God is pro-choice

[Originally published Sept. 24, 2007]

According to CNN and AP, a Nebraska legislator’s lawsuit against God has produced a “miraculous” response.

LINCOLN, Nebraska (AP) – A legislator who filed a lawsuit against God has gotten something he might not have expected: a response.

State Sen. Ernie Chambers of Omaha said he sued God last week to make a point about frivolous lawsuits.

One of two court filings from “God” came Wednesday under otherworldly circumstances, according to John Friend, clerk of the Douglas County District Court in Omaha.

“This one miraculously appeared on the counter. It just all of a sudden was here — poof!” Friend said.

What is particularly interesting about this mysterious filing is that it reveals a hitherto unsuspected side of God’s political viewpoints: He’s solidly pro-choice.

According to the Associated Press, the mystery filing responded to charges of terroristic threatening by saying that:

…blaming God for human oppression and suffering misses an important point.

“I created man and woman with free will and next to the promise of immortal life, free will is my greatest gift to you,” according to the response [from God], as read by Friend.

Free will, of course, means the freedom to choose. According to Genesis 1-3, God created Adam and Eve to have freedom of choice, among other blessings. In fact, contrary to the statement above, freedom of choice was even more important than immortal life, because the Bible says that Adam and Eve already had immortal life, and God decided to put that immortality at risk in order to safeguard their freedom of choice.

Eve is of particular interest in this story. According to Romans 5:12, death entered into the world through the sin of one person. If Eve had not sinned by disobeying God and eating of the forbidden fruit, there would be no death. At the point where Eve is speaking with the serpent, therefore, God has two options: either He can take a pro-choice stand and protect Eve’s right to choose even though this may result in the deaths of her as-yet-unborn children, or He can take a pro-life/anti-choice stand, deny Eve her right to choose, and thus prevent the deaths of her as-yet-unborn children.  Under these circumstances, God clearly regards the woman’s right to choose as being of greater value, and more necessary to protect. He takes the pro-choice option, Eve makes her choice, and as a result her yet-to-be-born offspring are doomed to death.

Some will, of course, protest that this isn’t the same thing as abortion, and I agree. Abortion only affects the offspring’s physical body, whereas the Bible tells us that Eve’s decision not only led to the inevitable physical deaths of all mortal humans, but tainted their souls as well, thus putting them in danger of eternal torment and separation from God, a fate which most men are doomed to suffer. And God still upheld the woman’s right to choose as being more precious.

Frankly, I’m not sure I can be as solidly pro-choice as God. I can’t say that I agree that He picked the right option in Genesis 3. Some choices should be limited on account of the impact they have on the lives of others, and besides, He could have let Eve exercise her free choice by giving her two good options to choose from instead of one good option and one disastrous one. But it’s nice to see that the Bible, at least, is unambiguous about where God stands on the question of a woman’s right to choose. Whatever restrictions mortal men may place on freedom of choice, God supports the freedom to choose, even when lives (and souls!) are at stake.


  1. Randomfactor says

    I am SO using this argument in the future. Kudos. God IS pro-choice, no question. Or would be if he existed.

    (Of course, chosing to believe in the existence of a god who behaves as the Old Testament deity reportedly did is a one-way ticket to hell, so there’s a Commandment 22 situation here.

  2. Glodson says

    If the news gets out that God is pro-choice, I’m going to have to listen to the GOP candidates trip over themselves to be the first that the US plans a tactical nuclear strike on Heaven.

    Funnily enough, I see no downside to this.

  3. Stevarious says

    Not to mention Exodus 21:22-24 clearly states that causing the death of an unborn fetus merely incurs a fine, whereas is the mother is also harmed, “you are to take life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot…”

    This to me clearly states that biblically, the life of the fetus is not worth the life of the mother. It’s clear – if the fetus dies – money. If the mother dies, you die.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *