Why are Liberals Willing to Protect Children at the Border, But Not Inside the Womb?

Yesterday, I had the opportunity to contribute an essay to The Hill concerning the obvious hypocrisy unfolding in Washington concerning the current budget stalemate.

In short, I asked why liberals have no problem spending taxpayer money to protect children at the border, but are refusing to do anything to protect them inside the womb.

Please take a moment to read the full piece here – and let me know what you think in the comments section below.

Topics: Current Events January 9, 2019 by Jim Daly

John C

7 days ago

"Whataboutism" is a defense technique, a way to change the subject away from the subject at hand. Mr Daly, you have now DEFENDED the border policy plan that oppresses/harms children, by trying to change the subject, to undercut efforts to change the policy. No amount of equivacating about how "terrible" the situation is will change that you defended it.

Additionally, you have dodged at every turn condemning the author of that policy, while handing out condemnations of pro-abortion policy authors like raffle tickets at a fair. You can't have it both ways and expect your opinion to still be respected.

Becky Ellis

7 days ago

It seems to me that all this definition conversation is skirting the point. The point is this country is murdering unborn babies that GOD has created. That is the topic Focus on the Family was addressing. I frequent the border and see the truth. If you really want to see the truth of the matter go to the border and talk to the people who live there and send their children across when they feel like to go to the schools to get free food yet they do not go to school in their country. I know personally a teacher in Progresso Mexico and he tells it like it is...basically the people send their children over when they need something and the children come back after they get it. Even children tell me this. Secondly, many of the children wander the streets of Progresso selling things or begging for money instead of going to school. I do not give them money. I ask them if I can buy them food because the parents take the money. American Christian or not need to find out the facts and stop being fools. Hosea 4:6 says My people parish for lack of knowledge. GOD was talking to the Israelites, but it is a very thoughtful statement. It seems many people want to argue points without first hand knowledge. Maybe someone needs to ask...why do we make laws and do not expect to have the people obey or we don't enforce them. If we let illegal people cross the border and they teach their children to do the same then when a criminal or terrorist wants to come illegally we cannot substantiate saying no to them.

I sincerely pray that everyone on this blog will search out why they are arguing about what Focus on the Family's motive is. They were addressing one topic not multiple topics. So consider why you are derailing their purpose.

John C

7 days ago

If we give food to feed those poor children through our schools, so be it. It sounds pretty effective, and as as a Christian nation, it is our duty to feed the poor. And if free food gets these children to attend school instead of the begging/selling, all the better.

Instead of complaining about children being fed, we should rejoice.

Anonymous

8 days ago

That graphic there looks like some kind of creepy animatronic fetus doll. Just sayin'...

Anonymous

8 days ago

And why are right-wing Christians so concerned about fetuses, but have no problem when real children go hungry, or are housed in cages or are forcibly separated from their familllies?

Anonymous

8 days ago

It does seem counterproductive when making such statements to pigeonhole people and make assumptions. Are all "right-wing Christians" concerned about "fetuses", but have "no problem when real children go hungry"?

To begin with, who do you think a "right-wing Christian" is? Perhaps you can cite an example, but I'm guessing that it would not be representative of the people at Focus on the Family or any other truly Christian organization. Let me define my term: Christian organizations are made up of people who are like-minded in their pursuit of a relationship and knowledge of Jesus Christ. We are on a journey of making our lives conform to what He taught out of our love for Him. Those of us who have listened to him long enough through His Words have come to know that life is a precious gift, whether born or not. I know of many Christians (such as those in my church) who participate in taking care of "real children" in bad situations. Our family contributes clothing and food to our church ministries, which help families with real children, because it's what Christ would have us do. We sponsor a child in a foreign country so that that they will have a better future.

Secondly, sweeping generalizations are only one exception away from being untrue. All you have to do is find one "right-wing Christian" (however you define that to be) that who cares about children both born and unborn, and your statement becomes invalid.

While we're on definitions, how would you define "care"? Would this be people who speak with empathy about these children, but want others to fix it, or those who do something about their situation? The apostle James instructed Christians to be not just hearers of Jesus' words, but to put them into action. Jesus cared about children--"Let them come unto Me"--and so should we. But Jesus also did this in a personal, relational way. The Gospels are full of examples of this. And many Christians that I know of do engage on a personal basis. So, watch out for those generalizations, because once you find an exception to a broad generalization, it makes the whole statement untrue.

It seems like the purpose of making such statements could be not to create consensus around issues, but instead to incite emotion and highlight division. Come, let us reason instead, and learn from each other. Let's ask questions of each other, and come to understanding, if not agreement.

For one, why do many Christians consider an unborn child (or fetus) to be a person before they are born? Because God speaks of knowing us in our Mother's womb, before birth. He has a relationship with us before birth, and speaks of plans that he has for our lives. If that's true, He knew you before you were born into this world!

We just celebrated Christmas, and if you are familiar with the Christmas story, you know that Jesus' mother Mary knew about the value of the child that she was carrying well before Jesus was born. Her cousin Elizabeth, who herself was expecting a child under unusual circumstances, rejoiced at the news, and the Word says that the child she was carrying leaped within her when the news was heard! Seems like even the pre-born can get excited.

