Theologically Sound. Culturally Relevant.

Benjamin Watson

Benjamin Watson Claims Abortion is Systemic Racism. Is it really though?

In the realm of pro-life activism, there is no shortage of subverters to the cause of life. Many seek to infuse feminism as a means of absolving women of moral culpability to procuring the murder of their unborn child. Others seek to dilute the issue of life by making everything a “pro-life” issue. Then there are those who blame racism for the prevalence of abortion in America, particularly its prevalence amongst the black community. Often, these talking points come from so-called “black Christians.” This rhetoric was espoused by Woke Church author Eric Mason with Allen Parr. But more recently, it has been posited by former NFL tight end Benjamin Watson.

Benjamin Watson is known for transitioning his NFL career into a supposed pro-life activist, yet he also peddles Critical Race Theory and Social Justice under the guise of Christianity. Against those who disagree with Watson on matters of race, he will accuse them of racism. He even redefined “woke” so that any who employ the term as a pejorative are harboring “the residue of anti-blackness.” Now that he is promoting his latest book, The New Fight for Life: Roe, Race, and a Pro-Life Commitment to Justice, Watson is taking the lead for merging Critical Race Theory and Social Justice with the Pro-Life movement to advance his post-Roe agenda.

And what better platform for the millionaire athlete to air his racial grievances than on Russell Moore’s Christianity Today podcast?

The Unprepared Church

Following the introduction, one of the early themes of the podcast is the notion that “the church is not ready to actually deal with the real human needs that people face.” Without citation, Watson asserts that a recent poll found that “less than 10% of churchgoers have even heard a sermon about the issue of abortion.” Watson would go on to blame the charged partisan divide on abortion for the church’s failure to properly address the issue.

This issue has become so politically charged in our American context that immediately when you say abortion, even at a church, it’s either going to be Democrat or Republican or independent and a lot of folks don’t want to deal with that. And that’s unfortunate because in the crossfire and the collateral damage are the preborn children, and the women, and the men who are facing these decisions. When we as a body are really addressing it the way that we should because the culture has taken it and made it something that is not.

If a church is not addressing the issue of abortion, then that is not a real church. But this is the liberal doublespeak that the progressives in the church often employ: both the church is not doing anything at all, and there needs to be more support for the mothers. This doublespeak is especially evident later in the podcast when Moore cites the 2700 pregnancy centers and Watson asserts that it is easier for Christians to talk about abortion than sins in their own life, in which he is referring to racism. Pro-Life pregnancy centers exist, so this notion that the Church was unprepared for the overturn of Roe v Wade is a canard, because the infrastructure was already in place through pregnancy centers, adoption agencies, and other ministries which many American churches sponsor.

Women are Victims Narrative

One of the most subversive misconceptions regarding abortion is that the mother is also a victim, and therefore should not be held responsible for her actions, especially not criminally. While Russell Moore acknowledges that the majority of abortions are chemical abortions (mifepristone), where the mother is the abortionist, he still proceeds to express sympathy for the mothers who murder their children in the womb.

But a lot of the people in abortion clinics or taking abortion drugs are pro-life in the sense that they don’t deny that what they’re doing is an act of violence. They just think they have no other choice.

The mere acknowledgement of a fetus being a life does not negate the gruesome violence abortion entails, whether in a clinic through surgical procedure or at home with a pill. There was always another option, beginning with that of abstinence—that is not committing the sin of fornication in the first place. Then there is protection, which many of these women were not using during the sexual act leading to the abortion. But they had no other choice. It is not that they are ignorant of whether a fetus is a life, it is just that they either do not care, or believe their circumstances outweigh their responsibilities.

Watson would go on to cite his own Human Coalition’s statistic:

76% of abortion determined women say that they would prefer to parent. If their circumstances were different…many of them would say, look, if financially I was stable, if my relationship with the father was stable, if I had adequate housing, if I had a livable wage, if I had perhaps more education or childcare so that I could go to work, if I had healthcare, there are all these reasons people give. And I think part of the argument and part of the compassion that we as pro-life should have is to say for that person, those are very, very real, tangible reasons.

Why were the women unconcerned with these problems BEFORE they had irresponsible sex with an irresponsible man? It is only when faced with the consequences of their sin, they choose murder as the easier alternative. Even if they had all these things: first of all, their poor life decisions resulted in this predicament; second, they would still choose to abort because it remains the most convenient option. Watson’s statistic is a lie that is propagated to engender sympathy towards the mothers. Cynically speaking, it could be a ploy for fundraising because it engenders sympathy. Throwing money at the mothers is not going to “make abortion unthinkable” when murder is always the cheaper option.

