Raphael Warnock says “I believe unequivocally in a woman’s right to choose.” He also says abortion is “healthcare” and a “human right” and “reproductive justice.”
Here is a question for Warnock and anyone else who supports abortion while claiming to be a follower of Christ:
If abortion is simply healthcare, or an exercise of a right, or an act of justice, then please explain how it would have been morally good and just for Mary to have aborted Jesus if she had chosen to do so. This is the clear implication of your position. Can you defend it?
And please explain how it would have been ok to have aborted the Apostle Paul, who refers to God as “he who had set me apart before I was born, and who called me by his grace,” and who “was pleased to reveal his Son to me, in order that I might preach him among the Gentiles.” —Galatians 1:15–16 (ESV)
Can you?
Of course you can’t. Because support for abortion is utterly at odds with Christianity. Had Jesus been aborted he would not have been alive to accomplish his work. And Paul’s abortion would have violated God’s setting him apart before he was born to preach to the Gentiles.
Same goes for every human being who dies by abortion: we will never know what God had intended for their lives or what they would have accomplished. Whatever that intention was, it was defied in the act of abortion.
Here is the Christian position: Abortion is the unjust killing of an innocent human being. That makes it murder. And murder is prohibited by God.
But Warnock’s position on abortion commits him to the grotesque and absurd logical consequence that yes, it would have been morally good and just for Mary to have aborted Jesus if she had chosen to do so. And it would have been a legitimate exercise of a right for Paul’s mother to have aborted him—the Apostle whom God had set apart to be called by grace to accomplish God’s work.
It’s hard to imagine anything more anti-Christian.