Considering Rev. Michael Coren’s “Christian case for supporting abortion rights”

The Christian case for supporting abortion rights (The Critic, February 11, 2021) is the tile of an article by Rev. Michael Coren which is subtitled as that he “says that the Bible simply doesn’t have anything pertinent to say about abortion, and the current extremism alienates people from the church.”

Key will be to which rights of the unborn he may appeals.

We can instantly discern that his focus is not human but political in that he begins with, “abortion dominates conservative Christianity and, by extension, conservative politics.”

The then attempts to lead us in the direction of abortion being an “issue of women’s reproductive choice” but no word yet about abortion as an issue of the unborn’s rights.

He notes that “favoured terms, ‘murder’, ‘holocaust’, ‘genocide’ – is pre-eminent” and are accurate, of course but he sidesteps whether they are accurate representations or not, he merely quotes them as emotive bombs.

Rev. Michael Coren notes that “It matters a great deal in other countries, but nowhere more than in a nation that boasts so regularly of the separation of church and state” but does not seem to be aware that such is never stated in the US Constitution.

He goes on to light another emotive fire by noting that Marjorie Taylor Greene is “‘pro-life’ to the core, and the Christian right loves her for it” but is also a “Bonkers conspiracy theorist” and something about bush fires in California.

Rev. Michael Coren then rants against Cardinal Gerhard Muller who noted that the election of Joe Biden as POTUS “stands at the head of the most subtly brutal campaign to de-Christianize Western culture in the last 100 years” about which Coren notes, “That century included the regimes of Hitler, Stalin, Mao, and the slaughter of millions of innocent people” but he cannot seem to correlate that to what he personally supports—as a “Rev.” no less.

He makes generic statements about that “Abortion rates have been shown to decline” due to contraceptives, sex ed., day-care, etc.

He then trots out pro-abortion talking points such as that “Opponents of abortion also tend to resist any form of gun control, support the death penalty, and campaign for strict controls of immigration. Then there is the violence: at least eleven people involved in providing abortion services have been murdered, others badly wounded.”

Eleven is eleven too many. But his statement was generic enough to not bother telling us during what timespan. In fact, that is the grand total during the past half-century or so and in the US and Canada combined. And no, he does not bother enumerative the millions upon millions upon millions of beautiful, healthy, innocent, and defenseless human babies have been brutally violently murdered—how websites such as The Critic can so uncritically publish such myopic stuff is beyond me (except that they must be propagandizing).

Rev. Michael Coren ended that salvo with a qualifying term “While this kind of extremism isn’t common” followed by a qualifying term “the general theme seems to be that” and brings it home with “pro-lifers love people just before they’re born, just before they die; in between, not so much” which is embarrassingly generic and incoherent. One might as well counter in-kind with that “pro-abortionists love people just after they’re born, just before they die; but not when they are at their most vulnerable, have no voice, are out of sight-out of mind, etc.—for money!”

Rev. Michael Coren approvingly references a 1968 Christian Medical Society and the magazine Christianity Today which “, concluded that abortion had to be considered in the light of ‘individual health, family welfare, and social responsibility’ and the organizers refused to describe abortion as sinful.” So, again, his account utterly ignore what abortion actually is: he has not addressed it as of yet: I wonder if he will ever write a detailed elucidation of descriptions of abortion procedures since he supports them.

He then notes that the Southern Baptist Convention since they “work for legislation that will allow the possibility of abortion under such conditions as rape, incest, clear evidence of severe foetal deformity, and carefully ascertained evidence of the likelihood of damage to the emotional, mental, and physical health of the mother.”

Just as he did in an article asserting that Jesus would have waved a homosexual Pride flag in parades, he is forced to admit that against which he writes. In this case, he assures us “that it’s just not biblical” but follows directly with that it is biblical, “In fact, abortion is hardly mentioned in scripture” which “hardly mentioned” being loaded terminology which admits that it is there but seeks to diminish it the fact.

One may wonder that which some have put as how many times does God have to say something in order for us to pay attention.

Of his own subjective characterization of “hardly mentioned,” Rev. Michael Coren notes, “which is somewhat important in that it’s become an almost exclusively Christian issue” but if committing legal serial murder for money has become an almost exclusively Christian issue then thank God for Christians.

He finally gets into the Bible and notes, “‘Whoever sheds the blood of a human, by a human shall that person’s blood be shed; for in his own image God made humankind.’ So, murder is punished by murder” which is ethically and logically incoherent.

He is placing into the very same category a person ending an innocent life unjustly and also a litigious conclusion carried out by a very carefully regulated judicial system.

