You may have heard the sobering news that the country of Ireland is considering embracing abortion under the guise of the “life of the mother.” In the United States we have a close cousin to this argument and it’s usually uttered by politicians who state that they’re against abortion, “except in the cases of rape, incest, and to save the life of the mother.” Allowing exceptions to abortion for the “life of the mother” sounds like a reasonable position until you begin to research the assumptions behind it. When I first heard abortionists attempt to justify abortion on demand to save the life of the mother I assumed that women in the United States were dying by the thousands. After all, why would abortionists make these statements if it were not a serious issue?

And so I began to question them regarding their sources. “How many women are dying?”

Unfortunately, I couldn’t get a satisfactory answer. It turns out that those who were repeating this mantra assumed without a scintilla of supporting evidence that an alarming number of women were dying because of childbirth. Not a single person could point me to anyone they knew who died as a direct result of not receiving a life saving abortion. And so I decided to do some research on my own. Fortunately,  maternal mortality statistics are readily available in the United States.

In the United States there are 9.1 maternal deaths per 100,000 live births. However, that doesn’t mean the mothers died on the birthing table. The definition of “maternal mortality” is very loose and includes deaths that occurred weeks later from complications that the record keeper decides were related to childbirth. Even with this lax standard it means that only -> 109 <- women annually in the United States could arguably make a claim regarding “life of the mother” even before we examine of the merits of abortion as a therapeutic remedy.

[This number is derived by looking at the number of abortions annually in the United States (1.2 million) and applying simple arithmetic to determine how many women who underwent an abortion could have died based on the maternal mortality numbers. In this case 1.2 million is divided by 100,000 and then we multiply the answer (12) by 9.1 to arrive at the final number: 109.2 – which I rounded to 109.]

Source: http://europepmc.org/abstract/MED/2234713/reload=0;jsessionid=smrPs1Z7ucyc4i7M1AkG.8

These numbers bring into crisp focus the truth about abortion in the United States: 99.99% of the abortions in the United States are for reasons of convenience and have absolutely nothing to do with the “life of the mother”. Even if we are to believe that abortion is “therapeutic” (which it’s not) then these 109 exceptional cases could be handled by a medical board reviewing the claims of the mother seeking the abortion which could further reduce the number to a handful or even none if their medical conditions are properly addressed by therapies designed to actually save their lives.

Abortionists realize that if abortion were strictly limited to genuine cases of the mother’s life being at risk it would put the abortion industry out of business over night. In some countries the maternal mortality statistics are so low (including Ireland) that a case could be made that in most years there would be no abortions. Therefore, in order to achieve their goals they must broaden the definition of the “life of the mother” to include suicidal ideations. And with this 100% subjective standard any woman can claim to be at risk of losing her life by suicide and abortion on demand becomes the standard.

But what about Ireland? Is their situation identical to the United States?

It’s important not to end our analysis prematurely since the abortionists want us to believe that female suicide as a direct result of pregnancy is a legitimate issue. So we need to ask ourselves, “How many people commit suicide in Ireland every year?” According to Office of Vital Statistics 525 Irish citizens chose to take their own lives in 2011. 84% of these suicides were men, so we’re left with 86 women who decided to commit suicide.

Source: http://www.rte.ie/news/2012/0711/vitalstats.pdf

How many of these women were pregnant?

There are approximately 2.3 million women in the Republic Ireland and we know there are approximately 74,000 births per year. So from these numbers we can ascertain what percent of Irish women are pregnant per year. The answer is 3.25%. If we assume that 3.25% of the suicide victims were pregnant the answer is 2.79 women. Let’s be generous and call it 3 women. Even if the abortionists were to get their way then statistics would logically limit abortions to 3 women per year for reasons of suicide. And this wrongly assumes that all three of these women (100%) killed themselves because they happened to be pregnant.

Source: http://www.cso.ie/en/statistics/population/

I will leave it up to the Irish government to root through the vital statistics to determine how many female suicide victims were pregnant. I wouldn’t be surprised if the answer is: 0.

So what’s the truth?

The abortionists are not going through all of this trouble for three women. They have a much higher number in mind. And as long as the Irish government and Irish citizens ignore the statistics, the abortionists honey-laden arguments about helping mothers will sway public opinion and the net result will be thousands of innocent babies with beating hearts and developing brains being slain in the name of convenience and self interest.

In 1935 Dr. Clarence Chaney wrote in the Journal of American Medicine, “The induction of abortion should be undertaken as reluctantly as one would commit justifiable homicide.” If only groups like Planned Parenthood viewed abortion to save the life of the mother as justifiable homicide and not a cash cow they would be more restrained in their efforts to spread the plague of abortion to other nations.

Please pray for Ireland!

40 COMMENTS

  1. The “life of the mother” argument for abortion on demand doesn’t hold up, but the principle does. Anyone really concerned with saving lives will want to save the lives of those mothers, however few, whom abortion actually puts at risk, who have parents and siblings and husbands and already born children. The life of an unborn person is not of more worth than the life of an unborn one, and is arguably worth more because of those who love them. Someday I’d like to see a pro-life activist have the courage and consistency to acknowledge that.

    When you claim that abortions are done for mere “convenience,” you make it look like pro-choice liberals are right to accuse you of sentimentalizing the fetus instead of really caring about real people, whether they’re fetal or born. For a teen girl still in school; for a rape victim of any age; for a pregnant woman who can’t count on the father’s support raising the child, or who already struggles physically, mentally and financially to raise the children she has, an abortion is not a “convenience.” It may be wrong (I think it is), but it’s not a mere convenience. It’s a drastic measure taken to make bearable a very difficult situation. Decent people understand that, so they don’t listen to arguments from people who seem like they don’t. If you want to persuade people that their behavior is wrong, demonstrate that you care about them first.

    Just like it’s a lie to call us “anti-choice” when our goal is to save lives, it’s a lie to call them “pro-death” when their real goal is to give women better lives. It’s too bad that so many pro-life and pro-choice activists seem to deserve each other.

  2. “Someday I’d like to see a pro-life activist have the courage and consistency to acknowledge that.” – Ken

    How about the abortionist movement admitting that they have no respect for the life of the unborn and their attempt to justify abortion by bringing up the red herring of the “life of the mother” is simply to stir the pot?

    Of course a mother has an equal right to life, but show me an abortionist who believes a baby has an equal right to life? The insult to our intelligence is taking seriously these arguments when the people putting them forth are not arguing principles or facts.

    If the abortionist movement would walk away from dismembering 1.2 million babies every year with beating hearts and developing brains and instead focus on the principle of the mother having an equal right to life — there wouldn’t be any abortion mills in this country.

    There are abortion mills because the babies rights are being violated. If they’re concerned about the women then why aren’t they offering alternatives to abortion that will spare them the psychological trauma that goes hand-in-hand with abortion?

    The illusion of a “better life” is what abortionist sell for a price. They don’t tell the women about the guilt and the sorrow because that will hurt their bottom line. And they fight attempts for the truth to enter the equation: ultrasounds, waiting periods, etc.

