Lamott calls abortion "moral necessity"

Anne Lamott is the darling of "christian progressives." There is little she is not out-spoken on and now she has really stepped in it. She opins in Friday's LA Times that:

"But as a Christian and a feminist, the most important message I can carry and fight for is the sacredness of each human life, and reproductive rights for all women is a crucial part of that: It is a moral necessity that we not be forced to bring children into the world for whom we cannot be responsible and adoring and present. We must not inflict life on children who will be resented; we must not inflict unwanted children on society."

Her radical feminism shows through her christianity at this point and reveals nothing short of sadisitic madness. Maybe her braids are too tight and are therefore causing brain damage but on what basis does she make the judgment that "It is a moral necessity that we not be forced to bring children into the world for whom we cannot be responsible and adoring and present." Taking her argument to its logical conclusion she states, "We must not inflict life on children who will be resented; we must not inflict unwanted children on society." Inflict life? So what is the alternanitve Ms. Lamott? Though her answer is abortion, God constantly reveals Himself in Scripture as the father of orphans (Ex. 22:22; Ps. 10:14) and He calls the household of faith to meet the challenge. Pure religion is to look after the needs of those unwanted whether they be orphans, widows or something in between (cf. James 1:27). The prophet Isaiah called the people of God to "defend the orphan" (Is. 1:17). Lamott simply sees this as "inflicting life."

So what is it that informs Lamott's incredulous understanding of God's ordained provisions? She answers, "But I did the only thing I could think to do: plunge on, and tell my truth." She wears her pagan worldview upon her sleeve at this point and falters because her understanding of reality is totally shaped by "her truth." Lastly, she says that speaking to the crowd that day was "a kind of communion, for those of us who still believe that civil rights and equality and even common sense will somehow be sovereign, some day." So there is the hope of a radical feminist: "my truth" and soveriegn "common sense."

Why does any of this matter? Apart from the fact that she stands against any Biblical understanding of Christianity on this issue, she still holds considerable influence among the twenty-something crowd today. Through the influence of "progressive" writers like Don Miller and Jim Wallis, Lamott has gained a following within evangelicalism. I hope the body of Christ will see her for what she is, a false prophetess that is now preaching death in hopes of soveriegn common sense. The only thing that is a "moral necessity" in this case is her repentance.