According to the pro-abortion Guttmacher Institute, 45% of abortion customers reported having at least one prior abortion. Nearly half of abortions are repeat customers. Exposing the disgusting nature of homosexuality led to societal backlash. How much more public support to end abortion would there be if the pro-life movement exposed the true heart of the recalcitrant mother seeking her second abortion? The pro-life industry’s refusal to acknowledge the prevalence of repeat customers is to its own detriment.

Abortion in the Black Community

Then the conversation shifts towards the prevalence of abortion in the black community.

Well, if black women earn almost $0.58 on the dollar to the white male counterparts for the same job and the same education and these same black women are three to four times more likely to have abortion than their white counterparts, you tell me that this issue isn’t connected to life. And I think in this what I call new fight for life. You know, the pro-life movement needs to understand that. These different justice issues will have some sort of impact on the abortion rates…because they impact mothers and the impact fathers and the impact communities that are suffering from the stain of abortion. We can’t ignore those things.

The income disparity between black women and white men does not consider career or education, so Watson is deceptive again in using an outdated, unintelligent talking point. Furthermore, this transitions into an “every issue is a life issue” talking point to blame those who are against abortion for not supporting expanded government program.

Watson then advocates that governments ought to better fund education initiatives, tax credits, and criminal justice reform. Ironically, on the issue of education and tax credits, then Watson should be supporting conservatives, who have a tendency to value students over teacher unions and believe in tax credits for childrearing. Meanwhile, letting prisoners out of jails, under the guise of criminal justice reform, has done wonders for America’s crime rates.

Russell Moore would then lament the maternal and infant mortality in Mississippi being the highest in the nation, which they decry as being caused by a lack of healthcare. Mississippi is the most obese state in America, so if healthcare in Mississippi, which has the highest percent of blacks of any state (37.8%), is to be improved, then diet and exercise must be at the forefront, not more healthcare programs.

Watson’s book apparently employs the phrase “Jubilant Justice” which is just Social Justice rebranded. Russell Moore than posits the question of abortion being a systemic issue in the black community, claiming that white people acknowledge its prevalence yet deny systemic racism, to which Watson answers:

The funnel that feeds the abortion industry is the racism or the structural racism in America…I have to faithfully deal with an industry that that, yes, goes where people are vulnerable and disproportionately those people are black. But I also have to say, ‘why can they do that in the first place?’ Well, they can do that because of a history and a litany of policies that have been discriminatory, policies that have stripped the ability to build wealth, ongoing residential segregation, the host of other things that has happened in this country and has continued to happen in this country… And the two are benefiting from each other and it is unhelpful. And I found it to be actually insulting when people can identify one but won’t look at the other.

Basically, black people are victims and murder their children because of white supremacy. The systemic racism he describes addressed decades ago or is outright false. Housing policies have been long gone and residential segregation is likely due to poor credit when applying for mortgages. Poor decisions, like irresponsible sex, drug use, and criminal activity are more prevalent amongst the black community. Thomas Sowell writes about in Discrimination and Disparities that materialism is behind the inability of the black community to build generational wealth and that the impact of slavery has been nonexistent for a century. Rather than address the sins of the black community, it is easier for a millionaire athlete to blame systemic racism than to combat the subcultural attitudes that stem from gangster culture, rap music, racial idolatry, fatherlessness, and anti-whiteism.

Moreover, maybe white people do not see abortion as a systemic issue because the black community has supported abortion at every possible juncture throughout the past fifty years. Roe v Wade was overturned with virtually minimal support from the black community who votes 90% Democrat in each election cycle. During the 2022 elections, 90% of black women voted for abortion in Michigan’s Prop 3, so when the issue itself is on the ballot, it receives overwhelming support. Watson and Moore can claim racism all they want, but the truth remains that the black community overwhelmingly supports infanticide. Rather than address the sin within this communities, they would rather blame “the systems” and treat wicked hearts as victims.

Where are the men?

One of the final thoughts in the interview is a question posited by Russell Moore:

How do we get men to see where they fit in this and how do we get the church to really equip men to be able to learn how to be parents and to and to take responsibility and so forth?

Watson proceeds to claim that men were silent on the issue of abortion because it is a women’s issue and also cites guilt from past mistreatment.

Deep down inside so many men wonder if they have what it takes to be the men that they desire to be because most of them want to be good dads. And so specifically when it comes to abortion, when people say, “you know, it’s not a man’s issue,” sometimes that comes from hurt, honestly, and there are a lot of women who say that and they deserve to be heard. We’ve treated them terribly. We’ve disrespected them in so many ways. We have run over them. We have left them. We have treated them horribly. And so it makes sense for them to have that sort of sentiment…You’ve got to be willing to be honest and challenge other men and challenge ourselves when it comes to using our voice, using our actions, using our hands and feet to really show what this means.

