Esquire ran a piece last month lauding the abortion “ministry” of Willie Parker, a Chicago abortionist who rotates into Mississippi to commit abortions at the state’s lone remaining abortion mill. The facility’s owner has been unable to procure an abortionist who is capable of obtaining admitting privileges at a nearby hospital because all of the Mississippi abortionists appear to have too-shoddy records to be considered fit by any nearby hospital credentialing committee.

One of the many troubling aspects of the piece is Esquire‘s portrayal of Parker as a dedicated and faithful Christian. In Esquire‘s view, the abortionist is, simply paraphrased, more enlightened than the rest of the ‘judgmental’ Christian community (cue the article’s predictable segment bemoaning the awful Christian sidewalk counselors who are ruining their lives).

Parker is lauded as a good Christian because he equates his abortion “ministry” with Christ-like, compassionate behavior. He says,

The protesters say they’re opposed to abortion because they’re Christian. It’s hard for them to accept that I do abortions because I’m a Christian.

Wait… what? Forget the “you shall not kill” fragments of scripture in favor of the new Jesus who apparently doesn’t require compliance with the Ten Commandments for Christians anymore.

From a theological and philosophical standpoint, the argument is an example of classic relativism, which — while widely accepted in popular culture — has no place in actual Christianity. This philosophy places Christianity within a framework of subjective ethical principles, for which Scripture was never known. Rather than admitting to the moral absolutes taught by the Old and New Testaments, such as the oldie but goodie, “you shall not kill,” Parker says he believes that abortion helps women in need, and therefore it must be Christian.

In his analysis, Parker skips over the Christian teaching that it is always an absolute moral wrong to commit murder. He also fails to acknowledge that abortion does not help women in the long run. And he overlooks the fact that ends (i.e., temporary relief from a distressing pregnancy situation) do not justify means (namely, murder) in Christian thought.

Does Parker simply not realize the gravity of his actions?  Here’s what he concludes about his daily work as an abortionist. The Esquire journalist recalls Parker pointing out to him the body parts that he would rinse in a strainer and lay out to examine after each abortion: “The reality is we’ve disrupted a life process. There are recognizable fetal parts, right?”

Esquire explains that for Parker, the crux of the moral issue lies in the tired pro-abortion argument for bodily autonomy, which says that the life of an unborn child has no fundamental right to exist until it no longer depends on its mother’s body for survival. This argument is full of serious holes; nevertheless, “That’s what I embrace,” says Parker. And that is not Christianity.

Esquire ran a piece last month lauding the abortion “ministry” of Willie Parker, a Chicago abortionist who rotates into Mississippi to commit abortions at the state’s lone remaining abortion mill. The facility’s owner has been unable to procure an abortionist who is capable of obtaining admitting privileges at a nearby hospital because all of the Mississippi abortionists appear to have too-shoddy records to be considered fit by any nearby hospital credentialing committee.

One of the many troubling aspects of the piece is Esquire‘s portrayal of Parker as a dedicated and faithful Christian. In Esquire‘s view, the abortionist is, simply paraphrased, more enlightened than the rest of the ‘judgmental’ Christian community (cue the article’s predictable segment bemoaning the awful Christian sidewalk counselors who are ruining their lives).

Parker is lauded as a good Christian because he equates his abortion “ministry” with Christ-like, compassionate behavior. He says,

The protesters say they’re opposed to abortion because they’re Christian. It’s hard for them to accept that I do abortions because I’m a Christian.

Wait… what? Forget the “you shall not kill” fragments of scripture in favor of the new Jesus who apparently doesn’t require compliance with the Ten Commandments for Christians anymore.

From a theological and philosophical standpoint, the argument is an example of classic relativism, which — while widely accepted in popular culture — has no place in actual Christianity. This philosophy places Christianity within a framework of subjective ethical principles, for which Scripture was never known. Rather than admitting to the moral absolutes taught by the Old and New Testaments, such as the oldie but goodie, “you shall not kill,” Parker says he believes that abortion helps women in need, and therefore it must be Christian.

In his analysis, Parker skips over the Christian teaching that it is always an absolute moral wrong to commit murder. He also fails to acknowledge that abortion does not help women in the long run. And he overlooks the fact that ends (i.e., temporary relief from a distressing pregnancy situation) do not justify means (namely, murder) in Christian thought.

Does Parker simply not realize the gravity of his actions?  Here’s what he concludes about his daily work as an abortionist. The Esquire journalist recalls Parker pointing out to him the body parts that he would rinse in a strainer and lay out to examine after each abortion: “The reality is we’ve disrupted a life process. There are recognizable fetal parts, right?”

Esquire explains that for Parker, the crux of the moral issue lies in the tired pro-abortion argument for bodily autonomy, which says that the life of an unborn child has no fundamental right to exist until it no longer depends on its mother’s body for survival. This argument is full of serious holes; nevertheless, “That’s what I embrace,” says Parker. And that is not Christianity.