This is just a start of a long list of reasons that most Christians believe that the unborn are as valued to God as born children. Perhaps you are confusing people speaking out for these innocent, silent ones; thinking that this indicates a higher value when it merely is an act to protect and speak for these children because they have no voices of their own). If that is the case, it would help you to understand that this, too, is a Christian value, because Jesus instructs us to look out for the "least of these".

So, please help us out here. Help us to understand who or what is a "right-wing Christian" and how they can be Christians without doing what Christ instructs. Can you give us examples of instances where Christians care about the unborn but have no compassion for the born? If you can do these things, we can have a better, more beneficial dialog that can lead to understanding of these issues, and maybe we would even have the opportunity to persuade hearts and minds and find unity in the solutions to these issues and effect real change.

I hope that you will write back and take up the challenge, because I think it will help us come together in understanding rather than becoming more separate from implicit assumptions and unfair characterizations. May God bless you.

Jessica McCorvey

8 days ago

To me, the most important thing to take away from the original comment here is that it points out the hypocrisy of Jim Daly's title which does two things: 1) makes a "sweeping generalization" about liberals, and 2) points out that many conservative Christians seem to care more about unborn children than born children. As someone who works with a children's ministry with participants of mostly low-income minority race background, I have first-hand experienced this hypocrisy too many times to count. The point is that Jim Daly did the exact thing this original commenter did, that you argue against above.

Jerry Pascale

8 days ago

ask Obama......his policies

Anonymous

8 days ago

Why should it be either or. Both the unborn and the children of the poor and disenfranchised (Mexicans) are literally our neighbors?

The billions of dollars requested for a wall could be better used to heal wounds (both physically and spiritually) of these strangers.

Oh the long term damage done to those babies, toddlers and young children separated from their parents, guardian or even those they knew while traveling to this strange, new land (not even knowing the language here). How would any of our children fare under similar circumstances? God forbid.

There must be concern for the Word of God in His directive for the poor and little children.

Didn't Jesus break down walls built by religious leaders?

This is neither a Republican nor Democratic, Right or Left opinion but a Right or wrong thought.

Jesus is soon to come. Time is running out. Will those so mistreating the defenseless hear "Well Done" or "Depart from Me, ye worker of iniquity "?

Harden not your heart!

Anonymous

8 days ago

While I am conservative and agree border needs to be addressed, I would say it is equally breath taking at how silent Focus on the Family was with the public separation of children, and even losing them, especially given the willingness of some churches and groups to say "this is wrong." Instead, this article makes clear that you have become about appeasing Man and a Party first. Children have value outside the womb as well.

Anonymous

8 days ago

I believe that I actually did hear the situation discussed in a FotF radio program, and of course Focus did not endorse separating children from their families, and spoke of it as a tragedy.

But there's always a second side to the story, which may not get the same amount of attention because it's not as politically popular. Consider this: would these children have been separated from their families if the parents had not put their children at risk by entering through illegal means? In other words, are we overlooking decisions that were made that led up to these tragic outcomes?

It's true that many of these decisions are driven by desperation, but this seems to be a problem with bad decision-making and rationalization.

While we may be moved out of compassion for these children, we might be better served if we seek to understand the root causes.]

Perhaps some of these churches might consider that if more were done to help people where they are at, they might not be as inclined to put their families at risk for some perceived improvement in their lives.

What would Jesus have us do? In the parable of the Good Samaritan, an outsider (the Samaritan) was able to see the needs and respond better on a personal level than those who should have seen the need and could have taken care of it before it became dire. Perhaps there is a lesson for us in this situation as well.

Marvin Jr.

8 days ago

First, I agree that abortion is horrific, and mistreatment of young innocent children outside the womb is also horrific.

The answer to your question is really simple--one category of child victim is inside the womb and the other is outside. The perspective that the child living inside the womb is less valuable than the one living outside is sad, but this view is not exclusive to those you define as liberals. Your use of the label Liberal doesn't help, illuminate, or persuade.

If you are trying to point out that liberal logic contains discrepancies, inconsistencies, paradoxes, and hypocrisy, as if they are the only labeled group guilty of such, you should spend more time in front of the mirror, or in the Word.

Finally, I disagree that Nancy Pelosi will be Speaker when Roe is overturned. This will most likely be her last stint as Speaker and it is unlikely that Roe will be overturned within these two years. There are simply too many Christians and non-believers who are not vehemently opposed to abortion on demand. Abortion is a third rail topic for the Christian church- and this is the real sadness or paradox. The Church and its Family should be the essence of your concern and commentary. To cast some stones at those you call liberals is just plain wrong. If the Christian Church can't commit or agree to abolishing on demand abortion, how will the secular Supreme Court?

Why are Liberals Willing to Protect Children at the Border, But Not Inside the Womb?

Leave a Comment

Daly Focus

Jim Daly Blog

Connect with Me

Related Posts

Leave a Comment

Daly Focus

Jim Daly Blog

Connect with Me