Rush Limbaugh: “You know how to stop abortion? Require that each one occur with a gun.”

Rush Limbaugh: “You know how to stop abortion? Require that each one occur with a gun.” January 17, 2013

I didn’t say it. Rush did. That’s Rush Limbaugh for those on the left coast.

You know how to stop abortion? Require that each one occur with a gun. ~ Rush Limbaugh, show archive, Jan. 16, 2013

I know some of you, even some of my friends here on the Evangelical portal here at Patheos won’t like me saying it — but Rush is right on this one. Lost amid all the clamor about gun control efforts to supposedly protect children is the fact that we brutally kill thousands of children every day via abortion, children who never even make it to Kindergarten.

One reason we have become so tolerant of the horrific slaughter of our children is that those responsible for the decision (mothers and fathers) don’t have to actually pull the trigger or even see the jarring consequences of their life-ending decision. We have sanitized the process to hide the simple fact that a child dies when an abortion occurs just as surely as by a bullet.

How many parents would “have an abortion” (a euphemistic salve if ever there was one) if it had to be done with a Beretta 9 millimeter?

It’s the same reality behind the Old Testament requirement that parents must be the first to cast the stone to execute their own rebellious children. Talk about incentive to “train them up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord!” 

I’m not advocating that we return to that approach or even evaluating the wisdom of it here as it applies to parenting and societal justice. But the fact is that when we have to come face-to-face with the consequences of our decisions, we make different decisions. It’s the same way with abortion.

Rush is right.

I know we’re all supposed to be loving these days, which means to some people of faith that we should not be pointing out the horrific consequences of the evil of abortion in away that doesn’t play well with a God-despising media. But showing pictures of charred Jewish bodies or starving children in concentration camps would not have been all that seeker-friendly either.

Still it might have saved a lot of children. Children like yours and mine and those precious souls at Sandy Hook.

If one abortion — one — got the media coverage given to the massacre at Sandy Hook, we would all likely puke — and then hurl Roe vs. Wade away in furious disgust.

Someday. Soon. Merciful God, may it be soon.

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!

What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • Every Woman

    Shame on you! Your disgusting disregard for women is appalling. Rush is not right, he is a pathetic, hate monger who disrespects women. Your support of his hate taints you and your self righteous patriarchal nonsense. You do not speak for God, you speak for yourself and you are promoting violence against women. Who are you to decide that a embryo has more value than a living, contributing woman? Who are you to define the moral compass of life? My God values women and would never condone the words of Rush Limbaugh or you. I am horrified by your vile words.

    • I think, perhaps, that you are making an assumption Rush and I did not make. His comment would not presuppose the harming of the mother in any way. At present, other tools are used to end the child’s life. Rush is simply suggesting that if a gun were used, it would bring people face to face with the reality of their decision to end a life.

      I am not attempting to define your moral compass. I believe that God has given both the woman and the unborn child equal value.

  • Luvenia

    Like Rush, you are one sick, VERY sick man and you are NO Christian!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  • Jon Kapecki

    Your disgusting, Bill.

  • Diane Diggs

    Isn’t it funny that you and other Christians like you, find nothing wrong with Rush Limbaugh’s very offensive remark. In fact, you believe he is right on the money. Not that any of you would actually shoot a pregnant women who requested an abortion, but I’m sure such an act would be shrugged. Just as you most likely shrugged off, if not actually praised, the murder of Dr. George Tiller. He was, as well as a family doctor, an abortion provider in Wichita, Kansas. This is why “Christians”, like Catholics, aren’t as well respected as they used to be. You speak of love and forgiveness, but only for your own religious population. Do you think God would appreciate Rush’s callous remarks? Or the murder of Dr. George Tiller in his house of worship, amongst his family and friends?

    • Diane, in spite of your baselss assumption of hate toward women on my part, I actually think Jesus himself migth have made such acomment. He often spoke truth in away that jarred the established thinking of the day and shocked hearers — for example, his suggesting that anyone who harms a child should tkae along walk off a short pier with a big rock around his or her neck.

      I did not, nor did Rush suggest shooting a pregnant woman. And to be “sure” that such an act would be “shrugged” simply betrays your own bias toward those who oppose abortion.