    They’re not concerned with offering women a “better life” — because killing someone does not lead to a better life. Killing an innocent baby has a lifelong negative consequences on the parents and the society.

    If the best argument an abortionist can come up with is a handful of extreme examples to highlight a “principle” — then they should also take responsibility for the 56 million babies with beating hearts and developing brains that were murdered for lack of principles.

    “For a teen girl still in school; for a rape victim of any age; for a pregnant woman who can’t count on the father’s support raising the child, or who already struggles physically, mentally and financially to raise the children she has, an abortion is not a “convenience.” – Ken

    That’s the story that they spin, but what happens when we sprinkle some truth on it? A woman in her early 20s decides to have unprotected sex and she gets pregnant. She then goes to the Planned Parenthood and receives their award winning education — followed by an abortion. A year later she is back having had unprotected sex yet again — and once again an innocent child is killed.

    Does that story pull at the heart strings? That’s 1 in 4 abortions.

    46% are repeat customers. 50% use abortion as their primary form of birth control.

    Source: http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_induced_abortion.html

    Source: http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/2006/11/21/or29.pdf

    You may feel sorry for the mother (and father) who engaged in consensual sex, but where is your concern for the unborn child who didn’t ask to be created? Abortionists don’t want the public to stare abortion in the face because it’s very ugly.

    Instead they want the public to regurgitate their storyline of the victimized female. And that’s the pill we swallowed after our society decided to separate sex from its logical consequence (pregnancy). Because so many Americans believe in the myth of “safe sex” they are fair game for the victimized female storyline.

    There is no such thing as “safe sex”. There is only sex with consequences. And even if there was such a thing as safe sex — 46% of the women who get abortions reject it.

    Why won’t the pro choice community celebrate the typical abortion? Planned Parenthood wouldn’t exist if the only abortions were the popular abortion storyline of rape and incest victims.

    Let’s portray abortion honestly — because the truth about abortion is the fastest way to end it.

  3. The insult to our intelligence is taking seriously these arguments when the people putting them forth are not arguing principles or facts.

    Let’s deal with the specific principles and facts I asked you to comment on. Never mind abortionists for a moment, and focus on a woman whose health is in danger. If, as you agree, a mother has an equal right to life, does she have the ethical right to abort if the doctor says she may die if she doesn’t? For example if she has an ectopic pregnancy. Yes those situations are rare, but they do exist. Answer the question. The question isn’t whether the pro-choice movement is well-intentioned or argues honestly. The question is if this woman should be allowed to save her life by ending that of her fetus.

    Now back to abortion providers: There are abortion mills because the babies rights are being violated. If they’re concerned about the women then why aren’t they offering alternatives to abortion that will spare them the psychological trauma that goes hand-in-hand with abortion?

    What surgeon offers alternatives to surgery? That isn’t their job. It isn’t the service they advertise. But Planned Parenthood does in fact offer pre- and post-abortion counseling. Maybe they’re not so heartless after all.

    That’s the story that they spin, but what happens when we sprinkle some truth on it? A woman in her early 20s decides to have unprotected sex

    The obvious truth is that birth control often fails, that some women get seduced and manipulated, etc. You’re right that there is no such thing as safe sex, and the pro-choice movement won’t admit that. But you’re also demonstrating why the pro-life movement gets so little respect. It’s because you don’t just call abortion wrong, you also judge everyone associated with it. It’s possible to condemn bad behavior and still empathize with people paying the consequences of it. It’s possible to condemn a political position but recognize that a lot of people take it out of good motives.

    You may feel sorry for the mother (and father) who engaged in consensual sex, but where is your concern for the unborn child who didn’t ask to be created

    Again, I’m pro-life, so you’re asking the wrong person, but there is no reason to presume that women who abort more than once do so without sorrow. Sometimes every possible choice is a painful choice.

    Let’s portray abortion honestly — because the truth about abortion is the fastest way to end it.

    That’s exactly what I say to you, and to the Christian Right on a host of other issues. When you have the courage and charity to describe your enemies fairly, you’ll win some of them over.

  4. I believe a mother and a baby both have an unalienable right to life. And I believe the only legitimate argument on the pro choice side are cases where there is no way to save the mother but by removing the baby from the fallopian tube — not dismembering the baby.

    Since this is an intellectual exercise I can think of far more humane ways to deal with an ectopic pregnancy. If our goal is to save the mother and also respect the life of the baby then our resources should be invested into advanced technologies that will allow a baby to be moved from the fallopian tube to a uterus.

    Artificial wombs are already in their early stages of development. And this technology has been tested on goats, so we know experimentally that over the long term killing the baby will not be justified even in the case of ectopic pregnancies.

    Watch this video: http://youtu.be/YWGVZ6Gl7pQ

    Another point worth noting is that some ectopic babies are born premature and survive. As prenatal technology continues to advance they will be able to give birth to these ectopic pregnancies at earlier stages also reducing the relevance of this defense.

    Source: http://realchoice.blogspot.com/2011/05/another-baby-survives-ectopic-pregnancy.html

    Once these technologies are honed there will be absolutely no reason to abort a baby for the life of the mother. All unwanted babies could be saved by the use of these advanced technologies. It will also throw under the bus an “viability” defense for abortion since babies will be able to be saved outside of the mother’s womb without aborting it.

    Interestingly, alternative solutions to abortions are rarely discussed when abortionists bring up the topic of ectopic pregnancies since the point is generally to create an exceptional case to justify abortion on demand.

    “What surgeon offers alternatives to surgery? That isn’t their job. It isn’t the service they advertise. But Planned Parenthood does in fact offer pre- and post-abortion counseling. Maybe they’re not so heartless after all.” -Ken

    You’re incorrect. The last surgeon I talked to discussed alternatives to knee surgery. My wife is a surgeon and she discusses alternatives all the time.

    Ditto for all of her colleagues. Good surgeons consider it an important part of their job to discuss alternatives with the patient.

    Planned Parenthood could be the #1 adoption provider in the country. They offer no adoptive services. Furthermore the 2008 Planned Parenthood employee of the year has stated publicly that they promote abortion and are discouraged and even chastised if they let a customer walk out the door without getting an abortion.

    Their business model is abortion and not counseling.

    Watch this video: http://youtu.be/jqwjiar0OvU

    “But you’re also demonstrating why the pro-life movement gets so little respect. It’s because you don’t just call abortion wrong, you also judge everyone associated with it. It’s possible to condemn bad behavior and still empathize with people paying the consequences of it. It’s possible to condemn a political position but recognize that a lot of people take it out of good motives.” – Ken

    You would be surprised at the percentage of pro lifers who are post abortive. Probably half of my pro life friends went through the agony of an abortion. I understand full well that men and women are often misinformed because the abortion industry doesn’t want to share the truth. If we want couples to make informed choices then Planned Parenthood is not a good option because they have a financial incentive to misrepresent the truth.

    I’ve heard Planned Parenthood volunteers tell me that they’re standing there because all of the women are at risk of losing their life. When they learn that those cases don’t end up at Planned Parenthood (they go to a hospital) they’re often shocked. When they learn that 50% of the customers are repeat visits they’re often shocked. When they learn that 46% use abortion as their primary means of birth control they’re often shocked.

