Debate moderators and reporters love to ask pro-life candidates hard questions about abortion. Curiously, they don’t do the same for pro-choice candidates.

Here are 10 questions you never hear a pro-choice candidate asked by the media:

1. You say you support a woman’s right to make her own reproductive choices in regards to abortion and contraception. Are there any restrictions you would approve of?

2. In 2010, The Economist featured a cover story on “the war on girls” and the growth of “gendercide” in the world – abortion based solely on the sex of the baby. Does this phenomenon pose a problem for you or do you believe in the absolute right of a woman to terminate a pregnancy because the unborn fetus is female?

3. In many states, a teenager can have an abortion without her parents’ consent or knowledge but cannot get an aspirin from the school nurse without parental authorization. Do you support any restrictions or parental notification regarding abortion access for minors?

4. If you do not believe that human life begins at conception, when do you believe it begins? At what stage of development should an unborn child have human rights?

5. Currently, when genetic testing reveals an unborn child has Down Syndrome, most women choose to abort. How do you answer the charge that this phenomenon resembles the “eugenics” movement a century ago – the slow, but deliberate “weeding out” of those our society would deem “unfit” to live?

6. Do you believe an employer should be forced to violate his or her religious conscience by providing access to abortifacient drugs and contraception to employees?

7. Alveda King, niece of Martin Luther King, Jr. has said that “abortion is the white supremacist’s best friend,” pointing to the fact that Black and Latinos represent 25% of our population but account for 59% of all abortions. How do you respond to the charge that the majority of abortion clinics are found in inner-city areas with large numbers of minorities?

8. You describe abortion as a “tragic choice.” If abortion is not morally objectionable, then why is it tragic? Does this mean there is something about abortion that is different than other standard surgical procedures?

9. Do you believe abortion should be legal once the unborn fetus is viable – able to survive outside the womb?

10. If a pregnant woman and her unborn child are murdered, do you believe the criminal should face two counts of murder and serve a harsher sentence?

Print Friendly

Comments:


408 thoughts on “10 Questions a Pro-Choice Candidate Is Never Asked by the Media”

  1. Mike W says:

    Fantastic Questions.

    1. Adam Blair, Esquire says:

      They are good questions indeed. To be fair though… here are some questions the media never asks the pro-life candidate

      1) The Republican Presidential candidates, like you, have been saying for years that they’re pro-life and that they’d appoint justices who would either allow abortion to be made illegal (before Roe v Wade was passed down) or that they would overturn Roe v. Wade (after). Yet these very same candidates, once elected, appointed the very justices that upheld abortion rights in R v W! They’ve also appointed justices that continue to uphold R v W. Why do you think the pro-life crowd continues to believe your party’s candidates when they claim to be pro-life but use the office like they’re pro-choice?

      2) Why have you flip flopped so many times about whether or not you think abortion should be legal? And why do these flip flops always seem to occur at politically advantageous times while you’re running for an office? What are your actual plans for the office of the Presidency of the United States? (if you don’t mind taking off your con artist hat for a second and answering honestly, we’d appreciate it)

      —-

      It really is unfortunate that evangelical Christianity (generally) has allowed the Republican party’s Presidential candidates to con them out of their votes with this issue for so long. The “pro-life” Republican candidates have not only used the office like they’re pro-choice, but they have also destroyed our nation economically through massive debt spending (often for their bankster and war-profiteering friends, people that find profit in death, destruction, and public debt). Imagine what we could accomplish if we put this issue behind us as a society. Maybe we would stop electing lying, war profiteering, debt spending con artists to the highest office of the land. Gee… maybe that would help us a little!

      Personally, I believe sometimes abortion can be moral and other times it can be immoral, depending on the time it occurs. This is because I, personally, believe life starts around week 7 of pregnancy. I believe so for two primary reasons: 1) Scripture says the life of every creature is “in its blood” (the fetus does not have its own blood in its heart until around week 7 or 8, so it can’t have life before that time). 2) Scripture says life is formed “in the womb” (the zygote enters the womb days after conception, so life can’t start at conception).

      That being said, I’m still pro-choice until birth, legally speaking. This is because, until birth, the fetus/baby/whatever you call him/her is *in the mother’s body*. It is part of *her* body. Not your body. *Her* body. NOT your body. HER body.

      One of the things about freedom is that it can be abused. Nonetheless, Christ has given us freedom. We should also let women be free to make their own bodily decisions. For some reason, evangelical Christians love to take others’ freedoms away with government resources in the name of their personal beliefs. They were largely behind prohibition (when they used the government to take alcohol, the very blood of Christ, away from the public at large). They have largely been supportive of the drug war too (when they’ve used the government to take cannabis, a proven effective medicine that is many times less dangerous than alcohol, and other naturally occurring “drugs” away from the public even though God gave them to the public through nature).

      So my final question is for evangelical Christians: If Christ has given you the freedom to make mistakes with your own body, why can’t you treat others the way He has treated you? Why do you seem to hate freedom so much?

      1. Josh says:

        “Personally, I believe sometimes abortion can be moral and other times it can be immoral, depending on the time it occurs. This is because I, personally, believe life starts around week 7 of pregnancy. I believe so for two primary reasons: 1) Scripture says the life of every creature is “in its blood” (the fetus does not have its own blood in its heart until around week 7 or 8, so it can’t have life before that time). 2) Scripture says life is formed “in the womb” (the zygote enters the womb days after conception, so life can’t start at conception).”

        Do you believe the Bible is a scientific treatise or the revelation of God to man? Can you confirm to me that “womb” means the modern scientific meaning of “womb”? When the Bible says that God “knits us in our mother’s womb”, do you believe God literally takes a needle and literally knits us? If not, why do you believe that the other references are so literal?

        “It is part of *her* body. Not your body. *Her* body. NOT your body. HER body.”

        This is scientifically untrue. It has unique DNA. It is a totally unique creature. It would be like saying that Siamese twins are only one person because they share some parts of their bodies. It would be absurd.

        You also invalidated your previous paragraph, since you first say we are given human rights at week 7, and now you deny them until birth. So which is it?

        1. Adam Blair, Esquire says:

          I do believe the Scriptures. I’m not saying I think they’re a scientific treatise, but they, along with the Holy Spirit and the Church, are a guide for us.

          I also didn’t say the fetus and the mother are one person. I said it is “part of her body, not mine.” It even has her own blood flowing through it at first. Her blood. Not mine. It is literally one of her body parts. Yes, it has unique DNA, and yes, as the pregnancy continues the union of body with the mother becomes less and less true. I grant you those things. Nonetheless, it is a part of her body that is slowly developing into a separated person. It is never a part of my body. Until they are literally two separate people, I think her decisions about her own body parts should be between her and God.

          You say I “invalidated” my paragraph, I guess you’re trying to say I contradict myself by saying I think life starts around 7 weeks but I believe abortion should be legal until birth. What you’re missing is that, unlike so many evangelical Christians, I don’t believe in forcing my beliefs on others. I try to be unlike the Pharisees, not like them. I try to not make laws that attempt to force my religious beliefs concerning how I treat my body upon everyone around me. I obey God and let others do with their bodies what they think is best.

          Besides, making abortion illegal will do practically nothing to advance our goal of ending abortion anyway. Women will still get abortions only it will be much less regulated and much more dangerous for all parties involved. For example, see the other laws against bodily liberty the evangelical masses in this nation have tried to use to force their religion on others. The old war on alcohol (prohibition) was largely the work of evangelicals, and now the war on ‘drugs’ is supported in large numbers by the same types of people. These are both laws that invade the bodies of others, and historically are both huge failures. If anything, laws that try to force people’s hands regarding their own bodies have historical only made the problems they sought to solve worse. People do not obey these sorts of bodily invasive laws. They do what they’re going to do with their body, and they do it just as often. They just do it in secret.

          The way to reduce abortion is through love and education. Using the force of law to try to make people treat their bodies differently only makes the problems worse. Love and education is the only solution. It takes time, but at least it works. Your legalistic mindset will only end in failure. The sooner evangelicals will learn this truth the better off we’ll all be.

          1. Chris Jones says:

            Abortion, since it is killing, has to be illegal. If it is legal, that conveys to everyone that it is not such a big deal. Everything else is secondary.

          2. Brian says:

            “I don’t believe in forcing my beliefs on others”
            So…you’re cool with people who embrace cannibalism and slavery? This isn’t a religious issue, it’s a human rights issue. If there is human life (even at your “7 weeks”) then the life deserves to be protected. It’s an issue of science not religion.

            “Besides, making abortion illegal will do practically nothing to advance our goal of ending abortion anyway.”
            So…should we make murder and rape illegal, because that still happens.

      2. “This is because, until birth, the fetus/baby/whatever you call him/her is *in the mother’s body*. It is part of *her* body. Not your body. *Her* body. NOT your body. HER body.”

        Being “in the mother’s body” is not the same thing as being “part of her body”. The foetus has different DNA, a brain of its own and independent thoughts.

        Also, once the baby is born, until the umbilical cord is cut, the baby is just as much “part of her body” (aside from geographic location in space). Is it OK to smother babies after birth but before cord-cutting? Or does someone’s geographic location in space affect whether they are a person with rights or not? (“Hello, Mr Abdul. Welcome to Guantanamo Bay. Things work differently here…”)

        Imagine a pair of conjoined Siamese twins. Each is part of the other’s body. Does that give one the right to ask for the killing of the other, perhaps as part of a separation operation?

        1. Adam Blair, Esquire says:

          The fetus is indeed part of her body. It even has her own blood flowing through it at first. Yes, it has unique DNA, and yes, as the pregnancy continues the union of body with the mother becomes less and less true. I grant you those things. Nonetheless, it is a part of her body that is slowly developing into a separated person. It is never a part of my body. Until they are literally two separate people, I think her decisions about her own body parts should be between her and God. I’ll make my own decisions about my body.

          No, I don’t think it is okay to smother babies after birth. Again, I (personally) don’t think it is okay to abort after around week 7. I think the fetus becomes a person around that time (it gets its own blood, as I said). However, I still also believe women should be free to make their own decisions about their own body parts until the baby leaves her body. I try not to force my religion on others.

          1. Chris Jones says:

            Well, there are thousands of mid-to-late-term abortions in the US, along with a million early abortions. In these abortions babies are violently ripped limb from limb. You don’t need any specific Christianity or any other religion to see what a massive crime and cruelty that is. Matter of fact, anyone who thinks that should be legal has some faulty thinking going on, or a heart that is just so stone cold hard that it is difficult to imagine…

      3. Random_acct says:

        “That being said, I’m still pro-choice until birth, legally speaking. This is because, until birth, the fetus/baby/whatever you call him/her is *in the mother’s body*. It is part of *her* body. Not your body. *Her* body. NOT your body. HER body.”

        It really isn’t part of her body technically speaking. And as already pointed out, the law will charge a murderer for two counts, for example, if the mom is in week 35 of her pregnancy and is murdered.

        Maybe you would also comment on my point that if the female has all the power to decide whether to keep or dispose of her child during pregnancy, then why should the dad have any legal obligation to the child?

        1. Adam Blair, Esquire says:

          The father should have legal obligation to the child because he’s the father. The embryo (and then fetus), however, is a part of her body during the pregnancy, not the dad’s. That’s just the way life works. I’m not sure I understand your question

          1. Melissa says:

            But the zygote could not be FORMED without the father’s SPERM, so the father is, indeed, part of the zygote, and thus, part of the baby. The baby cannot be created without the sperm and the egg.

          2. Adam Blair, Esquire says:

            The father’s blood is not flowing through the zygote. It is not part of his body. It is part of the mother’s body, the mother’s life, at first. It is never part of the father’s life.

            You say the father is part of the zygote simply because the zygote could not be formed without the father’s sperm. But the zygote also couldn’t be formed without the father’s father’s sperm (the grandfather’s which contributed DNA to the father’s sperm), Nor could the zygote have been formed without the father’s father’s father’s sperm. Indeed, all of the fertilizations going all the way back to Adam are part of the zygote because we all have DNA from him. So do we all have rights over the fetus?

            The fact is the fetus is the mother’s body at first. It is her blood that flows through it. The mother can do with her body what she wants. I’m not talking about whether she has a “legal” right do do what she wants. I’m talking about reality. No one can stop her from doing to her body what she wants. That’s the way God made the situation.

            Women do abuse their bodies and do abort people in their wombs. I have no doubt that happens. The question is… what do you think you will accomplish by making abortion illegal? You won’t actually reduce abortions according to studies and even common sense. She is going to do with her body what she wants regardless of the law. So the question is… what exactly do you think you will accomplish by making abortion illegal?

      4. JesusLover/peoplelover says:

        Hi,

        i want to comment on your accusations about “evangelical Christians” thats all they are, plain accusations.
        You chose a group and assume they all feel the same and vote the same about the same things. You are sadly mistaken, and because of this, even though you’ve used many words, you still MADE NO POINT HERE.
        If you use a different approach next time, perhaps people may take your comment into consideration?!
        Fyi. A FEW QUOTES AND/or SITING…? SOME FACTUAL REFERENCES MAY BE HELPFUL FOR ANY FUTURE POSTS TOO.

        Sincerely,
        A warrior on the side of righteousness which can only be found in the blood of Christ Jesus <3

        PS. I'm for the people, ALL people, starting @ conception… NO EXCEPTIONS AT ALL. PERIOD.
        It's about love, I do not war against the flesh, but against principalities of evil forces.

        1. Adam Blair, Esquire says:

          JesusLove, I said “evangelical Christians (generally)”. In other words, not all evangelical Christians but many of them. That’s what “generally” means. It means there are exceptions.

          I grew up in evangelical Christian churches like Southern Baptists (the largest evangelical denomination in the U.S.), Presbyterian (PCA), and many others. I attended many of them, and I did this for years. I’m speaking from experience. If you don’t like to hear about what I’ve experienced, then perhaps you should read someone else’s comment. There’s no need to start shouting. http://www.netlingo.com/word/shouting.php

          PS – It is honorable that you think “people start @ conception.” I think people should be given freedom over their own bodies…. and that includes women. I don’t ram my beliefs about how to treat my body down other people’s throats by force of laws. So although I think life starts very early in pregnancy and I would never ask my wife to abort a life in her womb, I also think other women should be able to make their own decisions about their own bodies. Forcing people to obey your religious beliefs with *their* body is how the Pharisees used to operate. Love and education is the way to decrease abortions. Evangelicals who try to reduce abortions by changing laws don’t solve anything. If anything, they make the problem worse.

          Love gives freedom, even the freedom to make mistakes and learn from them.

          1. Curious to understand says:

            Adam,
            While I respect that you have your opinion and want to allow other people to have control of their own body. I am curious to how you rationalize that the mother has complete control of her own life and body and that life begins at week 7, but the baby has no rights until it is born and separated from the mother. Please explain what rights you think the new life has and how/who defends it from the mother?

          2. Cameron says:

            I hope it’s ok if I say something on here. I have read some of the things that people are saying on here. I understand what both sides are saying but I would like to bring one point up that I have never understood. You rob a store you pay the price for doing that. You do drugs you pay the price for doing that. Even when you eat unhealthy and you have a heart attack you are paying the price for eating like that. Why is it that two people can have sex knowing that the likely outcome could be a baby and not pay the price for doing that? Why can’t people take responsibility for the actions they take? For me, that is when the woman has no choice in choosing. I do say that a woman has the “right to choose” not to have sex or have sex. Also, the baby is part of her body. Well , the baby is still part of the mother’s body after born. The baby has the same material that made the mother with a little of the father. I’m still part of my mother’s body because I came from her. Now if you are going to say that the baby needs support..well..so does a baby just born. infact you could make that case all the way up to 2 to 3 years old.

          3. Adam Blair, Esquire says:

            Curious,

            I believe the mother has total rights over the fetus and baby while it is in her womb. It is her womb and attached to her body. The fetus starts out as a part of her body, with her blood flowing through it. As it becomes a person in her womb (I believe) it still remains inside of her body and attached to it. She will be judged by God for how she treats the baby, but we should not try to force her to obey our religious beliefs with her body. Once the child is out of her womb, then I believe it should have its own rights and legal protections (as it does today).

            Besides, even if we made abortion illegal it would still happen and probably would still happen just as frequently. It is impossible to regulate people’s bodies that way in a free society like ours. Look at the other failures of the religious right when they try to force people by law to treat their bodies a certain way. Look at alcohol prohibition (huge failure) and the drug war (huge failure). Cannabis is a schedule 1 substance federally (the most illegal classification). Nonetheless, in many states everyone from cancer patients to MS sufferers to recreational users can buy it in a store! In the rest of the states, they can buy it cheaply and easily on the street (often easier than they can get alcohol if they’re underage). If the religious right got their way and passed federal laws making abortion illegal the same thing would happen.

            The way to reduce abortion is to give women the freedom to abort but love and educate them so that they do not. That’s the only way to actually end abortion. That also happens to be how Christ is saving and purifying the world. He has given us the freedom to sin against our bodies, but He also offers forgiveness, education, and love so that we’ll stop doing it. We should learn a thing or three from Him in these regards.

          4. Bill says:

            “PS – It is honorable that you think “people start @ conception.” I think people should be given freedom over their own bodies…. and that includes women. I don’t ram my beliefs about how to treat my body down other people’s throats by force of laws.” -Adam

            I agree with you, people should be given freedom over their own bodies. But I extend that to all, including babies. Pro-choice advocates are ramming their beliefs about woman and child down the child’s throat and heart and brain until he or she is dead.

            A woman can do whatever she wants with her body, but those rights stop when they interfere with another’s body (you have a right to swing your fists all you want, but that right stops at my nose).

            The baby is certainly inside the woman’s body until birth, but he is his own body–not the woman’s. We’re not talking about a cancerous tumor here–this is a living child.

          5. Adam Blair, Esquire says:

            Bill,

            You said, “A woman can do whatever she wants with her body, but those rights stop when they interfere with another’s body… a living child…”

            The fetus may be a “living child” to you from conception on, but the reality of this world is that there is no way to know when the baby becomes a person in the womb. You have your religious beliefs about that (which I assume are “at conception” since you’re probably a typical evangelical), I have mine (around week 7 since the Scriptures say the life of each creature is in its blood), and others have there’s. Between those of us who are clearly people, no one should force their religious beliefs onto others by law. More importantly, no one even *can* force their religious beliefs here onto others by law. You can try, but it doesn’t work. The fetus is first a part of *her* body, not yours. No law can stop her from doing what she wants with her body.

            See a recent study published Jan. 19 in The Lancet, a British medical journal. “Induced abortion: incidence and trends worldwide from 1995 to 2008,” examined abortion rates and the corresponding abortion laws on a country-by-country basis. The study addressed international abortion laws, and it concluded that restrictive abortion laws did not coincide with lower abortion rates. In fact, rates were higher in regions of the world where abortion is illegal. So you could actually cause an *increase* in abortion by making it illegal. At least with it legal women can get education and information about it before making their decision instead of being hurried into a dark corner.

            The pregnancy starts out with the fetus as a part of her body with her blood flowing through it. That is just the way it is. That’s how God made it. She (the mother) gets to choose what to do with her body. I’m not talking about whether or not she should get to choose. I’m saying regardless of what the law says she is going to choose what to do. I’m not talking about the law. I’m talking about the natural order of creation that God made. If a woman wants to abort, then there is nothing you can do to stop her. Laws can’t stop people from doing something to their own bodies.

            I’m telling you, laws are not the way to end abortion. Similarly, alcohol use occurred in large numbers when it was illegal just as it does now that it is legal. Evangelicals are totally deceived if they think, as it seems, that laws are where we should be fighting the abortion battle. Abortion rates cannot be changed by legal policies. On the other hand, if we would vote for candidates who protect the lives of the *already born* innocent, then we could make an actual difference in the world. For instance, we could vote for politicians that will not drop bombs on innocent women and children in foreign lands. Both Romney and Obama want to continue doing that! The “drone” attacks in Pakistan are killing women and children, totally innocent, living, breathing women and children. Where’s the “Christian pro-life” crowd when it comes to them!! Evangelicals aren’t trying to change those policies at all! They’re not making that an issue in the election at all! They seem to care more about unborn Americans than born, living, breathing foreigners. That is extremely disturbing.

            Every four years, by the millions, evangelicals keep voting for whichever con artist says he thinks abortion should be illegal. Such evangelicals are doing no practical good with their votes… indeed they’re destroying this nation. They’re voting for lying, murderous thugs that are slaughtering women and children while intentionally debt-spending this nation into the ground by using our military as a mercenary force for the defense and mineral industries.

            But at least they sleep good at night, convinced that they’re “defending life.” What a joke.

      5. Greg Sponberg says:

        Adam: regarding “That being said, I’m still pro-choice until birth, legally speaking. This is because, until birth, the fetus/baby/whatever you call him/her is *in the mother’s body*. It is part of *her* body. Not your body. *Her* body. NOT your body. HER body.” // ok, but if, as you say (and I agree), “life is formed in the womb,” the question becomes ‘formed by whom?’ and, therefore, the fact that the baby is *in the mother’s body* is not the primary concern, but rather the primary concern is the reality that every individual, every life is a miracle and a gift from God.

        1. Meagan says:

          Adam, I’m not sure that fighting abortion is shoving my religious beliefs down ones throat. By that I mean, even if I wasn’t a Christian I would not condone murder. Since I believe that a baby is a person at conception, ending that persons life is murder. Even if, as you believe, life starts at 7 weeks, most abortions are performed between 6-10 weeks. This isn’t about religion, this is about protecting all life. As a society we agree murder is wrong, so why isn’t abortion? Just because the baby is inside of the mother? It is still a life ending because someone decided to end it.

          1. Adam Blair, Esquire says:

            Megan, you so quickly toss out the justification “just because it is inside the mother?” as if that doesn’t matter. But that matters *a lot*. Trying to force a woman to do what you want her to do to a part of her body (it is inside her and attached to her) is the epitome of forcing your religion down her throat.

            Besides, making abortion illegal will do nothing to stop it. Look at the other failures of the religious right when they try to force people by law to treat their bodies a certain way. Look at alcohol prohibition (huge failure) and the drug war (huge failure). Cannabis is a schedule 1 substance federally (the most illegal classification). Nonetheless, in many states everyone from cancer patients to MS sufferers, to recreational users can buy it in a store! In the rest of the states they can buy it cheaply and easily on the street (often easier than they can get alcohol if they’re underage). If the religious right got their way and passed federal laws making abortion illegal the same thing would happen.

            The way to reduce abortion is to give women the freedom to abort but love and educate them so that they do not. That’s the only way to actually end abortion.

      6. Cameron says:

        Check out…180 movie.

        1. Meagan says:

          What about the baby? Why doesn’t it have any rights? You keep comparing prohibiting abortion to prohibiting drugs and alcohol, but they are not comparable. What studies have been shown that making abortion illegal wont lower the use of it? In fact, abortion has gone up greatly since it was made legal. You are correct in saying that we need to be loving and educating these women, but that is only half the battle. Murder should always be illegal.

          1. Adam Blair, Esquire says:

            Meagan,

            Yes, the babies have rights. But there is no way to know when the baby becomes a person in the womb. There just isn’t. You have your religious beliefs about that (which I assume are “at conception”), I have mine (around week 7), and others have there’s. Between those of us who are clearly people, no one should force their religious beliefs onto others by law. The fetus is first a part of *her* body, not yours. It starts out as a part of her body with her blood flowing through it. That is just the way it is. That’s how God made it. She (the mother) gets to choose what to do with her body. I’m not talking about whether or not she should get to choose. I’m saying regardless of what the law says she is going to choose what to do. I’m not talking about the law. I’m talking about the natural order of creation that God made. If a woman wants to abort, then there is nothing you can do to stop her. Laws can’t stop people from doing something to their own bodies.

            You asked for a study. See a recent study published Jan. 19 in The Lancet, a British medical journal. “Induced abortion: incidence and trends worldwide from 1995 to 2008,” examined abortion rates and the corresponding abortion laws on a country-by-country basis. The study addressed international abortion laws, and it concluded that restrictive abortion laws did not coincide with lower abortion rates. In fact, rates were higher in regions of the world where abortion is illegal.

            Laws are not the way to end abortion. Similarly, alcohol use occurred in large numbers when it was illegal just as it does now that it is legal. Same goes for the drug war. Making alcohol illegal was a huge waste of resources, the drug war is a huge waste of resources, and voting for someone simply because he says he is against abortion is a wasted vote in my opinion. Love and education can change abortion rates. Laws cannot.

            And by “wasted vote” I mean it will have no practical effect on the world. If it helps you sleep better to vote for the whoever says he is anti-abortion, then vote for him if you want to… if sleeping better is your goal. In the sense of making you feel better, I suppose it is useful. Just please be aware that such a vote will have no practical effect one way or the other as far as ending abortion. Abortion is going to continue happening at similar rates regardless of if Romney or Obama is elected (even if Romney is being honest about trying to make abortion illegal, which he isn’t).

            As far as I’m concerned, when electing government officials, I think the better approach is to make our deciding issues those issues that we *can* change by law. For instance, we can vote for politicians that will not debt spend our nation into financial ruin. We *can* change that by refusing to vote for the debt spending con artists. Or we can vote for politicians that will not drop bombs on innocent women and children in foreign lands. Both Romney and Obama want to continue doing that! Where’s the “Christian pro-life” crowd when it comes to them!!!!!!!!! If we’d make issues like these our deciding issues, then we *can* protect innocent lives and protect our country from financial ruin. We *can* make a real difference in the world when it comes to those sorts of issues. So I think our votes are better spent on such issues.

            Nothing is ever going to change in this country as long as millions of people keep voting for whichever con artist says he thinks abortion should be illegal. They’re doing no practical good with their votes.

      7. Bryan says:

        The point with which you exerted the most, er, elan, is the most important one to be sure. It is also the point you got wrong. The fetus is its own body. A body within a body. Saying that it is part of the woman’s body is not accurate. An ear is part of her body. The fetus resides in the woman’s body and is a temporary tenant.

        I’m starting to feel dizzy from the strange fact that I’m even having to say such plainly obvious things.

        1. Peyton Jones says:

          Thank you Bryan. Finally, somebody who voiced exactly what I was thinking while reading these comments. I’m shocked that we have to discuss such ridiculous sub-points while missing the obvious. The whole debate has been couched like this to mask the fact that we’re killing a baby. It’s mental morphine.

      8. Lisa says:

        If your going to quote the bible you have to look at all of it. It also says He knew us before He knit is in our mothers womb. Which would seem to me to be a point for life at conception. Science has already said it is. That’s not disputed any more. What is being disputed is when this life has rights. And to say Christ has given us free will is a specious argument at best. We might as well not have any laws. Murder would then just be a choice, expression of free will. Life is precious and is more precious to God than we can even know. Don’t you think if He knew you before He formed you within your mothers womb that He would mourn that loss and mourn for the mother who chose that?

      9. Pauline says:

        Adam Blair, Esquire:
        Thank you! Thank you, for your humanity and your sanity.
        There is no better way to argue these points than with a good deal of both.
        I’m a fan!

    2. Amy says:

      To Adam Blair: In one of your comments you stated that the mothers blood is running through the fetus. That is scientifically inaccurate. The mothers blood never mixes with the babies blood. This is why a mother who is hiv positive can have an hiv negative baby. The placenta is the barrier between the two, and allows oxygen to diffuse across cell membranes to the baby and CO2 to diffuse back to mom. As I said before, blood never crosses over. I also wanted to comment on the baby being part of her. I have to disagree that it is like one of her organs. It is in her, but most deffinetly not part of her body. Living off of her body yes, but a completely separate and distinct organism.

  2. Billy Birch says:

    Really, Trevin, what a great job and excellent questions. I, for one, would appreciate some viable answers.

  3. Devin W says:

    Respectfully, I believe that abortion should be safe, legal, and rare. We can sit here and be moral philosophers and talk about the world in absolutes, but the decision a woman faces regarding abortion is about pragmatism and should be personal.

    Further, the premise of this article is seriously flawed (i.e., mass conspiracy by the media to grill pro-life candidates but not pro-choice candidates). I’d like some evidence that this occurs first before even entertaining the rest of the piece.

    1. Amanda says:

      Have you ever watched a debate? It is pretty obvious that the more conservative candidates are asked questions like “when did you stop beating your wife?” while the more liberal candidates are asked questions like “why do you like puppies?”. The remarkable openness of this practice is most likely why the author didn’t feel a need to qualify his statement with a bunch of quotes from debates.

      1. vanessa says:

        Care to site some sources on this? I would love to see some proof of your claim.

