Search this blog

This past week featured two annual remembrances in much of the evangelical world: “Sanctity of Life Sunday” and the Martin Luther King, Jr. public holiday. Some churches, like Bethlehem Baptist Church in Minneapolis, have long made the two days a period of intense focus on the protection of life and racial reconciliation.

It’s an important juxtaposition orchestrated by divine providence. If Dr. King were known for anything it would be the protection of human life and dignity. We think of him as the great Civil Rights captain marching his troops to justice. But in every step of his march was the firm conviction that all men are made in the image of God and created equal. Had he not held that more foundational belief, along with a deeply biblical conception of love, it would be difficult to imagine so sturdy a fight for equality and inclusion. Those twin commitments have rightly made him an American hero, an icon representing the best of American ideals.

So, it’s worth asking: What would Martin Luther King, Jr. think about abortion?

There are many who will no doubt pronounce with unwavering certainty that, “Dr. King would have….” Some will say so with all the moral authority that comes from having “knew Dr. King” or “marched with Martin.”

To be clear, abortion came later, a few years after Dr. King’s murder. So, Dr. King himself never spoke  publicly to the issue. Any “definite” pronouncements are most assuredly speculations and extrapolations.

But if he were consistent with his principles of love and justice it’s inconceivable that he would have favored the practice of killing unborn children in the womb. If he were consistent as a husband and father, who enjoyed the blessing of several children himself, it’s inconceivable that he would support the choice to end life before it entered the light of day. If he held as deeply to the Christian belief that all people are created in God’s image as he appeared to, then it would be inconceivable that he would support the legalization of the murder of millions of children each year.

Perhaps the best way to conceive of his position would be in a picture, worth about a thousand words, or about 50 million unborn babies:

View Comments


43 thoughts on “Martin Luther King, Jr. and Abortion”

  1. Terry L. says:

    Eleven years ago tomorrow, my wife and I were at the hospital when our son was born to a young black woman who had chosen to place him with us, a white couple without children. My son was born on the day after Martin Luther King Jr. Day and the day after the 30th anniversary of the Roe v. Wade decision. Ever since that day, I too have always thought of the divine providence involved in those days being so closely related.

    1. Terry L. says:

      I meant to say, “the day before the 30th anniversary…”

  2. Tim says:

    Sorry, but virtually all of the MLK civill rights establishment is pro-choice, opposes pro-life candidates, and put Obama in the White House. MLK sympathizers who are pro-life are living in fantasy land.

    1. Thabiti Anyabwile says:

      Hi Tim,

      I’m not sure what your comment has to do with this post. Whether or not “civil rights establishment is pro-choice, opposes pro-life candidates, and put Obama in the White House” is beside the point. The question is: By what principles did King live as he lead the Civil Rights Movement? And to what position would those principles lead in the question of abortion? Personally, I think they lead inexorably to a pro-life position.

      If that’s the case, then it’s not true that “MLK sympathizers who are pro-life are living in fantasy land.” The truth is any person who claims to be following King’s principles and uses them in defense of abortion has hijacked King. The problem isn’t King (who lived and was assassinated before this became a nation issue) or King-inspired pro-lifers. The problem is abortion.

      Grace to you,

    2. Jim M says:

      MLK’s neice, Dr. Alveta King was on Fox & Friends this morning. She is definitely pro-life. Having read his biography written by his wife, I believe He was probably pro-life also. I believe the civil rights movement became pro-choice when they joined forces with the feminist movement.

      1. Jim M says:

        I missed the Planned Parenthood link below.

    3. phillip says:

      It does seem like “fantasyland” thinking. Martin Luther King Jr. was indeed a mixed bag. The worst contradiction was his theologically vacant “faith.” I don’t know how he could deny the elements of the Gospel and yet appeal to the God of the Bible for a right view of justice. I guess like most he was operating on “the law written on our hearts.”

      However, I find quite a contradiction within this article. The pro-life case represented here along with the closing picture is strikingly ironic. The Gospel Coalition represents a Reformed or Calvinistic theology which believes that billions of God’s image-bearers were indeed “born to burn” (literally or metaphorically) in punishment …endlessly.

      But most Reformed believers (like myself for 35 years) will not admit this contradiction and instead put forth a more Arminian appeal by saying that God loves the entire world and desires all be saved from this “burning” (but then must explain why God is unable to do so). Keller, Tchividjian, Chandler etc., can be heard defending the faith from both the Calvinist and Arminian paradigms, at the same time. But to believe that the God who DESIRES to give life to all is the same God who has the POWER to give life to all can only mean the ultimate restoration of life …for all. Calvinism says that God ultimately created death by creating living creatures who were predestined to eternally cycle in death/sin forever (DA Carson).