    Most of them refuse to believe that the baby has a beating heart and developing brain. And that’s because the truth turns their own supporters against them. One gentleman told me that if any of that is true he would work to shut down Planned Parenthood because he couldn’t support that kind of irresponsibility

    On a personal level I believe that God loves the baby and the mom and dad. However, abortion is an act of tyranny against a defenseless baby irrespective of how I feel about the parents. A lot of my friends committed those acts and they’re having to cope with that decision.

    You probably wouldn’t complain as loudly if I were opposed to slavery. Would you come back and say, “Hey, some of these plantation owners are good men! Stop being so judgmental.”

    It might surprise, but I would agree with that … Thomas Jefferson was one of the great men of history and yet he still owned slaves. He was a conflicted man who understood that slavery was wrong and attempted to end it, but he still had something to gain from it.

    Perhaps trying to end something that will cost you personally is noble in itself. But we all recognize the right thing to do would have been to obey his conscience and free all of his slaves and live in poverty.

    Today we have modern day Thomas Jefferson’s who oppose abortion on principle but then justify their own abortion. Plenty of Christians get abortions.

    Tyranny puts otherwise good men in a very difficult position. Lincoln talked about this when describing his personal affection for politicians defending the tyranny of slavery and the awful effects it had on the country, because when we embrace tyranny it becomes a wedge that causes separation within the society.

    Tyranny has brought us together.

    It forced me to modify my life even as I write this response. I’m sure we could have had more fun debating which team will win the NCAA tournament, but a cataclysm has forced us to take positions on an issue so important that our time must be sacrificed to rectify it.

    I’m not complaining too much because farmers in Midwest had to leave their families and die on southern battlefields to free slaves they had never met. I am sure they could have envisioned a far more pleasurable use of their time than walking to and dying on a battlefield over a principle.

    On the topic of condemnation…

    I’m not God and I cannot condemn anyone. This is true for all pro lifers. However, what we can do is attempt to rescue men and women considering abortion until the day comes when abortion is banned.

    The best way to rescue them is with the truth. And contrary to the abortionist rhetoric that paints pro lifers as judgmental zealots, pro lifers across the country have started crises pregnancies to help mothers who don’t want to keep their babies. There is a shortage of newborns and multiple pregnancy centers will pay for all of the medical expenses.

    One such pregnancy center I often promote allows the mother to choose the family, offers open adoption, and even gives the mother a place to stay while she is pregnant. In Dallas there are pregnancy centers next door (or across the street) from most of the abortuaries and they offer cribs, food, diapers, etc.

    Source: http://courageouschoice.com/

    How many cribs did Planned Parenthood give away? In your own community you have the Pregnancy Centers of Central Virginia that does a wonderful job of counseling mothers and helping them.

    You should go visit them and see firsthand how loving and compassionate pro lifers are in your own community.

    Here is their website: http://virginiapregnancy.org/

    The pro life community loves people and welcomes them. Especially those wounded by abortion. And unlike Planned Parenthood whose focus is generating income — they offer real help in the form of healing. Rachel’s Vineyard is a pro life ministry that reaches out to post abortive mothers and fathers and has dramatically changed the lives of a lot of men and women I’ve met.

    The leader of the Charlottesville Silent No More is a great success story. She also has co-led the local 40 Days for Life — a far cry from your stereotype of pro lifers who are filled with condemnation.

    Watch this video: http://youtu.be/BURUu0_faSw

    “That’s exactly what I say to you, and to the Christian Right on a host of other issues. When you have the courage and charity to describe your enemies fairly, you’ll win some of them over.” -Ken

    They’re not my enemies. And I’m your huckleberry when it comes to portraying abortion fairly. That’s what I spend an incredible amount of time trying to do.

    Listen to David Allen describe his journey that occurred after his abortion: http://youtu.be/I98iLRF-qro

    And listen to Rock describe how his abortions effected him: http://youtu.be/IHqiYyAmVq4

    And listen to the testimony of a woman (one of 39) who walked from Houston to Dallas: http://youtu.be/CA97YlYrJmE

    I’ve recorded hour after hour of their pain and suffering. I’ve watched them going into the abortion clinics crying and come out crying. And I’ve met them years after their abortions and seen them healed.

    I understand the horror of abortion because I’m there on the battlefield. It’s not an intellectual exercise. And I’ve watched those who believe being pro life is a political rather than a moral position drive by and do nothing.

    If you’re pro life then you’ll do something about it. So I invite you to become an active member of the pro life community in Charlottesville if you’re not already.

    A friend of mine likes to say, “A pro football player plays football and a pro golfer golfs… what are you doing as a pro lifer?”

    If everyone who is politically pro life became morally pro life the streets would be filled with volunteers. When that day arrives there will be a great revival in this country.

    I’ll see you on the spiritual battlefield.

  5. Steve, thank you for answering my question. I don’t see it as a mere intellectual exercise at all, but I’m glad that, thanks to new technology, it may soon be one.

    I’m sure your surgeon didn’t bring up alternatives to surgery the moment before he performed the operation. The time to discuss alternatives is before the procedure is scheduled, and Planned Parenthood does offer counseling. I’m not defending every branch of Planned Parenthood, but neither do I condemn them all and presume that no one working there has wrestled with what I believe is a difficult moral issue. While I believe that while the pro-life arguments are stronger than pro-choice ones, there are moral arguments on both sides, and love requires us to forgo the complete cynicism too many on the Right have about the Left (and vice-versa). I believe that you care about mothers considering abortion. I believe the pro-choice people do too.

    Yes, many pro-choicers are uninformed (as are, ahem, a few right-wing politicians), and yes, many women suffer psychologically after abortion, although how many and how much and why (how many suffer guilt) is very much debated by scholars. But for any number of reasons, which I think become clear upon reflection, giving birth to an unwanted child is not analogous to freeing a slave, and aborting one is not analogous to exercising tyranny. You could argue that they’re each as bad as the other, but that would be a separate argument.

    I respect you for your devotion to the pro-life movement. I’ve taken part in pro-life rallies. I have a friend who ran a crisis pregnancy center, and I helped support it financially. I’ve opposed abortion and defended the pro-life movement at length online. But I’ve also heard pro-lifers talk about a so-called “pro-death” movement, which is a dishonest label, and accuse Planned Parenthood of having “no respect” for the life of the fetus and viewing abortion as a cash cow, which is simplistic and unfair. Obviously it’s not entirely the movement’s fault that it has a huge image problem, but the judgmental spirit of a lot of the people in it, including certain people with shows on WINA, certainly does. At this point, largely because of people like that, protesting at clinics may turn off as many women as it convinces.

  6. “Yes, many pro-choicers are uninformed (as are, ahem, a few right-wing politicians), and yes, many women suffer psychologically after abortion, although how many and how much and why (how many suffer guilt) is very much debated by scholars.”

    My anecdotal experience is that this hasn’t been honestly examined. The people I’ve interviewed on both sides of the issue were all traumatized. In fact, not a single person I’ve spoken to was not traumatized.