        1. Gazinya says:

          The fact that none of these questions have been included in any debate where the ‘pro-choice’ candidate is seeking election is the only source needed to cite. I can cite examples of ‘pro-choice’ people claiming that Sarah Pallin gave birth to Trig for political purposes and that the boy wasn’t hers’ but was her daughters’ child. The Huffington Post had many of these tomes at the time of Mrs. Pallins candidacy for V.P.. There were claims that Trig was actually the product of incest and that it was a ‘shame that Pallin would add to a world full of retards’. So show where you can cite any example of any of the articles questions that were asked that were answered in a none flippent way.

        2. John says:

          During the VP debate, Ryan was asked by the moderator, “I want to go back to the abortion question here. If the Romney-Ryan ticket is elected, should those who believe that abortion should remain legal be worried?”

          No “reverse” question to Biden, and the issue was dropped after Ryan’s response.

          Why not ask Biden, “If you and Pres. Obama are re-elected, should those who believe that abortion is the killing of an innocent child be worried?”

          1. Josh says:

            Biden wasn’t asked because his stance on abortion is well-known, and he/the POTUS haven’t claimed that they are going to change any laws regarding abortion, whereas both Romney and Ryan have stated that they believe abortion is wrong, and that they want it to be made illegal.

      2. Gracie Matt says:

        Safe abortion? There is no such thing as safe abortion. Someone will always end up dead, the innocent baby.
        Legal it is, but not right and just for the innocent unborn to die.
        Rare? Over 53 million babies killed by abortion since Roe V. Wade. How many among those 53 millions were product of rape, incest or mother’s life were in danger???
        Abortion is murder, plain and simple.
        Life begins at conception no matter what arguments people will present: a mass of tissue, clump of cells, embryo not human being yet. But, the fact of the matter is that everyone all passes that stage before being born. Who among human beings did not pass that stage?

        1. Gene Brengard says:

          A fetus has a heartbeat at 4 weeks, even before a woman knows she is pregnant. This is a life!!!

          1. Bryan H. says:

            So if a woman has a miscarriage, should she be charged with murder?

          2. The Janitor says:

            Bryan,

            Isn’t that a ridiculous suggestion on your part? A murder involves the intentional taking of innocent human life. A miscarriage is unintentional.

    2. Elijah says:

      Your premise is flawed also. I like how you use your own pre-suppossions to state that abortion is about “pragmatism” and should be “personal”. Seems like you don’t understand the other side of the argument.

    3. Mark Baddeley says:

      Not necessarily a conspiracy Devin, merely a consistent and constant feature of the media’s handling of the issue. The premise is not speculating on motive, but reflecting on an observable fact – the media asks questions of pro-life politicians to do with the ‘hard cases’ of their position, and it is very hard to find examples of where they do the same of the politicians who share their own pro-abortion convictions (journalists’ self-reporting indicates a much more unanimous support for abortion within the profession than American society at large).

      Show a good number of examples of where the media has asked any questions like these in the post of pro-abortion politicians and you can easily knock out the supposedly seriously flawed premise.

      And while you may personally believe that abortion should be safe, legal and rare, and that the decision a woman faces is about pragmatism and should be personal, that is already based on a ‘seriously flawed premise’ – that the unborn are not persons entitled to legal protection and the right to live.

      You have to first assume that the unborn are not human beings in order to then have your way forward. (Unless you are wanting to say that some people should have the ability to kill other people on a pragmatic and personal basis as long as the killing is safe, legal, and rare.) And if you think the unborn are not human beings, then it is difficult to see why you think abortion should be ‘rare’. If it’s merely pragmatism, and should be personal, then who are you to aim for it being rare?

    4. Chris says:

      Devin, while I understand your misgivings about the “premise of the article,” I think the ease with which you are willing to not engage what I believe to be good questions is seriously flawed as well. I think it is fair to ask people who are pro-life tough questions. I think they should answer them. In the spirit of good discussion (which I believe you are for, given how you started your post), I think it is worthwhile to ask these questions of those who are pro-choice.

      In fact, you are pro-choice. Why don’t you take a stab at answering some of them. I honestly curious what your response would be.

    5. Chad Damewood says:

      The safe, legal, and rare argument makes it clear that there is something morally repugnant about the practice and avoids looking at the excellent questions posed here.

    6. JohnM says:

      Why do you think abortion should be rare?

    7. Shaun says:

      Abortion is never safe for the baby.

    8. Amanda says:

      Devin, you say, ‘respectfully’; of whom? The unborn baby? ‘Personal’? It certainly is for them. ‘Pragmatic’? Sounds like someone going to have a corn removed. May I suggest you watch Ray Comfort’s ’180′ video on YouTube.

    9. JMH says:

      You want evidence that questions like those proposed in the article are never asked? All you need to do to refute the article is to provide an example in which these questions have been asked. Personally, I would love to see what you come up with, because I have never seen it.

      so do us all a favor. Perhaps your search skills are better than mine. Please. Provide us with the sources that you come up with when these questions have been asked. If you can’t find them, that should answer your question.

    10. Beau J. Weber says:

      You stated: ” I believe that abortion should be safe, legal, and rare.” Why do you care if it is rare? If abortion is an O.K. and honorable thing in whichever instance you choose to cite…then why does it matter to you if it is rare. Why does your conscience tell you that it should be rare? Is there something about it that deep inside of you is actually telling you that it is revolting? You appear to be sending a mixed message about abortion. If you want to be consistent in your thinking and in how you display that to the world; perhaps your opening sentence in this post should have been: “Respectfully, I believe that abortion should be safe, legal, and COMMON, or FREQUENT, or REGULAR, or TYPICAL or USUAL.” Your use of the word “rare” tells me that there is something about abortion that you don’t like. What is it about the act of killing a child that God is in the process of knitting together that you find acceptable…ever? “For you formed my inward parts; you knitted me together in my mother’s womb.” (Psalm 139:13) A rare abortion…abortion of even just one baby…is still the murder and destruction of God’s handiwork. If you’re O.K. with just one abortion [rare] why would you stop there? “Have at it,” is what you should be saying if you want your logic to remain consistent.

      1. Kenny says:

        I believe that amputations should be safe, legal, and rare.

    11. Paul S. says:

      “We can sit here and be moral philosophers and talk about the world in absolutes, but the decision a woman faces regarding car theft is about pragmatism and should be personal.”

      Does the same hold true in this case? Is there not often a pragmatic reason why someone steals a car – because they need the money selling the stolen car provides?

      1. Lily says:

        I think we can all agree there is a difference between stealing from a car, and not wanting to grow a person inside of you….

    12. Ed says:

      Have you ever heard a question like one of these posed to a pro-death candidate? Further, at what point do we draw the line and say this is morally unacceptable. Your argument suggests an amoral society is a good thing.

    13. Tatyana Solovey says:

      Agree.
      I am sure the woman have to decide,not the Government,what she wants to do.
      The whole concept of discussion this basic women’s right is an absurd.
      This is 21Centure now,but you still trying to discuss it?!
      Ridiculous.
      Only women who committed to have a baby should have a baby.
      Is it better to leave it on the door steps of somebody or to toss it to the garbage in the plastic bag,or beat it to death.

      Wake up,and change the subject!
      Think better about the disastrous economy in this country,and ridiculous foreign policies.

  4. george says:

    One question for a pro-life candidate (and please note I believe abortion to be the disgrace of our times) – will you ever match your rhetoric with action when in office?

    1. MzEllen says:

      Even the question assumes that the one being question is not yet matching the “rhetoric”

  5. Russell says:

    Thank you for this post. And thank you for all you do in general. Your content is always so thoughtful and gospel-centered.

  6. Cole says:

    @Devin,
    Thanks for sharing that article from the Atlantic, worth a read!
    Regarding your criticism of Trevin’s article though, I think you can just turn on the TV if you want evidence. While I’d agree that perhaps it’s an exaggeration to say that pro-life candidates get “grilled” (but, that’s not what Trevin said, in his defense…), I think Trevin is right to point out the one-sided nature of the discussion. A majority of the conversation revolves around the exceptions (ie rape, incest, life of the mother) but ignores the issues that Trevin raises with his questions. For evidence, consider the debates: if the moderator of the vice presidential debate had done a moderate amount of research, they would/should have called out Joe Biden when he straight-up lied about the HHS mandate – but they didn’t. No moderator has ever asked President Obama about why he decided to vote for an After-Birth Abortion bill TWICE when he was a state senator in Illinois. So, while I would agree with you that there’s a “mass conspiracy” (and again, I don’t think that’s what Trevin is saying here), I would say that the media is not asking questions that should be asked of pro-choice candidates about their view on abortion. Perhaps a fair question given the way that you articulated your position would be, “How do you plan to make abortion ‘rare’?” (Honest question! I’d genuinely be interested in hearing how they would respond.)
    Trevin, thanks for posting this list of questions and drawing them to our attention!

  7. Bruce says:

    If Devin would like evidence of the media conspiracy, he need look no further than the Associated Press Stylebook. Under the heading “abortion,” it states:

    “Use anti-abortion instead of pro-life and abortion rights instead of pro-abortion. Avoid abortionist which connotes a person who performs clandestine abortions.”

    Here’s a picture of my copy of the Stylebook:
    https://www.dropbox.com/s/5kuy50c5py3iejk/AP_stylebook.jpg

    1. Nathan Sosnovske says:

      There are good reasons for these distinctions in the style book.

      1) Pro life has many other possible connotations. One can be pro-life and against war, or the death penalty. Anti-abortion has one (general) meaning. Against abortion.

      2) Pro abortion has implications that may not actually be true. For example, one may disagree with abortion on moral grounds, but also feel that it is wrong to force this on another human being. More specifically, a male may feel that it is morally repugnant to force his view on a woman. In this case, the individual is more “for abortion rights” than they are “pro-abortion.”

      3) I have no opinion on the word abortionist. I think that doctor that peforms abortions probably is more descriptive and less biased toward character.

      I’m not going to delve into my opinion on the actual issue… I just don’t think that this style guide is evidence of bias.

      1. Bruce says:

        Labeling one group “anti-” something and another group for “rights” is biased because Americans don’t like to be anti- and they like to be for rights.

        Why not use the most common self-identifying names the groups use for themselves, pro-life and pro-choice? I don’t think there’s much confusion over those terms in the US.

        Further, the terms used by the AP are just as misleading. If a Republican pro-life candidate who ‘supports abortion rights’ in the cases of rape, incest and the health or life of the mother truly anti-abortion, or is he/she rather for abortion rights?

        NPR goes even a little farther than the AP, though they still use AP style as a guide for written content. According to NPR’s policy:

        “On the air, we should use ‘abortion rights supporter(s)/advocate(s)’ and ‘abortion rights opponent(s)’ or derivations thereof (for example: ‘advocates of abortion rights’).”

        http://www.npr.org/blogs/ombudsman/2010/03/npr_changes_abortion_language.html

        1. Bruce says:

          Oh, and the Gallup Organization seems to think that “pro-life” and “pro-choice” are understandable and standard labels. I can’t imagine any good researcher would ever design a survey that asked people to choose between being an “abortion rights supporter” and an “abortion rights opponent.”
          http://www.gallup.com/poll/1576/abortion.aspx

      2. Josh says:

        “2) Pro abortion has implications that may not actually be true. For example, one may disagree with abortion on moral grounds, but also feel that it is wrong to force this on another human being. More specifically, a male may feel that it is morally repugnant to force his view on a woman. In this case, the individual is more “for abortion rights” than they are “pro-abortion.””

        This is a dangerous idea to have, since if something is wrong on moral grounds, it ought to be opposed. Any number of heinous acts (from slavery to concentration camps or anything else) could be done in the name of this idea.

        The problem is, if someone really feels an unborn child is still a human with human rights, they logically have to feel that abortion is murder, and must oppose it just as they oppose any other sort of murder. Personal preference would not factor into it if that were the case.

        1. Lily says:

          That completely ignores the unique position a person is in when they are pregnant. What other form of murder has the implication of a person growing inside another person against their will?

  8. Donald McKay says:

    Roe v. Wade: Since “Roe” now admits to perjuring herself before the Supreme Court, do you believe that the decision should be reviewed in the light of new evidence and reconsidered?

  9. Joonyer says:

    What a bunch of biased, hokey garbage. You all keep stroking each other in your fantasy world and ignoring the real one – it’s leaving you bigoted, ignorant, sexist fossils behind.

    1. gary says:

      what does that even mean?

      1. Wayne Wilson says:

        I think it means in the real world you must kill to get your way.

    2. Laura Blalock says:

      You came to a website called “The Gospel Coalition” for a reason. Otherwise, you’d be out there in the real world, living your life and ignoring the irrelevant fossils.

  10. Joonyer says:

    Also, i’ll bet your moderators won’t post my previous comment – serves to keep the delusion intact.

    1. LG says:

      You want to interact with the content instead of just trotting out a list of ad hominems? Or are you too busy rolling your eyes at us bigoted, ignorant, sexist fossils to deal with an argument?

    1. Hurl rut says:

      You’ll be waiting a long time. These guys like to ask rhetorical questions but rarely engage thoughtful critique.

  11. Eric says:

    Not a politician, but I’ll take a crack at it:

    1. I think existing restrictions with regard to late term abortion procedures, found constitutional by the Supreme Court, are sufficient. On the topic of contraception, no. I do not believe in any restrictions on the availability of contraception.

    2. You should read your own article. South Korea solved its gender ratio problem in a few decades, not by banning abortion (because it was already banned) but by changing their culture. From the article: “Female education, anti-discrimination suits and equal-rights rulings made son preference seem old-fashioned and unnecessary.” Unfortunately, the Republican stance on women’s issues such as equal pay, contraception, and others runs directly contrary to this. Regressive social policies in regards to women will make the problem worse, not better.

    3. The point about getting aspirin from a school nurse is irrelevant. School nurses don’t provide abortions, and aspirin is available to any child from a pharmacy. Again, there are existing Supreme Court decisions regarding the constitutionality of these laws that should be taken into account. The Supreme Court has stated that parental consent laws that allow judicial bypasses are constitutional and does not create an undue burden on the availability of abortion. These judicial bypasses, required by the Supreme Court, are particularly important in cases of incest. Personally, I support parental notification but recognize the constitutionality of parental consent laws.

    4. Making a collection of cells formed after fertilization a full person in the eyes of the law makes the woman a second class citizen, subordinate to those cells. The collection of cells is entirely dependent on the woman for its survival, making her legally obligated to take actions to preserve it. The government does not compel people in other situations to act in this way; you can not be compelled to donate bone marrow or a kidney, for example. Life at conception laws amount to an unacceptable intrusion of government into the private lives of citizens. It is ironic that the same people who decry “Big Government” are calling for this massive encroachment of government upon our liberty. The same problems apply to fetal health laws.

    5. Do you have a child with Down Syndrome? How about a relative? My sister has Down Syndrome. I love her very much, but I also recognize that her developmental disability has shaped my entire family. We are fortunate that we were in a financial and social position to take care of her. My mother, a professional woman with a Masters degree in hospital administration, gave up her career to be a stay at home mom and take care of my sister. This is not an option for many families. And that is to say nothing about the emotional burden associated with raising a child with this condition.

    This cuts to the heart of many conservative arguments about abortion. It’s easy to be on your high horse on these issues when you don’t have to deal with the consequences. I fervently hope that you do not have a child with Down Syndrome. I hope that you do not have to deal with a pregnancy that results from rape or incest. But please, recognize that there are people who do have to deal with these issues. Some will share your views, but not all of the people in these situations feel the same way about it that you do. Taking away their right to choose is a terrible thing. You get to force your morality on them, but they have to live with the consequences.

    With regards to the comparison between screening for conditions like Down Syndrome and eugenics, you couldn’t be more off base. Down Syndrome is not a genetic trait that can be “bred out” of a population through eugenics. It is a genetic abnormality that occurs due to a failure of the reproductive system of one of the parents. It would be impossible to permanently “weed out” Down Syndrome through abortion; the decision to end a pregnancy in the case of Down Syndrome only affects that specific fetus.

    6. Let me apply your question to a different set of circumstances. I am a follower of a New Age religion. I believe vaccines cause autism. I have a small business. Should I be forced to violate my religious conscience to provide my employees access to vaccinations for their children? I also believe in homeopathy. Should I forced to violate my religious conscience to provide my employees access to prescription drugs?

    Or, to make this less hypothetical, say I’m a Scientologist. My religion gets the same legitimacy the government gives other religions (tax exempt status, ect). I do not believe in psychiatry (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientology_and_psychiatry). Should I be forced to violate my religious conscience to provide my employees access to psychiatric care? I would be interested to hear your opinions on this.

    Employers should not be able to dictate what choices are available to their employees in regards to health care. True for Scientologists, true for Christians.

    7. Are you suggesting that forcing women to carry unwanted pregnancies to term would help the issues of poverty, lack of access to education, swelling welfare rolls, absent fathers, and other problems plaguing inner-city minority communities? I would be interested to see how you justify that. The way to decrease the rate of abortions by minority groups is to increase the availability of contraception and comprehensive sex education. That is how you decrease unwanted pregnancies. Unfortunately, Republican policies of restricting contraception and the failed policy of abstinence-only sex education again come to harm women.

    History has shown us that bans on abortion hurt poor women the most. In addition to seeking abortion at higher rates, they are unable to pay the higher cost of safe abortion when it is illegal. Thus, they turn to unsafe practitioners or dangerous home solutions. Turning minority women away from clinics and towards coat hangers is not the way to deal with high abortion rates among minorities.

    8. Abortion is tragic because in many cases it is unnecessary. Increasing the availability of contraception and improving sex education would make it so fewer women have to undergo this invasive surgical procedure. See the above answer. However, just because something is unfortunate, does not mean it should be illegal.

    9. I believe that trying to create hard legislative definitions of when a fetus is viable undermines doctors and can lead to situations where the health of the mother is subordinate to legislative guidelines. Current restrictions on late-term abortions are sufficient.

    10. It is perfectly reasonable to make the murder of a pregnant woman have a more severe punishment than the murder would otherwise have, even though terminating that pregnancy through abortion might have been legal. It is also illegal in some states (Louisiana for example) to possess a firearm during the sale or distribution of a controlled substance, even though possession of firearms is otherwise legal (http://www.legis.state.la.us/lss/lss.asp?doc=78740). Moreover, the termination of a pregnancy must be the woman’s decision. A man who beats his wife to force her pregnancy to terminate should also be held accountable, even if she would have been within her rights to have an abortion herself.

    I await your responses.

    1. Randy says:

      @Eric #10 Your reasoning about this is great and I completely agree with you that the law can be different based on the circumstances but the problem is this. Abortion, for the most part, becomes legal, not for the rights of the woman, but because of the determination of when “life” starts. If it is determined that life does not begin at conception and that the fetus is nothing more than “tissue” then the precident is set and a person who is guilty of murdering an unborn child will not be held responsible because in the laws eyes the unborn child is not a living being therefore it can not be counted as murder.

    2. Mark Baddeley says:

      Hi Eric,

      Thanks for taking the time to give a thoughtful response. I’m happy to interact with the questions I’ve picked up below as they are the issues that interest me more:

      2. The problem being asked is that people see sex-selective abortion as an attack on *girls*, not on “a collection of cells formed after fertilization” (to use your phrase). While changing the culture can be the solution to that practice, the reaction to the practice seems inconsistent with maintaining that they are nothing more than a collection of cells formed after fertilization. If that’s all they are, there is no gendercide, there is no attack on girls. So does the *practice* (not its consequences of gender imbalance, the practice itself) of sex-selective abortion trouble you?

      4. I think describing the unborn as collections of cells formed after fertilization does too much work for you. All human beings are collections of cells formed after fertilization. This can’t be a good reason to deny personhood to someone, for if it were then it would be good reason to deny it to everyone.

      Let’s concede your case that this situation would put mothers in a unique situation in the law (I’ll explain why in a moment I disagree, but for the sake of argument). Is that really a reason to deny personhood to someone? Do we really go, “the implications for other people is too invasive so therefore we don’t recognize these people as fully human persons in the eyes of the law”? Isn’t the right way to proceed in these situations to decide first whether someone is a person, and then follow the consequences?

      If we took your approach, then slavery would never have been abolished. The implication of recognizing slaves as persons in the eyes of the law would have been (and was) highly invasive to the existing rights of people already recognied as persons (slave owners). The only reason why slavery was abolished was because the method you are suggesting – of looking at the implications on people already recognized as persons first, and then only accepting the new set as persons if it doesn’t impinge on the first set too much – was rejected as something that denied the fundamental humanity of slaves a priori.

      And government *does* require people to take steps to preserve the life of other people. It’s called being a parent. If your child dies on your watch, and you should have taken reasonable steps to avoid it, you can be prosecuted. Parents have their lives turned upside down by the existence of their children, and much of the shape of their lives is then given over to sustaining and promoting the development of their children. The obligation on mothers to take these steps is not some atypical and bizarre obligation, but one that reflects expectations of parents’ responsibility for the welfare of their children.

      5. I don’t have a relative with Downs Syndrome. I do have one (not in my immediate family but one step further out) that was born immensely premature and is signficantly and permanently disabled, blind, incapable of doing much more than knocking over toy blocks with his hand (and that only after a lot of physio). So yes, us people who think that these disabled people are human beings even before they are born are also in situations where we see the cost of their existence on others.

      My question to you from what you’ve said is, what would you have said if a slave owner had run the exact same argument you had, but just put ‘slave’ in where you put fetus/fertilized collection of cells:

      “This cuts to the heart of many abolitionist arguments about slavery. It’s easy to be on your high horse on these issues when you don’t have to deal with the consequences. I fervently hope that you do not have a slave with Down Syndrome. I hope that you do not have to deal with a pregnancy that prevents a slave from giving a good return on one’s investment. But please, recognize that there are people who do have to deal with these issues. Some will share your views, but not all of the people in these situations feel the same way about it that you do. Taking away their right to choose is a terrible thing. You get to force your morality on them, but they have to live with the consequences.”

      Your argument only works because it assumes that the unborn are not persons, not human beings. But this position of denying humanity to some people and not extending to them the rights of being persons is a recurring problem in human societies. There is almost always some group not being recognized as being persons. Those seeking to change that are then placed in absurd position of trying to argue that they are actually human beings, while those opposed have the luxury of arguing for maintaining the status quo, of attacking their moral high horsemanship, of arguing that someone shouldn’t be able to impose their morality on others but all should be able to choose. No-one should have the right to force a slave-owner to have to treat his slaves as persons, it should be left to each slave owner to choose for themselves how they’ll deal with their slaves.

      Based on what you’ve written on this point, my question would be: if you were in the 19th Century would you have been pro-abolitionist (and so forced your morality on those who disagreed that slaves were persons) or anti-abolitionist (and maintained the same position you have here, that interested parties should not be forced to have to treat someone as a person if they don’t want to)?

      10. You haven’t given any reason I can see as to why you think this position in the law is reasonable. You give a possible analogy (gun law), but no indication as to why that analogy might be appropriate in this situation. If murder is to unlawfully kill a *person* and the unborn is not a person – which you have argued very strongly is a legal status that must not be extended to them – then why is killing a pregnant mother deserving of any more serious sentence than anyone else, let alone two counts of murder? If pregnancy should not have any legal obligations upon mothers, why should it have any legal recognitions?

      Or are you actually wanting a situation where the unborn are considered persons, but persons whose right to life is totally, legally, in the hands of just one other class of persons who may end their lives for any reason? If anyone else ends an unborn’s life, then it is murder – the unlawful killing of a person – but if their own mother does then that is legal? And so a precedent where it is lawful for one person to kill another for any reason that person wants (effectively establishing a kind of chattel slavery all over again albeit one with a nine month duration).

      1. gary says:

        thank you Mark…

      2. Beth says:

        Mark, I agree with Gary…thank you thank you. Absolutely correct.

      3. Eric says:

        Thanks for your non-vitriolic response. I think the first step in finding common ground on these issues is to be able to discuss them without personal attacks (the person below you was not so reasonable, alas).

        2. I don’t think you can separate the action from the larger pattern. We can recognize that the embryo or fetus is biologically female without stating that it is a fully fledged human being. Choosing to terminate one specific pregnancy which would have resulted in a girl is not in and of itself a crisis. It becomes a crisis when placed in the larger context of female children being undesirable. Again, taking steps to address the greater trend is the way to deal with this issue. Trying to prevent the action of sex-selective abortion is first ineffective (see the original article, China is trying to do just that. It isn’t working) and second presents an unreasonable restriction on a woman’s right to choose. How would you prevent sex-selective abortion in a system where one does not need to give a reason to have an abortion? I can’t see it happening without a drastic curtailing of the rights we currently have.

        Moreover, if the underlying cause still exists, trying to legislate a solution will not work. Just as women have been willing to get illegal abortions when the practice has been banned entirely, those who are committed to the idea of ending a female pregnancy would turn to illegal abortion if they were prohibited from doing so legally. The solution is education, not legislation.

        4. If you really want to bring up slavery comparisons, I would argue that the slavery argument goes the other way: that the woman is made a slave to her embryo in the case of life at conception laws. Saying that embryos are like slaves obscures the reality of the situation behind an ill-fitting metaphor. You could not be compelled to own a slave. The laws that those who want to restrict abortion support would compel a mother to carry an embryo against her will.

        The question “Isn’t the right way to proceed in these situations to decide first whether someone is a person, and then follow the consequences?” is likely about to be picked up by the Supreme Court in the Oklahoma case so any discussion of it is probably premature, but let’s do so. In fact, we’ve already seen the consequences of deciding that an embryo or fetus is a person, and quite frankly they are horrifying. I’m referring to the fetal homicide laws on the books in many states. Originally portrayed as protection for pregnant women, they have in many cases been used against those same women. Losing a baby is bad enough, being put in prison for losing your baby is a frightening concept for those concerned with liberty. See http://statecasefiles.justia.com/documents/indiana/court-of-appeals/49a02-1106-cr-486.pdf?ts=1328796286 and others.

        Finally, having a child in your care conveys certain requirements, but having custody of the child is not a mandate. If you are incapable of taking care of your child, you can give him or her up. It is not a desirable outcome, but neither is abortion. Still, the option should be there. There is no such option for pregnant women, making it in fact an atypical obligation.

        5. I take back what I said above about you not engaging in personal attacks. Suggesting that the person you disagree with would have supported slavery isn’t helpful and should probably be a corollary to Godwin’s Law. I can disagree with your views without accusing you of being a repugnant human being, I don’t think expecting the same in return is unreasonable. In the future, please try to raise the level of discourse, not lower it.

        1. Mark Baddeley says:

          Hi Eric,

          You’re welcome for the lack vitriol (with the exception you note on our discussion of question 5, which I’ll address momentarily). I appreciate that you have sought to maintain the same standard as well.

          2. I don’t particularly disagree with anything you say here, but I think you and I are talking at tangents. You’re discussing how the broad tendency can be scaled back. I’m asking whether someone aborting because they’d rather have one gender than another (or, if the technology allows, because the eye color or hair color isn’t what they hoped for, or if they do finally discover a ‘gay gene’ because the child might end up with same sex attraction) raises any kind of moral problem for you? The corollary of your position that what is ended is not a person would indicate that there should be no moral issue with sex-selective abortion (only a concern if a preference with one gender to be selected causes a broader imbalance in society). But most people don’t react to the practice that way. They see the act itself, even in the absence of a broader pattern, as morally troublesome.

          4. I don’t think your response on the slavery analogy works that well. On an anti-abortion position the mother is not being classified as a non-person, she is being classified as a person with parental responsibilities. That is *not* chattel slavery. On a pro-abortion position the unborn is being classified as a non-person, that is substantially the same position as chattel slavery.

          The issue with the slavery analogy is not whether someone has some of the liberties *that come with being recognized as a person* restrained, but whether they are defined as being a person under the law (and so have any liberties). Slaves were not persons with some restricted liberties. They were not persons at all. And just as now, those wanting to continue to have the freedom to treat them as non-persons cast their case as one of freedom of choice – those states who wanted to treat blacks as persons should be free to do that, and those who were not convinced that they were persons should not be forced to share a morality they did not agree with.

          The arguments of pro-choice in the present are very similar *at this point* to those of slaveowners. The argument that to impose personhood of the unborn upon those who are not convinced that the unborn are persons is markedly similar to the argument that slaveowners shouldn’t have the personhood of blacks imposed upon them when they are not convinced of it.

          Thank you for the link to the appeal case you linked. I haven’t read it all in detail, but I think I’ve read sufficient to acquire the basic thrust of the case. All cases like this are tragic, but having said that, we appear to be talking about a mother who ingested rat poison with the stated intention of killing herself and her viable baby. If the child had already been born at this age she would have been entirely viable. If the mother had taken that born child into a car and driven it into a river with the stated intention of killing herself and the child and survived she would have most likely been charged with homicide if the child died and she survived.