      And I’m sorry, but I just do not buy this reasoning, very popular at present, that says Christians aren’t popular these days because they speak the truth. 1) If that is true, it’s exactly what Jesus said would happen, but 2) the slide into the moral cavity we are in began when Christians did NOT speak truth to culture, when they embraced asplit thinking that caused them to generally withdraw from the public square. Instead, most of them were busy getting ready for a Rapture or accumulating wealth in pursuit of the American dream.

      Would you suggest that Christians should not speak about what they believe? Are you suggesting that they be silenced like Lou Giglio was for speaking commonly accepted doctrines of Christianity? Tolerance, it seems, is a one-way street.

      Thank you for your comment, even if we do disagree.

    • Diane, by the way, I neglected to ask, what exactly do you find offensive about the remark?

      • Jennifer

        I’m not sure what image was in Rush’s mind when he suggested using guns for abortions. Unfortunately, most women probably took him to mean that they should be shot. I did.

  • Steve Ruble

    Imagine this scene: 100 people stand in a circle around a man while he cuts off a child’s head and throws it in a dumpster. The people tell him to stop, some of them yell, some of them even have signs, but none of them physically intervene to stop the man. They don’t even intervene while they watch one mother after another bring her child to have him or her decapitated by this man. The surrounding crowd just yells and screams and… watches.

    What do you think of the morals of that crowd? Do you think it’s likely that such a thing could happen? Do you think that a crowd of people would just stand around knowing that a child was being murdered just a few yards away?

    I don’t think so. I think people would do anything in their power to stop such a series of brutal murders; I think people would be willing to risk injury or even death to stop such a thing. Yet that scene /allegedly/ happens every day at abortion clinics around the country. People stand around and yell while – they say – children are murdered. There are two possible conclusions you can draw about these people: either they are pathetic cowards who are unwilling to risk injury or prison time to save the lives of children, or they don’t actually believe abortion is murder. Which do you think is more likely?

    • Jennifer

      I know how to stop abortion! Shoot the _____s off any man who won’t agree to take all responsibility for the care of his baby! Think of all the future unwanted pregnancies that could be avoided! (This is not a serious proposal – picture me rolling my eyes as I type this).

      The problem (one of many) with the solution endorsed by Rush and Bill is that not only will it not stop abortions ( do they know the extreme measures women take in areas where abortion is illegal. – swallowing lye? Coat hangers? Etc.), but it once again places the consequences solely on the Mother while Dad – presumably – is not shot in the gut. Or maybe Rush was only proposing we first remove the fetus from the womb and then have the Mom and Dad shoot it?

      I think that one of the reasons that we don’t react to early abortions in the same way that we do to the murder of schoolchildren is that many of us, if given a Sophie’s choice” of choosing to save our unborn child or choosing a child we’ve already held, loved, cuddled and cared for, would choose our born child. And most women don’t mourn an early miscarriage as much as they mourn the death of a child. I’m not saying it isn’t devastating – I know that it is from personal experience – but I can’t even imagine the pain I would feel if my son died.

      • Jen,

        While I wouldn’t advocate for the exact prescription you give — you violent man-hater! (Joke!) — I do think that fathers should be held responsible to a far greater degree. But that would hardly fit with the feminist movement to free women from such oppressive chains would it? It wasn’t so long agao that society did, infact, pressure men to take responsibility for their actions. We bemoan absentee fatehrs, yet we protest when they step up to take responsibility. Ideas have consequences, as we are prone to say around here.

        Yes, I was assuming that the mother would not be harmed physically in the process, that the child/fetus would be removed first, of course. My point was that we have detached the decision makers from the reality of the consequences of the decision. We have sanitized it to make it socially acceptable to do the unthinkable. And coat hangers and lye? Seriously, Jen. Such reports are greatly exaggerated and irrelevant to the question. The answer to that problem is simple — don’t try to kill the child depending on you for life. There is always another way.

        I agree that the more emotional attachment we have with our children, the greater the pain. That’s to be expected. But it doesn’t change the moral reality of the decision. If that child/fetus is not a child, what difference does it make the instruments that are used to end it’s life?