While society has browbeaten men into believing abortion to be a women’s issue, this is the fruit of feminism. Watson and Moore’s conflation of men who desire to be husbands and fathers with abortion fails to address the blue haired landwhale in the room. Those quality Christian guys that they proceed to describe are not going to be interested in those abortion customers who do not value life and have high body counts. It is a complete non sequitur to avoid blaming the women for the sins they uniquely commit.

There will always be men who desire sex. Prostitution is often called the world’s oldest profession. On Seinfeld, Elaine famously quipped, “To a woman, sex is like the garbage man. You just take for granted the fact that any time you put some trash out on the street, a guy in a jumpsuit’s gonna come along and pick it up.”

It takes no effort for a woman to be a whore, yet Feminism would call this empowerment.

Conclusion

Abortion is a moral hazard that fuels promiscuity and prevents the formation of family units. Treating women as victims of abortions is not Christ-like, nor are black women victims of abortion that they perpetuate as both customers and voters. Benjamin Watson blames racism for abortion in the black community to the detriment of his own community. And tragically, he is not alone in this folly.

Support the Evangelical Dark Web

By becoming a member of Evangelical Dark Web, you get access to more content, help drive the direction of our research, and support the operations of the ministry.
Receive the Evangelical Dark Web Newsletter

Bypass Big Tech censorship, and get Christian news in your inbox directly.

Facebook
Twitter
Telegram
Reddit
LinkedIn

7 Responses

  1. Excellent article.

    Not a single one of their arguments makes a distinction between the born and unborn. They could argue the very same things to try to justify the murder of a 2, 5, 10, 50, or 100 year old who is construed to be a burden or inconvenience. Their “reasoning” is essentially that murder should not be an illegal punishable offense, but that the focus should rather be on trying to prevent it.

    And that, of course, runs entirely counter to the Biblical principle that one is innocent until proven guilty. Presumption of innocence in our legal system is directly derived from scripture.

    They need to understand that the reason it is ultimately marxist and totalitarian is that the ends of such a “pre-crime”, pre-emptive, preventative approach to crime and sin, essentially amounts to presumption of guilt. Since no crime or sin can be fully prevented, because of the fallen state of mankind, such pre-emptive efforts can only lead to totalitarianism and total slavery. Right, the government could just about lock some people into a padded isolation cell, in a straight jacket, feeding them nothing but pudding, and they’d still find a way to harm themselves or someone else. There is no end to it.

    It’s essentially a shakedown which says, “give me more and do more for me, or I will murder this child”, and “if you don’t, then it’s your fault that I murdered this child”. There is no end to that either, because no matter how much is given or done, it is never enough.

    Their arguments are clearly and unquestionably antithetical to scripture.

    1 Timothy 5 talks about how to deal with those who are genuinely in need.

    Take helping widows, for example. If you ask most professing Christians they won’t know what the Bible actually says about it. But the Bible says, among other criteria, that is she has family it is her family’s responsibility to care for her, and that her family should be compelled to fulfil that responsibility.

    Verse 16 says let the church not be burdened by trying to take care of people who are not truly in need of help. If they can do for themselves and/or they have family to care for them, then it is not the responsibility of other believers. We can help if we want, but we are not compelled to do so, and should not do so in a way that encourages others to abandon their responsibilities to the Lord and to their family.

    God’s word is very clear. Our first and foremost responsibility is to our own family. And you have to wonder about some wealthy individuals, such as Moore and Watson, if what’s driving them deep down is their own desire to avoid that responsibility to the Lord and to try to shift it to others by wrongly falsely accusing, shaming, and blaming.

    ” 7 Command these things as well, so that they may be without reproach. 8 But if anyone does not provide for his relatives, and especially for members of his household, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever.” – 1 Tim. 5:7-8

    1. That is not to say that preventative measures are not good. The ultimate preventative measure being, of course, the Gospel itself, and the resultant transformation of the heart and mind of believers through the Holy Spirit. As we all know, that’s ultimately the problem. It’s a heart problem.

      But it is to say that preventative measures must end where they begin to conflict with scripture. They can only go so far. And that prevention alone is not a Biblical approach. Presumption of innocence must be maintained. There must also be punishment, and allowance of consequences.

  2. Of course, in very typical fashion, they will argue that the government should do this or that on Biblical grounds, while demonizing and decrying “theocracy!” and attacking any and all who would desire to see this nation become a Christian nation.