          Honestly, I’m struggling to see what is so frankly horrifying about the legal implications of this case. Even for someone in favour of abortion rights and, like you, in favor of restrictions for late term abortions, this seems to me to be quite appropriate within the tragedy of the overall situation.

          If the baby would live if he or she was removed from the womb, and if someone (anyone!) sought to kill them after they had left the womb would be charged with homicide, what is so profoundly different about them still being in the womb and someone (anyone!) seeks to kill them – even if that killing is a murder-suicide attempt?

          The atypical obligation on mothers is, again, not as atypical as you indicate. Fathers have no say over whether their child lives or dies. They cannot, on their own, put the child up for adoption. They are not required to have custody (and rarely are awarded it if there is separation from the mother), but if they do not have custody they are still required to financially support the child. These are significant infringements on the liberties and rights of fathers who possibly had no desire to become a father. Again, these issues related to being a mother that you are seeing as so very invasive are really just the implications of being a parent and having responsibilities even when you didn’t voluntarily ask to have them.

          5. Eric, read my comments here in light of everything I wrote. Do I really come across as the kind of guy who tries to make personal attacks? You wrote the following which really did come very close to making accusations of a personal nature of those who have a different view than you:

          “Do you have a child with Down Syndrome? How about a relative?”

          “It’s easy to be on your high horse on these issues when you don’t have to deal with the consequences.”

          “Taking away their right to choose is a terrible thing. You get to force your morality on them, but they have to live with the consequences.”

          You implied that people opposed to abortion lack first-hand knowledge, are on their high horse at low cost to themselves, and are seeking to force their moral sensibilities on others (in a way that is somehow different from seeking to fight for the unborn to not be recognized as persons as somehow not forcing one’s morality on others) .

          I didn’t take those as personal attacks in the context of what you wrote as a whole. Even if you think I came close to the line with my point about slavery, please extend me the same courtesy.

          My point about slavery, and the question, clearly presumed that you reject slavery, not that you support it. My point was, and continues to be, that your argument here looks similar to an important element in the argument in favor of allowing the slavery question to be decided on a state by state basis.

          You want it decided on a person by person basis as to whether the fertilized cells are persons – that there is no overarching legal recognition of the unborn’s personhood, but someone can choose to do that if they wish to. They wanted it decided on a state by state basis as to whether the fertilized cells are persons – that there is no overarching legal recognition of the personhood of blacks, but some states can choose to do that if they wish to.

          Yes, the analogy bites, but it is purely an analogy of two arguments, not in any way suggesting that you personally support slavery or, even more tendentiously, Nazism (Godwin’s law). It is not that different than asking someone if they *really* want no abortion even in cases of rape or incest. I’m pushing you in an area that should be uncomfortable for you, just as rape and incest are uncomfortable for many (but not all) opponents to abortion.

    3. The Janitor says:

      Eric writes,

      Making a collection of cells formed after fertilization a full person in the eyes of the law makes the woman a second class citizen, subordinate to those cells.

      Notice that by this reasoning, making a 3 month old baby a full person in the eyes of the law makes the woman a second class citizen, subordinate to those cells.

      And notice the way the issue is framed rhetorically: we are told that not supporting abortion is to take a morally repugnant stance against women, the issue is framed in terms of what the law says (bypassing what is right and wrong) and suggesting that the law is what makes “a full person” (but not so strongly that this couldn’t be denied later), and the referal to human life as “those cells.”

      The collection of cells is entirely dependent on the woman for its survival, making her legally obligated to take actions to preserve it.

      Same as a three month old.

      The government does not compel people in other situations to act in this way;

      Except it does in the case of the human life after 9 months.

      you can not be compelled to donate bone marrow or a kidney, for example.

      A diversion by false analogy.

      Life at conception laws amount to an unacceptable intrusion of government into the private lives of citizens.

      Again, notice the rhetorical framing of the issue on “life at conception laws” bypassing the fact that life does begin at conception. This rhetorical move is made in order to set up the “private lives of citizens” garbage, but where two lives are involved (the life of the mother and the life of the baby) and mutual consent is not given, what one life does to another life is not a private affair (nor is it necessarily even where mutual consent is given).

      It is ironic that the same people who decry “Big Government” are calling for this massive encroachment of government upon our liberty.

      Eric seems sharp enough that I’m willing to bet that he knows this is empty rhetoric that doesn’t hold up under scrutiny of what people are actually decrying with big government. Notice that we could turn his rhetoric around on him: It is ironic that the same people who decry limited government are calling for this laissez faire approach to the taking of human life.

      Eric’s twisted reasoning goes on, but I don’t have the stomach to look at any more of it for the time being.

      Total depravity is total in that effects every part of our being. Here we see the effects of depravity on the intellect.

      1. Mike says:

        “Notice that by this reasoning, making a 3 month old baby a full person in the eyes of the law makes the woman a second class citizen, subordinate to those cells.”

        This is a false analogy. A parent can give up a 3 month old baby for adoption and have no further obligation; a 3 month pregnant woman does not have that option

        1. The Janitor says:

          A 3 month pregnant woman CAN give up the baby for adoption after going through the process of pregnancy and then going through the process of putting the child up for adoption.

          If you try to say that the necessary futurity in giving up a presently unborn child for adoption justifies killing the child now, then we can point out that in most (all?) cases there is a necessary futurity to giving a 3 month old up for adoption too! After all, say the mother is on a plane and decides she no longer wants the 3 month old sitting next to her. She will have to wait at least till the plane lands before giving the child up for adoption. So if the necessary futurity of adoption justifies killing the unborn then it also justifies killing the 3 month old on the plane.

          Or suppose the mother and 3 month old get into a plane crash and are stranded on a deserted island. In this case, the mother cannot give the child up for adoption. Can she bash the baby in the head with a coconut?

          It’s not clear why you think having other options (e.g., adoption) would make it unjustifiable to kill a child. What is it that allows the mother to kill the child in the first place? The fact that she has no options besides killing it?! Whatever it is that provides that justification, that action of killing remains justified so long as the condition is met. So I’m not sure why we should think that the option of giving up a 3 month old for adoption cancels out the justification of killing the child. It seems that all it does is give *more* options, the option to kill it or the option to abandon it.

          1. Mike says:

            The difference being, of course, that a fetus is attached to the woman’s body, thus subordinating the mother (which was the point of the comment I commented to), and a 3 month old baby is not attached to the mother’s body.

          2. The Janitor says:

            Mike,

            A 3 month old is “subordinates” the mother, in that the 3 month old cannot survive without the mother’s continued care.

            You’ll need to show why “attached” is a morally relevant distinction.

          3. Phil says:

            Janitor,

            I believe you provided the answer yourself below. See Judith Jarvis Thompson.

          4. The Janitor says:

            Of course Beckwith and others have responded to Thompson. For now I’ll just point out one thing: Thompson’s analogy at best shows that it’s not wrong to abort a child in the case of rape. After all, if the host of the violinist was engaging in an act known to cause life-threatening diseases for violinist I think we would all say the host does have a moral obligation to sustain the life of the violinist.

            So, Phil, do you think abortion should be illegal in all cases except for rape?

      2. Phil says:

        Notice that by this reasoning, making a 3 month old baby a full person in the eyes of the law makes the woman a second class citizen, subordinate to those cells.

        This is simply not true. A woman is not subordinate to the 3 month old baby. She can give it away.

        The collection of cells is entirely dependent on the woman for its survival, making her legally obligated to take actions to preserve it.

        Same as a three month old

        See above.

        The government does not compel people in other situations to act in this way;

        Except it does in the case of the human life after 9 months.

        See above.

        Total depravity is total in that effects every part of our being. Here we see the effects of depravity on the intellect.

        Unnecessary vitriol. And not true.

        1. The Janitor says:

          “This is simply not true. A woman is not subordinate to the 3 month old baby. She can give it away.”

          I already responded to this. A woman with a three month old baby cannot simply give it a way. She has to go through a process and may not be in a circumstance where she can give the child a way. Under such conditions, do you support a mother bashing her baby in the head with a coconut?

          “Unnecessary vitriol. And not true.”

          It is not unnecessary vitriol. In fact, I think it needs to be pointed out that people arguing for the murder of children are moral monsters in an important sense. Imagine if someone was on this website arguing for the destruction of Jews. Wouldn’t you and shouldn’t you point out the grave moral depravity in that? I think so. Likewise, for people who arguing for the destruction of the unborn.

      3. Eric says:

        “Notice that by this reasoning, making a 3 month old baby a full person in the eyes of the law makes the woman a second class citizen, subordinate to those cells.”

        You’re misrepresenting my argument. A three month old child is dependent on _someone_, but not its mother in particular. If the woman is unable to take care of it, for whatever reason, she can give it up. It’s unfortunate, but sometimes it is necessary. A pregnant woman would have no such choice, if those who oppose abortion had their way.

        “Again, notice the rhetorical framing of the issue on “life at conception laws” bypassing the fact that life does begin at conception.”

        That’s very much your opinion, and not everyone shares it.

        “It is ironic that the same people who decry limited government are calling for this laissez faire approach to the taking of human life.”

        Again, an embryo is not a person. Abortion is not murder. The law agrees with me, not with you.

        “Total depravity is total in that effects every part of our being. Here we see the effects of depravity on the intellect.”

        <3 you too.

        1. The Janitor says:

          Eric,

          You say: “You’re misrepresenting my argument. A three month old child is dependent on _someone_, but not its mother in particular. If the woman is unable to take care of it, for whatever reason, she can give it up. It’s unfortunate, but sometimes it is necessary. A pregnant woman would have no such choice, if those who oppose abortion had their way.”

          Apparently you didn’t notice that Mike and Phil already tried this response and I already responded to their response.

          A three month old child is dependent on *the mother* of the child and only *potentially* dependent on someone else if the mother gives the child to someone else when that is possible. Likewise, a baby in the womb is *potentially* dependent on someone else if the mother chooses to give the child to someone else when that is possible.

          A pregnant woman DOES have the choice to wait and give the baby up for adoption, same as the mother of the three month old may have to *wait* before being able to abandon the child. Saying that the pregnant woman has no choice but to kill the baby is mistaken.

          Furthermore, this ignores the fact that it’s not clear that having *options* makes it unacceptable to kill the baby. If the mother of unborn can kill the baby because the baby is dependent upon the life of the mother, then this same justifying factor would seem to justify the mother of the 3 month old killing the baby. How does the fact that the mother has more *options* take away from the justification of killing the child? It seems that all it does is provide more options: the mother can kill the 3 month old or adopt, but killing it is still justifiable because the condition (of being dependent) still obtains.

          You say: “Again, an embryo is not a person. Abortion is not murder. The law agrees with me, not with you.”

          Racist laws in the past agreed with racists, so what?

    4. Peterson Onyeukwu says:

      What a well-reasoned response.

      Are you perhaps the same Eric Gregory below?

    5. John S says:

      Thanks Eric, some good answers. My responses to a few:

      3. Should a child be able to walk into a pharmacy and get an abortion just like an aspirin? We add restrictions on simple, benign aspirin, yet are removing restrictions on a major surgery that can have severe physical and psychological effects (let alone the murder question)? How is that a benefit and protection to the child? The underlying issue is authority. Should the state have right and power over parents to even talk with their own children? Parents can sue if you put a band-aid on their kid without asking yet its fine to teach them about sex or perform an abortion without even consulting their mom or dad?

      Has the Supreme Court ever been wrong? Can it ever be? I recognize the law but not that it’s always constitutional, or moral, or truthful. You would feel the same if it was reversed. Incest creates a different circumstance with parental consent, but it’s extremely rare. Why does law wall out parents in the other 99% of cases? This liberal view says parents have nothing to offer, or are harmful, especially in ‘traditional’ and religious homes. This is anything but constitutional. It’s actually an assault on freedom, and on the foundation and basic component of human society throughout history.

      4. This is the core of it. You say a collection of cells, akin to a kidney or bone marrow. I say a defenseless human, with brain waves, beating heart and equal in value to any human. Life at conception law protects citizens from murder, is not intruding. In 90%+of cases a woman freely made a choice and the child was not forced on her (I accept the option in cases of rape, incest, life/health of mother although I don’t support it). Life is full of consequences for choices for us all. The state should come down much harder on absentee dads as a matter of justice for the mom and child. And make adoption easier, among other things.

      5. Conservatives and Christians for centuries have helped expecting moms, families and individuals with Down Syndrome and other disabilities. Christians adopt a lot of kids who are either unwanted or whose mom’s aren’t able to care for them. I know many, one family adopted 5 children, all with developmental disabilities of some degree. An incredible display of the best of humanity, a happy and nurturing family that would have been done away with had they all been murdered. I can’t prove it, but I’m fairly confident that all babies conceived by rape and incest would be adopted. If folks knew of the circumstances many would step up to help. All that being said we can still do more to help, you are right.

      The underlying issue is deeper – where you draw the line on what constitutes burdensome and as such should not be given a chance to be born? Downs has a range of severity. Some have a better quality of life and are better citizens (highly adjusted, support themselves financially, affect others positively, etc) than some normal people. Why would we take the chance of terminating that person? Or the test may be wrong?! New science may may detect ‘defects’ like a low IQ, or ADD, etc in the womb. Or characteristics like gay, straight, ‘religion’ gene, hyper-aggressive – you name it. Do any of these burdens constitute authority to abort? Do you realize the awful power that gives doctors? And some folks don’t find out about problems until after birth. Why can’t they say no thanks we wanted a good one? As some are saying, since the baby is still ‘totally dependent’. I find it disturbing that some will base the value of an individual on how much he or she puts others out. No wonder there is also a growing push for infanticide and euthanasia. Welcome back to the ‘master race’.
      But again we will get nowhere when one person believes it’s murder and the other that it’s essentially a tumor. I’d simply say watch a few ultrasounds and explain what you see.

      6. 1st, many believe abortion is murder, it kills a defenseless person every time. Somewhat different level than the other examples. But it’s a good point in principle. The issue is freedom. You are suggesting that employee’s rights supersede employer’s rights. I disagree. The employer should be able to choose the care they provide in the same way they choose the level of pay. The potential employee should know what kind of health care they would receive, and if the employer’s plan doesn’t include abortion coverage (or psychiatric, vaccines, etc) and that’s important to them they have the freedom to not take the job. They also have the freedom to pay for that particular aspect of health care themselves. The employee is not forced to violate his conscience, he has 2 viable alternatives. If the employer is forced to pay for coverage which violates his conscience he has no freedom, no choice other than to close his business. Why should employers get to dictate pay rate either?

      1. Raven says:

        “You have the freedom to not to take the job” is a really terrible argument. In case you hadn’t noticed, a lot of people have very limited options when it comes to employment.

        1. gary says:

          raven,
          then you shouldn’t be putting yourself in a position where you take the chance of getting pregnant and need an abortion, should you?

    6. Nancy Wengert says:

      Thank you for explaining so well the way I feel on these issues.

  12. Makma says:

    #6: No, a pro-abortionist believes the government should be providing that.

  13. I think those are very good questions. I would like to hear the answers.

  14. Eric Gregory says:

    As a pro-choice/pro-life Christian, here are my responses:

    1. These are already in place (re: terminations of pregnancy are illegal when a child is “viable” as defined by states).

    2. This is a great one since “gendercide” is not illegal in the United States, but is in most Western nations with liberal abortion laws. I don’t know that we actually have statistics on how often this happens in the United States, and since a woman’s right to personal choice to make her decision is so protected by Roe v. Wade, I’m not sure legislation like this would ever be passed.

    3. I think requiring parental notification is not something I would be in favor of. I think it ought to be discussed with a counselor, but parents don’t need to be notified of their child’s own sexual practices if the child does not wish this to be known. I understand the apparent discrepancy with public school policies, but I think that’s a case of apples and oranges: it’s not as if public schools are performing abortions like they are dispensing over-the-counter medication to students who need it.

    4. I think the courts are pretty clear that states have the right to determine when a fetus’ “viability” exists, which is what many people think of as the time when abortion is no longer an option. With respect to the idea that human life “begins at conception”, this is a fundamental misread of science (which requires a non-hostile environment for implantation and growth over the course of nine months). Things like the “personhood amendment” are atrocious abrogations of basic reasoning that would require things like investigations into miscarriages and might make criminal the act of ingesting anything potentially harmful to the fetus whilst pregnant. I don’t think science is clear on when viable human life begins, though I think we would all do well to note that fetuses are absolutely potential human life.

    5. That is a disturbing figure, and it’s difficult to legislate (for the same reason that gendercide would be difficult to legislate, which I noted above). I think this is an atrocity, especially since children and adults with Down Syndrome have much to offer potential parents and friends. (I’d like to see what other nations whose abortion laws are much more nuanced than ours might have on the books here.)

    6. This is a silly question. Employers don’t have to provide birth control or contraception for their employees ever. The birth control mandate that the Obama administration has implemented, which I assume is what this question is in reference to, clearly doesn’t call for this, but calls for every employer to have a health care plan that provides for basic women’s health. I absolutely support the idea that women and men should be treated equally under the law, and, since viagra and often viscetomies are covered under these plans, birth control absolutely should be as well. With respect to abortion, since it’s a legal medical procedure that is none of the business of the employer, I don’t see how the employer would ever have to “provide access” in a way that would violate their conscience. It should be clear, however, that the Obama administration’s birth control mandate does not do this at all.

    7. I think this is a fascinating point that’s made a bit too often by anti-abortionists while they refuse to address the systemic issues of poverty and oppression that exist to create such a disparity in abortion rates by race and ethnicity. I might also point out that what many people consider as “abortion clinics” (i.e. Planned Parenthood centers, etc.) actually provide low-cost health services to women (and men) that have nothing to do with abortion. This organization specifically serves populations who don’t have much money for medical procedures, examinations, testing, etc., so I don’t think it’s quite fair to conflate the idea that most abortions are performed on black and Latina mothers with health centers that are in inner city areas.

    8. The morality of abortion is a sensitive issue which our courts have determined is not the right of the state or federal government to elucidate. I understand that this question is attempting to put someone like myself in a catch-22 situation, but it conflates a candidate’s personal views with the views of the women who are making this incredibly difficult choice. This isn’t a fair comparison, not least of all because I will never have to make this decision in my life. Ever. I’m not arguing that moral stances must come with experience – not at all – I’m simply recognizing that, since this will NEVER be the experience of half the people in this nation, a bit of grace and space should be made for those who feel that it is necessary to have this procedure.

    9. The position of the Supreme Court is that the government has the ability to provide limitations for abortions when the life of the mother is not at stake after a fetus is viable. Because this term isn’t well defined, however, and can mean banning abortions as early as 15 weeks, I’m not sure I agree with this. The majority of other countries with liberal abortion laws allow for abortions up until 24 weeks (sometimes shortened to 20 weeks), which seems reasonable. However, because of the trouble associated with attempting to legislate that a woman must either (a.) birth the fetus naturally and thus, for up to two months before that time would be required by law to maintain a healthy diet, etc. (effectively having the state put the life of the fetus, a potential human being, above the decisions and/or needs of the woman); or (b.) require the woman to undergo a caesarean section at the time of her choosing before a natural birth (in which complications of money and care for the fetus, which is no longer necessarily the woman’s responsibility and which she might not be able to afford in the case that it is) – these issues complicate the matter significantly.

    10. No.

    And please, have the decency to call people who are pro-choice by the name they’d prefer. I know of no pro-choice individuals (especially Christians) who are pro-abortion at all. Number eight on this list does this pretty well. I’d prefer not to use the term “pro-life” for those who want abortion to be legal (since that seems to preclude the idea that those who are in favor of a woman’s right to choose are required to not be in favor of the life of the mother AND the life of the unborn fetus.

    1. The Janitor says:

      Eric Gregory,

      Why should we accept the criterion of “viable” human life at all? Take Judith Thompson’s violinist argument. Does the violinist cease to be a human when connected to our unhappy host, simply because the violinist loses some degree of “viability”?

      Notice that a one month old child is not viable. Do you support infanticide too?

      1. Eric Gregory says:

        I have no idea what you’r referring to with the violinist argument. That makes little to no sense outside of better contextualization.

        And no, birth is the life event that changes everything (looking at both the Hebrew Scriptures as well as our current laws).

        1. The Janitor says:

          Eric,

          I’m sorry, I assumed you were familiar with common abortion arguments. Judith Jarvis Thompson is a pro-abortionist who argues for the right to abortion based on a story about a sick violinist. Briefly, a world famous violinist must be attached to your body in order to survive, until some solution is found. The point of Thompson’s story is that no one thinks you should be forced to “carry” the violinist. So why think a woman should be forced to carry a baby in the womb?

          However, I’m using Thompson’s argument to undercut one of your points: that viability is a relevant measure of human life. In Thompson’s story, the violinist is clearly a full human being. No one would say the violinist becomes un-human when he is attached to your body and, hence, no longer “viable.” The reason no one thinks this is because we recognize that our humanity is not accidental (something we gain or lose) but something we are by nature.

          This undercuts your attempt to ground abortion in discussions of viability.

          You say: “And no, birth is the life event that changes everything (looking at both the Hebrew Scriptures as well as our current laws).”

          Let’s ignore whether Scripture or the current laws teach this for the time being. For one thing, I don’t think Scripture gives you any support here and I simply *don’t care* what current law says (since obviously what our laws say can be wrong). My question for you is: what is the *significant* difference between a baby 1 minute prior to birth and 1 minute after birth?

          1. Eric Gregory says:

            I understand what you’re trying to suggest, but I don’t think it undercuts my own (or the Supreme Court’s) argument about viability. You’re conflating two things which shouldn’t be conflated (and I disagree with Judith Thompson’s articulation, so there’s that) and also getting it wrong: the violinist in that argument is not viable apart from the host and it’s the host’s life/needs that need to be upheld above the parasite (since you started using “host” language).

          2. The Janitor says:

            Eric,

            Please demonstrate that the illustration doesn’t undercut your claims about viability. Simply asserting that it doesn’t is useless.

            The violinist is not viable apart from the host. Likewise, the baby in the womb is not viable apart from the host (in this case the mother). The violinist is till obviously a full human being. So, why think the unviability of the baby in the womb indicates anything about its humanity?

            Instead of just asserting I’m wrong or conflating things that shouldn’t be conflated, please give an argument (something like premises with a conclusion).

          3. Eric Gregory says:

            I did.

            Allow me to quote myself:

            “[T]he violinist in that argument is not viable apart from the host and it’s the host’s life/needs that need to be upheld above the parasite (since you started using “host” language).”

            In response to your comment, the entire point of fetal viability is that fetuses which can survive on their own outside of the womb are considered viable. Those that cannot are not. The same rule would apply with respect to the violinist – it cannot survive on its own apart from its host, and is therefore not viable.

            And please try a bit harder to understand arguments that aren’t spelled out in numerical steps.

          4. The Janitor says:

            Eric,

            It seems you’ve misunderstood the point of my bringing up the violinist. You claimed in your post that only when the baby is viable is it human life. My counter to that was that the violinist is obviously still a human, even when not viable. So if viability doesn’t effect the humanity of the violinist what good reason do we have to think it should effect the humanity of the baby in the womb?

            You haven’t given me any argument for that at all. You’ve just pointed out that the violinist isn’t viable apart from the host… something I already pointed out in my first response to you when I raised the issue!

          5. The Janitor says:

            “And please try a bit harder to understand arguments that aren’t spelled out in numerical steps.”

            The problem is not that your arguments aren’t spelled out in numerical steps. The problem is that your arguments are not spelled out at all.

    2. The Janitor says:

      “the women who are making this incredibly difficult choice.”

      The choice is only difficult in that it is difficult to choose to do such a wicked thing as murder your child. We should have no more respect for the woman who makes the difficult choice of killing her child in the womb than the woman who makes the choice to drown her 1 month old in the tub.

      1. Eric Gregory says:

        That’s idiotic, especially given the fact that, across history and time, no culture has prized the unborn to be equal to the born. Not a single culture or religion has ever done this. There’s something important about birth that differentiates a fetus from being a full human being – being outside of the womb, breathing air instead of liquid, etc. – these are all crucial to an understanding of what it means to be a full human being.

        Infanticide is entirely different.

        1. The Janitor says:

          “That’s idiotic, especially given the fact that, across history and time, no culture has prized the unborn to be equal to the born. Not a single culture or religion has ever done this.”

          With all due respect, I find your reason for *why* you find my comment to be idiotic itself to be idiotic. Prior to just recently, I could have argued that across history and time no culture has prized women to be equal to men.

          “There’s something important about birth that differentiates a fetus from being a full human being – being outside of the womb, breathing air instead of liquid, etc. – these are all crucial to an understanding of what it means to be a full human being.”

          Please give me the morally relevant distinctions to back up that assertion.

          1. Eric Gregory says:

            Well there’s David Kelsey’s two-volume tome called “Eccentric Existence” that argues this. There’s also common sense (which is why no personhood amendment exists in this country).

          2. The Janitor says:

            Then please sketch the argument from David Kelsey for me. After all, it would be easy for me to just refer you to books which argue for my case.

            Or you could sketch your argument from common sense.

        2. Chris Jones says:

          The problem with your argument is that the fetus is 100% a human being. That is why you can have a baby born at, say 29 weeks, alive and out of the mother’s body, and in the next room over, a baby still unborn at 30 weeks. Are you saying that the younger one is a human but the older one isn’t? That’s a two-fer: not scientific, and not compassionate!

    3. The Janitor says:

      “And please, have the decency to call people who are pro-choice by the name they’d prefer.”

      Unfortunately, this issue (as well as the homosexual issue) has become steeped in rhetoric. Some of that might be on the pro-life side, but some of it is definitely on the pro-choice side. In both cases (pro-life and pro-choice) the names are chosen to reflect the respective position in the best possible light. Pro-choice advocates almost always take issue with the label “pro-life” so I think its fair and necessary to take issue with pro-choice labels too.

      If you believe a woman has the right to kill her unborn child, you’re pro-abortion. You think it’s a good that outweighs alternatives (or else you’re just entirely irrational for supporting it). That’s true regardless of how “difficult” you want to paint it or what rhetoric you want to use to tip-toe around it. So the label fits in that respect.

      Debunking labels or pinning up accurate labels is fair game, so far as I can see. It’s not a lack of decency. If anything, it’s a respect for the truth.

      1. Eric Gregory says:

        Let’s respond with the Bible:

        What makes it okay for God to require a man to force his wife, who is suspected of being unfaithful, to swallow an abortifacient? (RE: Numbers 5:11-31)

        1. The Janitor says:

          Sorry, Eric, but I don’t buy your assertion that Numbers 5:11-31 has anything to do with abortion. Please exegete the text to demonstrate that an abortion is occurring.

          1. Eric Gregory says:

            Ugh… are you kidding?

            It’s a man being able to test his wife for unfaithfulness after she is clearly pregnant (v. 22 – “so that your abdomen swells and you miscarry). God is allowing a husband to make his wife drink something that’s not good for her with the caveat that if she’s faithful, nothing bad will happen. This is little different than people in the Middle Ages throwing women into lakes for being a suspected witch. If she floated, she was a witch and should be killed, if she sank, she wasn’t – either way she was dead.

          2. The Janitor says:

            Eric,

            Sorry, but importing your assumed meaning into the text is not exegesis. The Hebrew word for you try to render “miscarry” is most commonly translated thigh, side, hip or base as can be seen in Exo. 25:31 and Gen. 32:25.

            All you’ve done is tell me that you think the text means an abortion is occurring, but I already knew you thought. I wanted you to exegete that meaning from the text.

            As a prima facie argument against this reading, not that if this is the intention of the text then it’s obviously ineffective. For one thing, the woman could have had an affair and not gotten pregnant or else the woman could have not had an affair and gotten pregnant from the father and if the woman is drinking an abortifacient, as you claim, she would abort a legitimate baby. So your reading of the text looks absurd.

      2. SShiell says:

        I find it interesting that in order to be called “pro-choice” you have to agree with the choice of abortion. A woman who chooses to have a child is making a choice – to have the child. I believe this is just part of political correctness run amuck – they (so-called pro choice advocates) want to name themselves something that sounds benign rather than something descriptive of their intent.

        1. Eric Gregory says:

          Wait, what?

          You’re right, CHOOSING to have a child IS a choice, but it’s not the only legal and moral one a woman can make upon learning that she is pregnant. It’s no longer a choice when it’s the only option. Hence why people who aren’t even pro-abortion define themselves as pro-choice. I myself define as pro-choice AND pro-life because advocating for a holistic sense of human life is important, but I don’t think I can (legally or morally) impose my will on the moral consciences of other people.

          1. The Janitor says:

            “I don’t think I can (legally or morally) impose my will on the moral consciences of other people.”