      I have come to believe God is PRO-LIFE in the ultimate sense of the word.

      1. Thabiti says:

        Hi Phillip,

        Thanks for stopping by and commenting. I would say just a couple things:

        1. I don’t think you understand Reformed/Arminian positions very well when it comes to the status of infants and eternal life. Like everything else, there’s variance inside both camps. If you haven’t already, you might try reading Wm G.T. Shedd’s treatment in Calvinism: Pure and Unmixed (don’t let the name throw you; it’s not at all what it sounds like). It’s free here: See the chapter on infant salvation for one view.

        2. Are you making a case for universalism when you argue for “the restoration of life… for all”? I sincerely hope not. That would put you outside both the Arminian and Reformed camps into a heretical position all orthodox Christians everywhere reject.

        3. There’s no contradiction in the article. And the “irony” you see really depends on your making a caricature of what you think are “Reformed” views. The point of the article is very simply that if we honor life we’ll protect life–all life from unrighteous suffering and death. To answer what you see as an “irony,” I’d simply say: We are not God. He created life, owns it, and can bless or judge it as He sees fit. Again, that’s not a “Reformed” view. That’s a biblical view that all Christians who believe their Bible would hold.

        Again, thanks for commenting. Grace to you,

        1. Phillip says:

          Thank you Thabiti for the response and the link. I read Shedd’s chapters on infants and also on the Larger Hope. I appreciated his hopeful eschatology as he made a case for “the majority of mankind will be saved.”

          1. How you understood what I said was indeed a caricature. I was unclear, I was not referring to babies being lost eternally (most do not teach that). I was referring to the multitudes of babies who grow into adulthood only to have to endure eternal conscious torment in hell. I was comparing the injustice of throw away babies to that of throw away humans which Calvinists defend God as justly doing.

          2. Neither the Apostle’s nor the Nicene Creeds mention an eternal hell. But if I am still considered outside both Cal/Arm as a heretic then we must consider what both have declared of one another. J. I. Packer writes that Cals/Arms “represent two different deities” (Intro to John Owen’s Death of Death) while Arminian theologian Roger Olson has stated that the Calvinist God is “a moral monster.” Both sides can be heard calling the other “heretics.” (They defend eternal hell for opposite reasons! btw.) What are we to make of this theological impasse when Jesus taught that the most powerful “missional strategy” is our unity? (Jn 17)

          3. Yes, God honors and protects all life and promises “justice for all the oppressed.” However, true Biblical justice is “doing justice” not “getting justice.” As Keller, the late Charles Colson and others have pointed out God is about “justice that restores.” It is not punitive but ultimately the restoration of God’s image-bearer and the reconciliation of a relationship. To teach the practice of this restorative justice here on earth automatically deconstructs any view of an ultimate “justice” that has no redemptive purpose.

          So what have I made of all this? I have embraced the undeniable truth of God’s sovereign initiative and power in salvation (Calvinist monergism) with that of the universal gift of love and redemption from the God who “is not willing that any should perish but that all come to a knowledge of the truth” (Unlimited atonement). I see this reality in Scripture through the revelation of the Trinitarian life of God and Christ’s Incarnation on mankind’s behalf (John 1).

          I believe we are truly one Body and that God designed it to function with the same interdependence as the human body–all parts are vital! The Body itself is revealing how it has believed and supported ultimate restoration all along–when seen together. (See “How the Body Supports Ultimate Restoration” for 20 ways in which this is demonstrated.)

          Grace and peace…

  3. Justin says:

    If MLK never spoke on the subject then I think it is very unfair to appropriate his name for the sake of the pro-life movement. Let the movement stand on it’s own accord, surely we can do better than to borrow his name to make the case.

    1. Thabiti Anyabwile says:

      Hi Justin,

      Would you ask the same question of those who use King in support of their pro-choice position?

      Personally I think it’s always fair to take a figure like King, learn from their actual principles, and apply them to questions of our day. We do that with almost everyone of any historical note. It’s a way of learning from history, of standing on the shoulders of those who have gone before us. We can do it poorly, but it seems to me that wisdom require we do it nonetheless.