        Now about that solution for dead-beat dads, I’m thinking that if we use a shotgun…. Where are the dad-beat-dads-rights people when you need them?

        • Jennifer

          I agree that there needs to be a higher level of reality when it comes to abortion. It greatly upsets me to think that a life could be taken for convenience sake. But I don’t think that having a man or a women shoot the embryo or fetus would stop much of anything. Why, you ask? For the same reason that many people think it’s ok to shoot the burglar coming into their house (and, no, I don’t think that a baby is the same as a burglar). An unwanted baby is often perceived as a threat. He or She might be seen as a threat to financial security, a threat to a planned lifestyle and “choice”, or a threat to a relationship. He or She might also be seen to threaten the well-being of existing children in cases where money is really tight. And what does our society tell us to do about threats? Certainly not to care about them.

          Abortion rates are pretty much the same in countries where they are legal and “sanitized” and in countries where they are illegal and very much less sanitized.. if we really want to stop abortions we have to change the way people perceive their unwanted pregnancy. We have to provide support and non-lethal options. And we have to find ways to stop people from having an unwanted pregnancy in the first place.

      • Andrew Patton

        The murder of a stranger doesn’t result in the same emotional reaction as the murder of a close friend. That’s natural, because the latter severs an emotional bond that doesn’t exist in the case of the former. Of course an early miscarriage doesn’t affect parents the same way that the death of a born child does, because they have years of memories and bonds with the born child. The loss is the same, but the more lives have been touched by the deceased, and the more time the deceased touched others, the more deeply the loss is felt. Millions mourned Michael Jackson, but the human race suffers no lesser loss when a drug-addicted prostitute loved by no one overdoses in the middle of the night. Ask not for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee.

    • Joe Canner

      Steve, that’s an interesting and provocative question. And while we’re talking about Rush equating gun violence with abortion, allow me to suggest a modification to your parable. Since there is a significant overlap between the NRA (which proposes arming everyone to protect school students from mass shootings) and the pro-life movement, there need not even be any need to “risk injury or even death.” Just shoot the doctor and/or the mother; that should take care of it.

      • Umm, Joe. If I may step in here. The NRA is not proposing arming everyone — as our Founders did and, in fact, required. Only a few trained personnel. Try getting into any key government building and you’ll find such armed guards already in place. Are congressmen of more value than our children?

        And I am horrified — disgusted! — that you would suggest murdering a poor women struggling with such a painful life decision and a doctor just trying to make a living! How dare you suggest something so horrific to make your point! You are obviously the reason people have abortions in the first place — haters like you make all the hate happen.

        Where is the love?!!

        OK. I hope you will forgive my sarcastic tirade, Joe. Truly I do. Trying to make a point but, perhaps, bungling it in the process. My apologies if that is so.

        • Joe Canner

          Bill, I understand that the NRA and others have made proposals regarding posting armed guards at schools. I don’t have much of an objection to that, although I wonder how it will be paid for. However, I’m sure you are aware of the NRA rhetoric that suggests that our society would be safer if more private citizens were armed. Whether this is empirically true is a matter of debate. However, I don’t see any Scriptural basis for such a thing. The arming of private citizens is more what I am concerned about in the above comment as well as my other response to you earlier.

          Yes, I understood your tirade to be sarcasm, as I assume you understood mine to be. No apology necessary.

    • In a word, yes. I do think it likely that such a thing could happen. It has happened often throughout history. Most people will look the other way if it doesn’t directly affect their life. Most of us are pathetic cowards unwilling to risk any inconvenience to avoid confrontation and conflict.

      But you are setting up a false dichotomy. Someone can believe that murder is taking place but think that they have no credible options for taking action to stop it. For example, if I am standing in that crowd with my children and I know with great certainty that they will be left without a father and possibly skilled next asa result of my stepping forward — and that my stepping forward will not stop the murder of the chidlren — would I/should I step forward? Your scenario assumes there are not other moral obligations to consider. Maybe Ghandi would have stepped forward. I’m not so sure I would or most other people would. That doesn’t change their belief that murder is taking place. (Although it does give a good argument against gun control. One person with a Beretta in your scenario could save a lot of lives.)