    When it comes to social programs, they quote scripture like there’s no tomorrow. Yet when it comes to things like the imposition of abominable sin, the murder of the unborn, and so on, they turn a complete 180 degrees. And in so doing, they’re essentially just tossing out the Bible altogether and making it up as they go.

    The fact of the matter is that unless they are prepared to make the United States a truly Christian nation, the responsibilities and obligations of the church cannot be transferred to government.

    1 Tim. 5, and many other scriptures, are clear on that fact also. It is the church’s (Believers) responsibility to care for fellow believers in need. But only those who are truly in need, such that the church will not be unduly burdened.

    The passage, and other scripture, is also clear that charitable efforts are first and foremost to be directed toward our nearest fellow believers in need. Not some unbelieving, pagan, roman citizen living in some other part of the world.

    At no place in scripture does it say that caring for fellow believers in need is the responsibility of Caesar, taxpayers as a whole, unbelievers. It is not in there.

    The short of it is that if they want to apply the scripture nationally, and transfer the church’s responsibilities to government, then they are going to need to join in the efforts to officially declare this a Christian nation. It either is or it isn’t. There’s no in between. There’s no cherry-picking. It’s either all of God’s standards, which all work as a whole, or there is no scriptural argument to be made concerning government programs.

  3. And, of course, that Biblical principle that a man is first and foremost responsible to care for his household and relatives, and second for fellow believers nearby, is otherwise known as “patriarchy”

    Interference with that God-ordained directive, attempting to change those priorities which God set forth, unjustly taking from a man on the insistence that his foremost responsibility is someone in need on the other side of the planet, is nothing short of an excuse for theft.

    Yet, to completely cover the issue, it is also necessary to address the role of the wealthy.

    “17 As for the rich in this present age, charge them not to be haughty, nor to set their hopes on the uncertainty of riches, but on God, who richly provides us with everything to enjoy. 18 They are to do good, to be rich in good works, to be generous and ready to share, 19 thus storing up treasure for themselves as a good foundation for the future, so that they may take hold of that which is truly life.” – 1 Tim. 6:17-19

    This is what wealthy men such as Moore and Watson are obligated to do. Not to burden those who are not wealthy with obligations that are antithetical to scripture, but to get off their posteriors and use the Lord’s money, to be a good steward of that which He has entrusted them, as He requires.

    In trying to find that scripture, as I often do because I can’t remember the exact reference, I stumbled across this:

    “26 For consider your calling, brothers: not many of you were wise according to worldly standards, not many were powerful, not many were of noble birth. 27 But God chose what is foolish in the world to shame the wise; God chose what is weak in the world to shame the strong; 28 God chose what is low and despised in the world, even things that are not, to bring to nothing things that are, 29 so that no human being might boast in the presence of God. 30 And because of him you are in Christ Jesus, who became to us wisdom from God, righteousness and sanctification and redemption, 31 so that, as it is written, “Let the one who boasts, boast in the Lord.”’ (1 Cor. 1:26-31)

    In other words, God has specifically ensured that worldly standards and leaning on our own understanding will inevitably fail. He has intentionally made it such that only His standards will work. And that is exactly why adherence to scripture is of the upmost importance. Nothing else will work, because God will not allow anything else to work.

  4. Ultimately their argument boils down to the notion that God’s standards are racist.

    And this is why many on all “sides” need to clearly understand that ethnos is not the same as skin color, nor is there any distinction of skin color in terms of who are the fellow believers in need who are nearest to us for whom we are responsible. Both “sides” need to quit trying to drag skin color into it, in defiance of scripture. Don’t even talk about it. It’s irrelevant. And making it an issue when it is not an issue from a Biblical standpoint, is counterproductive. It only makes matters worse.

    In my household there are four children with black blood. My sister’s children and grandchildren. They are my ethnos. They are a part of my household. They are my relatives. They are my first and foremost responsibility. And I joyfully and gratefully work to care for them. It’s a lot of work, but I wouldn’t call it a burden. Nobody around here talks about, thinks about, or even cares about skin color. We’re family.

    It doesn’t have a flipping thing to do with race or skin color.

    I could go on all day, but I’d better stop. I need to get some work done for my family. 🙂

    1. That household, btw, includes a grandchild who was born of rape.

      I’m not hearing it from the likes of Moore and Watson, falsely accusing, pointing fingers. All talk and no walk. As far as I’m concerned, they can go fly a kite.

      I’ve busted my tail for decades, to fulfill my obligations to the Lord. I walk it. I live it.

Leave a Reply

Get Evangelical Dark Web Newsletter

Bypass Big Tech censorship, and get Christian news in your inbox directly.

Join 5,117 other subscribers

Trending Posts