      Grace and peace,

      1. Brian says:

        While I agree with the fact that applying the underlying principles by which King argued for racial equality would lead one to adopt a pro-life stance, I think Justin’s point still stands about the pro-life movement being able to stand without the benefit of an advocate in someone who never specifically commented on it. King himself may very well have been pro-choice had he lived to see abortion be a hot topic of debate, under the premise that it was a specifically female “human right.” As the pro-choice side could quite fairly put forth that argument, I concur with Justin, that it’s best to leave King specifically out of it, lest we run into an inversion of the classic “Hitler supported identified as a Christian, therefore Christianity is bad,” versus “Hitler was an atheist, therefore atheism is bad,” impasse that’s conventionally gotten us so far in the public and online spheres.

  4. Jack Brooks says:

    It is fair to extrapolate from an historical figure’s statements, how they would apply to a current situation.

  5. Erin Blank says:

    Rev. MLK Jr. received the Margaret Sanger Award, and sent Planned Parenthood not only a thank you but a letter of condolence when she passed away.

    Let’s not forget that even civil rights leaders can get things wrong, that they can dash the dreams of the unborn, that they can still try to make all the right decisions.

    Evidence below.

    1. Bryan Spurgeon says:

      wow, great article. smoking gun. He doesn’t sound too “pro-life” in that acceptance speech his wife gave on his behalf. I wonder if he knew what Margaret Sanger said about his own race? “We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population,” she said, “if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members.” Woman’s Body, Woman’s Right: A Social History of Birth Control in America, by Linda Gordon

    2. Thabiti says:

      Hi Erin,

      Thanks for joining the conversation and sharing the link. I’ve read the page you shared and I do not think its necessary to include Dr. King would support what we know of abortion today. He speaks of the virtue of “family planning.” But that term in his day was not code for abortion as it is in our day. In fact, though today we would all hear that phrase as code for abortion, even in our day most of us use some form of family planning (birth control pills, rhythm method, etc.) though we may be pro-life. In short, it’s not clear to me that either Dr. King knows what we now know about Sanger, that the politics of the time were what they are now, that he knew about or anticipated the racist underpinnings/rates of abortion in the Black community we now know, or that he actively considered abortion as an acceptable family planning option. I honestly can’t conclude any of those things from the link you supplied.

      Having said all that, I am not prepared to say King would never have taken a pro-choice position–just that if he were consistent with his principles he would be pro-life.

      I’d encourage all of us who are pro-life to labor together using all the resources at our disposal–even appropriating the contributions of others–to end abortion. Arguing about King strikes me as judgmental and a waste of time. Let’s move on to the real work.

      Grace and peace,

  6. Thabiti Anyabwile says:

    To all who think King was supportive of Planned Parenthood and abortion,

    Stop and think about what you’re suggesting. Bryan, you ask the correct question when you write, “I wonder if he knew what Margaret Sanger said about his own race?” What do you suspect? Is it remotely possible that a man who literally gave his life in defense of Black life would knowing endorse a person or organization out to destroy Black life???

    C’mon folks. It’s fine to argue that some of King’s principles or rhetoric could be wielded by people with a different agenda than King. I argue that myself. But to disparage King or reject him as a Civil Rights leader really goes several steps beyond reasonableness.

    He’s no perfect man. He has clay feet. And like every one of us, he’s completely capable of being inconsistent with his own best principles. But the tendency to ignore his contributions or to suggest there’s nothing to learn from him because of his failures really is symptomatic of heart issues. Let’s give ourselves to seeing the evidence of God’s grace and take it in a godly direction rather than committing ourselves to destroying the man’s memory.

    Grace to all,

    1. Brian Watson says:

      Rev. Anyabwile,

      I agree with you that if MLK were consistent in his beliefs, he would be pro-life. But there are two things to consider: one, people are often inconsistent; and, two, he may not have considered the unborn as those who had life, or those had rights. We know he had some very inconsistent and unorthodox beliefs (see Joe Carter’s post on TGC: I don’t think anyone is intent on destroying MLK’s memory or rejecting the good that he did (though, of course, I can’t speak for the intentions of others who have commented). At any rate, yes, if he were consistent in his beliefs (a big if for all of us, given the nature of the human heart), he would arrive at a pro-life position. Let us thank God for Alveda King and the work that she has done. She shows us how MLK’s legacy can be continued.

      1. Thabiti Anyabwile says:

        Hi Brian,

        May I ask a question? (of course I’m typing alone in my room so who’s to stop me? :-))

        If you agree with the very basic premise of this post–if King were consistent with his principles he would be pro-life–why do you feel it’s necessary to point to what you think is “unorthodox” in his beliefs?