            So you don’t support laws against murder, or child rape?

          2. Random_acct says:

            Eric, that is an absurd argument (your last sentence).

    4. gary says:

      Eric,
      you are wrong wrong wrong…viagra and vasectomies are NOT covered by health insurance…
      hhs is mandating that contraception be covered for non-medical recreation use and that is also wrong wrong wrong…as for abortions, the mandate is requiring coverage for even late term abortions when the baby would live outside the womb, so i would disagree that you are pro-life, you are pro-murder….

      1. GPT says:

        not all women take contraceptives for recreational sex. This view is the kind of ignorance that is spewed forth by so many. My wife took contraceptives for years before we were married (or even knew each other) as a corrective to the pain that an irregular menstrual cycle brought her. We were married 7 years ago, neither of us ever having sex with each other or anyone else prior to our marriage.

        I am dumbfounded by the absolute lack of any sort of medical or medicinal knowledge that so many conservative men carry. Don’t any of you ever speak to your wives?

        1. gary says:

          gpt…
          you are the ignorant one…my statement stated that hhs is mandating that contraception must be covered for non-medical recreational use. Who are you to judge then that i have no clue? Of course not all women take contraception for non-medical use, and when it is PRESCRIBED as MEDICALLY necessary for a MEDICAL condition, then insurance covers it now and has for years. SOme of us actually DO know what we’re talking about and maybe you should think before you judge.

    5. Peterson Onyeukwu says:

      my friend very well written. You have clarified for me a great deal. Yours is an example of well-thought responses to an unabashedly non-serious piece, that seeks more to draw out emotion more than to ask genuine questions.

      I aspire to have the same clarity of thought that you have expressed today. Thank you

  15. michael says:

    Trevin, I appreciate the questions but not the assertion that the media is bias. It does not help our cause brother. Since the law is against us, we have the moral responsibility to answer the tough questions and advocate our case to change the laws. We should welcome the tough questions! We should get out of our pro-life barracks and move into the culture war battlefield to answer questions.

    1. The Janitor says:

      We are called to be wise as serpents. Doesn’t that also involve debunking rhetoric (of the media and other pro-abortionists) and pointing out biases and presuppositions that blind people?

    2. gary says:

      then you are blind….
      the media is actually more than just biased, they are pro-murder…

  16. katy says:

    For me the biggest question is not are you pro-life or pro-choice, the biggest question for me is: Why is it okay for you to push YOUR views onto someone else? I had an abortion when I was 17. I then had three children years later. I do not regret my decision at all! That being said although I am pro-choice I AM NOT PRO-ABORTION. If I had a friend come to me about abortion I would not try to talk her into it. Its something very personal I think every woman should be able to decide for herself. I did not go into it thinking “Oh yay Im going to kill my baby.” It was a very heavy decision. Its been 15 years and I still think about it. You never forget, but it has not destroyed me. I love the kids I have and wouldnt have done it any other way.

    The biggest issue with outlawing abortions is THEY WILL STILL HAPPEN! One of my great aunts was married to a man who did not want children. For whatever reason they didnt use condoms or anything, this was back in the 40′s. She got pregnant 12 times and each time, because he didnt want children, she would take a knitting needle and giver herself an abortion. Its a wonder she didnt bleed to death or end up with some horrible infection. If she has had access to birth control or abortions had been legal, she could have at least had them in a sterile, medical facility. Think what you want but if they get rid of abortions it will go back to scenarios like this one. Having had three kids after an abortion had made me more pro-choice. There are so many people out there who arent Christians who dont believe the way I do. Therefore I donot believe that it is my right to push my beliefs on them. They have to deal with God and the consequences that come with it. I myself have made my peace with God. I know that I have been forgiven and that someday I will see the baby in heaven. STOP FORCING YOUR BELIEFS ON OTHER PEOPLE!!!!

    1. The Janitor says:

      “I know that I have been forgiven”

      So you agree that abortion is wrong? Let me ask you: *why* do you think abortion is wrong? Is it because it takes the life of a human being unjustly? In which case, why do you think mothers have a right to murder their children (since the unjust taking of human life is classified as murder)? If you do not believe abortion is unjust taking of human life, why do you need to be forgiven for it?

    2. allend says:

      A quick response to the argument you used in this line:
      “The biggest issue with outlawing abortions is THEY WILL STILL HAPPEN!”

      Just because abortions will still happen, whether with safe or dangerous methods, does not mean its pointless to outlaw it. Laws are created to prohibit what society considers wrong. Even though murder, rape, etc. still happen, we all would agree it should still be illegal.

      This is not an issue of forcing ones beliefs on others. Freedom of thought and religion is a great thing. This is about protecting one group of people from another group of people. Some of us believe an unborn child is a person, just like the rest of us. That is why we have a problem with abortion – because we have a problem with murder. If a person does not believe an unborn child is a person, then we can’t really convince them abortion is wrong.

      I hope I have spoken in love and grace.

    3. John K says:

      Did you pursue adoption alternatives when you were 17? If you didn’t, why not? As for God forgiving you, abortion is a serious sin, but not outside the scope of God’s forgiveness. But in the words of Bruce Waltke, noted OT scholar “There is no forgiveness without repentence.” It doesn’t look like you’ve repented of your abortion when you were 17. David repented of his adultery and murder after being confronted, and God forgave him (though not without earthly consequence).

  17. The Janitor says:

    “Why is it okay for you to push YOUR views onto someone else?”

    So do you think it should be illegal for a mother to kill her three month old child? If you do think that should be illegal, I’m very curious as to your justification for pushing YOUR views onto what that woman does with that group of cells (to frame the issue in terms other pro-abortionists have in the comments here).

    “I AM NOT PRO-ABORTION. If I had a friend come to me about abortion I would not try to talk her into it.”

    No one uses the term “pro-abortion” to mean that you try to persuade other women into having abortions (ceteris paribus) so you’re just equivocating to say you are not pro-abortion. If you support a right to have an abortion, you’re pro-abortion.

  18. The Janitor says:

    “The biggest issue with outlawing abortions is THEY WILL STILL HAPPEN!”

    Is that the biggest issue with outlawing drunk driving too? Nope. Which suggests to me that this isn’t an issue at all, it’s red-herring.

    1. Eric Gregory says:

      What a self-righteous, bigoted comment. Seriously. The two are hardly equitable.

      That’s like saying having an abortion is no different than having a tumor removed.

      1. The Janitor says:

        Eric,

        You appear to be very long on assertions, but very short on arguments. In response to my challenges, you’ve done nothing more than assert your conclusions.

        I hate to sound like a broken record here, but please provide some reasons for your claims. So when you say my comment is self-righteous and bigoted, please demonstrate that this isn’t just your emotional knee-jerk reaction by showing how it is what you claim. Then please show how the two are hardly equitable.

        Katy said the biggest issue with outlawing abortion is that they will still happen. Why should I think that is the biggest issue in THIS case but not in other cases where outlawing an action will not prevent the action from occurring?

        1. Eric Gregory says:

          Seriously, this isn’t difficult.

          If you cannot see the similarities between your argument and the one I proposed (which I’m certain you disagree with, which is the reason why I chose it), I’m not sure walking you through it would be worthwhile. If you’d rather have a lecture on why your comment is self-righteous and bigoted, I might suggest a class on feminist theology. Or simply pastoral care.

          In terms of taking your own advice, I don’t see a premise or a conclusion or really much of an argument with respect to the drunk driving example you offered. In fact, I gave exactly the same amount of context that you did (aside from noting the obvious: your argument is fallacious in the way that my argument is fallacious – they are the same false analogies. If you need a step-by-step run-down of how drunk driving is not akin to abortion, I’m not sure I can help much beyond a “let me google that for you” link.

          1. The Janitor says:

            Eric,

            So basically all you’ve said that you’re not going to support your claims with reasons. Got it, thanks. I think that admission is enough that now people will be able to read your comments and stop and ask themselves “Did he actually give any reasons for his position or did he just make a bunch of assertions?”

            “I don’t see a premise or a conclusion or really much of an argument with respect to the drunk driving example you offered.”

            Katy’s claim is that the biggest issue in making abortion illegal is that they will still happen. I simply want to know why that is the biggest issue. When I consider other things that are made illegal (like drunk driving or rape), the fact that they will still happen doesn’t seem relevant. So why should I think it is relevant in this case?

            The onus is on Katy, not me. Or if you want to pick up Katy’s argument for her be my guest.

          2. gary says:

            sorry, man, the janitor is right….based on katy’s statement, we should just allow everything, because it will keep happening. Why make murder illegal when “they will still happen”…why make drunk driving illegal “when it will still happen”..it would never end…open your eyes…

          3. John K says:

            th all due respect, I admire people who work for the outlawing of abortion. If I could push a button, and pass a reasonably enforcable law which would outlaw abortions except in the case of saving the life of a mother, I would. I just don’t see the possibility, barring an act of God. Even if Roe v Wade is overturned, that would just (from what I’ve read) throw the issue back to the states. How many states would outlaw it? Then there’s the Constitutional amendment option, where 2/3 of both the house and Senate and the state legislatures have to approve it. Then there would be a nationwide ban, but do we really see that coming? Not anytime in my lifetime, at least, barring an act of God. But even if that happened, is it enforcable? I think it would be like Prohibition, a virtually useless restriction. And on’t forget the black market for RU-486 and other home abortion drugs that would come about. My point here is the Psalm (145?) that says “Don’t trust in princes”. I don’t try to argue abortion legalies so much anymore, only moralities. I assume abortion will stay legal. I just work on saying its seriously morally wrong. Maybe if enough people take this approach, one day in the far future a truly good enforcable law will be passed. Not that there can be little base hit victories for legal restrictions, but we need to focus more on telling people its universally morally wrong and there is no moral women’s right to choose in God’s eyes, and far less about trying to tell people what should be legal and illegal.

  19. Restless says:

    How about:

    “While a state senator in Illinois, President Obama opposed legislation that would give legal protection to babies that survive an abortion procedure. Would you have supported such a law?”
    OR
    “Do you support partial-birth abortion, where a fetus is partially delivered, scissors are used to puncture the back of its skull, and then its brains are sucked out?”

  20. Kevin says:

    Notice abortion clinics are in Democratic Run Cities ! Hello

    Kevin Retcho
    Facebook

  21. dugbru says:

    Here’s an 11th question.. Would you be in favour of allowing a “hunting ” season on the eggs of endangered bird species, and only the eggs, as they are not yet “life” by the standards the pro choice lobby applies to an in utero fetus???? If my “choice was to prefer omlettes made from endangered bird eggs rather than chicken’s eggs, would you extend that right to me??? if not why?? after all an egg is not a bird.

  22. Bob Kleiber says:

    Let’s modify #10 slightly: in many states, the killer of a pregnant woman faces two murder charges, one for the mother and one for the fetus. Yet, if that same day, the woman decides to abort the fetus, that is not a crime. Thus we have given the mother the ultimate power to decide what and what is not a crime. No other citizen has that power regarding a criminal act, in particular a felony at the time the act is committed.

    Should we do that? What are the logical extents of this decision? Can a woman also make end-of-life decisions since she has this unique power?

  23. DMOL says:

    I have been an advocate for pro-life for years. These questions have been asked in the past but the pro-abortion, pro-death advocates found that just obfuscating worked. After years of obfuscation the media just got tired of asking these questions. It was tiring to hear them say that “this is an issue for a woman and her clergy” or “I’m not a scientist so I can’t really answer your question” but that never stopped them from advocating for pro-abortion under the banner of “women’s rights” as if that was sacrosanct and enough to answer any of the questions posed here. Avoid, confuse, attack, and obfuscate just made any genuine inquiry tiresome really quick.

  24. Jaynie59 says:

    You can’t ask logical questions of a liberal because if they were capable of thinking thru a thought they wouldn’t hold the opinions they do. It’s pretty much that simple. It’s also important to understand that to a liberal, abortion is not about this mythical “baby” thing you pro-lifers are always talking about. What baby? There’s no baby. Abortion means freedom. It means I can do whatever I want and take no responsiblility and not have to live with the consequences of my actions. That’s why abortion is so important to the liberal Left. It’s the only freedom they understand. Yes, they really are that stupid.

    1. Phil says:

      I am surprised this comment is allowed. And brings up the question, at what point do the comments get moderated?

      1. The Janitor says:

        Phil is concerned with overly harsh language. Phil is not concerned with the murder of innocent children.

        1. Phil says:

          I don’t really believe you believe abortion doctors are murdering innocent children.

          If you did, surely you’ve done something to stop it?

          (PS. Thanks for earlier comments. Much to think about it. Still mulling it over.)

          1. The Janitor says:

            Phil,

            I don’t believe in vigilante justice. If I knew my neighbor across the street was guilty of murder, I wouldn’t play judge, jury, and executioner. Rather, I would go the the police.

            Of course, there is no point in me going to the police in this case, since the police won’t do anything about it. So instead I try to argue against those who deny that abortion is murder and defend the position that abortion is murder.

          2. Phil says:

            Janitor,

            Yeah, I didn’t think you’ve done anything to stop it. Because you (like 99% percent of the pro-life movement) don’t really believe “innocent children” are being killed.

            Your reliance on vigilante justice is misplaced. Vigilante justice is about “righting” past “wrongs.” Stopping abortions isn’t about righting past wrongs. No once calls it “vigilante justice” for a bystander to take out a shooter who is picking off “innocent children” in an elementary school. That bystander is a hero, and there are no moral qualms there.

            Similarly, the idea of “judge, jury, and executioner” is misplaced, given that you are stopping a cold blooded killer who WILL kill numerous children today. In any case, if you find the idea of killing an abortion doctor distasteful (even if it is the logical conclusion), there are lots of things that could be done. Render an abortion clinic unusable–seems like the least you can do.

            So, go ahead. Keep arguing with people. Surely that’s effective. And arguing seems like the right thing to do, given that 3,500 “innocent children” are going to be murdered today in the United States.

          3. The Janitor says:

            Phil,

            In regards to future abortions: because trying to forcibly stop an abortion would be even less effective than trying to reason with them.

          4. Phil says:

            The best way to stop abortion providers is to reason with them, so they see the errors of their ways? This is nonsense. The best way to stop abortion providers is to stop abortion providers (see above).

          5. The Janitor says:

            Phil,

            How about you give me an argument that shows me that forcibly stopping abortion providers will be more effective than the current methods?

            All you’re trying to do is claim that we should be forcibly stopping abortionists, because you think this will make us look more extremist, not because you have any rational reason for making that claim. In other words, you’re clearly trying to bait us into an unfavorable position. But why don’t you give us an argument or else force us to see things your way?

            As part of this baiting tactic, you use a clearly fallacious argument that if we really believed abortion was murder we would all be trying to forcibly stop it. To list just one obvious counter-example, it’s possible we both believe abortion is murder and believe forcibly trying to stop it is less effect. Or, another obvious counter-example to your “logic” is that we believe abortion is murder but are simply inconsistent.

            The tactics pro-abortionists sink to…

  25. Elizabeth says:

    Great questions ~ stating the obvious. Now if I could only remember all those points when the taboo subject comes up within my own family!

    God bless you.

  26. PCMike says:

    1. You say you support a woman’s right to make her own reproductive choices in regards to abortion and contraception. Are there any restrictions you would approve of?

    There are already many restriction is place -
    Rove v. Wade used trimesters to inform the law.
    Pro-choice candidates are largely offering support for Roe v. Wade.
    The irony on contraception (and sex ed) is that restricting such only results in more abortions.
    So advocacy for less restrictions on contraception and making it more widely available should be considered an anti-abortion position – in that it reduces them.

    1. Karen says:

      What about Obama’s record of voting to deny life-giving aid to babies born alive through abortion? You think there are enough restrictions in place, or should we look a little deeper? Or maybe you find this acceptable?

  27. PCMike says:

    2. In 2010, The Economist featured a cover story on “the war on girls” and the growth of “gendercide” in the world – abortion based solely on the sex of the baby. Does this phenomenon pose a problem for you or do you believe in the absolute right of a woman to terminate a pregnancy because the unborn fetus is female?

    You are conflating two completely different issues.
    A woman’s right to choose is just that. It’s pretty clear.
    Sex-selection is motivated by very real societal disadvantages to women and girls in a particular country or culture. Surely one would want to work to see that change.

    1. The Janitor says:

      Why do you assume sex-selection is based on disadvantages to females? Are the *parents* disadvantaged to having females? Not in any obvious way.

      But are you implying that you would be fine with sex-selective abortion that were not rooted in societal disadvantages to women?

  28. PCMike says:

    3. In many states, a teenager can have an abortion without her parents’ consent or knowledge but cannot get an aspirin from the school nurse without parental authorization. Do you support any restrictions or parental notification regarding abortion access for minors?

    You are comparing getting aspirin to alleviate a headache to needing an abortion? In the rare circumstances where girls actually do seek abortions and do not want their family knowing, it is often because they have a legitimate fear or concern for their physical safety. There are systems in place to both offer counselling and legal guidance and support.
    Imperfect, but rationale.

    1. The Janitor says:

      You assert that it is often the case that if a girl does not inform her parents of her plans for an abortion it is because she has a legitimate fear or concern for their physical safety.

      I’d like to know what data you’re drawing from. Do you have any research to back that up or are you just making up whatever sounds good to you?

      1. gary says:

        he is making it up…
        what people are missing here is not the comparison between a girl getting an aspirin at school and having an abortion on her own…we are talking about the school supporting the abortion and the schhool officials actually taking the girl to have said abortion without consent – there is a big difference here. if you can’t dispense an aspirin, you should’t be driving the kid to the clinic…

  29. PCMike says:

    4. If you do not believe that human life begins at conception, when do you believe it begins? At what stage of development should an unborn child have human rights?

    As a legal benchmark, I support Roe v. Wade, which as you might be aware breaks this down by trimesters.
    Imperfect, yet rationale.

    1. Karen says:

      So you will go to Roe v. Wade? Did you know that case was based on a lie? Therefore, I’m not sure what rational truth you will find there. But, sure, you can believe the “argument” by trimesters if you want. Just so you know, though, abortions happen throughout all trimesters, right up until birth. I guess some human life (whenever you think it begins) is expendable. Or maybe it’s only human when you want to save it–you know, in NICU.

  30. PCMike says:

    5. Currently, when genetic testing reveals an unborn child has Down Syndrome, most women choose to abort. How do you answer the charge that this phenomenon resembles the “eugenics” movement a century ago – the slow, but deliberate “weeding out” of those our society would deem “unfit” to live?

    Again, I support a woman’s right to choose. I suggest you better understand what that means. It does not mean that I make this choice for her and apply my own personal beliefs.
    I am very supportive of the great advances that have been made in pre-natal care as and pregnancy services such as those offered by Planned Parenthood. I would welcome the ‘pro-life’ community in being fully supportive of care for at risk children following their birth.

  31. Cliff Lea says:

    Excellent questions! I’ll use this..

  32. PCMike says:

    6. Do you believe an employer should be forced to violate his or her religious conscience by providing access to abortifacient drugs and contraception to employees?

    I believe that the health insurance offered to employees must be complete and thus include pregnancy and contraceptive access and services. There are many treatments now for various illnesses that are a direct result of stem cell research. Do you suggest that these same employers should also be able to deny these treatments?
    Health care is just that. It is not religion. Religious leaders are free to make whatever case they wish to convince members of their congregation to follow some interpretation of bible or other faith-centered morals. But I believe American citizens should remain free from any enforcement of such.

    1. Karen says:

      Great, then you should also be opposed to the HHS mandate. It forces individual American citizens to pay an abortion surcharge through their insurance plans. THAT, in itself, is a perversion of our religious freedoms.

      1. gary says:

        pc mike has no interest in responding to anyone…he just spews junk like “i’ll refer to roe v wade” and leaves….hahahaha

  33. William Peck says:

    why 10 questions ? There’s really only one: “Why do you think it’s ok to murder a baby in his[her] mother’s womb, when the womb is supposed to be the safest sanctuary of all?”

    Also, how would you feel if your mother had aborted you ?

    1. GPT says:

      That’s two.

  34. Linda Taylor says:

    As a Pro-choice person, let me answer them for you:)
    1. Only restrictions would be if it would cause self harm or endangerment for the woman.
    2.The law grants women the right to self-determination. It’s that part about life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. it took a long time to get that right granted to women. I am not interested in her reasons or some moral justification. It is her right. You can’t take it away from her just cause you say so.
    3. Most states have a pregnant minors law that is different from an emancipated minors law. Because girls can get pregnant so young, each state outlines procedures. It is a state issue and should never become a federal issue.
    4. The law is pretty clear that life begins with the first breath. You cannot become a human being if you are still attached to another being. Until you are separate, you are simply one being and that being has rights under the constitution. Again you are granted human rights when you become a human being.
    5. Again, it is irrelevant why a woman chooses to terminate a pregnancy. You cannot justify taking away a woman’s right to self-determiniation by splitting hairs.
    6. I think an employer should stay out of the reproductive decision of ANY employee. Unless they are going to look at the insurance coverage of Viagra and penile implants, it’s none of their business. Provide the coverage and shut up.
    7. Because most white people don’t frequent abortion clinics. They go to their nice suburban doctors office and have it performed at the local hospital and they call it a D&C. Most underserved populations cannot afford the coverup.
    8. What do you not understand about a pregnant 8 year old as tragic? It is a woman’s right to self determination and if she elects to terminate a pregnancy, it is never done without soul searching and reviewing other options. It is always the best decision because it is never made lightly.
    9. I think that is a medical decision and a decision between a provider and patient and has been for centuries.
    10. The Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004 (Public Law 108-212) recognizes a “child in utero” as a legal victim, if he or she is injured or killed during the commission of any of over 60 listed federal crimes of violence. So it really does not matter what I think. People smarter than me figured out what 60 crimes applied.

    1. gary says:

      you contradicted yourself…if it is not a human life until it draws breath, then how can it be a “child-victim”? other people are clearly smarter than you…
      and insurance does not cover viagra or penile implants so what is your point? the point is that contraception and abortion should also not be covered because they are personal choices not medical necessities…

      1. Linda Taylorl says:

        Gary, I did not contradict myself. I actually think that someone that commits a crime against a pregnant woman should not be held accountable for two lives. But the law states differently so it really does not matter what I think.

        Insurance and medicare both cover penile implants:
        http://www.urologicalcare.com/patient_information/faq-ipp/

        It depends on your insurance drug coverage on whether or not viagra is covered by your own personal insurance. Some medicare part D standalone plans and medicare advantage plans that include prescription drugs do cover viagra. You can go to medicare.gov and type it in to see which plans cover it. Once again the important point is that employers stay OUT of the health decisions of their employees.

        1. gary says:

          contraception and abortion are not HEALTH decisions. they are based on recreational activity. that’s the difference.
          we are not talking about women who need “hormone therapy” which is a medical condition, we are talking solely about the prevention of a pregnancy because you are having sexual intercourse.

    2. kathy ohmann says:

      Thank you Linda Taylor. Very smart response

    3. John K says:

      There is no moral right to choose to kill baby or moral right self determination to kill a baby. And to say that people always review options and do serious soul searching is naive at best or merely a rationalization. Many healthy mothers abort healthy babies without fully considering adoption options or without considering them at all. It doesn’t matter to me what laws are in place or what the constitution says. If they say abortion is OK, they are wrong. Its what God says that determines it. He gave us the 6th commandment. AT conception, the dna is set and cells are added, so it is a baby. I realize rape and incest and birth defect cases are very difficult, but the Bible never said that doing the right thing is easy (see Jesus being crucified and the prophets being murdered). If abortion is killing babies, saving the lives of babies outweigh the difficulty of the mother in carrying it to term. The right to choose is unBiblical, and is a way of excusing sin and not wanting to tell people they are wrong. I’ve excused sin and not wanted to tell people they are wrong, too. But I still call them sin and work to conform more to Christ. The first step is to acknowledge the sin. Linda, you should acknowledge that there is no God given right for a woman to choose to have an abortion.

      1. Linda Taylor says:

        I’m sorry John but if you want to base your morality on the Bible it is very clear in that book that life begins at first breath. That was the basis for the establishment of the law in the first place. All through Genesis, Ezekiel, in fact all scripture refers that life begins a first breath and the whole “Thou shalt not kill” part only applies after that. But like most people, you are free to pick and choose whatever pieces of the book that fit your world.

        That being said, a woman never makes a willy-nilly decision to terminate the pregnancy. There is always counselling and a review of options with her. Obviously you have not worked with this population but are quick to assign sin. You can’t just go an order a procedure.

        1. gary says:

          please Linda, give me references in the Bible where it states that life does not begin until first breath…last i checked, God knew you from before time and knit you in your mother’s womb – to me that means you were a life long before you drew a breath.

  35. Random_acct says:

    I have one to add…

    11. If females get the choice to abort, and it is entirely their choice, then why should the dad have any legal obligation to support the child? You know, since the child has half of his DNA, after all.

    1. Lily says:

      Gee Idk maybe because its IN HER BODY AND NOT HIS. What an insane question.

      1. JohnM says:

        Lily, You’re answering a different question than the one that was asked. The question was/is “why should the dad have any legal obligation to support the child?”, not insane at all given the choice is supposedly entirely the woman’s. Her call, her responsibility.

        1. Random_acct says:

          Exactly right John.

          For any “pro-choice” person out there, please answer this question as I have struggled with why the dad should have any legal obligation for a child when he has no voice in a human which has his DNA.

  36. Amy Cole says:

    In response to Ms. Taylor’s belief that as long as a fetus is still attached to its mother it’s not human, I say, that’s simply ludicrous! Immediately after my daughter was born I breastfed her for about 20 mins. Then, for the next several minutes she looked around, discovering her new world and responding to our familiar voices. After another 10 mins. or so passed, my Dr. arrived and we THEN delivered the placenta and cut the umbilical chord!

    1. Linda Taylorl says:

      I did not say it was my belief that a fetus was not human. I said a fetus is not a human BEING. It has not come into being as long as it is a part of someone else’s being. I said that is how the law defines it. Your personal experience is really irrelevant.

      1. JohnM says:

        Linda Taylor,

        I believe your exact words were “You cannot become a human being if you are still attached to another being. Until you are separate, you are simply one being and that being has rights under the constitution.”

        You, You, You. How can the one attached be a “you” while not yet a human being? “You” implies someone, not someTHING. Your choice of words betrays you and reveals what you intuitively know to be true, along with everyone else, but go out of your way to deny. If a fetus is simply part of someone else’s being, as you say,how is it you speak of the fetus being attached to ANOTHER being? Does that not imply that the fetus is an other being from the mother, rather than a mere addendum to her being? Again, your very words tell on you.

        1. Linda Taylor says:

          “If a fetus is simply part of someone else’s being, as you say,how is it you speak of the fetus being attached to ANOTHER being?” What? Maybe I was not clear.

          Human rights are granted to human beings. A human is not a human being until separated from another human being. When a baby cries, all circulation between it and the mother shut down. Until such a time it is one human being with the mother. The human rights are granted only to the human being which is the mother until the baby becomes it’s own human being. Only then does it have human rights.

        2. Linda Taylor says:

          These parameters are medically and legally established. They help provide the parameters for fetal demise, stillbirth, infant mortality and a whole lot of other information vital to our society. I am not making this up and it is not opinion.

          1. JohnM says:

            Legally established parameters are always someone’s opinion, and when intertwined with legal parameters so are medically established parameters, and both are subject to change. In this country legal parameters once determined who was fully a person under the law, and within the parameters of the law some ethnic minorities were not. They were not “granted” the rights of a human being. Yet of course morally and in truth they were persons and had those rights all along. “A human is not a human being until separated from another human being” simply makes a contrived, irrational distinction between human and human being.

          2. Linda Taylor says:

            I disagree. It is a completely rational parameter. That is why so many people and professions agree on them. They are not made up from someones belief system or some random mechanism. They establish parameters that many professions from the biological sciences to religion to law can agree on. Data can be grouped based on these parameters because they are logically based.

            Once upon a time in my grandmothers generation women were not persons either. They were the property of their husbands until they were granted the right to self-determination in 1920 by the 19th amendment.

            To remove the right of self-determination from the woman and apply it to the fetus makes the woman property of the government and simply a container for the fetus whose rights usurp the woman’s.

            That is irrational.

  37. the anarchist believer says:

    1. No because I believe that as humans with free will we still have the final choice in our own lives. Whether they’re right or wrong choices, it’s each individual’s responsibility to deal with the consequences.

    2. This is an article mainly about China and other Asian countries. yes it poses a theoretical situation in which gendercide could occur in the US but there’s no factual annotations behind it. That being said, many third world countries rely on men for their family prosperity in part due to social, religious and economic customs. Me being an isolationist and not seeing evidence of “gendercide” in America, can honestly say i don’t care what China or any other Asian country decides about their children.