    A lot of the pro choice women who show up with their signs end up sharing their pain. And they’re usually surprised to learn that they’re surrounded by pro lifers who are post abortive.

    Not only are they not being condemned, but they’re finding the streets filled with people who walked in their shoes.

    I believe the achilles heel of the abortion industry are post abortive mothers and fathers. They’re often the most ardent pro lifers because they’ve suffered the effects of their own abortion. They also have a unique ministry since they can fully relate to the people getting an abortion.

    I think this fact is lost on the intellectuals who debate abortion. For some reason they think the pro life movement is filled with holy rollers condemning people. I don’t know if that was the truth 30 years ago, but today it’s led by post abortive mothers and fathers.

    And when I say “pro life movement” I am not talking about those individuals with a political stance on the issue — this would include most politicians. I’m talking about the people who are on the streets actively confronting the abortion industry.

    As a result arguments that pro lifers are judgmental and don’t understand the difficult choices women must make is misdirected. They understand only too well … and that’s why they’re standing outside of the clinics.

    Yes, there are a few zealots … but they’re few and far between.

    “But I’ve also heard pro-lifers talk about a so-called “pro-death” movement, which is a dishonest label, and accuse Planned Parenthood of having “no respect” for the life of the fetus and viewing abortion as a cash cow, which is simplistic and unfair.” -Ken

    I separate people who are getting an abortion from abortion industry providing the service. The apologists of the abortion industry are part of the pro death movement. And their motive is financial.

    If they were altruists they would be providing abortions free of charge rather than demanding government funding and special status. If Planned Parenthood stopped receiving government funding and providing abortions they would be bankrupted. Abby Johnson stated that it’s abortion revenue that keeps them in the black.

    A quick look at their annual report confirms her statement.

    Perhaps an easier way to capture the difference between the pro death movement and its victims is the narcotics industry. In our society drug dealers and the crime syndicates who generate a profit from illegal narcotics are treated differently than the addicts who use drugs.

    If I was writing about the evils of the gun-toting crime syndicates and you complained that I was being too harsh on the drug addicts I would simply correct you by saying that I’m writing about the crime syndicate and not the addict.

    The abortion industry is highly organized. Planned Parenthood has a billion dollars in the bank and receives hundreds of millions of dollars in taxpayer dollars each year. They advocate for the expansion of abortion in other countries.

    And these organizations and their apologists are the pro death movement. I don’t confuse them with the people who walk into the clinic to get an abortion.

    And I don’t expect a drug dealer to provide worthwhile addiction counseling to a drug addict anymore than I expect abortionists to provide honest counseling to women considering an abortion.

    If you stand outside of abortion clinics for a few years some words you’re never likely to hear are, “I spoke to the counselor and I decided not to get an abortion.”

    And that’s because they lose money if the woman changes her mind. However, you will hear women saying that after speaking to the pro life volunteers and getting their information they changed their minds.

    The pro death movement lies to the public and it’s successful. Even the President of the United States regurgitates their lies.

    Here is of video we created to illustrate the point.

    Video link: http://youtu.be/U2H0IaXCAz0

    Planned Parenthood is fighting multiple fraud lawsuits for a reason. And it’s not because they’re concerned with women’s health, it’s because they’re trying to generate as much money as possible even if it means defrauding the American people to do it.

    That’s the truth about Planned Parenthood.

    That being said, Planned Parenthood isn’t the root cause of abortion. Anymore than a drug dealer is the reason we have a drug addiction problem. The long term solution must address the demand for drugs and abortion. If that is not addressed then we’re simply focused on a symptom and not the disease.

    [Note: from a libertarian perspective drugs is a poor comparison since a third party is generally not being harmed, but for purposes of illustrating a point I am purposefully ignoring that pink elephant.]

  7. I separate people who are getting an abortion from abortion industry providing the service. The apologists of the abortion industry are part of the pro death movement. And their motive is financial.

    Sorry, but “pro-death” is just as inaccurate, and sounds just as dishonest, as “anti-choice.” Your goal is not to limit choice; it’s to save lives. Their goal is not to kill; it’s to better women’s lives. In each case, a means (limiting a mother’s freedom; ending a fetus’ life) which is undesirable in itself serves a desirable end (saving a fetal life; improving a woman’s life). But you’re supposed to be the Christians. You’re supposed to be the ones who love your enemies. That would start by acknowledging that their motives are good. They’d respect you for that. Some of them would be humbled by that. You’d have a chance with them. But if you treat them with the same cynicism as they treat you, where’s your witness? Only if you start by admitting their motives are good will they listen when you say they’re actually harming the people they’re trying to help. (See the quote at the end, by the way).

    If they were altruists they would be providing abortions free of charge

    That’s the sort of logic Rob mocks when liberals use it. If the abortions were free to women, how would they be paid for? Don’t people who devote themselves to doing good (as they see it) deserve to make a living at it? How are liberals, who by definition believe in using the government to do good, less than altruistic for taking government money to do what they believe is good? Drug dealers and crime syndicates know they’re only doing harm; Planned Parenthood believes that the good it does far outweighs the harm. Planned Parenthood just serves the women you say you don’t judge. So why judge them?

    Your logic falls apart, so it sounds like an excuse to demonize your enemies.

    From the NY Times, “Is There a Post-Abortion Syndrome?”:
    The country’s largest abortion provider, with more than 77 clinics around the country, Planned Parenthood has standards for informed consent, and these acknowledge that some women experience sadness or guilt, adding that “these feelings usually go away quickly” and that “serious psychiatric disturbances” occur rarely. The National Abortion Federation, an umbrella group for abortion clinics, has similar guidelines. In practice, pre-abortion counseling varies. Many clinics say that women are encouraged to talk about their feelings but aren’t asked the pointed questions that Taft posed.

  8. “Sorry, but “pro-death” is just as inaccurate, and sounds just as dishonest, as “anti-choice.” Your goal is not to limit choice; it’s to save lives. Their goal is not to kill; it’s to better women’s lives.” -Ken

    I think you’re being far too kind to the abortionists. They want to be called “pro choice”, but what is the choice they’re promoting? Answer: the death of an innocent child. If I wanted to be brutally honest I would call them the pro murder movement.

    From my perspective your position is as inconsistent as saying, “I’m against slavery, but the plantation owners are not solely trying to enslave African Americans as much as they’re trying to lower the costs of crops which benefits the consumer.”

    You’ve fallen into the trap of being tolerant of evil in an effort to appear reasonable. However, your stance is what keeps people from actually confronting evil in an honest way.

    As long as we candy coat abortion people are less likely to confront the ugly truth and end it. It’s no different than singing the praises of the plantation owners and overlooking their willingness to enslave others.

    What you really want is for us all to get along. And that was the approach used with the South, but negotiating with tyrants didn’t work out so well. They eventually seceded from the union and declared war.

    The only way we’re going to get along is for abortion to be abolished. And then doctors who perform abortions can get back to truly helping people — rather than violating the Hippocratic Oath and the unalienable right to life of the unborn.

    Don’t confuse an unwillingness to negotiate with tyrants with cynicism. A cynic would simply give up.