      It is the rightful duty of the government — its first duty — to protect the inalienable rigth to life. When it fails to do so, it puts citizens in such paralyzing lose/lose situations. That doesn’t mean someone doesn’t think murder is taking place. It means they feel helpless to do anything to stop it.

      Remember Operation Rescue? Such efforts did put people in jail as they tied to intervene through civil disobedience. (I’m not talking about wackos on the fringes blowing up stuff.) But I know of kids who grew up without parents for awhile because of it. The results were not pretty.

      Perhaps you can help me on this: why the offense at the comment by so many? If the end is the same — the death of the child/termination of the pregancy, why do the means matter if the mother’s physical health is not affected and if it is, in fact, not a child?

      • Joe Canner

        Wow, I was being sarcastic about shooting doctors who do abortions, but here you are suggesting that such a thing would be a good idea! I know that pre-emptive violence is a popular concept these days and we could argue all day about whether governments have the right and/or responsibility to engage in it, but where in the New Testament do you see any justification for private citizens engaging in violence to achieve an end, even preventing murder?

      • Steve Ruble

        “Maybe Ghandi would have stepped forward. I’m not so sure I would or most other people would.”

        Bill, there are millions of people – firefighters, police officers, or coasties, for example – who risk their lives every day to save or protect other people. There are millions of people around the world who risk injury, or imprisonment, or death, in demonstrations against injustice and cruelty. But strangely enough, here in America we have a large group of people who say they believe there is an ongoing holocaust in this country, yet almost none of them are willing to risk imprisonment in order to slow it down.

        “Remember Operation Rescue? Such efforts did put people in jail as they tied to intervene through civil disobedience. (I’m not talking about wackos on the fringes blowing up stuff.) But I know of kids who grew up without parents for awhile because of it. The results were not pretty.”

        This is exactly what I mean. It is simply bizarre to say, “We ought not do everything in our power to prevent the mass murder of children, because if we did we might make a few other children’s childhoods unpleasant.” The ease with which you prioritize the parenting needs of a few children over the lives of many aborted fetuses effectively demonstrates that you don’t actually think of those fetuses as children. And the fact that you describe people who blow up abortion clinics as “wackos” shows that you don’t really think that abortion is murder – unless you would also describe WWII resistance fighters in France as “wackos” for blowing up German facilities. If there were a building in your town where people were routinely murdered every day then blowing it up would be the morally right, noble, and praiseworthy thing to do. Do you disagree?

  • Scott

    Wow Bill. They are saying some ugly things to you. I was in the progressive Christian blog a few days ago and they were the same way.

  • Doug

    If you listen enough to Rush you know he uses absurdity to make a point. The point is thousands of children are dying through abortion and no one notices. Linking abortion to guns was done only to point out the hypocrisy that exists in today’s society.
    The only deaths the media notices are those that advance their addenda.

    • Scott

      I agree Doug and well put.

  • Rick

    The number of abortions is going down.

  • Joseph A

    We live in a society where 18 years is considered to be adulthood, but biology equips human beings for procreation as young as 13. Our society could accommodate that a century ago, when people married at 14, had 7 or 8 children hoping that 2 or 3 would survive, and die at 40, but our society hasn’t kept up with biology.

    Perhaps, Rev. Blankschaen – perhaps – if far-right Evangelicals would drop their strident opposition to any form of sex education and contraception, perhaps abortions could be the rare occurrences we ALL wish they would be.

    • Joseph, Not a Rev., just an FYI, but I hardly think there remain many barriers to sex ed and contraceptive availability today. That simply isn’t the problem. But you make a good point about the age thing in our culture.

