In Iowa, the legislature is about to gavel back in and start writing laws again. There is some unfinished business regarding the issue of life, which has sparked significant debate across our state. Whenever the debate for life arises, exceptions are always at the forefront of every discussion. You’ve heard it all before: “except in the case of…” followed by rape, incest, life of the mother, or just about anything else imaginable. Reflecting on this aspect of the life debate, I began to consider which exceptions I agree with. I have found only one exception that I can truly say, “If the bill presented doesn’t have this, then I won’t support it.” Before we examine this exception, let’s look at the two main reasons cited for needing an exception in a life bill: practicality and compassion.
Practicality, or pragmatism, is perhaps the most cited reason for an exception. The argument is often, “If we don’t include these exceptions in the bill, then we will never have enough votes to pass it, and something is better than nothing.” This sentiment, echoed by fellow pastors, legislators, and social media acquaintances, has become all too familiar. When confronted with this, I typically respond by quoting John Quincy Adams: “Duty is ours, results are God’s,” reminding them that our job is to do what is right and leave the results to God. This sentiment also carries the expectation that others should act rightly as well. This approach generally neutralizes the pragmatic arguments for exceptions, at least in my mind.
Upon reflecting on the pragmatic reasoning for exceptions, I suppose it’s true that everyone has their limits, a line they cannot cross, beyond which they cannot support a bill. This realization comforted me as I identified the exception I absolutely demand a life bill must include for my support. Before revealing my exception, let’s explore the other reason people demand exceptions: compassion.
Compassion is crucial, especially when presenting a bill that aims to protect life. Those seeking to protect life inside the womb must have a strong sense of compassion, caring deeply for those who are most innocent and vulnerable. When compassion is brought into the discussion, it often carries a great deal of emotion, sometimes stemming from past experiences or real-life scenarios. Who wouldn’t feel compassion upon learning of someone being assaulted and raped, or of an underage girl taken advantage of by a relative, or of any other terrible tragedy in someone’s life?
Compassion is necessary in all these circumstances, but it should never extend to the point of murdering the child. Two wrongs certainly do not make a right. It has always seemed plausible to me that one can be compassionate towards the terrible circumstances in the mother’s life while fiercely defending the life of the unborn child.
The feeling of compassion often drives people to engage in the debate on life. The one exception a life bill must have to gain my support is deeply rooted in compassion. These thoughts have helped me realize that I do have an exception that must be included in any life bill I would support.
So, what is the exception that must be included in a life bill for my support? The exception is no compromise. No compromise is by far the most pragmatic and compassionate position one can have when supporting a bill that aims to save unborn babies.
Pragmatically, any bill failing to give a child equal protection under the law by recognizing their personhood will always leave the door open for the bill to be overturned or for the list of unprotected babies to grow. This is because the nature of injustice or lopsided scales is always to consume and become more imbalanced. The phrase “Laws for thee but not for me” never stands, and the longer such laws are on the books, the more wicked men will push them to see how much evil they can get away with. The only pragmatic solution is a bill that grants equal protection to the unborn by recognizing their personhood. The unborn must be legally treated like those of us who are on the other side of the womb and be afforded the state’s protection against harm. Abortion must be viewed as the murder of the innocent in any bill I would support.
As for compassion, you can argue vehemently, but you will never convince me that it is even slightly compassionate to murder the innocent. I have great compassion for those who are true victims of horrific crimes, but this compassion does not compete with my compassion for the unborn. These two forms of compassion are not at odds with each other; in fact, I cannot see how one could be considered compassionate if they did not desire justice for both victims of sexual assault and victims of child murder in the womb. True compassion doesn’t elevate one victim at the expense of another.
For these reasons, I urge you to join me in ensuring that you have one exception for any life bill you would support: No Compromise. I also urge you to contact your representatives and demand that they be pragmatic and compassionate on the issue of life, demanding from them a bill that abolishes abortion with no compromises!
Author: Sam Jones
Pastor Sam Jones currently serves as Senior Pastor of Abundant Life Christian Fellowship in Humboldt, IA. He married the love of his life Sarah in 2013; they have two sons Thomas and Henry. He is most known for his teachings on the 4 spheres of delegated government and being a voice for the pre-born. In addition to his Pastoring schedule, Pastor Sam is an avid podcaster and has been known to dabble in radio as well. His political commentary has appeared in dozens of news outlets across the country including: The New York Times, Chicago Tribune, USA Today, and The Iowa Standard. Pastor Sam is the author of 5 Steps to Kill a Nation. He is also a co-author of Social Injustice, Church and State, and Enemies Within the Church Bible Study.