        If the post has one point that you happen to agree with, why not simply agree and leave it at that?

        I’m asking genuinely because it seems to me that King is perhaps the only figure for whom this kind of behavior obtains almost without fail. We don’t do this with the same frequency with other heroes with clay feet (Edwards, Reagan, etc.). I wish I knew why people feel compelled to do it with King.

        Grace to you,

  7. Tim says:

    Christians who hold up King as a hero are living in a fantasy land and worse–they are undermining the Christian cause. MLK Day has become nothing but a leftist sing-a-long for every leftwing cause in the country, including abortion. Exhibit “A” is Obama. Today’s civil rights establishment is fighting the church on every issue. Just read your newspaper headlines if you don’t believe it. I’m sorry the truth hurts, but facts are facts.

    1. Thabiti Anyabwile says:

      Hi Tim,

      Thanks for your comment and for taking the time to read the post.

      No one has said any comment here “hurts.” It doesn’t because most of what’s been said that’s critical isn’t truth. It’s a political bent masquerading as truth. It’s a graceless view of others masquerading as discernment. It doesn’t hurt me; it hurts you. You’re the one that sounds like you have an ax to grind–even in a post that takes a conservative view of abortion you feel compelled to harp about “leftwing causes.” You sound like you’re the one that’s hurting, friend. I pray things get better for you.


  8. Perr says:

    I would just like to point out that many other Christians find a pro-choice lifestyle more compatible with love, justice, and imago Dei than a pro-life one, although I take it such is not the case in your tradition. I wonder if there’s a narrower term than “Christian” that would be more appropriate for you to use in your essay. For example, I don’t think that pro-choice Christians would say that *you* are not a Christian because of your pro-life actions, only perhaps that you have yet to let the gospel fully envelope your thinking and acting on this issue.

    1. Thabiti Anyabwile says:

      Hi Perr,

      I don’t think I have ever said someone is not a Christian because they were not pro-life. One’s political stance is not the grounds of their justification with God–the perfect righteousness and sinless sacrifice of Jesus Christ is. Now, one who believes savingly in Jesus must obey His teaching as a disciple. That should affect their view of this issue, though they may be wrong. But that’s not to say they’re not Christian.

      I fully appreciate that there are professing Christians who hold a pro-choice position, and that they use the kinds of things you mention as justification. I would only say that such general appeals to justice, love and the imago Dei are contrary to how the Bible expressly defines those things. So, love never wrongs its neighbor (Rom. 13:10) and it always protects (1 Cor. 13:7). By those clear Biblical ethical standards a pro-choice position is in fact inconsistent with love and justice.

      Again, that does not mean a person is not a Christian. It means they are inconsistent with the Bible’s teaching. All of us are at some points. May we all conform more closely to both the letter and the spirit of God’s word.

      Grace to you,

    2. Jim says:

      If we were define those who possess the imago Dei, who would you include as bearing that Divine Image? All people? Only babies after a certain gestational period (say 20/25 weeks?) Only babies whose heads have left the birth canal (at which point the law requires arbitrarily requires protection but not before)? Only babies who are born without birth defects? Down syndrome? If we are consistent with the implications of the Gospel and with Dr. King’s teachings, then we must at least CONSIDER that all of these people may very well possess the image of their Creator. If we are responsible Disciples of Christ, we have to consider the implications of stopping the hearts of babies possessing the imago Dei. As believers, we consider all things in light of the Gospel. I am very curious as to how you define the Gospel.
      Blessings, Jim.

    3. Perr says:

      Dear Thabiti,

      I agree that you didn’t say that, and for what it’s worth I meant my rhetorical question as “I hope you or others won’t respond by going so far as to say that such people aren’t real Christians.” Looking back, I think I took “Christian” as applying to your overall conclusion, rather than to the doctrine of imago Dei, which is where you put it. I apologize for that mistake!

      I think what you said about the extra level of scrutiny directed at King is important. It bears repeating, even though I don’t have anything to add to it.

      Just briefly on the subject of principles, since I’ve made my point already and had it fairly received (and Jim, I appreciate your follow-up questions, but I’m going to have to refer you to the wider internet for the specifics of pro-choice Christian beliefs): I think the main difference is that pro-choice Christians place more emphasis in their moral reasoning on the pregnant people themselves, rather than almost solely on their fetuses. Consider how you speak of abortion above without ever acknowledging the people who are seeking and having abortions. Where are they? They are present, but barely, in the word “womb” (or in Jim’s phrase “birth canal,” down here in the comments). Even Coretta Scott King, with whom Martin Luther King, Jr. had the children you invoke, is present only by virtue of the word “husband.” If you find it acceptable to reduce women to their parts or their relationships to other people, then how do you find fault with those who think of fetuses that way?