    “But you’re supposed to be the Christians. You’re supposed to be the ones who love your enemies. That would start by acknowledging that their motives are good. They’d respect you for that. Some of them would be humbled by that. You’d have a chance with them. But if you treat them with the same cynicism as they treat you, where’s your witness?” -Ken

    You don’t have to be a Christian to be against abortion.

    Abortion is wrong for Muslims, Christians, Hindus, and every other religion. The unalienable right to life is outlined in the Declaration of Independence which was adopted as law by all the U.S. colonies.

    In other words, I don’t need to quote scripture to find a common ground with every religion (or a non-religious person). Abraham Lincoln quoted the Declaration of Independence in his efforts to end slavery and the same logic applies to abortion.

    For those people who happen to be Christian and against abortion they would probably tell you that loving your enemy is certainly one of the tenants of the Bible, but don’t stop there. Keep reading! It’s amusing to me that people who are usually not Christians are familiar with two passages of scripture: judge not lest ye be judged, and love your neighbor.

    Mainly because they don’t want to be judged and they also want to be loved, but since the Bible isn’t two passages of scripture we have to take into account the other things Christ said. Here is a good start, “Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace on earth, but a sword. For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law. And a man’s foes shall be they of his own household.” Matt. 10:34-36

    It sounds like being Christian means there are going to be a lot of disagreements? So much for all of us just getting along!

    And if a Christian is getting along with everyone then apparently they’re practicing a form of Christianity that was not envisioned by Christ himself? And that’s because Christ’s teachings require a fundamental change. Most people who rarely read the Bible (or have never read it) quote a passage or two they’ve heard that fits into their worldview and they discard the rest.

    We don’t need to speculate regarding how Christ felt about children and whether harming them was a good idea. He didn’t say we should embrace those who harm others. Quite the contrary, he said, “Take heed that ye despise not one of these little ones; for I say unto you, That in heaven their angels do always behold the face of my Father which is in heaven.” Matt. 18:10

    Christ said not to harm them… and went one step further to clarify just how serious an offense harming one of these little ones is by sharing exactly who is paying attention: God almighty.

    According to Christ, angels are interceding on their behalf in heaven. They must be loved and cherished by God? Any Christian who reads that scripture and becomes aware of abortion should be highly motivated to abolish it.

    Christ also shared his opinion on taking advantage of the weak. This would certainly include a baby in the womb that is defenseless against skilled physicians intent on killing them. What do you think Christ would think of that situation?

    Well, this scripture verse might give us a few clues, “Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not to me. And these shall go into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into eternal life.” Matt. 25:45-56

    Christ is getting very personal. Very few Christians view abortion as a personal offense unto themselves, but then the story of Christ is that he took those sins upon himself and died on a cross.

    Presumably that includes the sin of abortion. However, Christ is also clear what happens when we flatly refuse to help others: eternal punishment.

    When Christ confronted people desecrating the Temple he literally threw them out. He didn’t hug them and tell them he understood that they’re just trying to make a quick buck.

    Christ was a polarizing figure and that’s why he was crucified. They didn’t crucify him because he got along with other religious and political leaders. Most Christians who run around telling everyone God is love and ignore every other aspect of the teachings of Christ would be offended if they actually met Christ — because he did not tolerate sin.

    He loved the sinner, but he hated the sin. And he wasn’t shy about hating it.

    Not surprisingly he talks about those who quote scripture and serve themselves. “Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in Heaven. Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? And in thy name have cast out devils? And in they name done many wonderful works? And then I will profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.” Matt. 21-23

    There is an abortionist here in Dallas that proudly told the news cameras he’s an “ordained Baptist minister” and that he prays for the souls of the babies that he “knows he is killing.”

    Here is the video: http://youtu.be/ixDX7rnpZnM

    I believe this verse probably applies to men like him — men who believe they’re doing “good works” because their conscience is so twisted and they have separated themselves so far from God that they’ve deluded themselves into believing that wrong is right.

    And that’s because they want to serve people and not objective truth (God). In their zeal to be people pleasers they’ve condoned the murder of the innocent or turned a blind eye to it.

    But Christ tells us that God is watching and keeping score.

    And Christ response is harsh because he’s basically sending them to hell (separation from God). He’s not saying, “Look, I know that you thought you were doing the right thing and that your unwillingness to do the right thing ultimately bent your compass, I understand, bring it in for a hug!”

    No, they’re sent to hell. That’s Christ talking — not me.

    Of course, in this country the Bible is not the final word. If it was as simple as following the teachings of Christ abortion would be abolished, so our work is not finished by clarifying Christ’s teaching.

    Although it does highlight the woeful lack of involvement by the Christian community. The abortion clinics should be surrounded by Christian volunteers.

    “That’s the sort of logic Rob mocks when liberals use it. If the abortions were free to women, how would they be paid for?” -Ken

    I think they’ve figured this one out already. They ask for government handouts to the tune of $300+ million dollars already which is NOT segregated into a separate account. Abby Johnson clarified this point in her interview.

    Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, Oprah Winfrey, and plenty of other billionaires are shameless supporters of abortion. They could fund the abortion of every child in this country if they so desired.

    “Don’t people who devote themselves to doing good (as they see it) deserve to make a living at it?” – Ken

    The Protestant pastors certainly think so! But I don’t think Christ charged a counseling fee. And from what I know of Paul he had to make tents to survive.

    There is a difference between philanthropy and making a living off the suffering of others. Imagine how different the story of Christ would have been if he were the richest Jew rather than a humble carpenter.

    What if Christ chose the locally respected Sadducees and Pharisees as his followers and refused to rock the boat rather than asking common fisherman to take up their cross and follow Him… same story?

    I think that if Christ walked the Earth today a lot of Pastors would be fuming and he would probably get crucified again — maybe it would be an assassination in modern times. Except this time the leaders plotting his death would be from familiar denominations.

    I’m not God and I don’t know the heart of people who work full time “doing good”. I know that Christ told us that we’re all supposed to be doing good regardless of whether we get paid for it. If someone happens to get paid for it then they have to work out with God whether it’s being done out of service to Him or for selfish gain.

    The Apostle Paul touched on this very topic, “I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, that ye present your bodies a living sacrifice unto God, which is your reasonable service. And be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is the good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God.” – Romans 12:1-2

    Most people want to sacrifice a little money — very few want to sacrifice themselves. The tyranny of men makes this easier since it forces us to make a choice between good and evil, right and wrong.

    Our action, or inaction defines us and shapes us.

    Thankfully it’s not up to me to make the call. I do know that Christ was not happy when there was a public display of sacrifice, “Take heed that ye do not your alms before men, to be seen of them: otherwise ye have no reward of your Father which is in heaven. Therefore when thou doest thine alms, do not sound a trumpet before thee, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, that they may have the glory of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward.” Matt. 6:1-2

    Even in Christ’s time people were focusing on the “glory of men” and not the “glory of God”.

    “Your logic falls apart, so it sounds like an excuse to demonize your enemies.” -Ken

    Again, their battle isn’t with Steven Lopez. They wouldn’t have to worry if that was the case. Their battle is with God, the Creator who bestows the unalienable right to life upon all of us from the very moment of our creation.

