Upworthy’s book GOOD PEOPLE is coming this year — pre-order now!

Shop
 Explore 

pro life

popular

Pro-life pastor's post argues that an unrepentantly sinful leader is deadlier than abortion

Photo by Rod Long on Unsplash

We've heard that character is on the ballot this election—but also that policy matters more than personality. We've heard that integrity and honesty matter—but also that we're electing the leader of a nation, not the leader of a Boy Scout troop.

How much a candidate's character matters has been a matter of debate for decades. But one of the odd juxtapositions of the Trump era is that arguably the most historically immoral, character-deficient candidate has been embraced by the evangelical Christian right, who tout morality more than most. Trump won the right's "moral majority" vote by pushing conservative policies, and there is a not-so-small percentage of "one issue" voters—the issue being abortion—who are willing to overlook any and all manner of sin for someone who says they want to "protect the unborn."

So when a prominent, staunchly pro-life, conservative Christian pastor comes out with a biblical argument that basically says "Yeah, no, the benefit doesn't outweigh the cost," it makes people sit up and listen.

John Piper is the founder of desiringgod.org and the chancellor of Bethlehem College & Seminary. He spent 33 years as a Baptist minister and is the author of dozens of books on Christian theology, including a handful of best-sellers. And he recently published a post that, while certainly not endorsing Biden, makes a biblical argument for rejecting Trump.

In what he called a "long-overdue article," Piper pointed out the sins of "unrepentant sexual immorality," "unrepentant boastfulness," "unrepentant vulgarity," and "unrepentant factiousness," and questioned why so many Christians only consider such sins toxic instead of deadly.

"These are sins mentioned in the New Testament," he wrote. "To be more specific, they are sins that destroy people. They are not just deadly. They are deadly forever. They lead to eternal destruction..."

Piper added that such sins don't just destroy people, but nations as well.

"I think it is a drastic mistake to think that the deadly influences of a leader come only through his policies and not also through his person," he wrote.

"This is true not only because flagrant boastfulness, vulgarity, immorality, and factiousness are self-incriminating, but also because they are nation-corrupting. They move out from centers of influence to infect whole cultures. The last five years bear vivid witness to this infection at almost every level of society."

Piper even gave a biblical example of precisely what he means by the character of a leader leading to death for a nation.

"There is a character connection between rulers and subjects," he wrote. "When the Bible describes a king by saying, 'He sinned and made Israel to sin' (1 Kings 14:16), it does not mean he twisted their arm. It means his influence shaped the people. That's the calling of a leader. Take the lead in giving shape to the character of your people. So it happens. For good or for ill."

He also explains how Christian arguments along the lines of "policy over personality" ignore the real damage done by having a leadership position filled with a person whose character is destructive:

"Christians communicate a falsehood to unbelievers (who are also baffled!) when we act as if policies and laws that protect life and freedom are more precious than being a certain kind of person. The church is paying dearly, and will continue to pay, for our communicating this falsehood year after year.

The justifications for ranking the destructive effects of persons below the destructive effects of policies ring hollow.

I find it bewildering that Christians can be so sure that greater damage will be done by bad judges, bad laws, and bad policies than is being done by the culture-infecting spread of the gangrene of sinful self-exaltation, and boasting, and strife-stirring...

How do they know this? Seriously! Where do they get the sure knowledge that judges, laws, and policies are less destructive than boastful factiousness in high places?"

Piper then specifically addressed the "But what about abortion?" question, articulating both his strict abortion-is-baby-murder stance and his belief that abortion deaths don't outweigh the broader death and destruction caused by a selfish, braggadocious leader.

"I think Roe is an evil decision. I think Planned Parenthood is a code name for baby-killing and (historically at least) ethnic cleansing. And I think it is baffling and presumptuous to assume that pro-abortion policies kill more people than a culture-saturating, pro-self pride," he wrote.

"When a leader models self-absorbed, self-exalting boastfulness, he models the most deadly behavior in the world. He points his nation to destruction. Destruction of more kinds than we can imagine."