      So my challenge to you is: If you believe (and I don’t think that the Scriptures or biology *strictly require* it) that fetuses are your neighbors , possessing the imago Dei, then please examine your actions to make sure that, in the details, you are also treating pregnant people as your neighbors.

      1. Thabiti says:

        Dear Perr,

        I so appreciate your spirit and your challenge. I receive your challenge and commit to affirming the full humanity, presence and situation of women involved in these discussions. I’m grateful for the reproof. It’s a gift to me.

        Grace and peace,

        1. Perr says:

          Dear Thabiti,

          I am grateful for your openness and enthusiasm, which add warmth to my heart. I strive to hear reproof in the same way.

  9. Allen says:

    It is really quite unfortunate that whenever MLK is brought up among certain people groups his flaws and inconsistencies are highlighted. However, whenever Whitfield & Edwards are mentioned dedication and resolutions are magnified. As Tim mentioned “I’m sorry the truth hurts, but facts are facts”.

    So you have some who wrangle and twist his words. Peter mentioned deceivers were doing those things with words of the Apostle Paul!!!

    Pastor T clearly states “if he were consistent with his principles”. So which principles promoted by Dr. King would cause this post to be marked egregious?

    God Bless your patience Pastor T

  10. Michael Snow says:

    “But if he were consistent with his principles of love and justice it’s inconceivable that he would have favored the practice of killing unborn children.”

    And he did speak out against war. If American Calvinists were consistent, they would follow his and Charles Spurgeon’s example.

  11. Timothy says:

    Again, from MLK Day headlines all over the country: support Obamacare, support gay marriage, support abortion, more federal spending, more taxes, and on and on. And, of course, defeat the evil Republican Party–the only party that is pro-life. This is the hard truth we have to face. Christians should not celebrate this day at all.

    1. Todd says:

      Question: I’ve heard the Bible used for all of the justifications and stances you’ve just mentioned. The South used the Bible to justify slavery or “menstealing”. Does the twisting of the Word of Truth suggests that we should do away with the Word of Truth?

      Do you know how many unbelievers employ Matt. 7 to justify their sinful lifestyles? Or how many religions and cults use the Bible to support their heresy?

      You’re missing the point of the post. Even if they use his name, just like sinners employ Matt. 7:1 for their causes, those were not his original principles. Remember what Paul said in 2nd Cor. 11:4 “another Jesus,another gospel, another spirit”. They might use MLK’s name but obviously not his stated original principles.

      By the way, please excuse me if this post sounds harsh or rude. That is not my intention at all and I will pray for you and ask that you go to the Lord on my behalf also.

  12. Jim says:

    Thanks for your post, Pastor Thabiti.

  13. Tim says:

    This will be my last post on this subject. I just will say again that the MLK civil rights establishment is working hand in glove with the radical secularists to destroy religious freedom and Christian values in America. Just read your newspapers. As I have said, Obama is Exhibit “A.” In celebrating MLK, Christians are just being “useful idiots” for the radical, revolutionary left. Time will prove me right. Current events already are.

  14. Jomy says:

    Pastor Thabiti,

    I have enjoyed reading your blog posts. In your writings, you allow the gospel to penetrate all matters of life including areas where many would not step in. As a minority, I am forever grateful for the hard work of bold men like Dr. King and others that have made a way for me and my family and people of all colors to enjoy the freedom and opportunity that is available. It certainly reflects (although not the same weight by any stretch of imagination) Ephesians 2:14-15, “For he himself is our peace, who has made us both one and has broken down in his flesh the dividing wall of hostility 15 by abolishing the law of commandments expressed in ordinances, that he might create in himself one new man in place of the two, so making peace”. While Dr. King is flawed along with all of us, it does not take away from the fact that God has used him for His purpose of bringing freedom and equality to countless amount of people. However, I do disagree with the assertion that becaue Dr. King was used in this manner, that it could be inconceivable that he would be “prochoice” as the evidence of Mrs. King attendance at the the planned parenthood event along with Dr. King’s thank you letter for the award that he received would conclude the opposite. We could still celebrate what Dr. King was able to do in regards to equality for all people and still oppose the indifference or lack of defense (I am sure we are guilty of this too – starting with myself!) of the 53 million and counting unborn children that are being murdered. Aren’t we all hypocrites in our many ways? I know I am but praise be to Jesus who has saved us.

