Making the Prolife Case: The Deadbeat Mom Argument

Here is a recent letter, I (Kevin) had published in the Bedford Bulletin earlier this month. Every literate Christian can do something about the American genocide, abortion, even if it is simply writing a short letter to the editor of his local paper. This letter is an illustration of what Israel and I call the Deadbeat Mom Argument, which Israel basically formulated a couple of months ago, during some table talkin'. 

Be creative, be logically consistent, and be bold. Christ, who is Truth, is on our side, which makes the prolife position one of the easiest to communicate and defend. Regardless of what you do for the cause, do something--like 3,000 helpless, voiceless lives a day depend on it, because they do!

____________________________

Imagine that Bob’s loose behavior resulted in getting a woman pregnant. Mary hadn’t contacted Bob since that one-night encounter. She called Bob to notify him of his responsibilities toward their then-forming child. Bob refused.

Later, Bob received a certified letter; the state demanded Bob take responsibility for his child. Suffering garnishment, Bob changed careers, doing cash-only jobs to avoid having his parental arrearage forcibly taken. Bob was then notified that his income tax refund check would go to Mary and the child. After $5,000 in arrears, Bob looks forward to prison. Meantime, he enjoys his picture being on the state’s “Most Wanted Deadbeat” list.

Most share in common one thing concerning Bobs: We love to loathe them. We consider them losers, irresponsible, immoral, shameful “deadbeats.” This valuation is often well-justified. Our legal system agrees and acts. Parents are morally and legally obligated to care for their children. From child-like intuition to jurisprudential scholarship, we know Bob is wrong.

How about when women decide they don’t want to be mothers? Like Bob, Mary could make her decision the moment she discovers she’s a parent. We’ve been conditioned to celebrate Mary’s decision as a constitutional right to privacy and personal autonomy; we condemn Bob for the same act. Since 1973, over 53,000,000 of these decisions have been made—abortion. The pro-abortion propagandists have driven culture to the absolute dereliction of all moral and rational sense, woefully idiocy. We’ve come to “call evil (Bob’s decision) good (Mary’s decision), and good evil” (Isaiah 5:20).

Abortion Laws and Our Jurisprudential Duplicity

Last Easter, Remee Lee, a young Florida woman, woke up lying in a pool of blood.  John Welden, Lee’s 28 year old boyfriend, decided he didn’t want to be a father. Welden, whose father was Lee’s OBGYN, told her that her tests discovered an infection. Welden falsified an amoxicillin prescription, used an orange Rx bottle, and filled the bottle with Misoprostol, a drug in the RU-486 abortion regimen. One dose of the 200 micrograms of Misoprostol induced fatal uterine contractions, which aborted the baby.

The case was heard by U.S. District Court Judge Lazzara. Under the federal Unborn Victims of Violence Act, Weldon could’ve faced a life sentence for first-degree murder. A plea bargain grossly reduced his charges. On January 10 Welden was sentenced to nearly 14 years. Judge Lazzara concluded, “[Welden] committed an evil act...he’s going to have to pay the consequences.”

In Welden’s, the father’s, case abortion is seen for what it is, “an evil act,” killing a child. In a woman’s case, our courts must celebrate that same “evil act” as an exercise of personal autonomy and freedom. Why the duplicity and double-mindedness? It reveals the iniquitous, contradictory political reasoning necessitated by our land’s radical pro-abortion legislation.

Politics and the Gospel, per Calvin

The gospel is not brought in to change the common politics of the world and to make laws that belong to the temporal state.  It is true that kings, princes, and magistrates ought always to ask the counsel at God’s mouth and to conform themselves to his Word, but yet for all that, our Lord has given them liberty to make such laws as they shall perceive to be fitting and suitable for the rule committed to them.  They must call upon God to give them the spirit of wisdom and discretion, and because they are insufficient for this in and of themselves, they must take counsel from God’s Word.

Ephesians 6:5—9, Sermons on the Epistle to the Ephesians.

CAPITAL PUNISHMENT AS A DETERRENT IS “UNBIBLICAL”?!?

On yesterday’s broadcast of Walk in the Word (which can be heard here), James McDonald, senior pastor of Harvest Bible Chapel, was continuing his series on what the Bible says about capital punishment.

McDonald has come down on the right conclusion: capital punishment is affirmed and prescribed by God in his Word. Many of McDonald’s lesser conclusions were correct. And his cursory answers to common objections were as sharp as they were salient.

Nevertheless, he came to the topic of capital punishment serving as a deterrent and the government’s teleological use of it for that end and said that such was both “immoral” and “unbiblical.” With his stylistic admixture of “Dude” and affirmative “Way!,” in response to an anticipated “No way!” from listeners, I found this statement perfectly incredible.

McDonald, in his sweeping survey of the biblical data concerning this issue, must have simply overlooked the number of cases that flatly contradict his ideas about the deterring and distractive purpose of capital punishment on the larger social matrix. Before stating his negative answer to this question, McDonald first cited multiple studies that found that capital punishment has a decisive psychological effect on every strata of society, serving to dissuade others from crimes liable to execution. Practically speaking, then, whether or not McDonald believes this effect is moral and/or biblical, it is a fact.

But is it really unbiblical? Once this answer is established, then it would be redundant to attach further moral judgments on the issue, since the Bible is the authoritative basis for morality. So, is it...?

We needn’t go beyond the book of Deuteronomy to determine that McDonald is plainly mistaken at this point. There is in Deuteronomy a refrain that presents us with the Divine two-fold purpose for the execution of evildoers: 1) “So you shall purge the evil person from your midst,” and 2) “All Israel shall hear and fear and never again do...” crimes of similar nature. Let’s consider four crystal instances from Deuteronomy.

1. Deut 13:5, 11: “So you shall purge the evil from your midst...And all Israel shall hear and fear and never again do any such wickedness as this among you.”

2. Deut 17:12—13: “So you shall purge the evil from Israel. And all the people shall hear and fear and not act presumptuously again.”

3. Deut 19:19—20: “So you shall purge the evil person from your midst. And the rest shall hear and fear, and never again commit any such evil among you.”

4. Deut 21:21: “So you shall purge the evil from you midst, and all Israel shall hear, and fear.”

In each of these cases, justice is meted out on the perpetrator, which McDonald rightly deems “biblical,” and the Lord intends the consequential effect of the event serving as a deterrent to the rest of society, who “hears and fears,” which McDonald considers “unbiblical.” However, “Clearly punishment—especially capital punishment—is a deterrent to crime” (Earl Kalland, “Deuteronomy” in EBC).