Presbyterian Pastor: Any Reason is a Good Reason to Kill a Baby With An Abortion

Share The Story

If you find yourself near Presbyterian “Pastor” (and yes I put that in quotes) Rebecca Todd Peters you may want to slowly back away and distance yourself….

Because I can’t guarantee there isn’t a massive lightning bolt coming down in her vicinity sometime soon.

I say that only half jokingly.

I can’t quite think of anything more evil, more demonically rooted in Moloch and Ba’al worship, than arguing that not only is abortion GOOD but it’s the Christian thing to do!

Yet somehow the good “Reverend” (again, quotes) has let her reprobate mind twist and turn so much that she was able to write an entire book on the topic!

Yes, really.

I didn’t really want to give the “Reverend” any extra attention, but ultimately we exist to report the news and I choose to shine LIGHT on darkness rather than ignore it.

Take a look:

 

How absolutely sick and twisted!

From The Nation:

Abortion is a moral issue, just not in the way we’ve been taught, argues Rebecca Todd Peters, an ordained minister in the Presbyterian Church and professor of religious studies at Elon University. She is also the author of the new book Trust Women: A Progressive Christian Argument for Reproductive Justice. Rather than an abstract moral question, she argues, abortion is a morally valid option to a concrete question women face on a regular basis: “What should I do when faced with an unplanned, unwanted, or medically compromised pregnancy?”

Right now, much of our society seems unable to let women answer that question for themselves. Peters attributes that state of things to misogynistic and patriarchal ideas of womanhood that judge motherhood to be a moral end that supersedes all others. Peters pulls no punches against Christianity, which she holds responsible for shaping many of these cultural norms.

As an alternative, Peters offers a moral framework in the language of progressive Christianity and built on a foundation of reproductive justice—an intersectional approach conceptualized by a small cohort of black women activists in the 1990s that recognizes the complexity of women’s reproductive lives. Within the context of a specific woman’s life, the moral consequences of having a child can be equal to—if not greater than—the moral consequences of having an abortion. And so, in many cases, she argues, abortion can be a morally good decision.

I recently spoke with Peters about the book and her vision for the role of progressive, feminist Christian theology in contemporary abortion debates. The following interview has been edited for length and clarity.

You begin the book with a description of your own abortion, before diving into the philosophical, legal, and religious attitudes about women that shape the contemporary discourse around abortion. Why was it important for you to start from the personal?

It took me a long time to make that decision to start from the personal. I’ve been working on this project for 25 years, but when I began specifically writing this book in my sabbatical two years ago, it was an open question about whether or not I was going to talk about my personal experience. And for me, figuring out whether or not to do that was really about what I’m trying to do in the book.

In the book, the whole argument is oriented around shifting the conversation from a justification framework to a reproductive-justice framework. And the point of a reproductive-justice framework is to say, abortions are events in the larger lives of women’s reproductive experiences, and we can only understand them within the history of those lives. And women’s stories are absent. The sort of ordinary abortions, those stories are absent. So it felt important to have those stories, to normalize those stories, and to say, abortion is a normal part of women’s lives. That was absolutely the case for me, and telling my story in a landscape where those stories are so silent seemed very important to me. Once I decided it was important to tell my story, opening with it was just an editorial decision, in terms of the effectiveness of starting with a story as a way of confronting that silence.

*As of press time, we CANNOT….I repeated CANNOT….confirm the rumor that this woman smells strongly of sulfur and rotten eggs.  Not verified.  So let’s just set that straight, ok?

Life News absolutely nailed it with this write up:

The Rev. Peters is one of those all-too-familiar “progressive” ministers [in this case Presbyterian] who has persuaded herself that “justice” requires abortion, which requires overturning the patriarchy which includes recalibrating a religious “tradition that remains dominated by male god-language and imagery.” She even wrote a book (how about this for original ) titled “Trust women: A Progressive Argument for Reproductive Justice.”

In other words the Rev, Peters is a cliché’s cliché.

To Peters, a professor of religious studies at Elon University in North Carolina, none of this about what you would think a “progressive” would find right up her alley matters: preventing an abortionist from taking the life of an unborn baby because the abortionist has been told the baby (most likely a girl) is the “wrong” sex, or the “wrong” color skin, or has been prenatally diagnosed with Down syndrome

Naw, it’s all about (altogether now) “exploit[ing] the emotional legacy of eugenics in an attempt to stigmatize women who have abortions and bully opponents into falling in line with the bill.”

Worse yet (from her perspective), HB453 fails “to respect the moral agency of women as capable decision-makers.”

Now, in light of the many cases working their way toward the Supreme Court, USA Today called out the Rev. Peters to dust off her tired, repetitive arguments. Only “I’m a Christian minister who’s had two abortions. Here’s how faith informed those decision” fails to deliver on the promise of the article’s headline.

Why she did she and her husband abort two of their four children? “Guided by Christian principles that promote abundant life, seek justice and recognize the human dignity of women, the decision to end a pregnancy can be a morally good decision.”

Okay, why did she and her husband abort two of their four children?

“I did not make my abortion decisions despite my Christian identity and faith, but rather because of it,” she intones. “Christian values that support healthy and secure families also require careful, thoughtful and morally rich consideration about the decision to become a parent or not. The fact that the social, physical and moral well-being of children is primarily the responsibility of parents meant that my husband and I thought carefully and deeply about our decisions to have and not have children.”

Okay, so why did she and her husband abort two of their four children? (Hold on, we’re getting there.) She continues

Recognizing and affirming that parenting is a sacred responsibility means that we need to recognize the moral wisdom my momma shared with me: “You shouldn’t have a baby just because you are pregnant – you should have a baby because you want to be a mother, you want to have a family.”

That is the message that people of faith need to shout from the rooftops. That because parenting is a sacred task, pregnant people must be supported in using their moral agency to know when and whether they are able to embrace that sacred trust of parenting.

Ending a pregnancy when one cannot afford to care for a child (or another child) can be a morally responsible decision.

Indeed,

And I can say, without a doubt, that the two decisions we made to have children were far more morally significant than the decisions to end two pregnancies.

Pardon? Aren’t the two children whose pregnancies they ended dead?

Enough already. The Rev. Peters drives every which way but in a straight line to reach the preferred answer: ANY reason is a good reason for abortion.

Sure, she offers the obligatory nod to poor women, as if already aborting three times the proportion of the population isn’t “good” enough. But it’s all background noise. The real answer, according to the Rev. Peters?

Ending a pregnancy when one is not emotionally or physically ready to parent a child can be a morally responsible decision.

Picking and choosing passages is hardly a Biblical informed mode of analysis. You might, for starters, check out the entirety of the Bible!

Killing the baby because you “can’t afford it” is a good moral decision?

(Remember, back away slowly to avoid the lightening bolt if you find yourself near this woman)

This person gets it:

How much more morally deviant any evil can you get than killing babies and claiming it is a moral Christian good?

Oh my.

How absolutely sad and sick.

But that’s just my opinion, I want to hear from you!

Let me know your thoughts in the comments below….


Share The Story

Add Comment