As I mentioned in my March blog post, an "Evangelical" is, generally speaking, a Protestant or Baptist who believes that the Bible is God's word and the final authority for faith and life. (That's a gross oversimplification, but it's good enough for now.) Evangelicals have been known for opposing abortion ever since the Supreme Court decided Roe v. Wade in 1973, but Cuckstianity has been changing that since about, oh, 2017 or so, and the change has really picked up steam this year.
Now, what might have caused a change in 2017, and what might be going on this year to trigger a shift in abortion beliefs among Cuckstians? Why, aren't you a bright student! You guessed it right off!
It's a shame, really, to see how easily people's supposed beliefs are determined by what or whom they love. A man might be totally opposed to abortion until the day comes when he hears that his own teenaged daughter is pregnant. Similarly, people who still call themselves pro-life (which itself is a weasel word) have begun making noises favoring "a woman's right to choose." As expected, these are also the guilty whites who whimper about how bad those other Evangelicals are who are voting for Trump. These things always come in packages; one error brings others in its draft. Their hatred for Trump triggers a hatred for their fellow Christians, which entails a hatred for those beliefs which their fellow Christians use to justify support for Trump.
The Bible basis for killing the unborn is flimsy and greatly outweighed by the arguments against it. That's why Evangelicals have been so united in their opposition to abortion for fifty years. Before Roe, things weren't so clear. Abortion wasn't so common, it wasn't discussed, and embryology (like ALL medical science) wasn't nearly so advanced. An educated Christian might say something like "I just feel like the fetus isn't a person until he breathes air." In light of today's science, such talk sounds like borderline mental retardation, but dumb talk about "feelings" was quite common among intelligent people back then. To boot, opposing abortion was considered a Catholic position, which meant, to Evangelicals, that it must not be biblical.
Abortion has been known throughout recorded history and there have been countless opinions on when it is allowed or forbidden. Now, however, it is scientifically undisputed that the embryo is fully human from the moment of fertilization and that nothing is added after that moment except nutrition; it does not become human at some mysterious time in the future.
What rights does this very young human have? It's a tricky question because it is arrived at philosophically. In savage cultures, a newborn received the rights of citizenship when he was "nested" (accepted) by the tribe. If rejected, he was disposed of. In ancient Rome, the father had all authority and he could reject a newborn and have him "exposed" outside the city where wild animals would kill and eat him. In such cases, the society wasn't denying that the newborn was one of their own species; they were denying that the newborn had a right not to be killed. In fact, the idea of "rights" was hardly known. Savages spoke of their "way," or custom.
The proabortion position reverts to this way of thinking: those who will be inconvenienced by a new baby get to choose whether he lives or dies. In a Christian society, you can't kill someone because he inconveniences you. Christian societies are very different from pagan societies at this point. And because a human's age does not affect his identity as a human, the right to not be killed applies to abortion at every stage of pregnancy. (For a more detailed discussion, see here.)
If Christianity is so clear about the right not to be killed, how do today's Evangelical proaborts justify their position? Well, as the sign supposedly said outside the ornamental iron blacksmithing shop: "All Types Of Fancy Twisting And Turning Done Here."
The first passage they appeal to is Exodus 21:22 where the law says that, if two men are fighting and a pregnant woman gets hit and her baby "departs" from her, but no further harm is done, the offending man will pay a fine; but if it goes beyond that, the offender will owe life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, etc. The debate hinges on the translation. Is there an implied "if the baby departs and survives" in the event? If so, it supports the antiabortion position by decreeing that, if the fighter causes the death of the unborn, he owes "life for life." But the proaborts want to make it say "if he merely kills the unborn baby, then he just pays a fine; but if further injury occurs (to the mother), then he will owe life for life, eye for eye, etc." There are good reasons for rejecting this proabortion interpretation; but even if one accepts it, it is a flimsy argument. See here for more detail.
The next passage is Numbers 5:11-31, The Trial by Ordeal for the wife suspected of unfaithfulness. If a woman is suspected of unfaithfulness, she is given a certain potion which will cause her belly to swell and her thigh to rot if she is guilty, but will leave her unharmed if she's innocent. The proaborts twist the passage to say that the woman will show pregnancy and the potion will trigger a miscarriage. The interpretation is untenable because (1) in the nature of the case, the jealous husband is due an immediate answer, not waiting for a pregnancy to begin showing, (2) a pregnancy wouldn't prove unfaithfulness, as the baby could simply be her husband's, and (3) the potion only contains dust from the tabernacle floor, nothing that would cause a miscarriage. The obviously correct interpretation is that the trial would promptly settle the matter through a miracle from God.
Evangelicals do not defend abortion because it's the Christian thing to do. They defend abortion because it might help Harris defeat Trump. An insulting joke has been around for some years now that says "You know you got the right religion when God hates the same people you do." Those who use the joke, though, seldom see the self-referential irony of it.