The ancient pagan cult of Moloch, a Caananite god, would boil children alive in a bronze statue as a means of appeasing the god of child sacrifice. Today, that practice is deemed unacceptable and not protected by the “religious freedom” clause of the U.S. Constitution.
At least, we don’t think it is.
But at least one group of pagan cultists masquerading as pastors, rabbis, and other religious leaders have banded together to challenge our understanding of religious freedom in the United States. In the wake of the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Roe v. Wade, several leftists are now suing Florida Governor Ron DeSantis for signing into law a near-total ban on abortion—the modern-day version of child sacrifice.
According to the Washington Post, seven Florida Clergy members including United Church of Christ lady-pastor, Laurie Hafner have filed a lawsuit claiming that the new legislation infringes on their “religious freedom.”
“I am pro-choice not in spite of my faith, but because of my faith,” Hafner told the Washington Post.
“I think the religious right has had the resources and the voices politically and socially to be so loud, and frankly, they don’t represent the Christian faith,” Ms. Hafner told the Washington Post. “Those of us on the other side, with maybe a more inclusive voice, need to be strong and more faithful and say: ‘There is another very important voice.’”
She continued, “Look biblically; Jesus says nothing about abortion. He talks about loving your neighbor and living abundantly and fully. He says: ‘I come that you might have full life.’ Does that mean for a 10-year-old to bear the child of her molester? That you cut your life short because you aren’t able to rid your body of a fetus?”
Besides that just being completely absurd on its face that Jesus “says nothing about abortion,” there is a real, biblical, and theological response to the question of the hypothetical 10-year-old rape victim. And as I responded to a subscriber yesterday on Substack, this is a very fair question and also an exceptionally rare event, one that we cannot base our policy on.
The first thing we have to do is distinguish between “abortion” and life-saving medical treatment that is meant for the purpose of saving both lives (if possible) but that we don’t have the medical technology in many cases yet to do so. In these rare cases, that should be the goal, to save both lives. Yet, in the case where both lives are guaranteed to be lost in the absence of a procedure, we have to make the difficult decision.
In this case, first off, one should not go to an abortion clinic for this procedure, one should go to a hospital, and one should seek every possible alternative to ending the life of the child. The removal of the child should be the last resort, and again, this should not be considered an “abortion,” but a life-saving medical procedure that tragically ends in the death of one person.
Similar decisions have had to be made in the case of conjoined twins, too. These decisions should NEVER be made on the account of emotions, but only on the determination of the best possible outcome.
Understand that this is not the same thing as killing an innocent child due to rape or incest who could and would be carried to term and live. The left constantly tries to conflate these two completely different scenarios in order to weaken our position. But it doesn’t work.
Killing a child who was conceived in rape or incest is an emotional decision, not a medical decision whereas the medical decision for the rare life-saving procedure in exceptional cases is not made emotionally, but grounded in the scientific, medical, and ideological pursuit of the best possible outcome.