Abortion is the slavery of the modern age. Both prey upon the innocent and vulnerable; both reject the humanity of the classes they assail; both disproportionately affect, by design, the black community; and of course, both violate fundamental human rights.
I’m hardly the first to make this comparison. Pro-life groups have long pronounced the connection, citing dozens of similarities between the two unconscionably abominable institutions. Dr. Ben Carson faced a backlash in 2015 for drawing the analogy, and in National Review writer David French’s coverage of the incident, the conservative commentator called the juxtaposition “a mainstream conservative view that most Republican politicians dare not utter.”
But one parallel that I’ve yet to see any pundit, politician, or pro-life sponsor articulate is that the opposition’s cause, in both cases, is championed by a colossal, insulting lie that the movement’s motivation is to protect liberty.
The Civil War was fought over slavery. Any debate over this topic is negated by the admission of Alexander Stephens, the vice president of the Confederate States of America, who said just weeks before the war:
“Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea [to the equality of races]; its foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery subordination to the superior race is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth.”
Vice President Stephens called those who opposed slavery “fanatics” with “a species of insanity.”
And yet, many cry out today that the war was more accurately about states’ rights — but rights to do what? The South clearly fought for their perceived right to keep and own slaves, but owning a human being is not a human right. Even arguments about states’ rights to secede and form a confederacy ignore the constitutional, contractual violation that such would entail.
In short, the Civil War was indeed about rights, but not states’ rights: slaves’ rights, the unalienable rights of life and liberty endowed upon all men and women by their Creator, regardless of race. The South tried and ultimately failed its appeal to property rights by casting people as property. The true rights in question belonged to the dehumanized class of African slaves.
Similarly, proponents of abortion claim to stand up for women’s rights, but again, the right to do what? Women have the right to many things — all the same things to which men have rights, in fact. Murdering a child is not one of them. At no point and under no circumstances is a woman permitted to order the death of her baby, no matter how much society attempts to dehumanize it.
One major difference between slavery and abortion is that slavery was so controversial in the 18th century that it necessitated compromise in favor of forming a union. The Founders were unanimous, however, in their assertion that the right to life is sacred and must be protected, including the life of the unborn.
Abortion, like slavery, is all about natural rights, but not the ones that loudmouth advocates conflate. Slavery was not about states’ rights but slaves’ rights, and abortion is not about women’s rights but the right to life for every child in America, convenient or otherwise, wanted or not.
The language of human rights belongs exclusively to the political Right. In almost every feasible arena, the Left has hijacked the conversation, and it’s time to take it back — especially when it touches the most sacred right of all: the right to live and be free, not enslaved by the whims of another, even a mother.
Video: What is a Classical Liberal?
A short video making the point that the Left is no longer Liberal, having traded individualism for collectivism.
In one of their first animated video shorts, the Rubin Report discusses the vitally important topic of just who is a Classical Liberal.
OUR FIRST ANIMATED VIDEO! What is a Classical Liberal?
Liberalism has been confused with Leftism or progressivism, which is actually has nothing to do with classical Liberalism. Sadly the Left is no longer Liberal at all for it has traded individualism for collectivism.
The Rubin Report
Published on Jul 10, 2018
$.02: When is it OK to quit church?
Chris Sonsken of South Hills Church and founder Church BOOM penned a piece on Fox News that caught my attention on Twitter. It was a good column. Read the article here. The article addressed a Pew Research finding as to why people change churches. There finding as shown by Sonsken are:
- Sermon quality
- Welcoming environment/people
- Style of worship
Sonsken does a great job in arguing that there are biblically sound reasons for leaving a church and finding a new one.
1. It’s OK to leave if God calls us to leave.
2. It’s OK to leave for family and marriage.
3. It’s OK to leave a church if you have moved too far away to conveniently drive to your church.
4. It’s OK to leave if you cannot follow the church’s leadership.
5. It’s OK to leave if heresy is being preached.
Sonsken even mentions that unethical practices like abuse are reasons to leave, though not the norm for the majority of church swapping.
The reasons Sonsken gave are no cause for disagreement, and I’m sure his book Quit Church probably better articulates them.
Where I want to add my two sense on the matter is that I disagree with his assessment sermon quality is not a biblical reason for changing churches. The supposition that sermon quality is inherently a result of the person treating church like an object of consumption, as Sonsken suggests is not true. I believe sermon quality is an umbrella term for several reasons for not liking a Sunday message.
Too often people leave a church because of disagreement, not getting their way, or because the sermons are no longer deep enough. Often when we dig into the reason the sermons are not deep enough, it ultimately goes back to the person being offended or not having their faulty theologies endorsed from the pulpit. The same pastor who was previously deep enough becomes shallow once there is an offense. It’s incredibly difficult to hear from God in a sermon when we are offended by the person delivering the sermon.
This is true in many cases. A sin that is personal gets preached on and the offended party leaves. I don’t deny this to be the case. But I believe we should look deeper into the current trends of worship and focus on the mission of the church.
18 And Jesus came and said to them, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me.19 Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age.”
Matthew 28:18-21 ESV
The church is to preach the gospel, but people accepting Jesus as their Lord and Savior is only part of the mission. The Church is tasked with making disciples. The church is meant to teach. Not every follower is at the same level in their spiritual maturity or theological depth. Some churches, larger churches in particular dumb down the bible. In public education, this would be seen as lowering the bar. In church this practice could hold back believers in their growth. Small groups are a way to supplement this, and every church should employ bible study as a means to grow discipleship.
Many churches now are focused on metrics. This can lead to theologically watered down sermons and worship. Why risk offending that person who may leave with a sermon? But if a church is more focused on using a Sunday message to give a motivational speech using an out of context passage, what does it matter if they are doctrinally sound (in their written beliefs)?
There are a lot of heretical churches in America. We have issues like gay marriage to separate the sheep from the goats. But what about the sheep that suck? If a church has the right doctrine but is more focused on metrics than the power of the Holy Spirit, their head is in the wrong place. So it is biblically sound to change churches so that your head to remains in the right place.
That is not treating church like a consumer product. That is treating church like one’s means to grow spiritually, better recognizing the mission of the Great Commission.
That is my $.02 on the matter. I hope I added some meaningful word to this topic.
This post was originally publishd on Startup Christ. Startup Christ is a website for business and theology articles and columns.
Video: So, You Think You’re Tolerant?
Leftists like to fancy themselves as being tolerant and Liberal, but they fall way short in both qualities.
Leftists will tell you that they are the most tolerant people who have ever lived, they will also scream at you for being a racist, xenophobic troglodyte if you happen to mention that you’re a conservative. They are supposedly ‘Liberal’, being in favour of Liberty while demanding it’s polar opposite – socialism.
Yes, if there is one constant in the universe, its that Leftists cannot be honest about who they truly are. This is what we love about our wonderful opponents on the nation’s socialist Left, for they are nothing like another group that went by the same nomenclature who also screamed at people in the streets with the motto: Common Good Before Individual Good. [Gemeinnutz vor Eigennutz]
But let’s not talk about the epithets they project on their enemies, let’s talk about how they get along with everyone who just happens to agree with everything they say. A new PragerU video featuring Dave Rubin of The Rubin Report looked at who is really tolerant. He is a true Liberal that discovered that it is actually the Pro-Liberty Right that is more tolerant, go figure.
Jul 9, 2018
Are you tolerant? You probably think so. But who is tolerant in America today? Is it those on the left, or those on the right? In this video, Dave Rubin of The Rubin Report analyzes this question and shares his experience.