Piper made it clear that his purpose in writing the post was not to convince anyone to vote a specific way (an editor's note indicates that he won't be voting for Biden or Trump), but rather hoped that Christians would "be given pause" by examining the consequences of choosing a leader with "a pattern of public behaviors that lead to death."

It's a serious statement from a serious Christian leader, which Christians might want to seriously consider. You can read the full article here.

From Your Site Articles

Catholic priest explains what it really means to be 'Pro-Life'

via Now This

In a video by Now This, Father James Martin explains how people who claim to be pro-life are actually only supporting one type of life, the unborn child, while so many others also need help.

Father Martin is an American Jesuit priest, writer, and editor-at-large of the Jesuit magazine America. He was appointed as a consultant to the Vatican's Secretariat for Communications by Pope Francis in 2017.

"Some people believe that being pro-life means being someone who reverences the unborn child in the womb, and that's true, and I do. But to be truly pro-life means to reverence all human life," he says in the video.

Father Martin then discusses all of the lives that pro-life people should value as well: The "Black man or woman fearing for their lives," "the refugee or migrant who are desperate to save the lives of their children," "the LGBT teen who is tempted to take their life because of bullying, harassment or violence."

The priest also explains that some people who've been cast away by society such as the homeless and death row inmates are lives worthy of saving as well.

"All these lives are precious, scared, and holy," the Father continues. "And all these issues — racism, refugees, homelessness, LGBT issues, the death penalty — are also life and death issues."

From Your Site Articles

Pro-choicer gets called a 'murderer,' responds with questions about what it means to be 'pro-life'

Calling a pro-choice person a "murderer" is a sadly common inflammatory insult hurled by pro-birthers. In true medical terms, terminating an embryo is terminating a multicellular diploid eukaryotic organism, not murdering a person. Nonetheless, people still invoke images of infanticide in order to demonize people advocating for reproductive health care access. Normalizing a debate around whether abortion is murder has only further stigmatized the very real existential threats women face without birth control and safe abortion access.

A recent screenshot posted on the Murdered by Words subreddit showed a heated exchange between a pro-choicer and the pro-birth person who called them an advocate for murder.

Screenshot via Reddit

The pro-choicer ignored the initial insult of "murderer" and continued the conversation by grilling the pro-birther about how they intend to help build a world where people can healthily raise children.

The response read:

"What happens next? Once you have succeeded in your quest to stop the termination of a pregnancy - disregarding the circumstances for why the woman or couple wants to terminate (failed birth control, rape, lack of financial stability, unsuitable environment, domestic violence, mental health issues, lack of employment, medical issues, lack of comprehensive sexual education) - what happens next?"

"Who pays for the prenatal or postnatal care? Surely not a couple working a minimum wage who can barely afford their rent. Who provides healthcare and funds medical bills for a single woman with no place to live? Or a married couple who struggle to afford the children they already have? Who assists the millions of children in foster care, still waiting to be adopted? Who helps them when they hit the street at 18 with no money or life skills?"

Will you and your ilk - the self-proclaimed 'pro-life' community help to fund comprehensive sexual education for teens? How about access to affordable birth control? Why not promote a vasectomy as a viable option for men who don't want children? How about funding scientific research so men can have more birth control options than just condoms? Is your community going to help pay for healthcare and education costs? Once you have succeeded in stopping the termination of a pregnancy, what role will you have in ensuring a quality of life for the foetus you so desperately wanted to save?"

The pro-birther simply responded by claiming it's the parents' responsibility, which ushered in a final call out of the hypocrisy of many factions of the pro-life movement.

The pro-choicer's rebuttal ended with a bang, calling out all the ways the pro-birth community fails to support life after conception:

"And there's the money shot. Here's a wakeup call - you don't get to come into my inbox and shit all over my Sunday with your over-inflated Messiah complex with your Facebook profile filled with delusions of superiority declaring yourself to be on the side of "life." when in reality your compassion stops just inside the vaginal canal."