  • Jay Saldana

    Hi Bill! ( I know you have missed me). You surprise me sometimes. Look I know “Rush” since the days of CompuServe and lunch rooms with Rush on speaker. He is a marketing giant but a moral midget. He cares only about making “his base” think he is wonderful and making money. The reason people (me included) don’t like your quote of him is that it throws fuel on the fire. The same reason I would not use David Duke to make a point at a Civil rights rally or a quote from Stalin at a symposium on the death penalty. Yes, they may have some truth to share, some tidbit of brightness amongst the darkness that is their life but what does it say about me. It says that you are more committed to having your conservative values reinforced than you are to your Christian values. Rush is a misogynist. That is not a casual evaluation, that is a certified fact by years of demonstrating just that. But he is “arch” conservative and does encourage that political point of view and so he gets a pass. He also encourages one that denigrates women but he is conservative. His life (three plus marriages), his dialogue, his general dismissal of women as valueless makes his argument about abortion a “red meat” tidbit for his “Conservative first (Christian second)” audiences who sees him as their mentor.
    You, of course, will argue that he is an electronic blogger, sarcastically making fun of liberals, and, their is truth in that point of view. What is not acknowledged by your argument is that listening to Rush brings a habit of coarseness to the conversation and a great many lies thrown in with the truth. What is not acknowledged is that listening to Rush is like watching pornography, at some point the lie overwhelms the truth and you have been habituated to the lie without even knowing it. But conservatives will do anything to make their point, as the last election proves.
    Yes, abortion is a moral stain on the American culture. It is a thing that needs to be addressed and stopped. But until you love the women in your life like Jesus loved the Church they will never believe you mean them well. Your contribution will always be seen as a power grab as you leave the table of life and “Rush” to the TV for the game, leaving the women with the mess to clean up at the sink.
    Yes, your quote of Rush was adolescent, ignorant, and with enough truth to “pass’. but what a sad commentary on the quality of your Christian manhood.
    Have a God filled day,

    • Jennifer

      The manner in which we express truth says a lot about who we are both as individuals and as a society. Your post brought to mind something I read in an e-mail from the “On Being” podcast blog this morning: “Poetry is something many of us seem to be hungry for these days. We’re hungry for fresh ways to tell hard truths and redemptive stories, for language that would elevate and embolden rather than demean and alienate.”

  • You are morally bankrupt, Bill. This is evil.

    • And abortion isn’t?

      • Jennifer

        God will look into the hearts of women who have made this choice. Sometimes He might see evil and self-interest. Sometimes he will see weakness and fear. Sometimes he will see soul shattering fatigue and defeat. Often he will see love and pain and deep grief. I can only imagine what he will see in the hearts of men who want to add to the suffering by making women shoot their babies.

  • I don’t have the stomach to read through the comments and your dismissal of them, but I’ll just add my own dismay that a putatively Christian man would write this. Do you really think that women who get abortions don’t know what they are doing? Really? How stupid and unthinking are the women you know? Is your mother so oblivious to basic realities that she left you will the impression that all women are brainless, heartless idiots? Perpetuating the idea that the reason we allow abortion is because we’re in denial about the reality of what an abortion is no more than announcing that you haven’t thought enough about the issue to have a valid opinion on it.

    The reason we tolerate abortion is because we have a society where an unplanned pregnancy can destroy the life of the woman. We tolerate it because men who are not prepared to support their offspring want the out of being able to pressure women they have sex with into having them. We tolerate it because it allows us to place the responsibility for procreation entirely on the woman who faces an unplanned pregnancy. We tolerate abortion because we don’t want to force business to pay their workers enough to support families. We tolerate it because we don’t want to do the hard and messy work of reshaping our society so that a woman won’t have to choose between her spouse and her pregnancy. We tolerate it because we don’t want to upset the applecart which has allowed the people who write our laws and get educations and have a bullypulpit to speak from to suceed while millions of their fellow citizens can barely survive. We tolerate abortion for dozens of reasons – many of which you yourself benefit from – that have nothing to do with not facing the reality of what an abortion is or does.

    If you really care about the unborn, it’s not enough to try to shame or horrify the women who actually experience and live with the reality of abortion. If you really care about the unborn you have to also care about the reasons women get abortions. You have to care about changing a society in which women carry the full burden of pregnancy, child birth and child rearing on their own. You have to care about changing a society in which people can work harder than you ever will and still live in abject poverty.You have to care about changing a society where young people who ought to be starting families have no way to support them.