    That’s the logic that our country was founded upon and that logic is as strong today as it was on July 4th, 1776. In fact, we’ll be celebrating that logic next month with firework displays.

    “The country’s largest abortion provider, with more than 77 clinics around the country, Planned Parenthood has standards for informed consent, and these acknowledge that some women experience sadness or guilt, adding that “these feelings usually go away quickly” and that “serious psychiatric disturbances” occur rarely.” – Ken

    According to whom? Watch these videos and tell me if their sadness and guilt faded away quickly (one is a recording of the Rob Schilling Show).

    Video: http://youtu.be/a2sv7lG59c8

    Video: http://youtu.be/tZye3ARcZQE

    Video: http://youtu.be/BURUu0_faSw

    Any claim by abortionists that the trauma is fleeting is yet another flat lie, but don’t take my word for it… spend 40 Days in front of the local abortuary and you’ll have all the proof you need.

    The next 40 Days for Life begins on Sept. 25th. There is no better antidote to misinformation than confronting the truth head on.

    On that note, here is a good scripture verse that deals with the perverted conscience of those who are doing evil but believe they’re doing right, “There is a way that seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death.” Proverbs 14:12

    This verse is being played out every day across America.

  9. I think you’re being far too kind to the abortionists. They want to be called “pro choice”, but what is the choice they’re promoting? Answer: the death of an innocent child.

    As I’ve noted, abortion is the means, not the end.

    From my perspective your position is as inconsistent as saying, “I’m against slavery, but the plantation owners are not solely trying to enslave African Americans as much as they’re trying to lower the costs of crops which benefits the consumer.”

    Plantation owners were lowering their own costs, not the costs of an operation wanted by, for example, poor women. That’s the difference. Unlike a plantation owner, Planned Parenthood isn’t serving itself; it’s serving the people who come to it. And I’m not tolerating evil. I say flat out that abortion is wrong because it takes a human life. But its real purpose, and what pro-choice advocates promote, is better lives for the mothers and their already born children, not fetal death.

    I didn’t say that you have to be a Christian to be against abortion. I said that if you want to be taken for a real Christian, you have to be seen as loving your enemy. And I didn’t say that loving your enemy means not judging his sin, or that real Christians will just make peace and get along with everyone. I said loving your enemy means acknowledging good motives before judging sinful actions. It means loving your enemy enough not to misrepresent his motives. Nor did I say that after abortion “sadness and guilt faded away quickly.” I quoted that statement from Planned Parenthood to contradict your claim that it hides the consequences of abortion and is not concerned with women’s health.

    I’m not God and I don’t know the heart of people who work full time “doing good”.

    No, you’ve told us that you do know their motives, and that they’re not altruists, they’re “pro-death.”

    I know that Christ told us that we’re all supposed to be doing good regardless of whether we get paid for it. If someone happens to get paid for it then they have to work out with God whether it’s being done out of service to Him or for selfish gain.

    Well I hope your pastor and your surgeon wife have worked it out with God whether they’re serving Him or acting for “selfish gain.” ;-) Again, it’s not hypocritical or less than altruistic for people who need to make a living to make that living from doing what they believe is good. This is completely obvious, but your “pro-death” rhetoric won’t let you admit it.

    Proverbs 14:12 applies to all of us, because we all fool ourselves sometimes. Events and activities like 40 Days for Life mostly preach to the choir, I’m afraid, and you’re not going to recruit new members by telling them they’re “pro-death.” They know better.

  10. One of Rob’s guests today challenged me to go to a certain anti-abortion website, but he was sure I wouldn’t read it. I read it alright. The site makes the bizarre claim that because African-American women have much higher rates of pregnancy than whites Planned Parenthood must have been lying when they claimed that’s why they concentrate abortion and contraception assistance there. That’s like saying that the unusually high rate of atheism and agnosticism on university campuses shows that Christian groups are lying when they say that’s why they evangelize there. Can someone’s motives be judged by their degree of success? In what logical universe does failure to meet a professed goal demonstrate that the goal was phony?

    Anyhow, I didn’t dispute that Planned Parenthood focuses on more black communities than white ones. They obviously have good reason to do so if their intention is to make abortion available to women who want it, and in fact paragraph seven of the document in question cites a statistic that shows many black women do want it. What I say is that Rob’s guest uses semantics (“targets”) to claim that their motive for doing so is racist. Should the Center for Christian Study not target UVA? Why is targeting not a morally objectionable tactic when Christians use it? If Planned Parenthood is afraid to admit that they consider race when placing clinics, it’s in part because of rhetoric like that, and the fuzzy thinking of people who buy it.

    It’s not doing the Lord’s work for the Religious Right to constantly distort and attack the motives of its political opponents instead of countering their goals with higher ones (human life is a higher goal than women’s rights or the reduction of poverty). That just makes it easier for the Left to dismiss the Right’s goals because it’s so easy to dismiss the Right.

  11. “It’s not doing the Lord’s work for the Religious Right to constantly distort and attack the motives of its political opponents instead of countering their goals with higher ones (human life is a higher goal than women’s rights or the reduction of poverty). That just makes it easier for the Left to dismiss the Right’s goals because it’s so easy to dismiss the Right.” – Ken

    You appear to be lumping an organization that generates a profit from abortion and is well known for distorting the truth with private individuals who might be debating a philosophical or political point (rather than just re-stating abortion industry talking points).

    They’re two distinct groups.

    We know that Planned Parenthood lies. Planned Parenthood wants us to believe that abortion is just a small percentage of their bottom line and that they’re offering mammograms.

    The President of Planned Parenthood says it and then the President of the United States regurgitates it. That’s a flat lie and it’s perpetuated by Planned Parenthood.

    Watch this video again: http://youtu.be/U2H0IaXCAz0

    I don’t expect them to be altruistic since they’re in the business of killing babies. That doesn’t separate them from most other doctors when it comes to their financial motivation — except for the fact that they’re taking life instead of trying to preserve it.

    So it’s a fantasy to believe that these doctors are making millions of dollars killing babies because they care about the women. Or that it’s all about helping them.

    That’s pure propaganda.

    You seem overly concerned about their “motives”. It’s obviously to generate a profit, but so what? If they’re violating the rights of an unborn child we don’t need to focus our attention on their inner rationalizations.

    The motive of the plantation owners might have been quite a fascinating tale. “I really love these slaves and I’d die for them. How dare you accuse me of sinning against God for keeping them captive!”

    Who cares what he thinks? He doesn’t have a right to steal their liberty so his rationalization is useful only to himself. The inner workings of his self delusion doesn’t make the slaves free anymore than sympathizing with the abortionist spares the lives of millions of babies who have been murdered.

    I understand self interest. That is why there was slavery and that is why there is abortion. A lot of people believed that owning slaves made their life better … and babies die because people have fallen in love with their “imagined” future that doesn’t include a child.

    But nobody will convince me that “owning slaves” actually made ANYONE a better person. In fact, irrespective of their subjective feelings about “owning slaves” it objectively makes you a far worse person. It makes you a tyrant.

    Similarly, killing an innocent child doesn’t improve anyone’s future either. It involves them in a crime against humanity that has physical, emotional, and spiritual ramifications.