"Don't embarrass yourself and pretend that you give a flying fuck about what happens once a foetus is born, or about the people who aren't equipped to raise them. Don't pretend you give a shit about children when you aren't prepared to do a damn thing about the millions of struggling families on welfare, or the millions of children in foster care."

Don't pretend you give a shit about life, when you would rather just sit by and smugly proclaim women should 'close their legs' because it's less energy to do so than it is to lobby for resources that would make it easier for people to become parents. Go away."

Suffice it to say, the pro-birther had no rebuttal after that.

This article originally appeared on SomeeCards. You can read it here.

From Your Site Articles

Renee Bracey Sherman was 19 when she had an abortion, and she doesn't regret it.

That, she says, is why she was livid after encountering activist Lori Szala's stark, anti-abortion op-ed in The New York Times, which is generating furious responses from readers.

Photo by Zach Gibson/AFP/Getty Images.

In the piece, Szala argues that labeling abortion an economic issue is "dehumanizing," both to prospective parents for whom child-rearing should be about more than money and to their prospective children.

"Parenting presents undeniable challenges, but no one argues that those challenges give parents the right to kill their children.

It’s also patronizing, and patently dishonest. Of course unplanned pregnancy presents challenges. But it doesn’t have to lead to economic failure. Abortion is society’s easy way out — its way of avoiding grappling with the fundamental injustices driving women to abortion clinics."

It's a belief, Szala explains, that is largely derived from her personal experience as a young mother-to-be who nearly ended her pregnancy — though she ultimately chose not to.

Pressured to abort when she became pregnant in high school, Szala says that she was dissuaded by a friend who told her she'd had an abortion and later came to regret her decision.

Bracey Sherman wants people to know that her choice to end her pregnancy without guilt is common to far more women — and there's data to back her up.

A longitudinal study published in 2015 found that 95% of women who had abortions felt that it had been the right decision. And other research has found that women seeking abortions are more certain in their decision than people considering other surgeries.

If she had the chance, Bracey Sherman says, she would ask Szala if she appreciated the freedom to make her decision on her own terms.

"Isn’t it nice that you had a choice?" Bracey Sherman asks, rhetorically. "Someone didn’t force you to do something that you didn’t want to do, whether it was to continue the pregnancy or not. Isn’t it nice that you had a choice?"

Photo by Scott Olson/Getty Images.

At the time of her pregnancy, Bracey Sherman says she was working a low-wage retail job and in an abusive relationship. The notion that people who are pregnant — particularly people of color — can simply pull themselves "up by [their] bootstraps" and make it work as a parent is a dangerous myth, she argues.

"[Szala] ignores the fact that so many people don’t even have boots."

Other critics of Szala's piece argue that, in a rush to chastise women who end their pregnancies, she fails to offer solutions for preventing unwanted pregnancies in the first place.

— (@)

Some pointed out that Szala, who works for an organization that owns and operates crisis pregnancy centers, could stand to benefit financially from people taking her advice.

— (@)

Still others argued that terminating a pregnancy — for any reason — should always be a matter of choice and insisting it shouldn't be often comes from a desire to punish or control women.

— (@)

Bracey Sherman wants more women to tell their friends and family about their experiences with abortion, especially in the face of a surge in high-profile, anti-choice opinion pieces like Szala's making it into print.

A 2014 study conducted by Sarah Cowen at New York University found that people who are opposed to reproductive rights are roughly 21% less likely to say they know someone who has had an abortion than those who are pro-choice. Bracey Sherman believes that's not by chance — and that people who terminate their pregnancies may be less likely to tell their anti-choice friends and relatives.

Photo by Scott Olson/Getty Images.

"Everybody loves someone who has had an abortion," she says. "Pro-life people have abortions, religious people have abortions, we all have abortions," she says.

After getting involved with reproductive rights activism, Bracey Sherman started a project called "We Testify," which highlights the stories of people who have terminated pregnancies in an attempt to broker an understanding with those across the aisle.

If people aren't hearing, she believes, it's not for lack of speaking out.

"We’re here. We’re making our voices heard," Bracey Sherman says. "The question is: At what point are people going to actually listen to us?"