    1. hsl says:

      Actually, your comments about what seems to be the way MLK Day is celebrated in many places suggests that evangelical Christians should be even MORE involved in celebrating the Christianity that was such a part of what kept Dr King active in finding justice for all. Of all people, evangelical Christians should be in the forefront of celebrations on this day!

  15. Ronnie says:

    This is a very political conversation and I’m not well versed in politics but I do have some thoughts.

    I don’t think the Planned Parenthood Federation are fully representative of Margaret Sanger’s position for whilst they put forward abortion as a reasonable means of family planning there is some evidence to suggest that perhaps Margaret Sanger at least found abortion to be in some way negative:
    In her book Woman and the New Race, she wrote: “while there are cases where even the law recognizes an abortion as justifiable if recommended by a physician, I assert that the hundreds of thousands of abortions performed in America each year are a disgrace to civilization.” – Source Wikipedia
    In his acceptance speech of the Margaret Sanger award, Dr King repeatedly referred to family planning and so may have been thinking only of Ms Sanger’s mission to provide viable contraceptives to women in order to liberate them from the oppression of large families. Although there is some speculation about the author of this acceptance speech.
    Also his acceptance speech was given (author debated) in 1966, and it seems to be the case that abortion was added to the Planned Parenthood group after this time after the death of Margaret Sanger, and so perhaps unlikely that any references to made to similarities of beliefs between Dr. King and Planned Parenthood Federation of America included approval of abortion as a legitimate means of family planning.
    Without him having said anything about it directly I find it hard to speculate as people in general have such wide views on when life begins and when a woman has the right to end it.
    I do feel that we need to resist the urge to make debate about abortion into political argument branding it left or right. We have to connect with women in a real way, talking about it with sensitivity and caution. I don’t know any women who’ve had abortions who have left the Doctor’s leaping for joy. It is painful, emotion, and gut renching. Women need men who will care for their purity, forgive their sins, and seek to provide options for those who find themselves in the difficult and often terrifying position of an unplanned pregnancy. We should gently guide our vulnerable young teens to a knowledge of the truth and a courageous to go against what have become societal norms.

    1. Thabiti says:

      Good word Ronnie.

  16. Charles says:

    Dr. King went to jail and was martyred while fighting for justice for all people. He championed equality, social justice and equal pay. He fought to improve people’s circumstances so that they would not be at the mercy of an unjust American system that was (and still is) tainted with a discriminatory ‘theology’. The American ‘golden rule’ is whoever has the gold makes the rules. But he fought to set people free. He knew that without a decent income, people would still be enslaved to an unjust system, with limited choices and possibilities. I’m sure he’d prefer life to death but since more abortions are performed among low income women, it would seem that more work needs to be done to improve life…for the living first. Instead of championing efforts to increase the minimum wage, many so-called pro-lifers are satisfied with the status quo whereby the poor remain poor, never equating the fact that many abortions stem from low income conditions/limitations(and a poor education). Many so-called pro-lifers never seem to question US President G.W. Bush taking America into an illegitimate war, causing the death of thousands of American soldiers, making the death of those already born seem irrelevant. Many so-called pro-life proponents never question the shameful curtailment of voting rights in many states designed to a Republican system in place and thereby keep poor people poor. Romans 13: 1-7 states that “Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities…” Roe V Wade is law but many evangelical pro-lifers spend an (in my opinion) an ‘ungodly’ amount of energy trying to overturn it. The bible says ‘work out your own salvation’. I think women especially poor women should have a right to choose. Pro-lifers may not like it but they are not ‘God’ (who by the way is not consistently pro-life, advocating child murder, infanticide, child abuse and eh em…abortion…look it up). Roe V Wade gives women the right to choose. The quality of life after birth is important too. Since poverty/education are the primary causes of abortions, maybe pro-lifers would be better off focusing their efforts on increasing the minimum wage. That’s one thing I’m pretty certain MLK would approve of too.

  17. John O'Neill says:

    Oh, and I am grateful for the respectful interchange of ideas on this site. Thank you

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

Search this blog


Thabiti Anyabwile photo

Thabiti Anyabwile

Thabiti Anyabwile is a pastor for Anacostia River Church in southeast Washington, DC and a council member of The Gospel Coalition.

Thabiti Anyabwile's Books