    Abortion doesn’t exist because we won’t look at the reality of the abortion itself. Abortion exists because people like you prefer to believe nonsense about selfish, brainless women who have no clue what is going on within their own bodies rather than caring about the misshappen society in which killing her own offspring is often the only survival tool available to women. If you really care about unborn children, think about and work to create a world in which young people can form families, the hurting can find healing, the women are not facing their problems alone, priority is given to changing circumstances which lead women to get abortions. This crap you’ve written here is part of the problem.

  • Also consider the effect that the complete lack of expressed care or concern for women has on the pro-life message. You pretty much never see a woman in pro-life literature – only babies and babies yet to be born. The women who have to carry those babies and whose lives may be devestated by them don’t exist. The fact that carrying out an abortion with a gun would also mean shooting the woman in whose body the baby is living doesn’t even seem to have occurred to you. And isn’t important. The fact that your rhetoric entirely erases the women involved doesn’t seem to bother you in the least. As if the unborn child and the women were not in fact intimately tied together in a way that no other human beings can be tied to each other. Here’s a hint: if your rhetoric or thinking isn’t just as fervently concerned about the woman in whose body the unborn child exist as it is with the fate of that unborn child, it’s morally degenerate and enables our abortion culture.

    Another hint: when your approach to the problem of abortion adds to the pain of the already suffer, that’s a good sign that in fighting evil, you have become a monster yourself:

    Pro-choice marchers recalled a particularly painful event last month when a woman whose baby had died en utero was coming to the clinic to have it removed. In an awful coincidence, that was the day, Watters said, when the pro-life demonstrators collected a children’s choir on the sidewalk to sing “Happy Birthday Dead Baby” to anyone driving in.

    “Will had to physically restrain the father,” Watters said, nodding to one of the men marching in a pro-choice jacket. “And by the time she walked through them, she was an emotional wreck.”

    On very, very rare occassions God has asked me to tell someone that he is calling them to repent. This will be the first time I’ve ever been asked to do it publically, but I feel strongly lead to tell you that you are being called to repent, Bill. Your heart is dangerously callous and your confidence in yourself and your way of thinking is dangerously high. A full cup cannot be filled. God would like to fill your cup with his heart of love and compassion, but at the moment there’s no room in your cup for it. Perhaps you have a trusted spiritual advisor you could pray over this with. If I’m a crackpot, then fine. But it could be that I am speaking a truth you need to hear and which God hasn’t been able to reach you with any other way. There’s no harm in devoting some time to prayer over it at any rate, is there?

  • Belief

    Your concern about Bill’s eternal soul is commendable though misguided. I know him personally. He cares just as passionately about the women facing such decisions and the children affected by them. (He would go so far as to adopt more children if it would save their lives, though currently the government says his house isn’t big enough.) He also has family members who have been on both sides of the abortion discussion, one aborted a child, one chose adoption and one chose to risk her life to save her inborn child. One now gets to see and spend time with her grown son and grandchildren. One had a preemie at 24 weeks who with awesome medical care is a thriving 14 yr old. The other regrets, but cannot change, what she has done.

    • Jennifer

      I think one of the reasons that having a rational discussion about abortion is so difficult is because almost all of us have personal experience with it. In my case it was a friend of mine. She was the loving Mother of three beautiful girls and was thrilled to discover that she was pregnant. Unfortunately, she was soon diagnosed with aggressive uterine cancer. Unlike Bill’s relative, she chose an abortion. It was an immensely painful choice for her and in the end she couldn’t face the likelyhood of dying and leaving her children. I know that she still grieves for her dead baby. So when I hear that some people think forcing her to shoot her baby would have made the decision more “real” for her, or say that her decision was evil, I feel upset on her behalf.

      I agree, however, that Bill is a compassionate and caring guy. He has somehow managed to change my stereotype of “right wing Americans” even though his posts are somewhat… alarming? He has also, among other things, agreed to take my Halo playing, testosterone filled, stinky-sweaty exercise addicted, God doubting (at the moment), fifteen year old while my husband and I go on a marriage retreat :). (Just joking, Bill, don’t panic).

      • Incredibly, Jen, I will be on marriage retreat myself at that exact same time you will be — whenever that is — so, as much as I would like to help….

        • Jennifer

          Alas…. Maybe the summer holidays, then? He’s always wanted to live in the United States.