    3. Drugs are one thing because there are higher risks of allergic and/or adverse reactions. Abortions are an invasive surgery performed by doctors, where as drugs such as aspirin, tylenol, motrin, etc. etc. can be handed out by nearly anyone. I’m just an army medic and i’m allowed to dispense OTC meds.

    4. Well the medical world declares a patient dead when their heart stops beating, they stop breathing (lungs expanding to take in oxygen so that through respiration the oxygen can then enter the bloodstream), and their bodies are warm. So if that’s how you know a person is dead, I would imagine that when their heart starts beating and they start breathing that they are considered alive. Babies don’t breathe until they leave the womb.

    5. Again, that goes back to personal choice, if a woman doesn’t want to raise a mentally handicapped child (or she’s not able to give a mentally handicapped child a good life) and she decides to abort that’s on her. Not me, you or any law makers.

    6. Don’t see why they had to take birth control off of health care plans. It’s really not that expensive in most places. Condoms are pretty cheap, too. The government telling me I have to give my employees contraceptives and plan b pills does nothing but prove my point that the more a government tries to control its people the more hated they are. Besides if I’m forced to pay for contraceptives that’s just more tax deductions for my business!

    7. Inner-city areas. Traditionally, they’re always crappy places to be. Always have been. When you have territorial animals such as human beings cramped together in 10 x 10 blocks that shoot 10 stories into the air there’s bound to be conflict. Conflict creates adrenaline addictions and that in turn leads to people looking for their next thrill. The fact that most inner city residents are minorities does not make abortion a race issue in any way.

    8. I don’t call abortion tragic. That’s just the politically correct way of describing it so that people can still try to sympathize with pro-lifers. To me it’s just a choice.

    9. If it can breathe and has a heartbeat as soon as it comes out of the womb than sure. Make that illegal to abort.

    10. One thing I do like about law in Germany is basically, whenever a tree or livestock get killed/destroyed, the person found guilty of it has to pay for what the killed, any offspring that would have killed, as well as any offspring that that one should have killed. In America, since the average is 2.3 kids per woman the murderer should be charged for the woman’s death along with 2.3squared murders.

    Some of these questions took some thought and consideration, some of em (based on my own moral beliefs about government intrusion) seemed like pointless questions to me. But I’m pro-choice because I believe that I have no right to tell any other person how to live their lives. All I can do is offer advice, guidance and a helping hand. That doesn’t mean I agree with all pro-choicers, nor does it mean I hate pro-lifers. I just don’t think this is something the government has any right to decide.

    1. Random_acct says:

      I think you are too easily dismissing #2 because of it’s so-called “theoretical” nature.

      That seems to me to be a copout, because it certainly will be a reality in the U.S. (if it isn’t already to a small degree).

      I’ll start with that for now.

      1. the anarchist believer says:

        Well if it does become a reality in America, which I think is highly unlikely due to the fact that our country is filled with bleeding heart sensitive people who think it’s wrong that rapists, sadists and murderers get lethal injections, I’m sure abortion clinics will be getting bombed and torched by fundamentalist Christians at that point. After all, considering I’ve lived in 8 different countries that claim Christianity as their primary faith (and I’m including the US on that list because it is the dominant faith in America and biblical values are forced upon non-believers against their own faiths)…American Christians are the most arrogant snobbish hypocritical uptight people I have ever met. Comparing them to Al Qaeda and Taliban Insurgents I’ve met during my deployments to Iraq and Afghanistan, the only thing separating “Islamic terrorists” as we so like to call them from American Christian Fundamentalists is the fact that they use bombs. A few years ago in Michigan Fundamentalist Christians were arrested for preparing for an all out attack on an entire police department…they had pipe bombs, assault rifles with illegal weapon add-ons and body armor…which is all MORE than what the Afghans and Iraqis had, they just had AK’s, rusted faulty cold war era-RPG’s and whatever household supplies they could get their hands on. So when I say I don’t care if China allows “gendercide” I’m not using it as a copout, I’m implying that if it happens in America we’ll have more important things to worry about.

        And it really is theoretical in America. I looked and researched and then I looked some more. I couldn’t find a single incident where a woman walked into an abortion clinic and got her fetus aborted simply because it wasn’t the right sex. I have heard of parents giving their children sex changes after birth but that’s something entirely different on its own.

  38. TJH says:

    These are all questions that pro choice people think about carefully, and here are some answers:

    1. Those that were outlined in the original Roe v Wade decision
    2. Yes, within #1 limits. The occurrence in this country for gender is next to none.
    3. There is no state that allows minors to have abortions without parental consent OR consent by a judge
    4. When they are viable, as per Roe v Wade
    5. Until such time a fetus is viable, the decision is made by the mother
    6. Yes, employers should be required to provide health insurance, at the employee’s discretion. For example, a Jehovah’s Witness does not believe in medicine, and believes faith should heal. Or, a Muslim believes women should be covered with Burkas. Or, a Jew believes all male babies should be circumcised. In all examples, religious people should not be allowed to force their beliefs on others.
    7. All abortion clinics tend to be in urban areas because that is where the majority of people are. They are in areas that are accessible to the poor, who have little access to birth control, no health insurance and no economic resources to pay for a child. The majority of people in these circumstances are minorities, for several reasons.
    8. It’s a traumatic situation to find out you are pregnant, with impositions to yourself and to another human being. Its a traumatic event, no matter what decision you make if the pregnancy was unwanted. And the right has imposed even more shameful and unnecessary procedures to make it even more stressful.
    9. No, it has never been legal at that point, and should not be, with the rare exception when the life of the mother is at stake. She should not be forced to kill herself for her child.
    10. It depends on how far along the pregnancy was. If it was viable, then yes, the murderer should be charged with 2 counts of murder.

    1. Brent says:

      TJH, …are you prepared to defend these responses as given, or would you like a chance to really pray and think them over and word them carefully? I’m asking now before I launch into them. I see a lot of rhetoric, but little absolute truth. Last chance.

    2. Random_acct says:

      Again I’ll ask this question…

      If females get the choice to abort, and it is entirely their choice, then why should the dad have any legal obligation to support the child? You know, since the child has half of his DNA, after all.

      Response to #3 is the objection that the parents do not have any input (you added the judge part which is not relevant).

  39. Tim says:

    I would suggest that you amend #3 to read “tylenol” instead of “aspirin.” As an RN would point out, aspirin is dangerous to give to anyone who is not fully physically matured.

  40. James says:

    I used to be very involved in the pro-life movement. I attended rallies, and prayed at abortion clinics. I tried to convince my “pro-abortion” friends that abortion was murder. I don’t do any of those things any more. As people like to put other people into handy, if untrue, categories, I would probably be categorized as pro-choice by some, pro-abortion by others and pro-life by myself. I hate discussing this topic because it is just so much self-righteous hate speech. It’s the equivalent of political PMS. There is no logic. There is no common sense or considered reasoning. There is only emotional spewing of unsupported opinion and invectives intended to minimize people who don’t share our views as gospel and with the purpose of tearing others down. Let me be clear. I understand the issue and agree completely that if the human fertilized egg has a soul, then abortion is murder. The problem I see is that there is no biblical basis for making that claim ( and verses about God’s foreknowledge are much less clear than verses like Ex 21:22 ). Historically, the church has not viewed the fertilized egg as having a soul. I’m sorry, but this side of heaven it’s simply nothing but arrogance to say that we know when we become fully human. The Bible doesn’t teach it, it has never been a central teaching in the church, and science doesn’t provide an answer. Without those details, to force our views on others by law is little different from what the Taliban does. I know that the majority of “pro-life” people who read this will simply attack me, but the wise thing to do would be to see the need to develop a foundation of understanding if our views are Biblical ( and not just a frenzy of emotion ). I think that most of these questions are good and think that when we are looking at law, we should focus on extreme cases that most everyone can agree about. Whenever I hear people twisting scripture to support their own personal views of this, I’m reminded why I’m uncomfortable with the label evangelical. The thing that drew me into the Church, was that Jesus was the embodiment of TRUTH. I see very little truth in the modern US church or the pro-life movement. I think this is why we are losing the struggle for the gospel in our world.

    1. gary says:

      So if the soul is not there at conception (the beginningof life), when would you say it is “implanted” into a person? At what point does a fetus switch from fetus to human? it’s really simple..it is human from conception at which time it has a soul…since the Bible clearly states that God knew us from before the foundation of the earth. That He knit us together in our mother’s womb so it’s all there, nothing “gets added” to make us human…

      1. James says:

        Gary, I respect your opinion, but that is all it is, and you are playing fast and loose with scripture. The verses about David and later about Isaiah are clearly statements of foreknowledge. God is not bound by time, so He clearly knows us before we are born. The verse about Isaiah says that He knew Isaiah before He was in the womb, so by that argument, are we saying that Isaiah was fully human before conception? When? And if the verse about knowing David when he was in the womb, when in the womb? At conception or at 9 months. I wish it was clear, but it’s not. Read the verse I mentioned about a woman having a miscarriage due to being struck. This and a few other verses make it seem that God values the life of the mother differently than He values the pre-born fetus ( an eye for an eye for the mother, but not the fetus ). I don’t claim to understand this all, but you are not making a valid argument. You DO NOT KNOW when the DNA is ensouled. No one does. It’s not enough just say that it’s so. Try for a moment, to remove yourself from the passion of this emotional issue and read the scriptures. Ask God to give you a clear mind to seek this objectively and to divorce yourself from what others have told you. There was no major church view that abortion was a crime, until the 16th century. Prior to this, the primary view was that the child was ensouled at birth. Who’s right? I have no idea and neither do you. You and I share the view that abortions are wrong. The difference is that I know that my basis for that view is based on my opinion, which could be flawed, but I believe that we should err on the side of life. Those on the right may succeed in outlawing all abortions. If they do, it will be even less successful than the prohibition against alcohol in the 20′s, and the church will be seen as the equivalent of the Taliban in this country and around the world. The wise thing to do is to work to limit abortions, by limiting unwanted pregnancies and addressing the underlying issue of poverty and ignorance. Unfortunately, I don’t see this happening. This is an issue that brings out the worst in people. My views changed on this issue, partially because I wasn’t impressed with the honesty or willingness to be considered in people I knew in the pro-life community. If the pro-life community’s only argument is emotional, it will only change things through use of force … and that approach will be an dismal failure .. for our country and the faith.

        1. Bill says:

          “You DO NOT KNOW when the DNA is ensouled. No one does. It’s not enough just say that it’s so.” -James

          James, I would be willing to state that I don’t know for sure. My opinion would be with the majority on this board, that God gives the soul at conception, but I’m willing to say I’m not in the place of God and know that or get to make that decision. Perhaps he does so when the child has a heartbeat or her first brainwave. Maybe even later–we certainly don’t have any devices to measure the soul of a person.

          Yet I don’t think a pro-choice agenda follows from that position. If none of us know when God gives the child a soul, why would we ever risk destroying that soul? At whatever time you pick where you would say a child definitely has a soul (or even an adult), you can’t comfortably back up a couple of minutes and say, “There…the person has no soul there.” Does God really grant a soul when the child starts crying, or when she comes down her mother’s birth canal? Are we going to play God and say it’s safe to abort before time X?

        2. gary says:

          so what happens to babies that are miscarried? are they just “poof”, gone? i don’t believe so – i believe those “souls” go to Heaven, which means they were “people” from conception – that God joined our spirit/soul and our body at that moment.

  41. Herpaderp says:

    Remember: To discuss this topic there must be at least a chance of swaying a point across and those who are religious often do not follow real rules of debate, rather it tends to be more akin to playing Tennis against a wall.

  42. Brent says:

    I get so sick of reading the comments of abortion supporters. I guess I am so sick of it because you can present the clearest, most polite argument of why pro-life people are pro-life, and it is as if you said nothing of any value at all and possibly insulted the pro-abortion person’s grandmother or something. The absolutely ridiculous venom spewed by the American left is a reminder that they need Christ badly.

    I do not mind saying that if you can honestly say that you stand with the 2012 DNC party platform, you have major problems in your thinking. I do not think the Holy Spirit would ever lead someone to vote for a party that explicitly states their support for the wickedness of abortion and supposed same-sex “marriage”. It may be that you do not know Jesus.

    I am sick of the name of Jesus getting hijacked by the social gospel hippies.

    If I am offending anyone, then good! Stop crying, get your mind in gear, and prepare to defend yourself because I’ve had just about enough of all the false ideologies, false Christianities, and false sympathies. Unless you’re prepared to defend your positions biblically, then shut up and make room for those who will. There is entirely too much weak opinion floating around posing as fact. If you are angry at me for calling you out, then fine. Get your best arguments ready, because I’m coming, and I’m coming hard by God’s strength and enabling. STAND UP, PEOPLE OF GOD!

    1. James says:

      Brent, will God bless you as a peacemaker here? I agree that sometimes the gospel is offensive and abortion is an issue that is serious and should not be treated trivially, but do your words reflect God’s nature or man’s anger? As far as your comment “possibly insulted the pro-abortion person’s grandmother or something”, I have two problems: first, I don’t know anyone who is “pro-abortion”. It’s simply untrue to say that anyone wants abortions. Most of the disagreement is over how to regulate it. Secondly, I’ve been told by well meaning fellow believers that I’m going to hell, simply because I no longer attend “pro-life” rallies. Isn’t it possible that 2 believers can pray, search the scriptures, and arrive at two different responses to this issue? I encourage your passion on this issue. I assume that you have searched the scriptures to support your view, and have spent many hours praying to have the mind of Christ ( not just parrot what others are saying ). If you have done that, then I encourage you to ask God for wisdom on how to do what you believe that God has called you to do, but also recognize the possibility that as a human, you might just be wrong.

      1. Brent says:

        James, my anger is directed squarely at those who claim the name of Christ and yet see fit to wholeheartedly support the 2012 DNC platform (you can google it and read the document). Neither party is perfectly seeking good, but the DNC explicitly states that they are in favor of the evils of abortion (calling it “needed” in some cases) and same-sex “marriage” (an obvious abomination). I believe I am right in calling out these people. If you are for Christ, you cannot publicly support these positions. I am not suggesting a cause and effect. I am saying that if a person has been transformed, regenerated, and newly created, there is a definite outward transformation, and the people who are supporting that wicked agenda of the DNC are clearly not exhibiting fruit representative of repentance. I will, however, exclude new converts who have not been able to accept the radical life changes that surrender to Christ entails. Of course, no believer has fully aligned their life with Christ. No one is saying that. I am talking about people who would claim to have been a Christian for years. These people should have grown during those years and be able to recognize blatant sin and be grieved by it instead of whimsically supporting it by proxy just because they have heard that the Republicans supposedly do not care for the poor, gays, blacks, illegals, women, etc. There should be a level of spiritual discernment and maturity after years of living after Christ. If that maturity and discernment is not evidenced, I would have to say that such a person is lost…a poser….blind. Where is the fruit?!!!

        There are most certainly people who are pro-abortion. Don’t deny that just to redefine the terms to make a wishy-washy view of abortion somehow palatable. Abortion is a complicated matter since it deals with the actual moment when life is given, but the principles a Christian must apply to such a difficult issue are not gray at all. They are most certain!

        1. James says:

          Brent, neither the DNC or the RNC platform even remotely reflects a Biblical worldview. They are both secular organizations because we live in a secular country. I don’t claim to know God’s mind on this and think that those who do should consider whether they are taking God’s name in vain. I could write pages about all the moral issues that we have to struggle with, and we would probably disagree on many of the issues ( I prayed to receive Jesus as my savior in 1974, I trust Him for my salvation, I try to follow His teachings and spread the gospel and I affirm the Apostle’s Creed, but if we disagree on a social issue, does that mean that your judgement is right and I’m headed for hell or living in disobedience, even when you have no Biblical basis for your view? ) But, let’s just focus on this one issue, for now. As I wrote in a comment before yours, I used to be very involved in the pro-life movement ( in the 1980′s ), but I’m not anymore, and there are two main reasons:
          - I don’t see that the pro-life movement has presented a valid argument for why they believe that human life ( ie unique human dna with a soul ) begins at fertilization.
          - Rude and ineffective arguments which only serve to anger those with whom they disagree, rather than genuinely attempting to find ways to limit the number of abortions.

          I personally have no idea of when the human body is ensouled. It’s “above my pay grade”. Since greater Christian thinkers than me, like St. Augustine, believed that this didn’t happen at fertilization, then the issue is “how can we limit the number of abortions and the most egregious and barbaric examples? Why has the abortion issue gotten mixed up with the issue of birth control in general? I understand why this is such an emotional issue. Depending on the question of ensoulment, abortion is either murder or akin to an appendectomy. If ensoulment doesn’t happen at fertilization, then to tell someone that they must, under penalty of law, carry the child to term, is no different than what the Taliban does. So, I understand why both sides are passionate. Since there is no basis, biblical or scientific, for saying that ensoulment happens at fertilization, then we need to be honest about the fact that we are judging where God hasn’t judged. That’s definitely above my pay grade, and yours. Be passionate. Be holy. But also, be humble. You don’t know all things and neither do I. If we disagree, consider the possibility that we might be wrong.

          I personally oppose abortion. I always have. However, I don’t see that there’s any empirical basis for saying that the pre-born are fully human. It’s just my opinion. Until I have that proof or biblical statement, then I encourage people to err on the side of life. I believe that the best way to do that is to encourage and model a moral life; be realistic about the fallen world we live in and thus understand the need to birth control and sex education; support legislation related to late term abortions and focus equally on caring for people after they are born. I believe that God is sovereign and He answers prayer. I will do what I believe He calls me to do, and trust Him if it doesn’t work out the way I want ( including who is elected ).

          1. Brent says:

            Regarding your first sentences …”… neither the DNC or the RNC platform even remotely reflects a Biblical worldview. They are both secular organizations because we live in a secular country”…no one said that either of the held a biblical worldview. My point is that one of them EXPLICITLY STATE THAT THEY SUPPORT WHAT GOD CALLS EVIL. I do not know how to say it any more clearly to get people to listen to those words. How can a Christian claim that they prayed to God, and his answer was to support the party that EXPLICITLY STATES THEIR SUPPORT FOR WICKEDNESS???? In case there is any question, Jesus has already voted on those issues.

            I resent the “above my paygrade” Obama remark. That is about as empty and calloused as it gets. We may not know assuredly the exact moment when life is given to a pre-born human, but we must make policy as if we do know. It is a President’s duty to weigh in on those things. Otherwise, we are not being good stewards of life. I’m sure you have heard the illustration of the building that is about to be imploded when someone thinks they saw a person through the window. Do you go ahead with the demolition or immediately stop lest you kill an innocent life? The analogy only goes so far in relation to abortion.

            Do you agree with this statement? “Before fertilization, there is no presence of a new human in any form in the womb, and immediately after the moment of fertilization, if no outside influence tampers with the natural functions of the woman, then we will see a human being in its earliest form emerge, if it survives.” If you agree with that, then the next statement is “After being fertilized, any action taken that intentionally prevents the fertilized egg from progressing to any stage of its existence through natural processes, prevents the emergence of a new human, and has thus ended a life that had begun.” I do not think we can just wish the fertilized embryo away with a few pills or a scalpel. This is very serious business.

            I realize that my fervor is taken as misplaced anger and abrasive, but I assure you that my intention is only to draw attention to the massively deceptive narrative that is pervading our culture today. Sometimes getting attention for an issue requires stepping on some toes.

          2. James says:

            Brent, you are pretty much proving my point that it’s useless to discuss this issue because people are not willing to discuss or reconsider their views. I’ll try to respond to your statements, though. Regarding DNC vs RNC … you clearly believe and proselytize for the RNC and condemn the DNC. I’m sorry, but have you read the Bible? It clearly condemns and talks about injustice and poverty much more than it talks about homosexuality and it doesn’t talk at all about abortion. I don’t support the DNC. I never have and never will. Jesus is my savior, not any political party. You are the one who brought up the DNC. Not me. I believe that both parties fail to represent the truth and find as much wickedness in the GOP platform as the DNC. Of course, this topic is abortion not the thousand other issues that are moral.

            The “above my paygrade” statement … really? That offends you? Why? That was a common phrase long before the President used it ( I didn’t even remember that until you brought it up ). There is absolutely nothing empty or callous about it. The issue is arrogance. It is arrogant for you to claim knowledge that is not revealed in scripture .. to judge issues that God Himself doesn’t judge. What you are doing is taking God’s name in vain. Since God doesn’t talk about it, I have no authority to claim some gnositc knowledge to support my view, so I say that it’s above my pay grade.

            As long as there have been pregnancies, there have been abortions. Why doesn’t God condemn them? I honestly don’t know and neither do you. And no, it is NOT the President’s duty to speak to issues that he can not and does not know about. But in any case it’s silly that we can’t find common ground, especially since we both disapprove of abortion. We only disagree on the authority of saying that it is murder and the method of limiting it.

            As far as the “if, then” argument that you make, it is irrelevant. If the fertilized egg has no soul, then getting rid of it, while it removes a potential life, it is not removing life. I could make the same argument by saying I should be allowed to impregnate Jane Doe because if you don’t let me, then you are committing murder against that potential life. I agree that this is serious and I’m not trying to trivialize anything. The point is that not everyone agrees with us that we should err on the side of life. If we want to change minds, then we need to help them understand the argument. Calling them “social gospel hippies” doesn’t promote positive change. Stepping on toes isn’t helpful or generally Christlike. Sometimes, it may be necessary, but not here. I’m not fighting to support abortions, and no, I don’t know anyone who does. Being “pro-choice” does not equal “pro-abortion”. I’m not aware of anyone encouraging abortions. Some people are encouraging that the government mind its own business and leave the choice to the people involved. I would like to there to be zero abortions ( I’d also like there to be zero deaths by gun violence and zero needless wars ) but I don’t get everything that I want. In the real world, unless you have an iron clad reason then you have to compromise. You don’t compromise your values, but you sometimes have to compromise your methods. In the issue of abortion, it doesn’t matter what the Supreme Court does or what some extremist politicians do … there will always be abortions in America. If it’s outlawed, you can take the underground, back alley abortion industry that existed before 1973 and multiply it by a factor of 100. There will be more abortions and more deaths from botched abortions. The only wise course of action is to address the underlying problems that contribute to needless abortions and legislate against the most barbaric abuses.

            Ultimately, Brent, you can continue to try to diminish people who disagree with you, and have little positive impact, or you can spend more time praying that God will work in people’s hearts ( including the heart’s of people in the Church ). When I was involved in the pro-life movement, I’d go to a local abortion clinic on Saturdays. I’d sit off to the side and quietly pray. I never yelled or held up signs. I just prayed. After about a month the security guard came up to us and said that our group was the only group he respected, because we were sober and non-threatening. He eventually quit. Laws, name calling and simple answers won’t have any positive impact here. Being honest about what the scriptures actually teach, humility and prayer will make a difference. That’s about all I have to say on this divisive and tragic issue.

          3. Brent says:

            James, I would like for you to slow down and at least try to understand what I say this time.

            Does the RNC explicitly state in their platform that they support blatant sin? No. All that you claim to hate about the Rep party is conjecture, my friend. That is fine. You are free to hate those things. You ignore the stated DNC platform to your own peril. I hope you one day live to regret your views about that.

            Did you really ask why God does not condemn abortion? Really?

            By your reasoning, we should have no laws at all because they are pushing one group’s views onto the rest of society. I would love for you to explain how regular murder is different from pre-born murder and why you have split your moral objection into two incoherent halves.

            I really get weary of going in circles with people like you who do not read what I write but instead fall back on some talking point that you seem to think proves your point.

            Please let me know how the Holy Spirit lets you know to support the abortion and same-sex “marriage” ticket.

            By the way, in case you’re going to bring up the whole “Jesus did not condemn abortion” argument I have heard repeatedly form your kind, Jesus did not mention rape either…..or a whole host of other wickedness. I like to be radical and believe that the Bible is God’s Word, and that the teachings in it, even though not necessarily spoken audibly by Jesus, the teachings are from God. I’m positive God hates murder of innocent babies. But you go ahead and walk that line sitting between a sure thing and not knowing if you support murder. That is your right, but it is my right to push for abolition of abortion.

            My view is that abortion is murder, and I push my government to abolish it.
            Your view is that abortion is not murder, and you push your government to let it be legal.
            These are polar opposites, and there will always be tension between the two. Why do you somehow think I would be okay with your side prevailing? If that is the case, why can’t you be content with my side prevailing? See the inconsistency? Hope so.

            Anyway, thanks for the discussion. If you truly are a Christian, then I am sorry for doubting you. We are to test ourselves and learn, and I do not see people in your camp testing themselves too much, so I decided to provoke you into revealing your motivations. Hope we both learned something so we didn’t waste our time. Have a good one, James.

            Let’s both say “Let every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord!”

          4. James says:

            Brent, fortunately, I am confident that God is sovereign and He is also gracious enough to overlook my many errors and your’s too. I’ve read every word you wrote and look forward to the day when we both recognize that Jesus’ grace is something that we all need and don’t deserve. In the meantime, I will continue to try to be obedient to what I see in scripture and stand for truth, even when my brothers disagree with me. Let’s agree to pray that God will intervene in the lives of people who are choosing evil.

  43. Asev says:

    Omg..these questions are so stupid and all have an obvious answer!!!

    1. James says:

      The questions aren’t stupid. The problem is that no one is asking questions to simply get answers. On this topic, people only ask questions to prove a point. This is because we all think that our views are the only valid views and it’s our purpose in life to prove others wrong and belittle them. Neither side listens. I understand that this is an emotional topic, but until both sides can take a deep breath and listen and consider the other’s point of view we’ll never make progress. “Come let us reason together” is God’s command to us. It’s not a suggestion. Until the Church learns to use reason and respond compassionately to those with whom we disagree, we will continue to be marginalized, and maybe we deserve to be.

      1. Random_acct says:

        You are making an assumption based on no facts.

        1. James says:

          I made no statement that was even remotely questionable, at least by anyone who is interested in civil conversation. Of course, that’s the problem, when it comes to this issue … very little civility and very little reason. I expect it from the world. I’m starting to expect it from most fundamentalists.

        2. Random_acct says:

          James, I’m no Fundamentalist. How was I being uncivil in my response?

          May I suggest that your views do have an arrogant tone to them? Just because you don’t agree with some of the positions some take doesn’t mean that they lack reason.

          I happen to believe that the “pro-choice” crowd is walking on a very slippery and precarious slope on this issue.

          It’s also ironic that given the ease of obtaining birth control and the low expense involved that abortion is still not very rare.

  44. Mary Spaulding says:

    That is an excellent set of question that should be asked of every candidate that is pro-choice.

    The quantity of abortions every years is objectionable.

  45. Mary says:

    Or, IF someone attacked a pregnant woman and, on purpose, plunged a knife into her belly killing the child within, what should that person be held liable for?

    1. Marc S. says:

      As many times as I read blogs, etc. like this one, I never get quite used to the fact that so many people continue to defend the morally and logically indefensible position of pro-abortion. It boggles the mind to read such faulty logic. I wonder why they are so vested in defending such a repugnant practice. As well as argue with them, let’s not forget to pray for them.

  46. Marc says:

    You poor Christians! Stuck in your childish crypto-pagan mystery cult, you’re still arguing over how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. This is a serious ethical question, and, as in all such cases, to find the proper answer you need merely consult a Jew.

    Of course, the Torah contains a specific answer to your question, and in fact it’s in a frequently quoted passage:

    “When men fight, and one of them pushes a pregnant woman so that her children depart (yatsa), but no other damage (ason) ensues, the one responsible shall be fined according as the woman’s husband may exact from him, the payment to be based on reckoning. But if other damage ensues, the penalty shall be life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise.”

    – Exodus 21:22-25

    So there you have it! Killing a fetus is a property crime, remediable by paying a fine, not murder. And you guys love that passage so much! However, a real Jew would never accept a merely Biblical foundation for an ethical stance, and as a matter of fact all three main branches of Judaism bring their own nuanced insight into this troubling issue. Reform Judaism is the branch closest to the secualr humanism you despise, so let’s start with their entirely reasonable take on the issue:

    “Abortion is an extremely difficult choice faced by a woman. In all circumstances, it should be her decision whether or not to terminate a pregnancy, backed up by those whom she trusts (physician, therapist, partner, etc.). This decision should not be taken lightly (abortion should never be used for birth control purposes) and can have life-long ramifications. However, any decision should be left up to the woman within whose body the fetus is growing.”

