Not a promotion of Gordon H. Clark as a true Christian, (but of historical interest as this was written around the mid-1970s).
“In view of contemporary demands for abortion it is interesting to note that the New Testament disallows one of the women libbers’ [1] frequent arguments: Should not a woman have control over her own body! The answer is, No. So far as married persons are concerned, Paul points out some mutual responsibilities. One of the purposes of marriage is to beget and rear children. A wife has no right to deny her husband this fulfillment of the marriage obligation. As for contemporary unmarried abortionists, it is clear that these women had previously decided what to do with their bodies. That is how they got pregnant. They should now be held responsible and prevented from committing murder” (Gordon H. Clark, Comments on 1 Corinthians 7:3-6, pp. 96-97; underlining mine).
Footnote: [1] Two or three centuries from now, if someone should come upon this volume as an antique, he may be puzzled by the contemporary phrase ‘women libbers.’ Libbers are people who want to be liberated. Women’s Lib, at the present time, is a movement whose members demand the civil right to promiscuity with the subsequent murder of the child conceived. [underlining mine]
“[D]emand the civil right to promiscuity with the subsequent murder of the child conceived” is a well-put comment that does not employ euphemisms in order to justify the insatiable lust to fornicate and commit murder.
Agrammatos 