On Jan. 21, millions of women across the country and world marched for equality. But not all of them agreed on what that meant.

Kate Munger, a 67-year-old Bay Area resident, had been asking around to find out what kinds of demonstrations might be going on nearby when she got wind of the Walk for Life West Coast, a massive march against abortion rights that takes place every year in San Francisco.

This year, the Walk for Life and the Women's March happened on the same day.

Photo by John Gress/Getty Images

Munger says she is strongly pro-choice, but abortion rights haven't always been her primary passion. Still, she saw this sharp coincidence as a powerful opportunity to practice democracy.

Munger, a lifelong singer and founder of the Threshold Choir, called up all the vocalists she knew and asked if they'd be willing to help her confront the Walk for Life ... with song.

She imagined meeting the opposition head-on with "blessings and songs." She wanted to fiercely oppose their ideas while also upholding their right to campaign for their own issues.

Still, it took Munger a while to commit to the idea. "It sounded too dangerous," she says. "It sounded too challenging."

Many of her friends agreed. But in the end, she found 11 singers willing to join her.

On the day of the march, Munger and her fellow singers traveled to San Francisco by ferry and began with some vocal warmups.

After a little practice — and steeling themselves for the confrontation ahead — the group took its place. They began to sing as thousands and thousands of pro-life activists bore down on them.

For hours, they hardly stopped to take a breath, let alone utter an antagonistic word. The 12 women simply sang, while holding a sign that said the rest:

"We don't agree with you AND we uphold your right to your beliefs in our democracy."

GIF via Ellen Silva, used with permission.

Munger says it wasn't easy to maintain composure. "We were two lines of six women being bored down on by literally hoards of people. At times it was really scary."

Most of the Walk for Lifers didn't pay any mind or didn't seem to get the message. But the few that did? Munger says "that made all the difference."

Photo by Emma Silver/KQED, used with permission.

According to an article by Emma Silver for KQED, one marcher stopped to hug Munger and the other singers before continuing on.

Others appreciated an opportunity for peaceful disagreement. That's really what Munger's demonstration was about, even more than abortion.

Though it was about that, too.

"I think we need to exercise our democracy, practice our democracy, not take it for granted," she says. "I don't feel that Donald Trump [and his administration] are showing any respect for democracy."

She's right. With so many people actively dismissing or criticizing protest efforts following the election, it's fair to wonder if the very pillars of our society are at stake.

And if they are, the voices of women and people of color are at the greatest risk.

Kudos to Munger for exercising hers without drowning out others in the process.

Family

Taxpayer funds don't go toward abortion — which makes this move by Congress a bit weird.

Making the Hyde Amendment permanent would be a big step backward for reproductive rights.

For the past 40 years, the Hyde Amendment has prevented federal tax dollars from paying for abortions.

While not a law, the amendment has become a routine addition to federal budgets — and a thorn in the side of reproductive rights advocates. For the most part, however, members of both parties have accepted its place in American politics and haven't put up too much of a fight so long as it remains merely a rider to be renewed on an annual basis and not a permanent law.

Pro- and anti-choice activists square off outside the Supreme Court in 2005. Photo by Alex Wong/Getty Images.

On Tuesday, the House of Representatives will vote on a bill that would elevate the Hyde Amendment's status from budget rider to law.

On Jan. 13th, Rep. Chris Smith (R-New Jersey) introduced the No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion and Abortion Insurance Full Disclosure Act. It's expected the full House will convene to vote on the bill — which is likely to pass, as it did in 2013 and 2015.

Less certain, however, is what chance the bill stands in the Senate, where it has been voted down after passing the House in each of the previous two attempts. To make it through the Senate, 52 Republicans andeight Democrats would have to join forces to put the bill on the president's desk.

Rep. Chris Smith. Photo by Kris Connor/ Getty Images.

Should it pass both chambers of Congress, President Donald Trump is expected to sign the bill into law, fulfilling a campaign promise.