    – Rabbi Waldenberg

    Accordingh to the Conservative Rabbinical Assembly Committee on Jewish Law and Standards:

    “Abortion is justifiable if a continuation of pregnancy might cause the woman severe physical or psychological harm, or when the fetus is judged by competent medical opinion as severely defective. The fetus is a life in the process of development, and the decision to abort should never be taken lightly.”

    Finally, while the Orthodox Jewish view is closest in attitude to your own, it is by no means as closed-minded on the subject, and that is saying a lot.

    Judaism is not hampered by Christian views on original sin; as the fetus’ early death in no way impacts its ethical standing, the arguments for and against abortion can be viewed rationally. Oh, and to answer your quesation about when the fetus becomes a living human being, the answer is when it has left the womb (according to some rabbis, when its head and shoulders are outside the womb). Before that, sad to say, to all intents and purposes the fetus is property.

    In all three branches of Judaism, abortion to save the mother’s life is not only permissible, it is mandatory.

    1. Brent says:

      You should re-read that Exodus passage. I did not see the words “with the intent of killing her unborn baby”. It is intent that makes it murder.

      1. James says:

        Brent, you need to reread it. The passage is clear. This person may not be coming from a place of faith, but the passage does seem to say that if two men fight, and in the process strike a woman, causing a miscarriage, that if the woman dies, then an eye for an eye, a life for a life … if the child dies, then the judge should levy a monetary fine. Personally, I wish the verse wasn’t there so that I could join you in righteous anger. Unfortunately, I could never come up with a good explanation other than that it does appear that God values the life of the mother differently than the life of the unborn child. There are two or three verses that reflect this. If you want to rip these verses out of your Bible in order to support your worldview, that’s your choice. And Brent, if it’s intent that makes it murder, then why say an eye for an eye when it says that two men strive. The intent is between the two men fighting.

        1. Brent says:

          According to the ESV study Bible, the “eye for eye” laws were not to be taken literally but as an indication of degree of offense matching degree of restitution. Also, there is no indication in the passage that the woman’s baby dies in the first instance…just that her children “depart from her”. This could mean early birth due to the trauma. The second instance of “if other damage ensues” indicates that the damage to the baby or mother as a result of the fight would be payed for the same way other crimes were paid for, in the eye-for-eye sense of payment matching the crime.

          Please read the study notes for that chapter.

    2. Kyle says:

      If you click the link that you provided you see this:

      “When men strive together and hit a pregnant woman, so that her children come out, but there is no harm, the one who hit her shall surely be fined, as the woman’s husband shall impose on him, and vhe shall pay as the wjudges determine. 23 But if there is harm,4 then you shall pay xlife for life, 24 yeye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25 burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe”

      Which seems to say: if pushing her results in her going into labor, but the child is not harmed, you pay a fine. But if there is harm (i.e. the child dies) then you face stiffer punishment.

      I don’t think you read the passage correctly!

  47. GPT says:

    For your next post, how about posing “10 Questions Candidates Are Never Asked About the Poor,” or “10 Questions Male Candidates Are Never Asked Regarding Women,” or even, “10 Questions Posed By Conservative Christians to a Perceived Liberal Christian That Don’t Seem to come up When a Conservative Mormon is Running for President.”

    I am actually a fairly conservative Christian myself. The absolute double standard that white, male, conservative Christians cling to against a black President is absolutely appalling. You all would legislate morality against abortion out of one side of your mouth, but out of the other declare that the government has no responsibility in offering the opportunity for universalized health care, for more lax immigration laws, for protection of the poor in regard to banking and business regulation.

    It is shameful that so many Christians are ABSOLUTELY WED to the republican party, that so many Christians uphold one commandment (Don’t Murder) over so many others (Consider others as better than yourself, respect authority, honor those in leadership, do not give false testimony, etc.)

    Too many Christians mask right-wing politics as true religion. Try reading Isaiah 58 and see how it might apply yourselves, so many of you lovers of money and murderers in the heart.

    1. Random_acct says:

      There is some of this happening…and I agree with you that no Christian should think that God is a Republican, so to speak.

      However, the fundamental question is what is the proper role of government?

      I object to those liberal Christians who use Christ’s teachings as justification for big government social programs. That is no defendable in my view. Christ was about changing individuals’ hearts, not about addressing government and how it should “behave”.

      The ” progressive” movement, of which Obama has fully embraced, is a highly cynical and dangerous religious philosophy that is working to destroy critical social institutions (I.e. marriage) and re-define America in a way that is completely contrary to our what our founders envisioned.

      1. GPT says:

        @Random: You and I probably read the Bible differently, but the idea that “Christ was about changing individuals’ hearts,” is an idea that leans into modern philosophical, religious, and sociological thought. When I read the Bible, I don’t see anything other than aesthetic division between “Old” and “New” testaments – they’re both pointing toward Christ. When you read the OT, it actually has *A LOT* to say about how “the government” is supposed to treat the poor, the outsider, and the stranger. Additionally, the way God seems to relate to people is not merely individually, but in groups as well.

        Even if you take what Jesus says to “the individual,” there’s a lot more than a simple “come to Jesus moment.” He has a ton to say about how “the individual” is to treat the poor, the outsider, and the stranger. Further, all of the epistles (sans the pastoral epistles) were written to churches, but when Paul or Peter or the writer of hebrews us using a plural second person that would more accurately be translated as “ya’ll,” we take it to mean a singular second person “you.”

        The problem is that too many hold to this idea that too many Christians say that because the founding fathers thought Christianly, that modern politicians should think Christianly on pet issues, but not on all of life (i.e., the poor, the outsider, and the stranger). “Politician, think Christianly when it comes to abortion, to marriage, to issues of homosexuality, but get the government out of issues on taking care of the poor and downcast.”

        That’s not a progressive idea, it is painted all over a *TRULY* sacred document of God’s conversation with his people over thousands of years.

        Your very stance tells me a few things though:
        1. You don’t believe Christians can properly think biblically and vote for a democrat.
        2. Your concept of biblical Christianity is defined by a mere “personal” relationship with God.
        3. You may not be willing to question some of the precepts and philosophies of the conservatives in our country.

        That’s a dangerous place to be, friend.

        1. Random_acct says:

          Please point to specific examples about government that you mention.

          Sure, you can say the God relates to groups, but that does not mean government specifically.

          Regarding your second paragraph…again, this does not mean govenment.

          I don’t agree with your characterization that many Christians (me included) just conveniently apply the need for politicians to weigh in on matters such as you described and ignore others such as the poor and the downcast. Did you know that conservatives are more likely to give money, donate blood, volunteer their time, and contribute to charities than are “progressives”? This was demonstrated by Pew Research a couple of years ago (and perhaps others).

          The problem with “progressive” or liberal political political perspective is that it has a strong tendency to make an idol out of government.

          I don’t see how one can vote to destroy society via support for such issues such as gay marriage…or support abortion on demand, when clearly those positions are contrary to God’s Word. I do not belief that God is a Republican…just to be clear. However, I would not want to be part of the political group that wishes to destroy the male/female nature of marriage, which was defined by God, after all.

          That is a dangerous place to be, friend.

          PS. I’m not sure what you are suggesting with item #2. There is nothing “mere” about it.

    2. James says:

      GPT, amen. The older I get, the more I lean toward an anabaptist view of the Church’s response to political issues. We cannot serve both God and any political system. Above I was accused of supporting the Democratic party, simply because I questioned whether there is a Biblical basis for the belief that personhood begins at conception. Supporting either political party is idolatry. The Church survived Nero and Caligula because it remained united. The devil knows what he’s doing. He gets the children of God to align themselves with a political party and knows that will divide us. Personally, I think that on these issues we should be led to pray, seek God, diligently read the scriptures and then follow our conscience. The result may to be to not vote or vote and how we vote should be kept between us and God. I accepted Jesus in 1974 and attended one of the very first “Moral Majority” meetings. Prior to that meeting, I remember the church being all about Jesus. I don’t see much of Jesus in the church these days. Fundamentalist extremism is not only another word for phariseeism, it is also as dangerous as Islamic extremism. The only difference is time and constitutional limits ( look at how exported American”christian” fundamentalism in Uganda has led to the murder of homosexuals there ). Certainly, Christians need to speak to moral issues, but we align ourselves with political parties at the peril of destroying our unity, destroying our witness, and becoming tools for the enemy. Neither party reflects God’s values and both support evil ( though some of it is cloaked in hypocrisy and patriotism ). The Church is no longer salt and light in this country and repentance needs to begin in the Church. We are responsible for much, if not most, of the evil in this country. We have abandoned our call to preach the gospel in order to pimp for political parties and we should be ashamed.

      1. Random_acct says:

        So please tell us what the “Christian” political party would look like in terms of these big social issues to you? Be specific…because you lost me when you suggested that fundamentalist Christians in the U.S. were as dangerous as Islamists.

      2. gary says:

        wow, james…
        you are clearly attending the wrong churches. maybe if you stopped focusing so much on trying to be politically correct and stopped dancing around what is really “right”, you would have less problems.
        my church preaches the gospel every week. and while i also do not agree with everything the republican party does or stands for, they are clearly more conservative and follow more Biblical lines of thinking. the democrats “boo”ed God so clearly want nothing to do with him and while they push social issues, it is about the government controlling people, not about compassion; it is republicans who give much more time, money and energy to charity and the less fortunate.

  48. Suzeque says:

    Just wondering, how would all you anti-choice advocates suggest we could actually stop women from having or seeking abortions, in the unlikely event they would be made illegal again?

    Would you have the potential offender jailed until she was forced to have the baby?
    Maybe you would simply tie the women to their beds until labour begins?
    Would labour be compromised because the woman never wanted the baby, and thus she may not be cooperative at the birth?
    Perhaps forced cesarians would be the safer option?

    Who would do the policing on watching for potential abortions?
    The medical profession? The police?
    Would either of these bodies have the time or the inclination?

    I believe there is a simple answer to all the abortion debates.
    If you don’t want an abortion, then don’t have it.
    If someone else wants an abortion, then it isn’t your business.

    If there is a God, then he is the greatest abortionist of all time…he apparently ‘ causes’untold numbers of ‘natural’ abortions.

    1. Random_acct says:

      Suzeque…how do we “stop” people from exceeding the speed limits on roads? Do we throw them in jail?

      If the power is all in the female’s hands regarding whether to abort a child or not, then it seems reasonable that the father of the child should have no legal obligation to the child.

    2. Amanda says:

      No, sin ’causes’ untold numbers of ‘natural’ abortions. If you read Genesis you will notice that before the fall (where Eve, saw, desired and took the forbidden fruit from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, while Adam stood by) there was no death, murder, anger, lust, jealousy etc. There was no pain, natural disaster or affliction of any kind. Our world is the way it is because we have sinned against a holy, mighty God. We are in rebellion- we see,we desire and we take…regardless. Jesus Christ is the only way our relationship with God and one another can be restored; in and through Him we are made new.

      There will be pain, sorrow, grief and suffering until Christ comes again. It is only when you see abortion or any other issue as a God (theological) issue that it will ever make sense.

      1. James says:

        Amanda, that’s an interesting point. I was just reading last night ( and I have no idea if this number is right or how they come up with this number, though I’ve heard it before ) that between 65 and 70% of all fertilized eggs are miscarried. If that number is true, then the norm is for the fertilized egg/fetus to not be born … even without abortive involvement. That is another reason why I think that life beginning at conception makes little sense. Why would God ensoul a fertilized egg when it’s most likely that that “person” would never be born? If that’s true, then of the billions who have been born there are 3 times as many who were never born, but died from natural causes before birth. The biggest issue with fundamentalists and the militant right is their unwillingness to admit that they don’t know everything. What a scene it will be in heaven when God reveals to us all how much we’ve gotten wrong. There’s a reason the early church created creeds so that we can know what we need to stand firm on and that everything else is peripheral.

        1. gary says:

          sorry, you will never convince me…my wife had miscarriages…i believe that they were my children and that i will meet them someday…

  49. Brent says:

    Are there any intellectually honest pro-choice people on here?

    I see so much propaganda used to prop up their arguments for “it is between me and God”, “it is a woman’s choice”, “we don’t know when life begins, so it is up to me to decide to risk it”, false allegations of what the Republican party stands for, ..etc.

    It is exhausting…like arguing with children.

    Many of the questions raised by these people should not even be dignified with a reply because even if you take the time to answer their ridiculous questions, three minutes later they are spewing more of the same as if no one answered them the first time. There seems to be a lack of listening.

    1. James says:

      “There seems to be a lack of listening”. James 1:24 “for once he has looked at himself and gone away, he has immediately forgotten what kind of person he was.” Start with yourself brother.

      1. Brent says:

        I just want people to listen, think, use logic, question, pray, read, and be consistent.

        I would like for the pro-choice people to at least answer this question: “What would it take for me to become a person who opposes abortion completely?”

        Maybe you haven’t thought about that. Please do.

        1. Brent says:

          What I am saying is this… I can present precise, biblical principles for supporting the abolition of abortion, and no one has taken the time to show me that I am wrong. If I begin with some basic assumptions, then pro-life is the logical end result if you are consistent.

    2. Linda Taylor says:

      Maybe it has to do with your caustic attitude. OK Brent bring it. I am pro choice because removing the right to self-determination from a woman makes her the property of the government because the rights of the fetus usurp hers.

      We only got the right to self-determination in 1920 with the passing of the 19th ammendment and now people like you want to take it back. We are sick of being someone else’s property. So sorry if we fail to cooperate.

      And you wave around the Bible and justify this type of rhetoric. Marc explained to you how the Bible plainly states that life begins at first breath. He ought to know. His ancestors wrote the book and have kept the original teachings through out history in their culture and traditions. Original teachings not somebody’s notes in the margin. They use the original language not change versions to suit your own private little view of the world.

      You come along some 2-6000 years later with the unmitigated audacity to tell them they are wrong and you are right. That you have read the same stuff they have and they have been wrong for the past 6000 years. And you claim to have the Bible and God on your side. Well good for you. You will have to understand how the rest of the population is going to react to this. I’m gonna call you out. You writings illustrate who you are and it is not pleasant. If people like you are the ones that end up in heaven, I’m getting in a different line.

      1. Brent says:

        Linda, I hope you do not mean 99% of what you said. How did you happen to stumble across TGC anyway? You seem to have doubts about the Bible. I am being serious.

        1. LINDA TAYLOR says:

          I absolutely mean it. And I quote:
          “If I am offending anyone, then good! Stop crying, get your mind in gear, and prepare to defend yourself because I’ve had just about enough of all the false ideologies, false Christianities, and false sympathies. Unless you’re prepared to defend your positions biblically, then shut up and make room for those who will. There is entirely too much weak opinion floating around posing as fact. If you are angry at me for calling you out, then fine. Get your best arguments ready, because I’m coming, and I’m coming hard by God’s strength and enabling. STAND UP, PEOPLE OF GOD!”

          and

          “It is exhausting…like arguing with children.

          Many of the questions raised by these people should not even be dignified with a reply because even if you take the time to answer their ridiculous questions, three minutes later they are spewing more of the same as if no one answered them the first time.”

          I could continue copying and pasting but you get the drift.

          I am one of “these people.” I have spent a lifetime dealing with people like you and have no intention of spending eternity in the same manner. I am no Mr. Niceguy like James. I am picking up your gauntlet. Have at it. You have my opinion backed by scripture.

      2. James says:

        Linda, the problem is with fundamentalism, in all its frightening elements. Afraid of truth, even though Jesus is the embodiment of truth. Opposed to knowledge and reason, even though scripture calls us to come and reason together. Like the pharisees, pointing fingers, belittling and addicted to controlling others. Fundamentalism in theology ( holding to the tenets of our faith ) is a good thing. Unwillingness to apply that truth in all facets of our lives is another. “Do justly, love mercy and walk humbly with your God”. Fundamentalism is interested in none of these things, which are the authentication of the power of God in our lives. Brent means well and some of what he says is true, but he strains at a gnat and swallows the camel. While I agree with some of what he says, I absolutely oppose the way that fundamentalists have prostituted out their faith to right wing political and cultural goals. He is unable to accept that not every one approaches the same issue in the same way, without condemning them. The sad thing is that I completely agree with him that abortion is never the right option. Unfortunately, his fundamentalist mindset won’t allow him to accept an approach but his own. While I oppose abortion, I recognize that no prohibition has ever worked and I don’t see that there’s a logical basis for imposing my opinion ( just as it is only his opinion ) on others. Instead of joining hands and finding ways to actually limit the most heinous examples of abortion, most fundamentalists have an “all or nothing”, “slash and burn” mentality that will accept no compromise and ultimately can only accomplish their goals through use of force ( which is why they are ultimately frighteningly like the Taliban ). Jesus reserved His righteous anger for the religious who forced their perverted views of faith on others. The pharisees are still with us today, and they should be loved but they should be opposed by people who love God.

        1. Brent says:

          James, you like to say that these laws will not prevent abortion, which is only partially true. Yes, abortions will still occur if outlawed. Does rape still occur? Why is it illegal? Please, for once just answer that one question and explain to me why you think the futility of abortion laws exempts our nation for taking a stand for what is obviously right? Remember…you agree that murder laws, rape laws, incest laws, thievery laws, etc are legitimate, but then again I have learned that I cannot assume any consistency with the liberal crowd, so you may be picking and choosing among those.

          1. James says:

            Brent, you are assuming that I’m liberal, but I’ve probably made incorrect assumptions about you as well. You answered the question you asked. You asked “Why is it illegal”- speaking of rape, and then you say about abortion “for what is obviously right.” Bingo. That’s the problem. It may be obvious to you but it’s not to most people. You see abortion as murder because you are convinced that personhood begins at conception. Very few in the world believe that. Even if you look in the church, it is not a universal belief. Throughout the last 2,000 of Christian history, for most of that time, the prevailing view was that personhood did not begin until birth. You make the arrogant assumption that if it’s obvious to you, then it must be true. Rape, murder, incest, stealing … these things are universally condemned and have been universally condemning throughout the history of human civilization. That’s not the case with abortion. Until the 16th century, there was no Christian opposition or condemnation of abortion. Why? Because they didn’t believe that the preborn child was a person. Were they wrong? They may well have been, but neither you nor I have any more claim to truth in this than St. Augustine or any of them did. I personally believe that we should err on the side of life, but we have no authority to impose this on others. We can, however, make significant strides in reducing the numbers of abortions and late term abortions by doing things which will also improve the lives of the mothers and families. But that would require a lot more work and effort than simply calling them murderers, passing laws which shame put them in danger. There is no comparison between abortion and murder. There’s no cultural, scientific, historic, or biblical basis for it. I don’t pick and choose. I think through things and just happen to have a different approach than you do. I agree with much that you say, but your approach, though the common approach these days, has harmed the gospel and has driven people from the truth. Without the destruction of a soul, there can be no murder. Without some standard to claim that a single, fertilized cell has that soul ( even though it has no breath, no heart beat, no central nervous system ) then there’s no authority to call it murder. We can call it a poor choice. We can say that there are better options ( like adoption- but then people need to put there money where there mouths are ). We can encourage people to consider the possibility that the fertilized egg may have a soul … but we can’t call it murder, and we can’t force our unsubstantiated opinions on others.

        2. LINDA TAYLOR says:

          James if there is one thing I have some experience in it is fundamentalism. I appreciate your insight and request for moderation.

        3. Al says:

          @James – I think you hit on the main problem dealing with ‘pro lifers’ with quoting Micah:’Do justly, love mercy and walk humbly with your God’. ‘Pro lifers’ spout a lot of judgement, very little mercy and exhibit zero humility. I am a pro lifer and I am pro choice. Those who are both will understand that position; those who are just anti abortion won’t. They seem to lack the empathy gene necessary to deal compassionately with people. I am glad that it is God who is the ultimate Judge of us and not other people.

          1. gary says:

            there is no such thing…you can be like James and just say you believe it’s wrong but not do anything about i(won’t force his beliefs on others) That’s wrong. We must stand up for what is right even if it is not popular!! I don’t care that Linda doesn’t like me because I’m not moderate like James…it only matters that God is pleased because I am standing up against evil….

      3. Brent says:

        First, why would I go to a Jew for Biblical insight? They reject Jesus as Messiah…which is a pretty big issue. The whole Bible is about Him!

        Secondly, let’s discuss the pre-born John the Baptist.
        Luke 1:15…speaking of John,…”for he will be great before the Lord. And he must not drink wine or strong drink, and he will be filled with the Holy Spirit, even from his mother’s womb.”

        Want to try to explain how the Holy Spirit filled a non-human John the Baptist? Let’s please focus on this for a while before you jump on the “women’s special rights” issue. Okay? Nothing will ever get solved if the subject keeps getting changed when the answers are difficult.

        So, someone please explain how a pre-born John the Baptist was filled with the Holy Spirit if he was supposedly not human before his first breath.

        1. Brent says:

          May I also suggest David in Psalm 51:5 “Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity,and in sin did my mother conceive me.”

          David is saying in the second half of the verse that at the moment of conception, he was in sin…or you could say… a sinner at conception. Only humans are sinners.

          Does anyone have a legitimate dispute to this text?

        2. LINDA TAYLOR says:

          Because most of the Tanach is part of the the Christian bible. Jesus was a Jew. Paul was a Jew. Peter was a Jew. In fact, all the apostles were Jews. They followed the Torah, they read the Nevi’im and the Ketuvim. They were disciples of Christ but they were Jews and remained Jews even after the death of Christ. In AD 50 at the Council of Jerusalem, they met to talk about the Kingdom of God and wether or not you had to be circumcised to be allowed in the Kingdom of God. You can’t get more Jewish than that. Caused a big hullabaloo between Peter and Paul. Just because they were baptized in Christ did not mean they were not Jews. Christ was the fulfillment of Jewish law. Your disregard for Jewish law and tradition is a blatant slap in the face to the origins of Christianity.

          The Jews had this whole oral tradition that explained the Tanach. It was oral tradition that complimented the written word. Brilliant actually. You have to ask them to find out what that is. Or you can just run around with half the information.

          About Luke 1:15. It says ‘from’ his mother’s womb. Not ‘in’ his mother womb. Not that a guy would notice.

        3. James says:

          Brent, a couple of points: not all the Jews rejected Jesus. All of the apostles were Jews, Paul was a Jew, so don’t paint them all with the same brush. To understand scripture, it is very helpful to understand the culture and the audience, so there is definitely something to be gained by studying what the traditions said about those verses. Regarding John the Baptist, I think it is a relevant point, and I won’t say that I have a good answer, so I will study on that one more ( Luke does say that Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit… would that mean that John was as well? Have to think about that. ). I will point out though that it says “from his mother’s womb”. Does that mean at the point of conception or immediately prior to birth? Plus, he was only feet from Jesus and who knows if there was something unique about him? Genesis talks about God breathing life into Adam, and the word for Spirit is the same root word for breath, which I think is why many believed that the person was ensouled at birth. I personally think that the later it is in the pregnancy, and the more developed that the child is, the less likely it is that abortion can be defended, and that’s where we should focus. While I oppose all abortion, my difference with you is the method of prohibition. I do support banning abortions in the third trimester, unless there is clear evidence that there are no other options to save the mother. In those cases I do support legislation. The problem is that while there is some basis for arguing that by the 6th month, the child has a heartbeat, a developed central nervous system, and some biblical support for it, the current crop of political advocates aren’t talking about regulating late term abortions. They’re talking about extreme things like banning birth control, defining rape, outlawing all abortion, and defining personhood as beginning at conception. Extremism, and unfounded extremism at that, is not only doomed to failure, it should be opposed.

          1. Brent says:

            I have yet to see anyone trying to ban contraception. Please enlighten me with facts on that.

            Are you saying that outlawing all abortion is more extreme than allowing women to freely abort their babies and possibly be complicit as a nation in the slaughter of thousands? Should we not side with caution instead? The most reasonable stance for someone who does not know when life begins before birth is pro-life. This is one of the inconsistencies I was talking about earlier.

            Defining personhood as beginning at conception would seem to be the only reasonable choice, wouldn’t it? Since pro-choice people claim to not know when life begins, but they recognize that at some stage in the womb the fetus is in fact a person, then would it not logically follow that the only reasonable definition of the beginning of personhood would be at conception? It clearly cannot be before conception, and we desperately need a definition.

          2. James says:

            http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/03/rick-santorum-birth-control-sodomy_n_1181291.html Rick Santorum among a handful of other Catholic extremists.

            Again, you go to making unsubstantiated, unnecessarily heated statements, with your use of words like slaughter. It’s very difficult to argue that a biological mass which has no heartbeat, central nervous system or consciousness is a baby. You’ve brought up some good verses to consider, though by no means do they establish that the Bible teaches personhood at conception, and I’m not the one you have to convince. I oppose abortion. You have to convince people who don’t come from your narrow perception that they must make a tremendous personal sacrifice. Should they do that just because you say they should? Even if you convince them that the Bible clearly teaches personhood at conception ( and it doesn’t ), that doesn’t convince them. It’s just a very basic beginning. What about prevention? The biggest cause of abortion is economic, followed quickly by lack of knowledge. If you truly want to prevent abortions, then the two smartest things to do would be to prevent unwanted pregnancies through education and access to birth control, and secondly addressing the issue of poverty. I work with poor people on a weekly basis, and the number of instances where extremely poor people who keep having children, when they can’t even support themselves, makes it clear that poverty, ignorance, and birth control are interrelated issues. I agree that abortion is not the answer, but neither is ignoring the issue. Helping in a Christian ministry to the poor, we obviously don’t want abortion and we encourage them to live moral lives, but they also need to know that they should not have children when they can’t even take care of themselves. How many people who say that abortion is murder also actively oppose public sex education and public access to birth control? I wish that we lived in a world where everyone waited until marriage to have children, and only then when they were financially and emotionally capable of taking care of them, but we don’t. Unplanned pregnancies are common even in evangelical churches. Again, I’m not the one you have to convince. If you outlaw abortions, it won’t hurt me, and maybe it will reduce the number of abortions ( though, I doubt it ), but if you care about people, and not just about proving a point, then public policy on this should be holistic: increased education ( recognizing that many won’t follow our views on sexual purity ), increased access to birth control ( even when you don’t want health insurance to pay for it ), show as much concern for children after they’re born, and lastly legislate only in the instance of late term abortions where there is some public consensus. Or .. you can continue to demand an all or nothing approach and utterly fail. Just my opinion. I appreciate the verses that you shared. They gave me some things to pray about. I hope that you will do the same. Think I’m done for tonight.

      4. The Janitor says:

        Linda says: “I am pro choice because removing the right to self-determination from a woman makes her the property of the government because the rights of the fetus usurp hers.”

        So the fact that a woman can’t choose to kill her 3 month old child makes her property of the government, and the three month old’s rights trumps the woman’s rights?

        Wow, pro-abortionists fundy logic for you…

        Consider it broughten :)

        1. LINDA TAYLOR says:

          Read further down in case you do not understand what the right to self-determination is.

          1. The Janitor says:

            Sorry, Linda, you’ll need to do more than define self-determination and then pretend that somehow solves the issue for you.

            Based on the logic you used in the comment I responded to, the rights of a 3 month old usurp hers and, therefore, remove her right of self-determination. So you should be pro-infanticide too.

            Abortion has nothing to do with self-determination. It has to do with how you treat another person’s life (the life of the unborn baby).

        2. Lily says:

          A 3 month old baby is no longer growing inside of another human being and is not 100% dependent on them. Your example ignores the circumstance of pregnancy, which is hilarious.

          1. The Janitor says:

            Lily,

            That you think “growing inside” the mother means the mother can kill it is what I find hilarious. Please tell me why the fact that a baby is growing inside the mother justifies the mother killing the child.

            As for the dependency remark, I suppose you think that if one human being is “100%” dependent on another human being that whoever the dependent person is dependent upon has absolute rights over that human being? So, what if the mother and the 3 month old are stranded on an island together. In that case, the 3 month old is “100%” dependent on the mother. Can the mother justifiably bash the baby over the head with a coconut until it’s dead?

            Or consider that a 3 month old in normal society could be said to be 100% dependent on the community to which it belongs for its survival. Thus, by your logic, it’s okay if the community as a whole decides to kill the baby and use it as dog food.

            On second thought, your morally twisted reasoning isn’t hilarious, it’s sickening.

  50. Suzeque says:

    Excellent post Linda.
    I still don’t know how they would enforce the no abortion laws the anti-choice people want to go back to?
    No woman would volunteer her thoughts re what she intends to do surely? It is, after all, a very private thing.
    So it seems that any punishment would have to occur after she has secured an illegal abortion then?
    Or maybe a posthumous criminal offence against her after the many deaths that will occur from backyard abortions?
    I’m assuming that the fathers of these unwanted pregnancies will also be prosecuted for not offering support to their partners?
    Gosh, there will be a veritable explosion of jail inmates!

