How Would Jesus Have Responded to Chris Matthews’ Abortion Question to Trump?

The Sermon on the Mount,
Carl Bloch, 1890.

Rush Limbaugh recently equated an interview of Donald Trump by Chris Matthews to an ambush question Mitt Romney received in 2012, which started the so-called “War on Women.” Matthews’ hypothetical abortion question to Donald Trump, and prodding and probing, steered Trump into admitting he would punish women for having an abortion.  It was obvious Matthews was extremely aggressive in his interrogation of Trump.  On the other hand, it revealed Trump had real trouble handling both the questioning and the answer.

Trump defenders raced to Twitter pointing out that he is a businessman and has never really had to think about such issues. Fair enough, except he has been officially running for President for almost a year and the evidence shows he’s been contemplating throwing his hat in the ring for years. As a candidate, it is his job to educate himself on these issues now that he’s in the race, recognizing that the Left will become increasingly aggressive towards any Republican candidate.  We cannot afford another President who plans on “on-the-job training.”

By the weekend, Senators Hillary Clinton and [score]Bernard Sanders[/score] weighed in, both agreeing the unborn do not have rights. Clinton went as far as to say “unborn persons,” which is at least acknowledging that “fetuses” are people, but also shows the Left’s complete disregard for human life.

take our poll - story continues below

Who should replace Nikki Haley as our ambassador to the U.N.?

  • Who should replace Nikki Haley as our ambassador to the U.N.?  

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
Completing this poll grants you access to The Constitution updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to this site's Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

Trending: Science is Settled

This shows the Democratic Party has remained consistent through the decades. Democrats denied slaves rights in the 1857 Supreme Court Dred Scott decision, claiming they were property and not citizens.  Chief Justice Roger B. Taney, who served in the Andrew “Father of the Democratic Party” Jackson Administration, claimed Negros, free or slave, would never be citizens.  In fact, he argued that Blacks were never meant to be included the inalienable rights granted by God in the Declaration of Independence. It is interesting how from the beginning that Party is more involved in removing rights from people than it is in preserving them.

Abortion is not an issue you can try to resolve in your mind at a moment’s notice.  Some study, thought, and effort needs to be put forth.

If I were to shoot an intruder, I could claim self-defense and potentially not be charged with murder.  Does that mean I didn’t kill him?  No, but cold-blooded murder and justified killing are different things.  Either way though, everyone would agree I took a human life, whether justified or not.

We don’t share that common understanding with abortion.  Even the laws on the death of fetuses are contradictory.  If an unborn baby is killed in a car accident, the driver causing the accident will be charged with manslaughter.  A mother, on the other hand, can freely kill her own baby at will.  How can the fetus be considered a human in one instance and in another, just tissue?

As many Trump supporters did, one could lay out a defense that women should definitely be punished for their crime.  After all, Exodus 20:13, the Sixth Commandment, clearly states, “Thou shall not murder.” God then commanded, “Whoever takes a human life shall surely be put to death.” (Lev. 24:17). So from a biblical standpoint, Trump has a point.

Even in the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus reminded his listeners, “You have heard that it was said to those of old, ‘You shall not murder; and whoever murders will be liable to judgment.’” (Matt. 5:21). It is what Jesus says next that is the turning point for Christians: “But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother will be liable to judgement; whoever insults his brother will be liable to the council; and whoever says, ‘You fool!’ will be liable to the hell of fire.” (Matt. 5:22).

Since everyone at some point in his/her life has been angry with or slandered another, should we all be put to death?  No. But we are all guilty of these sins.  In fact, could we not build a case against insults such as “Little Marco,” “Carson is like a pedophile,” “Lyin’ Ted,” and libelous remarks against Carly Fiorina’s and Heidi Cruz’s appearance?

So what does Jesus want us to do?  Matthews’ trick abortion question was similar to the pharisees’s attempt to entrap Jesus with the adulteress captured in the act. Pressing him, they cited the law saying, “Now in the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women.  So what do you say?” (John 8:5). Silent at first, Jesus calmly responded, “Let him who is without sin among you be the first to throw a stone at her.”  One by one the accusers dropped their weapons and walked away.  With no one left to indict her, Jesus turned to the woman and said, “Neither do I condemn you; go, and from now on sin no more.”

Fortunately, the Dred Scott decision was rectified by Republicans under the 14th Amendment as abolitionists overtook Congress after the Civil War. Pro-lifers need to continue to educate and articulate their point of view and as with the Dred Scott decision, refuse to accept a Supreme Court ruling as the ultimate law of the land.

As an example, Texas passed a law requiring an ultrasound and a second day surgery date before proceeding with an abortion. Studies showed a 10-15 percent drop in abortions in Texas in just two years.  While abortion advocates claim ultrasounds do not affect a woman’s decision, they spent millions suing to try to overturn the law. Critics also claimed the short waiting period is an obstacle for abortion seekers.  Interesting how people demand a waiting period before buying a handgun so to reduce impulsive murder, but mothers deserve abortion on demand so they aren’t inconvenienced, or heaven forbid, change their mind.

As an aunt of two precious adopted children, we should do more to give mothers a viable option for life. The government has so bloated the cost of adoption, many who wish to adopt can’t because of the expense. Many couples who would happily adopt can’t afford the $30,000-40,000 and realize the 3-4 year waiting period is ridiculous. How many lives could be saved if all the red tape were eliminated and mothers were directly connected with adoptive couples?

Ultimately, the best solution is what Jesus told the woman, “and from now on sin no more.”  We have a culture that celebrates free love and bed hopping with no consequences or responsibility. Over 55 million babies have been slaughtered since the Roe vs. Wade ruling. Until we as a society start promoting personal and sexual responsibility, many will argue the need for abortion on demand. The only way to truly defeat the practice is to eliminate the need for it.

There is hope though. In a 2014 CNN poll, 58 percent of those polled oppose abortion, in all, or most cases. If those voters would vote their conscience than it would not be impossible to pass an amendment declaring life beginning at conception.  Give them the right to vote also and Hillary will spearhead the legislation.

But that’s just my 2 cents.

Please leave your comments below

We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, vulgarity, profanity, all caps, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain a courteous and useful public environment where we can engage in reasonable discourse.