In September, Trump made a series of pledges aimed at courting anti-choice activists. Among those promises were plans to nominate "pro-life justices to the U.S. Supreme Court," sign the so-called Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act into law, defund Planned Parenthood "as long as they continue to perform abortions," and — yes — to make the Hyde Amendment permanent.

Early in the campaign, both Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders spoke out against the Hyde Amendment.

Trump signs an executive order designed to restrict aid to nongovernmental organizations that provide abortion and family planning services. Photo by Saul Loeb/AFP/Getty Images.

You may be asking yourself why it matters whether or not something that's been in effect for 40 years becomes permanent or not — and that's fair.

The truth is the Hyde Amendment, while a consistent part of American life in the post-Roe v. Wade world, disproportionately harms the 15.6 million low-income women who rely on Medicaid for their health care. By making the prohibition permanent, it becomes significantly more difficult to overturn (which would, again, require a majority in the House, a supermajority of 60 votes in the Senate, and the signature of the president to change).

— (@)

Planned Parenthood warns the Hyde Amendment may result in women foregoing necessities like electricity, heat, and food in order to save funds to pay for an abortion out-of-pocket. Additionally, it may lead to dangerous attempts to self-induce an abortion.

Making the Hyde Amendment permanent would be a step backward for reproductive rights. Call your representative and senators and urge them to vote "no" on the No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion and Abortion Insurance Full Disclosure Act.

'We can't keep painting over our problems.'

All over Ireland, you can find graffiti murals honoring important historic fights, but few have been as controversial as this one.

"Repeal the 8th," a red heart declares.

Image via The HunReal Issues/Facebook, used with permission.

It's a reference to the eighth amendment of the Irish constitution, which "acknowledges the right to life of the unborn" and is often cited as the origin of Ireland's incredibly strict anti-abortion laws.

"[Ireland has] come from such a Catholic situation, and there’s a lot of scare-mongering involved, the people are afraid to talk about it at all," Andrea Horan, founder of the organization behind the mural, The HunReal Issues, said. "We wanted to put up a piece that would start conversations."

To do that, Horan asked well-known Irish artist Maser to create a mural on the side of Dublin's Project Arts Center (which often sports somewhat controversial artistic messages) in the hope that a public, political statement would gain more attention from the masses.

Was she ever right. People flocked to the mural, sharing photos of it across social media.

Collage of people sharing photos of the mural. Image via The HunReal Issues/Facebook, used with permission.

Not everyone was thrilled by the mural, however.

Angry pro-life organizations went to the city council to demand the mural be removed.

One of the groups even set up a petition online expressing its disgust that taxpayer money was being used to fund this pro-abortion mural agenda, a claim that was totally bogus, according to Horan, because Maser paid for it himself.

Despite many citizens fighting for the mural to remain in place, ultimately bureaucracy won out on a technicality. According to city law, all murals need planning permission before they're created.

Just three weeks after it debuted, the mural was painted over by order of the city council.

Mural removed only three weeks after it was painted. Image via The HunReal Issues/Facebook, used with permission.

Of course, there are hundreds of other murals all over the city that have remained up for years despite not having permission from the city, but none of them support abortion access, so they've been left untouched by bureaucracy.

That's when local artists got involved.

One thing artists probably hate more than the government telling people what to do with their bodies is the government censoring their art.

So they fought back, guerilla-style, splashing "Repeal the 8th" hearts on walls and buildings across Ireland.

Dara K, an Irish graffiti artist, did his own interpretation of the mural. Image via Dara K/Facebook, used with permission.

An artist group called the Generic People projected the original mural on a building in Cork ensuring it couldn't be painted over.

Others painted words of solidarity near Maser's other graffiti works:

A bakery even started making donuts in the image of Maser's mural:

Horan has just been blown away by the response.

It's hard to believe that she had only started The HunReal Issues six weeks ago. At the time, she was hoping — but didn't really imagine — that people would get so involved. It just goes to show, when an issue is important enough to a community, a united front of support is an unstoppable one.

"It's amazing to see the efforts people are going through to make the mural visible," she said. "Everyone's just at the bursting point of 'we need to talk about this.'"