    You’re taken aback by the tenor of discourse between the two sides. And your pet peeve is that it’s not civil enough, but where is your outrage regarding unalienable rights being routinely violated?

    Those are non-negotiable.

    I don’t need to worry about poverty reduction or green house gases if what they’re proposing violates an unalienable right. For example, imagine a charismatic leader said, “If we euthanize everyone over 70 it will reduce carbon emissions, lower social security payments, and increase the food supply for the majority of U.S. citizens. We’re trying to help people!”

    Why waste time debating whether the person who said that REALLY believes he is helping people, instead of pointing out the elderly have an unalienable, non-negotiable right to life irrespective of how members of the public feel about global warming and social security payments. It’s a non-starter.

    Frankly, it’s also incredibly disrespectful to ignore the victims of such irresponsible thinking and focus on the motives and inner machinations of the tyrants who want to kill them. And that is exactly what happens when we start worrying about whether Planned Parenthood and other death mills are the good guys.

    We know they’re not. They violate the unalienable right to life of the unborn — that’s tyranny.

    Why are you caught up in how the two sides attempt to “negotiate” something that by definition is not on the negotiating table?

    Violating the unalienable right to life is wrong without any further discussion. The Declaration of Independence provides the remedy without a need for any civil discourse whatsoever.

    I don’t need to argue that Planned Parenthood is racist, dishonest, and money hungry. Because even if none of that were true they still have no right to kill an innocent child.

    It’s because people are unwilling to apply the law that we’re focused on the bantering between the two sides. And fretting about whether the death mills are being treated fairly.

    Human life isn’t a “higher goal” … it’s an unalienable right and has been since July 4th, 1776. The other side wants us to be distracted by their crazy talk so that we can join them in ignoring that right, rather than defending it.

    It’s ridiculous.

  12. Steve, factcheck.org says that in 2010 “about 25 percent of [Planned Parenthood’s] clients received a breast exam or breast care, or about 1 in 4.” But only “about 11 percent of clients, or 1 in 9, received abortion services.” It doesn’t provide the mammograms themselves, but it “performs gynecological exams, including breast exams, and refers women to other facilities to have mammograms performed, much like women are referred to radiological centers by their gynecologists or primary care physicians.” It also “helps low-income patients find grants and assistance to pay for mammograms.” Etc. So when the group says that if it loses finding millions of women won’t get mammograms, it’s telling the truth and it has a valid point, but it’s not telling the whole truth as it should. But do you honestly not hear Rob and his guests doing that every single week, presenting all the facts and arguments that bolster their positions and omitting or distorting all the rest? Why is one acceptable and the other not?

    What does their bottom line have to do with its motives? It obviously doesn’t make money from its breast care referrals.

    So it’s a fantasy to believe that these doctors are making millions of dollars killing babies because they care about the women. Or that it’s all about helping them.
    You seem overly concerned about their “motives”. It’s obviously to generate a profit, but so what?

    I’m talk about motive because you say they’re pro-death. Helping people and making a living at it aren’t contradictory or incompatible goals. Plenty of leaders on the Religious Right make a lot of money and live in luxury. Are they hypocrites too? Why can’t people who have a philosophical or political point point of view make a living accordingly?

    The motive of the plantation owners

    I’ve already responded to that comparison.

    You’re taken aback by the tenor of discourse between the two sides. And your pet peeve is that it’s not civil enough, but where is your outrage regarding unalienable rights being routinely violated?

    You forget that I’m pro-life and that I’ve put my money where my mouth is. Civility isn’t the icing on a cake. Lack of civility is a lack of love. We all make selfish choices, but our outrage is selective.

    I don’t need to worry about poverty reduction or green house gases if what they’re proposing violates an unalienable right.

    No, pointing out that a proposed solution does more harm than good doesn’t relieve you of the responsibility to propose your own solution.

    Why waste time debating whether the person who said that REALLY believes he is helping people

    Because unless you give him credit where credit’s due, he probably won’t listen to your criticisms. That’s just human nature. Love first. Establish trust with rigorous honesty first. You won’t win the culture war any other way.

    Frankly, it’s also incredibly disrespectful to ignore the victims of such irresponsible thinking and focus on the motives and inner machinations of the tyrants who want to kill them.

    Why does it have to be one or the other? Why can’t we just condemn abortion and still recognize that our opponents want to use it for good?

    We know they’re not. They violate the unalienable right to life of the unborn — that’s tyranny.

    Tyranny has a precise meaning. With respect, it sounds like you’ve been listening to too much talk radio. ;-) You guys get yourselves all riled up with words like that, and try to associate your every political position with grand concepts like “liberty,” and cloak your self-interest in concepts like property rights, but it doesn’t convince anyone else. You can talk about the unalienable right to life, and Planned Parenthood can talk about the pregnant woman’s unalienable right to liberty and happiness, which it says gives her a right to do what she wants with her own body, and neither one of you wins that argument.

    I don’t need to argue that Planned Parenthood is racist, dishonest, and money hungry.

    We just need to call out lying on our own side as well as theirs.

  13. “Steve, factcheck.org says that in 2010 “about 25 percent of [Planned Parenthood’s] clients received a breast exam or breast care, or about 1 in 4.” But only “about 11 percent of clients, or 1 in 9, received abortion services.” It doesn’t provide the mammograms themselves, but it “performs gynecological exams, including breast exams, and refers women to other facilities to have mammograms performed, much like women are referred to radiological centers by their gynecologists or primary care physicians.” It also “helps low-income patients find grants and assistance to pay for mammograms.” Etc. So when the group says that if it loses finding millions of women won’t get mammograms, it’s telling the truth and it has a valid point, but it’s not telling the whole truth as it should. But do you honestly not hear Rob and his guests doing that every single week, presenting all the facts and arguments that bolster their positions and omitting or distorting all the rest? Why is one acceptable and the other not?” – Ken

    We don’t need to go to factcheck.org to determine if they’re lying about mammograms or misleading the public about how important abortion is to there bottom line. That’s already been hashed and re-hashed by apologists on both sides.

    Without abortions Planned Parenthood would be in the red and would shut down — the same thing would probably happen if federal funds were pulled, although you might see billionaires like Bill Gates and Warren Buffet have to spend their money rather than ours to keep them afloat.

    The number of services they offer is a specious and irrelevant argument. It’s like saying Burger King hands out a bunch of free napkins and ketchup packets and that the number of napkins and ketchup packets handed out far out numbers the burgers sold.

    Do some research on how they come up with their numbers and listen carefully to the former clinic workers discuss that charade.

    Let’s think about Burger King some more…

    Burger King is the in the business of selling hamburgers. And it would be intellectually dishonest to reframe their business by counting ketchup packets and napkins. If they stopped selling hamburgers they would go under.

    Ditto for Planned Parenthood. They inflate their numbers in an attempt to look like something other than an abortion mill. They’re the #1 provider of abortions in the United States murdering 333,000 babies a year.

    Regarding their public misinformation campaign, Planned Parenthood itself released a statement that they don’t provide mammograms. So yes, they lie in their attempt to sway public opinion.

