 years in prison for drowning her newborn in Burnsville, Minnesota. If she had arranged for a doctor to kill the child a few weeks earlier she would be a free woman.

What are the differences between this child before and after birth that would justify it’s protection just after birth but not just before? There are none. This is why Abraham Lincoln’s reasoning about slavery is relevant in ways he could not foresee. He wrote:

You say A. is white, and B. is black. It is color, then; the lighter, having the right to enslave the darker? Take care. By this rule, you are to be slave to the first man you meet, with a fairer skin than your own.

You do not mean color exactly? You mean the whites are intellectually the superiors of the blacks, and, therefore have the right to enslave them? Take care again. By this rule, you are to be slave to the first man you meet, with an intellect superior to your own.

But, say you, it is a question of interest; and, if you can make it your interest; you have the right to enslave another. Very well. And if he can make it his interest, he has the right to enslave you. (“Fragments: On Slavery“)

There are no morally relevant differences between white and black or between child-in-the-womb and child-outside-the-womb that would give a right to either to enslave or kill the other.

-John Piper/Justin Taylor

August 21, 2008

If you vote for a pro-abortion candidate for personal reasons like economics that are not more weighty than justice concerns like the wholesale destruction of children, then you are doing something profoundly unchristian, and if this happens often enough, either you are not a Christian, or your Christianity completely  fails to inform your political life. One wonders if it informs any other aspect of your life as well. And if it does not, at what right do you call yourself a Christian?

Christian Political Activism

June 14, 2008

I’m not concerned here with how or whether individual Christians vote or otherwise participate in the democratic process—except in one regard. If you are known for your political agenda more than for your commitment to Christ, your values are upside down. If you make the gospel subservient to a political strategy or a partisan agenda, you’re probably doing more harm than good. If your political rhetoric obscures, tones down, alters, or clouds the gospel message—even ever-so-slightly—then you are hiding your true light under a bushel, and you ought to reconsider where the biblical priorities lie.