  51. Brent says:

    Still waiting for the question to be answered.

    1. LINDA TAYLOR says:

      Some of us have families to attend to. See above.

  52. Brent says:

    Certainly you have thought this through previously.

    Answers, anyone?

  53. Brent says:

    First, James and Linda, I was not painting all Jews with the same brush. I was stating that, for me to even listen to a Jew discuss Scripture, I would need to know his stance on Jesus. The very fact that he was disparaging Christianity tells me quite a lot.

    Also, to further reject his improper reading of Exodus, the word for the child departing from the womb is “yeled”, which is always used for a child who can live outside the womb. Also the word “yatsa” refers usually to live births, as opposed to the word “shakal” (miscarriage), not used here. There is also a vast supply of extrabiblical literature (Christian and Jewish) that emphatically supports that the view has always been that abortion is wrong. [Sentences of Pseudo-Phocylides, Sibylline Oracles, 1 Enoch, Against Apion (Josephus), the Didache, Letters of Barnabas]

    James, thanks for recognizing that the John the Baptist verse is substantially difficult for the people claiming that life is not in the womb. I knew that you all would bring up the phrase “even from his mother’s womb”. Now, if we allow that that can mean inside the womb or from birth (as the NIV does), then we must keep reading. Later in Luke 1:44, “the babe leaped in my womb for joy”. Does this not strengthen one of the views of “from the womb” and weaken the other?

    Taking this instance with the one from David in the Psalms, one must do many contortions to try to continue denying that life begins at conception.

  54. Brent says:

    Again, I beg you to please answer this question:

    “What would it take for me to become a person who is completely opposed to abortion?”

    James, I think you said that you think abortion is wrong, but that you think it is up to the individual to decide. So, would you say that you have a reason for being opposed to abortion?

    Linda, you seem too caught up in “women’s rights” right now to look at the deeper issue. Please, look past your current rights and ponder the question.

    1. James says:

      Brent, my last comment for the night.

      “What would it take for me to become a person who is completely opposed to abortion?”

      I thought that I had already answered this, but I’ll try to be clearer. I completely oppose abortion. I don’t believe that it’s ever God’s will. I think I’ve already said that and I have answered that question. The question that you want to ask is:

      “What would it take for me to be convinced that all abortion is murder, that the preborn child is as fully human as a human after birth and be willing to impose my belief through force of will on someone else?”

      Is that the real question you wanted me to answer? I believe that it is. In order for me to be so convinced, I would have to:

      - see a much clearer scriptural support for a view that I don’t believe that it supports.
      - understand why in the last 2,000 years of Christian history and the years before of Hebrew history, that so few interpreted these scriptures in the way that you do.
      - see some scientific basis for believing that the rights of fertilized cell are greater than the rights of the mother.
      - understand if God believes that the mother has any rights in the issue or not.
      - determine why when no other prohibition has ever been successful that this one would be.
      - Determine how to offset the imposition of my views with genuine compassion for the situation.

      Given all of those things, I doubt that I would ever believe that legislation of personhood for a fertilized egg was the appropriate, wise, or Godly response. It might be the easiest response but it’s a response that ignores far too much and is too costly. Again, this is my opinion. God is sovereign and I readily admit that I am often wrong. If you are right, Brent, that we have no choice but to force this moral decision on others, and I am in disobedience, then I pray for God’s grace to cover this and the avalanche of known rebellion and sin in my life. I’ve prayed, read, and tried to find the right approach to this extremely serious and divisively emotional issue. I sincerely doubt that either of us will convince the other. At this point, I think we should go to God and ask for Him to remind us that He is God and we aren’t.

      1. Brent says:

        James, your responses and my counter-arguments follow:

        James- see a much clearer scriptural support for a view that I don’t believe that it supports.
        Brent- okay, I will concede that unless you see life as beginning at conception (which I see Scripture clearly affirming, then you might not be opposed to all abortion.

        James- understand why in the last 2,000 years of Christian history and the years before of Hebrew history, that so few interpreted these scriptures in the way that you do.
        Brent- I really do not know where you get this from. I posted numerous extrabiblical Jewish and Christian sources that make it clear that abortion has always been seen as wrong, and, more explicitly in some cases, as murder. These are not my opinions. It is historical, not to mention Biblical.

        James- see some scientific basis for believing that the rights of fertilized cell are greater than the rights of the mother.
        Brent- now, you have me confused. If the fetus is indeed simply a clump of cells that might produce human life eventually, then there is no issue of rights. Things do not have rights. People do. I’m not really sure what you’re trying to say here. Perhaps you could explain further what you mean by assigning rights to things that are not people.

        James- understand if God believes that the mother has any rights in the issue or not.
        Brent- we always have personal choice, don’t we? Pregnant women have a choice. I am confident in saying that a pregnant woman has the same choice as the would be murderer. To commit the act or not. I am also confident in affirming that God always prefers for the act to not be committed.

        James- determine why when no other prohibition has ever been successful that this one would be.
        Brent- there would be no results? You sure? It would be illegal for the government to support an abortion facility. It would be illegal to have a private abortion facility. It would be illegal for individuals to perform abortions. Laws do in fact deter the crimes they prohibit, although not 100%. However, is results really the issue here? To me, it would seem that a huge part of the issue is what we affirm as a nation to be our stance on the issue of abortion. If we believe that abortion is wrong in God’s sight, but have a policy of “go ahead and do what you feel is right”, then we are pagans with a pagan ideology that is bankrupt and is seen as bankrupt to the outside world. Instead of being seen as a nation that stands beside the pre-born and defends their right to life, we are seen as a group of apathetic, weak-willed pagans who have abandoned our Christian calling from years ago. There is much more at stake than the act itself.

        James- Determine how to offset the imposition of my views with genuine compassion for the situation.
        Brent- Anti-abortion laws are not without compassion. They point the woman in the right direction, they protect the child from slaughter, they protect the mother’s conscience from assaulting (raping, if you please) her mind for the rest of her life with the thought of what might have been if she had just been strong enough to resist the temptation to take the seemingly easy way out. Of course, there are people on both sides of the issue with no compassion. I’m sure the rabid pro-choicers see me as being rabidly against women (right, Linda?), but, in fact, it is so much the opposite that it almost brings me to tears to be accused of it. I am concerned deeply for all pregnant women, knowing the responsibility they bear. I am also deeply concerned and enraged at the thought of all the babies being killed in the name of “erasing the consequences”. Jesus did not call us to an easy life. He did not call us to a hard life either. He did call us to a joyful life, but …through suffering. I’m sure Linda will be offended by that last statement because she will read into it that I want women to suffer. Life is full of suffering and trials. How our faith stands in the midst of trials will determine our joy. If we obey and trust Christ to get you through the hard times, then He alone gets glory. If we give in to the secular ideas like abortion and escape, how is Christ glorified?

        I hope anyone considering abortion will ask the question, “How will my actions glorify Jesus?”

        Thanks so much for responding, James. I’m learning a lot about your position. I do think there are areas for growth in your thinking about this topic and for your castigation of one political party seemingly in favor of the other one that makes it clear which kinds of wickedness they would have prevail in society. Do not think that I consider the Rep party to be saints. Far from it… I do think what the party holds high as their stated platform makes a big difference in who God wants me to support with votes. I would advise you to google the DNC 2012 platform. It states explicitly that they support same-sex marriage and taxpayer funded abortion. I am not exaggerating. Read it. Thanks.

  55. Linda Taylor says:

    “What would it take for me to become a person who is completely opposed to abortion?”

    It would take a complete reversal of all my moral values and I would have to exit reality.

    Perhaps some severe form of mental illness perhaps.

    1. Brent says:

      No, Linda, I mean what kind of scientific breakthroughs or new insights or proofs would be needed for you to decide that abortion is indeed wrong.

      I am, however, interested in which moral values you think you would have to reverse. Please answer the first question again and then explain the second one.

    2. Linda Taylor says:

      I am not caught up in women’s rights. I could care less about that. I am defending the constitution and the rights endowed to us by our Creator. Specifically the right to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Also known as the right to self-determination. This right was granted to African Americans after the Civil War. Women had to work harder at it because the constitution states “All men.” Big problem until the definition of “Men as persons” was clarified. That happened in 1920 with the passing of the 19th amendment. Fetuses do not meet that definition and do not have that right. So by banning abortions, you are removing that right from women and applying it to fetuses which are not persons.

      1. Brent says:

        Ok, you have clearly stated that you do not consider a person to be a person until birth. …much like slaves were not considered persons, but rather property, and therefore if one’s “pursuit of happiness” means having slaves, then no on can infringe upon that right because their Creator gave them that right.

        Ok, so now, please answer that first question I asked.

        1. Linda Taylor says:

          I tried to post this comment above. It seems to be stuck in some type of moderation que. I will try and repost.

          Again. Life begins at first breath. All your scriptures talk about conception and pregnancy and not a single one talks about life.

          Genesis 2:7, He “breathed into his nostrils the breath of life and it was then that the man became a living being”. Although the man was fully formed by God in all respects, he was not a living being until after taking his first breath.

          Job 33:4, it states: “The spirit of God has made me, and the breath of the Almighty gives me life.”

          Ezekiel 37:5&6, “Thus says the Lord God to these bones: Behold, I will cause breath to enter you, and you shall live. And I will lay sinews upon you, and will cause flesh to come upon you, and cover you with skin, and put breath in you, and you shall live; and you shall know that I am the Lord.”

          There is nothing in the bible to indicate that a fetus is considered to be anything other than living tissue and, according to scripture, it does not become a living being until after it has taken a breath.

          Of course women conceive and get pregnant. But there is nothing in the scriptures anywhere that says that is life. It is not life until it has breath. This applies not only to humans but animals too.

          1. Amanda says:

            @ Linda, what do you think about Ps 139:13, Ps 127:3, Isa 44:24 & 49:5, Je 1:5, to name but a few?

          2. James says:

            Linda, the problem is that people read into Bible verses what they want them to say. Many of the verse that are used for and against are poetic and not literal, but people make the ones contrary to their view to be poetic and take the literal view for the ones that support their view. I don’t disagree with Brent’s view. I disagree with his confidence in his view and the assumptions that he makes. He makes statements of opinion as fact. I simply say that I don’t know and I’ve read his verses many times through the years and the ones that you mention many times through the years. He is plainly empirically wrong when he says that abortion has always been considered wrong or equivalent to murder in the Christian or Jewish church. I will continue to pray over his points, but don’t have much confidence that he will do the same. This is why it is futile to discuss these issue. Though my view on this issue has changed since the mid 1980′s, I don’t see many who are willing to address these issues with an open mind and soft heart. These conversations produce a tremendous amount of heat but very little light. I join with my pro-life friends in believing that REASONABLE limits should be placed on abortions in the second and third trimester. I join with my REASONABLE friends in opposing a Taliban like response to issues, like this, where there has never been universal consensus. I pray for the day when the Church moves away from being cheerleaders for any political party and moves back to being all about the gospel in a fallen world. Short of miraculous revival, I don’t see that happening any time soon and believe that the Church has put itself in a place of judging and deserving judgement.

        2. Linda Taylor says:

          A fetus was not a human BEING because it has not taken a BREATH. When a baby breaths all circulation with the mother stops. It is only at that point that the fetus becomes a human BEING. It is not MY definition. I am not making this up and it is not opinion. This definition is held by all the professions, sciences, religion and law. It provides the basis for all types of statistics from fetal demise, to stillbirth to infant mortality. It is agreed upon across professions and populations. Except, of course, by people who would like to come up with their own definition that fits into their own little world.

          A lot more happens at first breath than the baby crying. It becomes a being. “First Breath” indicates the process that happens upon first breath in the circulatory system. When the fetus separates from the mother and becomes a human being.

          1. Amanda says:

            @ Linda, but Adam and Eve were formed as adults, or at least not babies in the womb- that is why God breathed life into Adam.
            It may be a widely held opinion as to when life begins but it does not necessarily make it right; maybe we just don’t see rightly?

        3. Linda Taylor says:

          This is in response to your statement that begins with OK.

          The Declaration of Independence, was written for men.

          And ‘men’ did not include all human males. It had a specific definition. Men could own property including slaves and women. Other human beings.

          Well people decided that it was not fair for some human beings to own other human beings and they came up with the the concept of individual rational, self-determination. This concept allows persons the ability to choose how to live and what to live for. It is the underlying principle to the right to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness. This caused a little fight in the US called the Civil War. At the end of that war, people of African decent were granted the right of self-determination that was endowed by the Creator to only white guys before.

          Time goes on and women decide they do not like being property. They want the ability to sign contracts, own property, and so forth without a male relative saying they could or could not. So they want the right to self-determination too. This is problematic because the constitutions says “All men…” To address this conflict, the concept of “men as persons” is defined and outlined very specifically so that it could include women. This happened during my grandmothers time. As women we have only been endowed by our Creator for less than 100 years.

          At the present time, persons are granted the Creator endowed rights under the constitution. Person is a legal definition and is very specific.

          “An entity recognized by the law as separate and independent, with legal rights and existence including the ability to sue and be sued, to sign contracts, to receive gifts, to appear in court either by themselves or by lawyer and, generally, other powers incidental to the full expression of the entity in law.”

          Person does not include children or infants or fetuses.

          So currently, in the United States, a person has the right to self-determination. The right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Fetuses are not included in this definition. They are not persons and do not have the right to self-determination.

          Think about when we remove this right. You loose the right to self-determination when you participate in illegal activities. You get sent to jail. If the government feels your race is a threat to national security and the welfare of the state and citizenry, they can make you go to an internment camp or a reservation. If the government needs your life to protect the welfare of the state and the citizenry, they can initiate a draft. If the government feels labor is more important than your right to happiness, they can institute or condone slavery.

          All those are examples of what happens when we remove the right to self-determination because the rights of others are more important.

          As endowed to us by our Creator, women can choose whether to carry or terminate a pregnancy. It is integral to that pursuit of happiness part. The conflict comes with the whole pursuit of life part. What about the fetus? Doesn’t it deserve life too?

          Well the problem is that at the present moment, you need to remove the Creator endowed right of self-determination from the woman and apply it to the fetus. The woman cannot choose because the rights of the fetus is more important.

          That means that women are back to being property of the government. Just like slaves, draftees, prisoners. They are simply the vessel for the fetus which the government states has more rights, even though it is not a person, has no reason and no agency. It is not even a human being yet. Considering it is estimated about 1/3 of all pregnancies end in spontaneous abortion, it only has a 66% chance of even getting that far. So not only are women property of the government, in 1/3 of the cases, their endowed rights were removed needlessly.

          You just can’t do that.

          1. Linda Taylor says:

            So as an honest pro-choice person I have given you the scriptural, historical, legal and medical reasons for being pro-choice. Albeit somewhat choppy in this format.

            Now I would like to explain to you my experience.

            I have sat with and assisted many women as they wrestle with this decision. Mostly because the health of the mother was in danger, but also because there were medical complications with the pregnancy. Sometimes because the mother was a child. One girl was 8 years old.

            No woman was ever flippant with the decision. She always consulted many people including her family support if available.

            Some women chose to terminate the pregnancy and live. Some women carried the pregnancy to term, some successfully. But more often not. Those women are dead now.

            I remember one woman. She was ostracized by her family for a pregnancy out of wedlock and during the work up found out she had leukemia. She could terminate the pregnancy and get the chemo and try later. She could take the chemo and risk the child. She could have the child and get the chemo after. She chose to have the child and died shortly thereafter.

            I have seen more than one woman with an anacepalic child. A fetus with no brain. One chose to terminate her pregnancy in the 6th month. She delivered her child which died within minutes. Her husband and her bought a beautiful little dress for her and took wonderful pictures right before she was buried. Another chose to carry the pregnancy to term and delivered the child which lived for 2 weeks in the neonatal unit of the hospital.

            Terminating a pregnancy is never an easy decision and women do not choose it lightly. It is a decision she needs to make with her healthcare provider and her family and her God and the rest of us need to stay out of it.

            Legislation is NOT the answer. It is a medical procedure and should remain so. The rest of us and our ballyhooing about abortion is ok here but not there… abortion is OK in this case but not that… need to take our pontification elsewhere.

          2. BG says:

            “No woman was ever flippant with the decision. She always consulted many people including her family support if available.” -Linda

            That’s not entirely true. I have a step-sister who has had at least three abortions (that I know of) as a means of birth control. She was incredibly flippant about the whole experience, and I think that’s not uncommon today.

            But if we assume that what you say is true, why do so many women ponder this decision for so long? Why is it a hard decision to make? If it were really just a mass of tissue and not a genuine human, it seems as though it should be an easy decision to make. Why does the decision haunt women their whole life (does anyone actually give them than counsel when they seek it)? I have neighbors who have the cremated ashes of an aborted baby in their closet–they feel in limbo because of what they did. Again, if this wasn’t a real person, why the emotion behind it? Why would any of them care or need counselling?

            Here’s a question I haven’t seen asked by anyone here. If pro-choice people really want mothers to make the most informed, sound decision, why do they always block legislation that would have a mother see her child on an ultrasound before making the decision? Is it because the overwhelming majority of mothers choose to give life to their child afterwards? If that’s the general outcome, why would we not want to support a mother in making a fully informed decision?

  56. Linda Taylor says:

    So in answer to your question, “What would it take for me to become a person who is completely opposed to abortion?”

    It would take a reversal of scripture, history, legal precedence, medical and scientific knowledge, and personal experience.

    And that is why I am pro-choice.

  57. Brent says:

    Linda, that is a lot of words that really do gloss over a big issue.

    All the Scriptures you quote about breath do not in any way say that a person is only a human being/living person on;y after taking a breath. Even the English word “breath” does not convey what was meant in the original language. I’d like for you to look at the original context and language of those passages. Also consider the ones I quoted.

    You seen to be horrified with women losing their life through a pregnancy, but you have no qualms about the killing of the baby in the womb. This is the inconsistency of that position.

    Also, you have to be kidding me that you think all scientific and religious people and institutions agree with you. Check on that. I think you’ll be surprised. That is a trick typically pulled by liberal individuals to make their opponent feel ostracized for disagreeing. There is no call for that.

    You say it will take a reversal of medical science? That doesn’t answer the question. I am not talking about a fantasy world where you can go back in time. Suppose it is discovered next week that life actually begins at 6 months after conception…or 1 month after conception…or 1 hour after conception…or at conception. Would that have any bearing at all on your position?????

  58. Brent says:

    This whole debate reminds me of the phenomenon of parents who allow their teenage kids to have sex as long as it is in the protected environment of their home. I think the same twisted mindset is shared by the pro-choice people that claim “Women will do it anyway, so let’s make it ‘safe’ and legal”.

    Excuse me, but even if you are positive that your teenage kid will have sex anyway, you have the responsibility as the government of your home to lay down the law and take a stand for what is right!

    Government’s job is to punish evil and promote good. We used to promote good by standing against abortion, but then a group of people told us in RvW that we were wrong in doing that. I’d like a return to Biblical standards.

    1. Tatyana Solovey says:

      Return forever!

  59. Brent says:

    As pro-lifers/anti-abortionists, it seems that we have three camps of pro-choicers that we need to reach.

    Set 1: They do not believe that abortion is murder because they do not believe that life begins at conception, and so, to them, this is a “woman’s rights” issue.

    These people need to be convinced that life begins at conception. To do this, we may have to start by convincing them that at the 6-month point in the pregnancy, it is a human being. Then we can work our way down to weeks and days until finally they realize that it is definitely a human at some stage in the pregnancy, and since we cannot scientifically say when precisely the transition from soul-less mass to human being in God’s image occurs, then the clear choice is to be pro-life if you care at all about defending human life and not taking unnecessary chances.

    As with using firearms, if you’re not sure what is behind your target, do not fire!!!

    Set 2: These people believe that life must begin at conception, or maybe even a short time afterward, but they do not think it is right for them to impose this view onto others through government regulations. These people are in a terribly arrogant position, even though they may be well-meaning. They know that pro-life people are against abortion and think it is murder, but they somehow think we should be okay with it being legal and left up to the individual as some sort of twisted idea of a balanced approach. In that case, why can’t they be satisfied with our side prevailing and having it illegal, since the woman still has a choice. For them to assume we should hang up our standards and acquiesce is completely insulting.

    These people need to be convinced that it is government’s role to stand for and promote good as well as protect all of the individuals under its stewardship. It is a poorly stewarding government to let it’s people freely choose to kill other people..unborn or birthed.

    Set 3: These people have no standards about anything and simply want to go against anything Christian and “restrictive” of their sexual pursuits and to seek escape from any sort of consequences.

    They need much help.

    Logically and biblically, the pro-life stance is the right one.

    1. James says:

      Brent, I won’t discuss this any more with you brother, because you are unwilling to even consider the possibility that you are less than divine in your understanding. I have told you that I will intently consider your words and arguments. I was up until 5 am last night reading and praying about this. Are you at all willing to consider that at least some of your views on this might be wrong? The verses on this topic are seemingly contradictory and they are not clear. You are wrong when you say claim that there has not been disagreement on this throughout Church history. Your one size fits all approach will not succeed. Even if you manage to have a person amendment added to the constitution, it will eventually be repealed. In the process, more and more people will be justified in seeing the Evangelical church as obstinate, rude, overbearing and dangerous. If people like yourself can moderate your rage long enough to find common ground, you will find allies in people like me who believe that there should be limitations on abortion in the second and third trimester. If the militant wing of the anti-abortion movement continues to their mule like approach, they will lose any support that they need if we are to reduce the number of abortions. Surprise me. In 1985, I was where you are now, and my views have changed. Perhaps you think that I’ve compromised. I think that I’ve matured. I think that the 3 of us ( Brent, Linda and myself ) should take a break from posting and spend a significant period to ask God to search our hearts and seek if there is any wickedness there. At least, that’s what I’m going to do.

  60. Brent says:

    James, I find it typical that in rejecting my views and approach to the subject, you unwittingly are putting your “moderate” view on a higher level that somehow I am supposed to accept as more right than mine. This is a common approach of people these days…especially the adorable “independent” voter who would like us to consider their wishy-washy approach to every possible subject as high and lifted up and much more measured and wise than the rest of our views. I don’t think you’re intentionally doing it, but I’d just be careful of that.

    No one is claiming divinity here. I thought I presented well thought out rebuttals or discussions of your points above. Did you read them? Does it even matter?

    I would never call on the church to stand down on any issue. In case we forget, the way of Christ is ALWAYS viewed as backwards and wrong-headed. If your philosophy is seen as an appeasement by the world, then you might want to ask why they agree with you. It is okay to stand up for right and suffer reproach. It is my opinion that you have been brow-beaten into your position by the response of the liberals who balk at any talk of absolutes. Careful how you tread.

  61. Brent says:

    …and please excuse my use of the word “always” in describing the historical view of abortion. I guess I should have said, “many times”. I see it as just as speculative as your use of “few”.

  62. Aeshmi says:

    I’m pro choice but for the most part intruiging, well constructed questions. It’s early and I’m heading out soon so I hope people will forgive me if I just poke about for some clarifications rather than engage with the questsion directly atm:

    1) Can someone enlighten me as to what is so morally objectionable about contraception that it is often hoisted to an equivalency to abortion? I get that contraception is a ‘denial of life’ but if the ultimate argument is purely around procreation then contraception is about as sinful as abstinence which is typically paraded around as a powerful virtue and encouraged by churches for the most part. Only way contraception is more ‘sinful’ as I see it is that you could argue that increased sexual intercourse demeans social bonds. But again not an argument that is as powerful as the right-to-life, which is why I find it funny that chastity is encouraged yet contraception is basically considered the same as abortion. To my view they really aren’t in the same class.

    2) Pertaining to the second question this is less a moral one than one that questions the appropriateness of the wording. You cite the economist article but basically frame it as if the issue of aborting girls at a much higher rate is simply a consequence of a ‘woman’s right to choose’ as if men had no point there nor the economic or social conditions that make the article. Basically the question seems to be ‘oh look a media outfit says there is a gendercide!’ then jumping into ‘why should women decide this?’. Forgive me but it seems the first part is only there for a sensationalist aspect and the second part plays into what I like to consider ‘abortion-legality’ as opposed to ‘abortion-circumstances’ arguments where making abortion illegal under the letter of the law is more important than engaging with people and tackling the circumstancs under which abortion is desirable.

    3) I guess I can answer question six sort of as it seems pretty clear cut for me. I would say yes as it is not simply the employers conciense that matters. He should not be able to force his ‘conscience’ onto employers that do not share that belief arbitraily. Its very similar to the recent case where that woman from the university was sacked and outrage due to her name being on a petition wanting to put gay marriage to a public vote. A lot of outrage was had over that but if someone had been sacked in a pro-family organisation for say not wanting gay marriage put to a vote, or maybe one in favour of gay adoption. I doubt, though in fairness I have no full way of knowing, that said people would get the same amount of consideration. They would be seen as operating contrary to the organisations moral compass. For me you have to ask yourself, is it more important for people to be able to work somewhere but still practice their own disagreements according to their morality? Or is it more important for the organisation to impress its morality on its employees so they embody its work ethic through and through. Because when I see people trying to have it both ways for their group and no ways for the other I find it very hypocritical.

    4) For 10 will give it some thought but it is an ethical question I’ve posed to myself and some others who are pro-choice many times. If a woman is mugged and beaten up in the trainstation you rightly feel repulsed. On the other hand, if the woman is pregnant and wants that child and is mugged and beaten up and loses the child. The sense of moral indignation is worse. Even if you don’t know how far along she is, if she is still well within the legal limit for an abortion than is it any worse morally if she loses the baby in that situation compared to a woman who a few weeks later had an abortion? For me I think its a situation where despite being pro-choice I am actually weighing the *value* of the baby’s life. But for the people I’ve posed it to its possible they are thinking of the value of the mother’s hopes and aspirations for the child as opposed to the child itself. That just occured to me so can’t say I’ve actually posed that question to them before. It’s an interesting ethical dillema to pose. Can’t comment atm does seem at odds with my viewpoint, but at the same time I can’t really side with the anti-abortion views which tend to be very ‘make it illegal and stressful for women’ as opposed to tackling the underlying causes and engaging which is what I’d prefer. Safe, legal and (most importantly in my view) rare’… it was a good slogan for abortion. Very much doubt most people in the pro-choice movement see abortion as such a right that they cheer over it being done.

    1. Brent says:

      Excellent presentation! The key issues at the core of all of this are:

      At what point are we killing an innocent life?

      At what point would the fertilized egg, if not interfered with, produce naturally a human being?

      The way I see it, if we cannot answer these questions, then we must stay away from any abortions. Otherwise we are taking too big a risk with millions of lives that we may have to answer for one day. I for one do not want to be complicit in that slaughter, if it is indeed slaughter.

      1. Lily says:

        And yet you have no problem with forcing millions of women to be person-growing machines and birthers against their will? Interesting.

        1. Brent says:

          I view the killing of innocent babies much more horrendous than a woman having to carry and bear a child that she doesn’t want.

          It’s that simple. You are correct in your assessment. I find it fascinating that you find that view the least bit controversial and extreme.

          You do have somewhat of a choice in the matter, you know. You can choose to not have sex first of all. Then, the only way you would get pregnant is through a forced insemination. Then I’d have some sympathy for you, but not to the point of seeing fit for you to commit murder as a result (or possibly commit murder…in case you don’t know if conception means life). Sometimes we are called to bear a cross, and a woman should be prepared to fight to the death to protect her offspring, even if it came through horrible events. The alternative of killing the baby is much much worse and unthinkable.

          Any questions?

          1. lily says:

            “I view the killing of innocent babies much more horrendous than a woman having to carry and bear a child that she doesn’t want.”

            “Innocence” is a social construct under the law. Intent or existence of intent has never and never will define a threat and what a woman is allowed to protect herself against. Think about it is this way , you are harassed and assaulted when something is inserted into you against your will and forced to stay there (ie. rape etc). It is important to note that even if you say YES to sex, if you say no at any time during and the person doesn’t stop, IT IS STILL RAPE AND U HAVE THE RIGHT TO FIGHT BACK TO STOP IT. Consent to sex is not consent to pregnancy, not that it matters since you don’t believe in exceptions for rape anyways.

            There are few things I can view as more directly threatening than another being growing inside of me rapidly in size against my will, with the inevitable result of torture, everything about my life changing, my mobility being limited, having to face regular sickness due to it, risking my body, risking my health, risking the tearing of my reproductive organs and skin, having to take time off work (which i cannot afford literally), having check ups that I literally cannot afford and the BIRTH ITSELF which I cannot afford. Idk where you get this assumption that pregnancy is safe and not risky. You have no idea what you are asking people to do. I mean you literally have no idea of knowing and cannot know what you are asking and that is why its so infuriating that you can come on here and make these ridiculous declarations about al fetuses being babies.

