Apologist Damon Richardson Says Abortion is Acceptable If ‘What is Born is a Complete Monstrosity’
Damon Richardson is the founder of UrbanLogia Ministries, a “Christian theological and apologetics resource that specializes in Urban Apologetics which seeks to dispel myths and untruths about Christianity, equip believers to intelligently articulate the basis of their faith, develop a solid systematic theology and doctrinal foundation and to help them become conversant with the various theologies, ideologies and worldviews that oppose the Christian faith.”
Having pastored churches in Brooklyn, New York, Michigan, and in Florida, he’s also part of ‘Conscious Christianity‘ a “collective of educators who teach biblical truth using a unique mixture of culture, faith, social awareness, history, and scholarship.” and has been featured several times on the Jude 3 Project.
During a recent episode of his show, he shares his view that “as a Christian, it is ungodly, it is divisive, it is unholy, it is sinful to… say that a Christian voting for a Democratic candidate has aligned himself or herself with the devil, that they’ve committed a sin, that they can’t truly be Christians and all kinds of other stuff.”
I don’t believe in abortion. I think abortion, I believe, biblically, that abortion is immoral.
There are very few acceptable reasons for it. Obviously, if it’s a mother needs to save her life- we got to abort the baby or the mother is going to die- that would be an acceptable reason for it.There are acceptable reasons for it mind you, if what is born is a complete monstrosity. And that does happen every now and again. Yeah, that would be, because it doesn’t, it won’t have any viable life, it’ll be born alive but it’s a monstrosity. That would be an acceptable reason, right? There are acceptable reasons.
He continues:
I don’t believe in abortion, but don’t sit here and tell me that every election comes down to what a candidate actually believes about abortion. And I’m going to tell you why that’s wrong. Number one, while abortion is a quality of life kind of issue, it ignores the fact that there are other quality of life issues that are equally pressing and of equal concern to other people. That sometimes the candidate who may believe in abortion actually cares about those other concerns. And the candidate who doesn’t believe in abortion doesn’t care about those other concerns.
h/t Saiko Woods
About Author
Our quality of life is up to the Lord. We must trust Him to take care of it. Failure to trust Him to take care of us and to do what is best for us (and He knows far better than we do), will inevitably cause one to stray in the wrong direction. His arguments could easily be construed to convey a message that it is acceptable to murder another human being in order to improve or sustain your own quality of life. Such a statement is substantially worse coming from someone who presumably understands there is no moral distinction of personhood inside or outside the womb, than it would be were it made by someone who believed such a distinction existed. It shows why lukewarm is worse than cold.
Interestingly Jude 3 is mentioned, which essentially says there are wicked ones who pervert the grace of God into a license for immorality, when a wrong vote could do precisely that. If you claim God’s grace to cover your vote, while lending license and approval to immorality, then Jude 3 might as well be talking about you. In many places the scripture says it is a sin to support, revel in, delight in sin, or otherwise give approval to sin. Obviously it is wrong to convey a message, in any manner, word or deed, to any degree, that sin is acceptable. At that point, you have set yourself at odds with, and against, God’s Word, against Him, in defiance to His authority. You’re sending a message, and making a statement, that is contrary to God’s Word.
So absolutely, and there is no doubt in my mind, if a vote would amount to giving approval of sin in any manner, much less supporting it, encouraging it, promoting it, respecting it, etc, then that vote would indeed be a sinful act. And that applies regardless of party, candidate, platform, or any other factors.
Of course, I’m preaching to the choir. We all know and understand the false dilemma we face every election cycle. Mr. Richardson is getting caught up in it, falling into the trap of arguing over which is the lesser of two evils, competing for a given side, and that is something we are all guilty of, at one time or another, to some degree. And we need to stop it.
What does Jude 3 say. What should we be earnestly contending for?
The verse in mind was Jude 4. I was thinking of the passage as a whole, and didn’t get the verse numbers correct. The point is, many miss the most obvious point of the passage – why did Jude say to earnestly contend for the faith. The reason is given.