He dismissively notes that such as “a strict legal code for an ancient people living without police or a modern justice system” as if living with police and a modern justice system would necessarily result in something different—and, of course, I say necessarily since sometimes it does lead to decades of tax payer funded incarceration.

He emphasizes that “this is about one adult killing another and has nothing at all to do with abortion” which may be fair enough but which fails to read into the spirit of the law—and the spirit of the law is the parchment upon which the letter of the law is written.

Since his modus operandi is to encourage his, surely, leftist audience to besmirch the Bible, he adds, “Just before this statement, by the way, is the command that, ‘you shall not eat flesh with its life, that is, its blood. For your own lifeblood I will surely require a reckoning: from every animal I will require it and from human beings, each one for the blood of another, I will require a reckoning for human life’ – which complicates things just a little. Context, context, context.”

Note the tacit admission that this is now about more than “one adult killing another” so we might as well include human babies.

That may “complicates things just a little” but we Jews figured it out just fine—and did so for millennia before Rev. Coren informed us that it complicates things just a little.

He then quotes, “Jeremiah, writing around 600BC and doing his usual, eponymous lamenting” and quotes:

“Cursed be the day, the day when my mother bore me, let it not be blessed!

Cursed be the man who brought the news to my father, saying, ‘A child is born to you, a son,’ making him very glad.

Let that man be like the cities that the Lord overthrew without pity; let him hear a cry in the morning and an alarm at noon, because he did not kill me in the womb; so, my mother would have been my grave, and her womb forever great.

Why did I come forth from the womb to see toil and sorrow, and spend my days in shame?”

His comment is, “Certainly doesn’t imply prohibition or condemnation” which is incoherent: an adult poetically lamenting his current persecuted situation and poetically going meta-level so as to view one resolution being that he had never been born is nowhere near the category of a speechless baby in the womb desiring its own brutal murder—for money.

He then admits the verse, “Before I formed you in the womb, I knew you, and before you were born, I consecrated you; I appointed you a prophet to the nations” and seeks to downplay it by dismissively commenting, “This is a big one for the anti-abortion movement and has become a virtual slogan. Largely because it’s one of very few that they can find”—note, again, the subjective quantitative statement, “few” for emphasis.

In any case, Rev. Michael Coren sidesteps this by noting, “the womb reference is not a general description of one ordinary man, but a specific reference to someone set apart to do God’s work” thus, “a special plan for one man rather than a general approach to biology and reproduction.”

He then quotes Psalm 139 thusly:

“For it was you who formed my inward parts; you knit me together in my mother’s womb. I praise you, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made.

Wonderful are your works; that I know very well. My frame was not hidden from you, when I was being made in secret, intricately woven in the depths of the earth.

Your eyes beheld my unformed substance. In your book were written all the days that were formed for me, when none of them as yet existed.”

The comment is “It’s lyrical” which is it by definition of the fact that it is a psalm, of course. He continues, “what it’s saying is that God makes everything and everyone – people, animals, and nature…not about anything at all specific or exclusive to the foetus” even though “people, animals” go through the “foetus” stage—unless people are hired to prevent it.

He then takes the emotivism us 100 notches in writing that “God knows…the woman who is desperate, poor, young, and alone, who can’t afford to have a child, was raped or abused, is terrified, has no healthcare, is crying out after much consideration to terminate her pregnancy”: does she also have one leg, rickets and lives under a bridge?

Could be pain a more emotive fantasy scenario based on correlations of terrible things?

Why does he never refer to abortions of babies due to conscious adult decisions to be sexually unethical? That would apparently be too real to deal with: he would actually be calling out actual cases and would actually have to deal with a cultural backlash since our culture is not big on cause and effect but only focuses on effect.

So, his fantasy scenario woman is 1) desperate and also 2) , poor and also 3) young and also 4) alone and also 5), can’t afford to have a child and also 6) was raped or abused and also 7) is terrified and also 8) has no healthcare and also 9) is crying out after much consideration.

But let us grant Rev. Michael Coren his fantasy woman: why can he not even imagine any remedy for such a terrible situation than to also make her a murderer—for money?

Why not put the beautiful baby up for adoption?

Why not encourage her to give birth and have a wonderful life changing experience—being given assistance they multitudinous Christian individuals and organizations who would love to help such a person?

Why exclusively condemn the innocent party, the baby, to capital punishment—with far less dignity than adults who are condemned to capital punishment?

He then writes of:

“Elizabeth, the mother of John the Baptist, when she meets with Mary, the mother of Jesus. Luke’s Gospel: ‘In those days Mary set out and went with haste to a Judean town in the hill country, where she entered the house of Zechariah and greeted Elizabeth. When Elizabeth heard Mary’s greeting, the child leaped in her womb. And Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit.’”

He notes, “it merely describes movement in the womb” yes, the movement of a living baby. He notes that this was a “reference to people who are not ordinary, not usual, not as the rest of us” which is fair enough and yet, still applicable: human babies in the woman are human babies in the womb—and, by the way, a mother looking forward to giving birth does not dehumanize her baby by employing old Latinized scientific terms but is pregnant with a “baby” form the nanosecond she knows she is pregnant.

He notes, “Jesus doesn’t speak of it, and abortion was hardly unknown in the first century.” Well, the Second Temple Era pseudepigraphic 1 Enoch/Ethiopic Enoch (a few centuries BC) refer to abortion—as something taught to humanity by a fallen Watcher/Angle. Yet, indeed, in the first century they were more likely to have a women give birth, and then leave the baby out to be eaten by dogs, etc.

He notes, “Mind you, it’s baffling how many Christians seem far more concerned with the things Jesus didn’t speak of, rather than the ones he does.” Yet, Jesus affirmed something that Rev. Coren does not seem to take into consideration when Jesus said, “Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? So they are no longer two but one flesh.”

Ironically, this was also the key text in my article about Rev. Coren’s assertion about Jesus and Pride.

The two becoming one flesh also leads to being fruitful and multiplying which is done when a man impregnates a woman. This is God’s created order and not that the process should be paused by murdering the baby in the wombs. Rev. Coren utterly misses God’s created order, His purpose for creating the reproductive systems to begin with and that is a fundamental level missing of the point—coming from a “Rev.,” not less.

Dismissing and emotive as ever, he goes on to write, “But just hold on one bible-thumping moment” since:

“Exodus certainly does mention abortion:

‘When people who are fighting injure a pregnant woman so that there is a miscarriage, and yet no further harm follows, the one responsible shall be fined what the woman’s husband demands, paying as much as the judges determine.

If any harm follows, then you shall give life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.’”

His take-away is “the mother, is of much greater significance than that of her unborn child.”

He then quotes from Numbers, 5:

“But if you have gone astray while under your husband’s authority, if you have defiled yourself and some man other than your husband has had intercourse with you — let the priest make the woman take the oath of the curse and say to the woman—‘the Lord make you an execration and an oath among your people, when the Lord makes your uterus drop, your womb discharge; now may this water that brings the curse enter your bowels and make your womb discharge, your uterus drop!’ And the woman shall say, ‘Amen. Amen.’”

His take-away this time is to emote, “Ouch! Archaic” and “if her pregnancy is thought to be the result of an affair with another man, she is obliged to drink what many modern scholars regard as an abortion-inducing concoction.”

Now, did you read anything about “pregnancy” in that? No. He is merely reading into the text which is about a woman becoming infertile.

He notes, “that is about it. We can dig away at some other scriptural references to try to justify various positions on this issue but they’re all somewhat tenuous and none of them make an ironclad argument.”

His take-away is “the Bible…simply doesn’t have anything pertinent to say about the subject” which we can conclude only after utterly ignoring the fundamental level recognition of God’s created order—which Rev. Coren does not seem to recognize since his modus operandi when it comes to sexual issues it utter deconstruction based on what fallen, corrupt, condemned, pagan and secular culture tells him is acceptable du jour. He does not even bother discussing when life begins (which is at conception, of course).

He leaves us with that he has been writing “As a Christian, as a cleric” who wants to pigeonhole the issue to, you guessed it, “poor and minority women” which, incidentally, where precisely the targets for which Planned Parenthood was established, it was to rid us of so many minorities—and became a partially tax payer funded racist organization.

Rev. Coren: will you, here and now, commit to condemning abortions by un-poor non-minority women who purposefully had sex without wanting to get pregnant—at least as a place to start? In other words, do you condemn any abortions at all?

For more details, see my various article contra pro-abortion assertions.

A plea: I have to pay for server usage and have made all content on this website free and always will. I support my family on one income and do research, writing, videos, etc. as a hobby. If you can even spare $1.00 as a donation, please do so: it may not seem like much but if each person reading this would do so, even every now and then, it would add up and really, really help out. Here is my donate/paypal page.

Due to robo-spaming, I had to close the comment sections. However, you can comment on my Twitter page, on my Facebook page, or any of my other social network sites all which are available here.