            The fact that you view aborting a pregnancy in the first 3 weeks as equivalent to killing a baby is laughable.

            I can take an abortion pill in the first few weeks of pregnancy that eliminates the pregnancy. I have seen the outcome. IT IS NOT A BABY.

            “Sometimes we are called to bear a cross, and a woman should be prepared to fight to the death to protect her offspring”

            ACCORDING TO YOU! This declaration is not agreed by me or the millions of women I am advocating for. But you sir, whom can never be pregnant against your will get to make this declaration eh?

            “You do have somewhat of a choice in the matter, you know. You can choose to not have sex first of all.”

            Really? My life experience begs to differ.

  63. Lily says:

    I do not want to grow another person inside of my body. That is why I am pro choice. I do not believe that anybody has the right to force me to grow another human inside of my body. I can’t think of any other instance of murder where the victim is literally 100% dependent on being physically inside another person, using their nutrients and growing in mass and size and changing the physiology of the “murderer” against their will. The fact that someone is a person does not define murder. It is the circumstance and context in which that person is killed.

    If I were pregnant and I could remove the fetus/baby/person without killing them, that would be ideal for me.

    It just blows my mind how much of this argument is not rooted in the fact that the woman is growing a person inside of her against her will. The implications are horrifying.

    1. Benjamin says:

      Don’t be silly, Lily. Semen has rights. Women kind of do too, but women don’t came directly from a man, so they’re secondary when the two conflict. One can’t consider the feelings of the women when the rights of men’s emissions are in danger of being trampled on.

    2. Amanda says:

      You can ‘remove the foetus/baby/person’; you can give birth and have the baby adopted by one the millions of couples that can’t ‘grow another human ( you realize what you just said…’HUMAN’) inside them’ or by people like us who have biological children but would love to adopt.

      ‘Against her will’ ? It is not just women who are raped that are having abortions, it is also women who have unprotected sex and are using abortion as a form of birth control.

      1. Lily says:

        I don’t want to live through the process of growing another person inside of me. I do not want to give birth. I do not want to be forced to be a person grower for 9 months, then go through the torture of birth.

        Also unless you believe in exceptions for rape your unprotected sex argument is irrelevant. Either way, there is no sane way you could differentiate who got raped and who didn’t in terms of the law allowing for abortions.

        Also, women do not impregnate themselves and consent to sex is not consent to pregnancy and becoming a human grower for 9 months. Im sorry did they sign a legal contract stating so? Didnt think so.

      2. Lily says:

        // I love how you just scoffed at the notion of against her will.

        If
        1. I do not want to be pregnant
        and
        2. I am pregnant

        How am I not pregnant against my will?

        1. Amanda says:

          I was not scoffing just illustrating that when a man and a women consent to have sex and do not want that to result in pregnancy then they should take the necessary precautions- many don’t.

          And pain during child birth is one of the effects of the fall which was the result of sin.

          For me it is very simple: We have offended a holy God in our rebellion, and the brokenness we see in the world around us is the result. God is the one who gives life and the one who should take it.
          It would be wonderful to see these babies adopted- not everyone is adverse to carrying a baby to term even if they know they will not keep it.

          1. Lily says:

            But they are still pregnant against their will factually…….and that is my main point.

            “And pain during child birth is one of the effects of the fall which was the result of sin.”

            According to your very specific beliefs about the supernatural which you have no way of proving or confirming in a court of law.

            “It would be wonderful to see these babies adopted- not everyone is adverse to carrying a baby to term even if they know they will not keep it.”

            And thats great for them! But that still leaves the millions of women that I am advocating for whom do not want to carry a child to term, risk their life, risk their body, risk their health, expand in size, go through intense hormonal changes, have limited mobility, take time off work, go through the torture of child birth, and change their entire lifestyle for 9 months against their will.

  64. Lily says:

    In my opinion pro life and pro choice people should be focused on 3 things.

    1. Comprehensive and informative sex education
    2. Providing free birth control to the masses in the simplest and easiest way possible (70% of abortions are eliminated when just this is done.
    3. Dedicating a huge amount of time and resources to trying to find a way to be able to remove a fetus without killing it and creating an artificial environment so that a woman does not have to be a human grower against her will.

    1. Random_acct says:

      Lily…

      1. We’ve done this for years.
      2. Birth control is dirt cheap. We don’t need to provide it “free”.
      3. Come on. That’s absurd.

      Can you answer my continuing question no one will answer? Why should the dad have any legal responsibility to the child if he has no say on the fate of the child?

      1. Lily says:

        http://news.yahoo.com/free-birth-control-access-reduce-abortion-rate-more-211300812.html

        Birth control is not dirt cheap. I KNOW people whom cannot afford it. It is also not easy to access especially if you are not 18.

        Abstinence only education is the standard education in many states, and no sex ed in most school districts is neither comprehensive nor overtly informative.

        How is it absurd? They are already working on it and science is honestly not that far off from being able to accomplish this.

        Why should fathers have to pay child support for children who are born?
        Because they are born…..

        Why should they not be responsible because someone random somewhere else decided to abort their pregnancy?

        1. Random_acct says:

          The point is that if the dad has NO SAY at all in terms of whether the child should be allowed to live (even though the child is biologically his too), then why should he be legally required to care for the child in any way? Women want it both ways. That is not right.

          1. Lily says:

            There is no “both ways” The child exists inside of her. Him having a say would give individual men the power to legally decide whether a woman has to remain pregnant and give birth because he impregnated her. The reality of rape aside I don’t understand how you could possibly argue this legally.

            That being said, the idea of child support is not based in the idea of men deciding whether a woman has to give birth or not. It is based on the fact that they are the biological parent of a child that IS born.

            If the child is born then that means she decided to give birth. The abortions of other people does not influence his situation in any way so why are you connecting the two.

            1. Woman gets pregnant
            2. Child is born
            3. Man has to pay child support

            And your argument is he shouldn’t have to because some people get abortions?

        2. gary says:

          Lily,
          If you are so opposed to getting pregnant and having children, get yourself sterilized…we;d all be happier…

  65. Benjamin says:

    How are these “hard questions about abortion”? No/Yes depending on individual, yes, no, when it’s capable of life independent of it’s host, yes, yes, we’re not a post-racial society and education correlates strongly, never said that, not if premature inducement is legal but I don’t think it is, no, Ludwig van Beethoven in 1808. I’ve heard at least six of these questions asked repeatedly, they’re not rare.

    Furthermore, all this “when is semen alive if not right away while it’s just semen” crap never seems to address the actual point: even if we granted that acorns are trees, eggs are chickens, and menses and semen are a person because time/growth doesn’t exist like you guys want us to, in what situation is it acceptable for a living uninvited intruder to hijack another person’s body and then stay there for the better part of a year against the host’s will? Sure sure, there’s no malevolence on the part of the embryo, because it can’t think or act as it isn’t by any reasonable stretch alive, but if there were, then how does that make it okay?

    In any other situation in which an uninvited intruder invades one’s home, let alone their body, it is unambiguously the moral right of the person being invaded to kick them out, by force if necessary. The fact that said intruder does not go on it’s way but rather shrivels and rots like any other severed body part that is not itself a living thing mostly just further demonstrates how ridiculous anti-choice assertions about embryos being people are, not that kicking it out was amoral to begin with.

    1. Brent says:

      A man breaks into a home and brutally beats a woman and leaves a baby in her possession. Does she have the right to kill the baby? No. Same thing. You’re clouding the issue. The issue is ONLY when do we know we are not killing a human.

      1. Lily says:

        THE BABY IS NOT INSIDE OF HER IN YOUR EXAMPLE. What is with you people and not understanding what pregnancy is? I think the fact that so many people on here refuse to acknowledge that there is a difference between carrying a baby and being in possession of a baby is a clear testament to how freaking sexist, misogynistic, and horribly patriarchal the Coalition’s views on gender are. It’s like talking to four year olds sometimes honestly. Remember when pregnancy entails PREGNANCY?

        1. Brent says:

          Lily, I refuse to believe that you did not understand my comment. Nevertheless, here we go again…

          What is the difference in you having a baby in your possession and being pregnant with a baby? Of course, you will rant about the baby posing a danger to your body and blah blah blah blah.

          Can I be honest for everyone here? A woman who is more concerned for her body’s supposed “safety” than for caring for the defenseless pre-born child is utterly selfish and self-centered. I don’t recall Jesus telling us it was okay to sin as long as it provided us an “easy way out”.

          Now, I’m sure you’re objecting to my use of the word “sin”. Which brings me back the the POINT OF MY PREVIOUS COMMENT WHICH YOU DID NOT GET. The only question to be asked here is “At what point in a pregnancy do we know…KNOW… that we are not killing another human being?”

          You can laugh and disparage and claim your precious “feminine rights” all you want, Lily, but until you can answer that question, you will not be seen as anything but a bitter, grasping, petty, unthinking, and shameless bastion of self-interest.

          …and for James below, until you get your nose out of the air, you might as well drop out of the debate altogether. It really is a shame that people with little conviction get to pretend they have a higher view of issues than people who logically form their own views and are not proven wrong. Do I think I am right on this issue? Yes. Why is that? Because, from my basic assumptions, my position on the issue flows from logic based on Scriptural evidence, a desire to handle life very carefully and not be guilty of murder or supporting murder, and the utterly Christless views of the supporters of the abortion movement. Really? Their best argument is “It’s my body”????????????? My mind is blown by the destructive power of the female will to have her “rights” at all costs. Where is Christ in all of this?

          1. lily says:

            “What is the difference in you having a baby in your possession and being pregnant with a baby? Of course, you will rant about the baby posing a danger to your body and blah blah blah blah.”

            I just don’t understand how you can continue to scoff about this risk as if it is not real. As if the pain is not real. As if what women think about their own pregnancy means NOTHING to you.

            “Can I be honest for everyone here? A woman who is more concerned for her body’s supposed “safety” than for caring for the defenseless pre-born child is utterly selfish and self-centered. ”

            Ok then! I dont give a hoot if you define it as selfish. It is still her right because it is her body to be selfish in that way. I don’t believe in Jesus so your sermon means nothing to me. Furthermore, if the foundation of your argument is what Jesus thinks that makes my argument stronger since Jesus cannot be used in a court of law…….

            / Please stop scoffing at the realities of pregnancy I am talking about and my silly silly little notion of “feminine” rights.

            Your analogy is stupid because it ignores the reality of pregnancy and therefore ignores everything about why a woman would even get an abortion to begin with. You don’t care to understand the mind or the pain of a woman who would get an abortion and so can never see the issue clearly.

          2. lily says:

            “My mind is blown by the destructive power of the female will to have her “rights” at all costs.”

            I know it must be mind blowing to realize people want the same control over their bodies that you have. Scary scary stuff isn’t it.

            “Where is Christ in all of this?”

            You tell me. As far as I’m concerned his existence is debatable and his divinity is non existant and non-provable.

      2. lily says:

        I literally cannot stop laughing at the fact that you just equated a baby being in a house with pregnancy. Sorry omg….

        1. James says:

          It’s a waste of time trying to reason with Brent or Random_acct. No logic, no reason. Waste of time.

        2. gary says:

          what are you doing on this page if you don’t even believe in Jesus?

  66. Also consider that the medical effects of abortion and post-abortion stress disorder are well-documented. In a congressional hearing on the impact of abortion, psychologist Wanda Franz stated, “Women who report negative after-effects from abortion know exactly what their problem is. They report horrible nightmares of children calling them from trash cans, of body parts, and blood. When they are reminded of the abortion, the women re-experienced it with terrible psychological pain … They feel worthless and victimized because they failed at the most natural of human activities — the role of being a mother.”

    Many women battle long-term emotional and psychological damage over their profound regret about getting an abortion. For abortion proponents to attribute these effects to some form of religiously induced guilt is to trivialize the trauma these women endure.

    Abortion and Health Care for Women (http://thinkpoint.wordpress.com/2012/02/10/abortion-and-health-care-for-women/)

    1. James says:

      The only thing which is different between Islamic militants and Fundamentalist militants is that Islamic militants live in countries which don’t have a strong enough rule of law to keep their craziness under control. Both groups have no sense of humor, no ability or willingness to compromise, no humility, and an end justifies the means view of things. Both groups believe that EVERYTHING they believe is fundamental. Christians used to believe that there were certain parts of our faith which were fundamental … we put those things into creeds. Everything else was peripheral, and we didn’t divide over those things. People were not considered backsliders or carnal simply because they disagreed on those peripheral issues. Now, if you don’t agree with every single thing that Fundamentalist believe, then it’s because you are a compromiser. This is exactly the kind of thing that Jesus and Paul fought against, but they had no success convincing the Pharisees that they were mistaken … because when a Pharisee talks to Jesus, the Pharisee thinks the he is God .. not Jesus. I’m fine with just talking about Jesus with my brothers,. I’d much rather leave politics out of things, but when my so-called brothers are unwilling to allow me to follow my own conscience, then I hand you over and God can deal with you. Continue this battle over abortion. In the end, you will only succeed in dividing what is left of a very anemic church, making our faith irrelevant to a world that needs us to be salt and light, and all so that people like Brent and Random_acct can satisfy their need to feel superior, or that their lives have value. Stop the evil arguing over issues that you have no authority to speak on, and focus on what’s important. If Christians are incapable of finding common ground on things like fighting late term abortions, helping the poor, and living moral lives simply because they have become so culturally corrupted by right-wing politics, then I see little hope for our world. Reasonable Christians had better start speaking up against this fanatical extremism, or we will be just like Afghanistan. It’s only a matter of time.

      1. Brent says:

        James, people like you are the reason that our society is in this predicament in the first place. People who know what is right and what is wrong, but in order to appease many people and appear enlightened and measured, you fizzle out on your stand for right. It seems that your position is “I hate abortion, but I am not too convinced that it is murder, so I’ll just not engage to stop it.” If it is not murder, why hate it? The point is not that I am convinced that it is murder, it is that I am not convinced that it is not murder! With the advent of new ultrasound technology, it has become clearer that there is definitely a baby in the womb (Can’t believe I actually have to state that fact to adults). Suppose you decide to allow abortions up to 3 weeks after conception only to find out 5 years later with the introduction of a new technology that we definitely know the fetus is a living baby at 2 weeks of development? How do you feel? Do you stick with your 3 week stand or do you move it back to 2 weeks? Why is it so hard to understand that in order to protect ALL life, we HAVE TO operate as if life begins at conception. Does anyone on here understand this?????

        I can present analogy after analogy after analogy, but unless you understand that life must be protected at the expense of a woman’s discomfort (hey, since when is life what YOU want it to be?), you will never understand the passion on the pro-life side.

        AT WHAT POINT AFTER CONCEPTION DO WE KNOW THAT WE ARE NOT TAKING A HUMAN LIFE?

        IF YOU CARE ABOUT PROTECTING LIFE, BUT YOU DO NOT KNOW THE ANSWER TO THAT QUESTION DEFINITIVELY, THEN WITH WHAT CHOICE DOES THAT LEAVE YOU?

        1. lily says:

          “The point is not that I am convinced that it is murder, it is that I am not convinced that it is not murder!”

          Which is why your argument is so horrifying and horrible. You completely ignore the facts of a woman’s pregnancy and what you are asking millions of women to do based on your uncertainty and whim. I know it is not murder because it does not fit the definition of it. If you truly believe that aborting a fetus at 3 weeks is murder then honestly you are a fool.

          “AT WHAT POINT AFTER CONCEPTION DO WE KNOW THAT WE ARE NOT TAKING A HUMAN LIFE?”

          Still completely ignoring the existence of another person involved as a carrier and sacrifice….

          “but unless you understand that life must be protected at the expense of a woman’s discomfort”

          DISCOMFORT. Ever been raped and wanted something out of you so desperately that you would go to a dirty back alley to get it done? Please stop trying to define the experience of someone whom does not want to be pregnant. TORTURE is the word I would use to describe my own experience.

          1. Amanda says:

            Lily, I am so very sorry for what you have suffered, I cannot even begin to imagine. But there is one who does know how you have suffered and his name is Jesus. He suffered that we, in our sufferings, might know that we have a great High Priest (Hebrew 4:14) who has trod that path before us; He is someone we can identify with and find comfort in.

            One of my favourite verses is Isaiah 53. This account was written about Christ about 500 years before His birth. I hope you will read it.

  67. Greg Steward says:

    Regarding #6: Is there ever a case where an employer either provides or denies access to contraceptive aids, etc? How could an employer prevent an employee from purchasing with their own personal funds those goods and services that are legal (or even illegal)? Isn’t the issue whether or not the employer should be required to subsidize the purchase of those items and services through employer-paid medical coverage?

  68. Brent says:

    I was asked why I scoff at or gloss over the suffering by a woman who has become impregnated as a result of rape. I do not mean to scoff at anyone’s suffering, and I am sorry if it seemed that way. I was trying to downplay the discussion of suffering since it has no place in this discussion into ultimate truth. Suffering never defines what is right or wrong. In the study of truth, emotion and personal suffering, bear no weight. Of course, in a ministry context, the suffering of people is definitely a concern, but in no ministry is it appropriate to cast off or bend the truth for the sake of appeasement of the one who is suffering.

    1. Daniella Lollie says:

      I am applying the truth of the situation in order to say what I deem ethical. I do not think there is a magical being in existence who declares things true and un true. The pro choice position is one that is defined by the reality of the situation. Saying that suffering cannot define a situation is like saying consent has nothing to do with whether something is rape. Your argument literally comes off as “it doesn’t matter what she is going through” which is funny considering she is the most involved in the situation……

      If you want to separate circumstance from truth then by all means stop applying truth to the physical world.

    2. Amanda says:

      But suffering is at the heart of ultimate truth- Jesus is the Way, the Truth and the Life, and He suffered like no other to redeem those who are lost…people like you and me. The cross is all about suffering. The greatest crime in the history of mankind was the murder of the only innocent sufferer, the Son of God.

      1. gary says:

        BUT, feelings have NO place…we cannot go on feelings, they always steer us wrong…Truth is Truth, regardless of feelings…PERIOD…

  69. Brent says:

    Yes, Christ suffered in two ways…he experienced pain (physical and spiritual) and he experienced death. It was his death-suffering that paid for our sins. Death was the decider, not physical pain. Otherwise, someone might say “I have a sin so bad Christ should have suffered for 3 more hours to pay for it.” That is not to make light of the pain He experienced, but his pain was not atoning. His death was. (Not that you’re implying anything but that truth)

    I say that to just reiterate the fact that a person’s suffering cannot make truth relative. If that is the case, then Hitler was a fantastic hero for ending the suffering of the Jews. I think some people see death as the great escape from pain, but in fact it is the ultimate victory of pain. Even if you’re down by 40 points in a basketball game, you have not suffered defeat until the final buzzer sounds.

    I’m finding out that many atheists are reading TGC blogs…for some reason.

    1. Daniella Lollie says:

      It’s because the ideology TGC espouses is one that influences and determines many aspects of my life against my will, politically, personally and sociologically. Furthermore, the “secular world” and TGC have more in common than anyone would care to admit, especially concerning gender, relationships, misogyny, homophobia. I come on here to better understand the logic of that which oppresses me and also to remind myself that I agree with people on here sometimes far more than others I would assume I agree with simply because they label themselves an atheist, depending on the issue.

  70. Ellen says:

    Years ago, in a high school classroom, a student asked me what an abortion was. The entire class was horrified when I made a simple and basic explanation. The next year, the Roe v. Wade case was concluded in the Supreme Court. I can only weep when I think of the horrible suffering some unborn babies have experienced. Every time I hold a newborn, most recently a granddaughter, I think of how recently it would have been legal to destroy it – inflicting unspeakable pain at the same time. All arguing aside, it appears to me that the only criteria for seeing an unborn baby at any stage of development as a child is whether it is wanted. The language that always prevails is that an unwanted baby is a pregnancy, subject to “termination,” and a wanted baby is a child. A doctor never discusses terminating a baby (or even a fetus) with the woman seeking an abortion. With the mother whose child is wanted, he refers to her “baby.” When a pregnant woman loses a wanted baby, she does not grieve what those cells represented, but she grieves the loss of her child – often one which already has a name. When my son and daughter-in-law lost their little Annabelle at 19 weeks, nurses wrapped her in a blanket, brought her to them, and allowed them to hold her—smaller than their hands—as long as they needed to say good bye. We have her tiny footprint. She looked a lot like her sisters, her parents said. No one eagerly awaits an unwanted baby, much less says goodbye to it or grieves its passing. It seems to me that, in general, children in our culture are increasingly seen as burdens, and the heart of this issue is something much deeper and more profound than any of the arguments.

    1. Amanda says:

      Well said Ellen; our language speaks volumes. Out of the mouth is the overflow of the heart- Matthew 12: 34.

      I am sorry for your loss.

      1. gary says:

        which speaks directly to Lily’s selfishness….

  71. Bryan says:

    Excellent article. The more discussion, the harder to justify the abhorrence of abortion. Case in point: Pro-choice folks don’t want women to have a sonogram.

  72. MzEllen says:

    Question:

    If you found a paper bag that moved, that might have a living kitten in it, would you kick it?

    If you look at an ultrasound of a fetus with a heartbeat, would you shred it?

  73. Random_acct says:

    Lily states above….

    “There is no “both ways” The child exists inside of her. Him having a say would give individual men the power to legally decide whether a woman has to remain pregnant and give birth because he impregnated her. The reality of rape aside I don’t understand how you could possibly argue this legally.

    That being said, the idea of child support is not based in the idea of men deciding whether a woman has to give birth or not. It is based on the fact that they are the biological parent of a child that IS born.

    If the child is born then that means she decided to give birth. The abortions of other people does not influence his situation in any way so why are you connecting the two.

    1. Woman gets pregnant
    2. Child is born
    3. Man has to pay child support

    And your argument is he shouldn’t have to because some people get abortions?”

    Sorry, but you aren’t understanding my point. What you believe apparently is that the child’s fate from the very beginning belongs to the female exclusively. Right? This is based on the fact that she is carrying the child.

    I am saying that the fact that the child’s DNA is 50% from the dad should give him some say in the decision (barring, of course, the rare instances when there is no consent to have sex…rape). As it stands now, from my understanding of the laws existing, the dad has a legal responsibility to the child (even before birth). Am I wrong with this assumption?

    Again…if he has no say in determining the fate of the child, then why should he also has a legal responsibility? It’s a very simple concept.

    I know the law’s position on this. I am trying to understand the logical inconsistency.

    1. MdrnPlgrm says:

      I have seen this logical inconsistently played out and it is not pretty. Fifteen years ago I was taking a culture class when stationed in Germany. One of the young soldiers talked about chasing women when he got to the city. When one of the others asked him what would happen if a young lady gets pregnant he stated that “It’s not my problem, she can get an abortion.” If birth creates responsibility, not conception, then this man’s logic is justified by Roe v Wade.

  74. Bystander says:

    As I don’t see it linked above, I wanted to make sure the folks here saw this set of responses to the questions.

    http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2012/11/08/questions-and-answers-for-pro-choice-individuals/

    There are written by Claudia, one of the contributors at Friendly Atheist, a blog on Patheos.

  75. Tazo says:

    We live in despicable times, when the issue of saving a life is debated against the convenience to a mother/parents. It is an issue of religion, but also an issue of morality, of the integrity of a collective society, and of intrinsic value.

    When people begin, at any level, to attempt legalization of killing each other, the end is inevitably anarchy.

  76. Bystander says:

    Another set of responses, and an expansion of them by another author.

    http://bigthink.com/daylight-atheism/answering-questions-for-pro-choicers

    The above set of answers was written by Adam Lee of Daylight Atheism at BigThink.

    http://freethoughtblogs.com/almostdiamonds/2012/11/19/hard-questions-on-abortion/

    Stephanie Zvan expanded on some of the answers at her blog, Almost Diamonds at FreeThoughtBlogs.

    Hopefully some of the folks reading here will take the time to read (and maybe even respond) to the posts linked above.

  77. ronalon42 says:

    My answers are mostly based off of being perfectly happy with the rights of “personhood” being given only at the moment of live birth.

    I think the pregnant person has absolute veto power, but this works best when coupled with full access to education, healthcare, birth control and first trimester abortion. With these things in place the number of people getting late term elective abortions would likely be statistically insignificant.

    Gender based abortions are the product of misogynistic society and cannot be solved on an individual level. Societal change must occur, along with what I mention above (education, healthcare, birth control, increased economic freedom).

    I think a teen seeking abortion should have legal avenues to get around parental notification, with a social worker or a judge for counsel. A teen has as much right to body autonomy as an adult.

    Human life is a continuous process. Human rights begin at live birth.

    I feel that the eugenics question has been better answered by others but it is similar to the “genocide” question. It isn’t eugenics when it is an individual choice freely made. Down Syndrome in particular is not an inheritable trait that can be bred out of human genetics. Fetus =/= person, so abortion is not equal to killing those with genetic abnormalities or disabilities.

    I believe that employer’s religious beliefs are irrelevant when it comes to healthcare they provide employees. Healthcare is an earned benefit; like wages it belongs to the employee and not the employer.

    The seventh question is the same as the gender genocide and eugenics ones. I think that abortion disproportionally affects people of color is indicative of the inequalities that still exist. Economic concerns and lack of healthcare and access to birth control are the main causes of abortion, and these issues disproportionally affect minorities.

    Abortion can be tragic. Sometimes it is not. The reasons and feelings around abortion are as varied as the people who get them. I don’t think it is particularly tragic compared to other medical procedures.

    If the fetus is truly viable, let it be induced to be born early. If it isn’t truly viable, the woman has a right to her body anyway. Viability constraints make it very difficult for people to make the best choices for their health and well being if a problem arises later in pregnancy.

    I think the murderer should not be charged with 2 counts but that the punishment may be more severe. Also causing a woman to have an abortion against her will, no matter what the viability age, should also be a crime, because it also violates her autonomy. It is against the law already, I am just agreeing with it.

    1. You say “the pregnant person has absolute veto power” but also “Gender based abortions are the product of misogynistic society”. So do they have absolute veto power or not? Or are you arguing that they have a right to abort a child for being female, but you reserve the right to object loudly?

      “A teen has as much right to body autonomy as an adult.” How young does that “as much right” argument go, and why do you draw the line where you draw it? Does a 12 year old have as much right as an adult to bodily autonomy? How about 10? 8? 4?

      Gerv

    2. gary says:

      teens may have the right to avoiding parental consent via a social worker or a judge, but not the school…that was the question…
      healthcare is not an earned benefit…it is graciously offered by an employer and the employer is not required to offer it (well, they will be now, which is why employers are reducing employees hours)…abortion is not a medically necessary procedure, it is elective, like botox and should never be a covered service by insurance anyway….if it IS medically necessary, it is usually called a DNC, not an abortion…the difference is that one is required the other is a choice…

  78. Bystander says:

    And here is a set of questions for anti-abortion/pro-life supporters to answer, also from Adam Lee.

    http://bigthink.com/daylight-atheism/questions-for-pro-lifers

  79. Edward says:

    Abortion is supported by the same people who own and control what the media reports and supports or fights. Thus the media is not going to “fight” equal when it comes to abortion. Those in control do not value LIFE like God does. They claim our world is overpopulated (which is bull) and even spread the myths of global warming and evolution. They all support the idea that people are not valuable, we are a burden to the world we live in and the environment we live in is more important than us. God made the earth for man, not man for the earth. We live in a world very contrary to His values.

  80. Dani Bock says:

    But what if the woman was a smoker, drank alcohol, or ate the wrong diet while she was pregnant? Is it murder then if she has a miscarriage? What if she doesn’t know she is pregnant at the time?

  81. Dani Bock says:

    So Hobby Lobby needs to take Viagra and vasectomies off their insurance plans since both of those are elective. Or does this “elective procedure” policy only apply to women?

  82. Dani Bock says:

    I agreed with your response except for one thing. LTA’s are only 1.2% of abortions already. That’s a pretty low number so those are mostly for medical reasons (mother or fetus). I’d like to see any proof that there’s an increase in gender based abortions since generally you don’t know the gender until about week 20 which would mean a LTA. Those are really expensive and hard to get so if someone had that much money they would probably just do IVF and pick the gender at the beginning. This isn’t China. The last part wasn’t really directed at you but I seem to only be able to make replies not general comments on here.

Leave a Reply

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

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

Trevin Wax


​Trevin Wax is managing editor of The Gospel Project at LifeWay Christian Resources, husband to Corina, father to Timothy, Julia, and David. You can follow him on Twitter. Click here for Trevin’s full bio.

Trevin Wax's Books