Exploring Foster Adoption with Doc Dixon
Summary – Exploring Foster Adoption with Doc Dixon There are many avenues of adoption and are mostly associated with adopting ...
abortion
Kerry Baldwinโs
Conflict on the issue of abortion exists and is escalating, because of one thing:ย compromise.
Bothย sidesย compromise rights. Pro-lifers compromiseย womenโsย rights in favor of theย fetus. Pro-choicers compromiseย fetalย rights in favor of theย woman.
Aย compromise, even aย principledย one, begetsย ambiguity.
The purpose in using property rights to articulate human rights is to make human rights clear andย unambiguous. Toward this end, no theory of human rights can be valid if it compromises the rights of half the worldโs population and their offspring. Itโs my contention that resolving the property rights concerns between women and their offspring is the final hurdle in the centuries old battle in a full, comprehensive, and accurate theory of rights.
I hold that a libertarian view of property rights will resolve this problem, and my research is working toward that end.
While a pregnant woman should be legally required to help the fetus survive outside of her body whenever that is possible, she should retain the legal right to evict the fetus at any time during her pregnancy.
Hosted by The Soho Forum in NYC on December 8, 2019. It featured Ph.D Economist and anarchist theorist, Walter Block, arguing for the resolution and Kerry Baldwin arguing against it. Soho Forum Director Gene Epstein moderated. It was an Oxford-style debate.ย
Robert Murphy is a Christian and economist, Research Assistant Professor with the Free Market Institute at Texas Tech, Senior Fellow with the Mises Institute, and co-host with Tom Woods of the podcast “Contra Krugman.”
Murphy interviewed Kerry Baldwin to discuss her debate with Walter Block and how property rights corrects both sides of the abortion debate
Summary – Exploring Foster Adoption with Doc Dixon There are many avenues of adoption and are mostly associated with adopting ...
Pro-lifers contend that life begins at conception, and so the fetus has natural rights. Pro-choicers contend it cannot be known ...
Summary: A Christian Libertarian Alliance Against Abortion In this episode, Kerry Baldwin was invited on with Keith Knight of the ...
On December 8, 2019, I will be debating libertarian economist Walter Block on evictionism.
Summary | Reformed Christians Discuss a Libertarian View of Abortion Since 2020, Christians (in particular, but certainly Christians more broadly) ...
Libertarianism, Abortion, and Fetal Self-Ownership (2 of 2) Conflict on the issue of abortion exists and is escalating, because of ...
There are many different ways to make an argument. Some are better than others.
The typical argument is to make a moral case for or against abortion. Those whoโve argued abortion is immoral (or sinful) have failed to be persuasive. This should come as no surprise to Bible-believing Christians, for it is the Holy Spirit who will convict people of their sin, not the intellectual ascent of the human mind. (John 18:8)
The complexity of the situation of unwanted pregnancy is never cut and dry. Both sides of what I call the conventional abortion debate (the prevailing left-right paradigm of the past 50 years), fail to account for this complexity. Accounting for the complexity is certainly no justification to oversimplify or offer reductionist or dismissive arguments. Many believe a woman is choosing is โthe lesser of two evils.โ
I agree that abortion is sinful. (Gen. 1:27, Ps. 22:10; 127:3-5; 139:13-16, Jeremiah 1:5, Numbers 5:27-28, Proverbs 6:16-19, Job 31:15, Isaiah 49:15, Ex 20:30)
But I also acknowledge the moral argument against abortion is unpersuasive itself. God gave us more than his special revelation in Scripture. He gave his general revelation in his creation. It God’s revelation in creation that doesn’t require the supernatural work of the Holy Spirit to convict people of the truth. Acts 14:17, Rom 1:19-20; 2:14-15, Ps. 19:1-4,ย
I believe in leveraging the power of God’s general revelation to persuade an unbelieving world of the truth of abortion, and more broadly rights of reproduction, and the reconciliation of women’s and children’s rights.
Strict pro-lifers, including Abortion Abolitionists, are outraged that society is not persuaded. And perhaps thatโs reason enough to be outraged. However, outrage wonโt successfully advance the cause of human rights for women and the unborn. And thatโs why Iโve chosen a different approach.
I answer this question with a question: if Godโs law cannot bring us to repentance (Romans 8:3-5), on what basis do you suppose manโs law will?
Is manโs law somehow superior to Godโs law? Seems like a strange position to take as a Christian. No historic reformed confession holds that civil authorities are a means of Grace. Therefore we cannot construe the civil law as having affect on Regeneration of the heart. Moreover, the requirements of Godโs law for salvation are not fulfilled by Christian converts. Only Christโs active and passive obedience has fulfilled the Law of God. Christโs fulfillment of the law, and propitiation to the redeemed, is whatโs necessary for right standing before God. Manโs adherence to our civil laws, even if aligned with Godโs law is insufficient.
Civil law is limited in scope. The civil magistrates cannot judge matters of the heart. They can only judge acts of aggression. Where an act of aggression has not taken place, even if the heart contemplated it, the state has no proper jurisdiction before God.
The predominant view of the pro-life cause has always been to criminalize immediately. Even incrementalists would prefer it. Many believe, that if we just pass a law this alone will save millions of unborn babies. This view is naive at best. The decades long war on drugs demonstrates the problem with using legislation to stop an unwanted human behavior.
Obviously the drug war is disanalagous from abortion in that abortion involves a victim. However, the facts remain: the war on drugs, enacted to stop drug use and shut down cartels, failed miserably. A war on abortion, enacted with the same end goal, to stop abortion and shut down abortion cartels, would fail too. The war on drugs has not only failed, but taken down millions of innocent people with it. This should a warning to us that a war on abortion would result in failure and injustice.
No. Abortion should not remain legal. However, merely passing laws for their own sake are not solutions. The state is capable of acts of aggression against the people (an injustice) and when such aggression is perpetrated, the people ultimately have no recourse. So in considering how to criminalize abortion, we must take into the overall system of enforcement.
Even the context of Romans 13 is in light of Romans 12. Romans 12:21 exhorts us, โdo not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.โ Thereโs no reason why this shouldnโt apply to the context which God-ordained civil governance operates. Romans 13 itself does not describe the state, thus baptizing every action it takes – even evil actions – as if God is playing 4-D chess with us. Romans 13 is prescriptive, in that it calls good civil governance to restrain evil. We must ask, is our system of government actually and effectively restraining evil? No only does our criminal justice system NOT produce deterrence, nor reduce recidivism, but it is a perpetually growing expense on the tax payer, and ignore the victim. Add to this, that the monopoly state does not restrain evil in its own ranks. The system of governance we have in America is no aligned with Romans 13, and therefore arguably not ordained by God.
So we must revisit the question of justice, and what is a just response to abortion?
Sign up for email updates and other news from Kerry Baldwin and receive Do Christians Own Themselves? absolutely FREE!