    That should surprise nobody. They receive $300+ million a year in federal funding as a result of their highly successful lobbying efforts — and part of that is to create a myth around their company.

    However, I don’t dispute that they offer other services beyond abortion. Again, so what? If all they did was hand out condoms and provide STD testing I wouldn’t be online debating the issue or standing in front of their altars of human sacrifice.

    Wal-Mart has health centers and sells all kinds of products … but they’re not being targeted because they are not in the business of killing over 300,000 babies a year like Planned Parenthood.

    Would you be defending the sale of Happy Meals if McDonald’s murdered over 300,000 toddlers every year? I think not. It wouldn’t matter how many Happy Meals they sold and it would be a ridiculous defense.

    In this hypothetical scenario, anyone defending McDonald’s by trotting out their Happy Meal sales would likely be viewed as a supporter of their gruesome treatment of toddlers. “Wait, they’re not all bad. Millions of kids left with smiles… only 333,000 were murdered. Stop being so mean spirited and start being God like by loving this organization.”

    Similarly, if the Nazi Concentration Camps could provide irrefutable evidence that only 1% of their day and their budget was spent killing the Jews, Gypies, and Russians it would not exonerate them. It would not change a thing. They could hand out free ice cream cones and host youth camps all over the country and it wouldn’t effect how patriots defending the rights of others should deal with them.

    When you murder an innocent person in cold blood it’s no defense to say, “I also washed my grandma’s car and did my neighbor’s laundry.”

    You seem to think that it’s a balance… and if they provide enough STD testing and breast exams the millions of innocent babies they’ve dismembered somehow goes away? There is no utilitarian scale in the sky that wipes away their sins if they can only do more breast exams and hand out more condoms.

    If your primary focus is making excuses for death mills then you need to reexamine which side you’re on.

    “Because unless you give him credit where credit’s due, he probably won’t listen to your criticisms. That’s just human nature. Love first. Establish trust with rigorous honesty first. You won’t win the culture war any other way.” – Ken

    What is the beginning of knowledge and wisdom? Is it love or is it fear? The Bible tells us to fear God first.

    If we don’t fear God then our misguided sense of “human love” allows for atrocities. Where did our misguided sense of love lead us? 56 million casualties and counting.

    It was the “free love” movement. People were just trying to “love each other”. And in the process their “self love” resulted in the largest human rights tragedy in recorded history.

    If we really love people then we’ll be honest rather than tell them lies. A parent doesn’t love their child by allowing them to place their hand on the burner and to steal from others.

    The Bible says that God chastises those he loves. He doesn’t embrace their sin. He reproves and reproaches it.

    The fallen church tells us that it’s all about tolerating sin and loving people. They don’t understand God’s love and in the end it’s not love when the congregation is led over the cliff’s edge.

    People want to tolerate sin because they’re usually tolerating their own sin and separation from God. It doesn’t start with Planned Parenthood … it starts with their own sinful lifestyle.

    True love is bound in truth. True love shines a spotlight on the sin. I wouldn’t love you by accepting your defense of the abortion industry and believing that you’re committed to ending abortion by wasting your time trying to convince others how wonderful Planned Parenthood is because they provide ancillary services. If your focus is not on their SIN then I know there is a problem.

    Jesus didn’t say, “Hey, you’re not all bad.” He said, “Go and sin no more.”

    Don’t confuse hating sin and wanting to abolish it with a hatred for the sinners.

    I want the clinicians to be delivered. I want them all to walk away from their sinful life choices. And I cannot help them if I spend my time patting them on the back for handing out condoms.

    They’re in open rebellion to God and I’m not his messenger if I’m delivering a message of false hope.

    Abortion is a sin and it violates an unalienable right to life. Until they can see it as “sin” they’re never going to turn away from it. And that is the ONLY way to win the cultural war — not by the contorted and twisted self love that the fallen church preaches.

    It was interesting to hear the clinic workers who confessed to seeing babies born alive have their heads twisted off say, “We didn’t know it was illegal.”

    Until someone loves them enough to tell them they’re living in sin no amount of “you’re all awesome” is going to help them. Sin blinds people and until their eyes are opened by the light of God’s truth they will never be delivered.

    I actually know the gentleman who stood outside of their clinic and told those women exactly that. He didn’t congratulate them for a job well done… he told them they were living in sin and that they need to quit their jobs and share the truth.

    Until they realize that GOD loves those babies and they’re HIS children — not simply the personal chattel of the parents — they will feel justified in taking those lives because they’re devalued by a twisted logic.

    A person who is separated from God would not view that as love — because they don’t understand God’s love. God loves clinic workers so much he wants to rescue them, not simply wink at their sin.

    The fallen world wants those clinic workers to stay there and die in their sin. They want us to focus on their “good deeds” so they’ll feel better about themselves and never change or alter their course of self destruction.

    The people who truly love them tell them that they’re drowning in their sin and that God is reaching for them and if they open their eyes and reach out they can be saved. And many of them have been rescued because someone loved them enough to tell them the truth.

    Watch this video: http://youtu.be/ci_3dKk6hKQ

  14. Murder is done with malice aforethought, and Planned Parenthood doesn’t act in malice, so the word is all wrong. I have not said that providing health care and health referrals makes performing abortions OK, but I have said that it shows what you deny, that they care about women. You can hardly judge what my “primary focus” is from one online debate, and I’ve told you how I’ve been pro-life.

    I actually know the gentleman who stood outside of their clinic and told those women exactly that. He didn’t congratulate them for a job well done… he told them they were living in sin and that they need to quit their jobs and share the truth.

    How many of them did quit and join the pro-life cause?

  15. No Planned Parenthood like alot of health care providers care about the bottom line. If they really care about women health care, they would find away to provide the care without federal funding. I forgot the name of large Church midwest that just open a mulit-million dollars healthcare center that is ran without federal money.

  16. maybe, something to think about? I wonder how health care would change it the model was changed to a libertarian model? Something to think about?

  17. Under a libertarian health care model far more kids would be born, but far fewer kids and seniors would receive health care. Most libertarians are pro-choice, though, because that’s the most straightforward libertarian position. Pro-lifers want the government – even the federal government – to restrict the liberty of pregnant mothers. That can be justified as a consistently libertarian position, but especially in regards to early pregnancy it’s not the most obvious, my-property-is-mine-to-do-what-I-want-with one either. The tenor of discourse on the Schilling Show and on AM talk radio in general discourages the kind of thoughtful reflection that could actually defend the position instead of just hold it.

  18. ‘Murder is done with malice aforethought, and Planned Parenthood doesn’t act in malice, so the word is all wrong. I have not said that providing health care and health referrals makes performing abortions OK, but I have said that it shows what you deny, that they care about women. You can hardly judge what my “primary focus” is from one online debate, and I’ve told you how I’ve been pro-life.” – Ken

    If you want to go down that road then there are degrees of murder. And since we’re talking about doctors who know in advance the baby has a beating heart and a developing brain and have planned out the surgical procedure to kill them far in advance — it falls within the first degree murder definition.

    Some of the mothers are misinformed … and that misinformation comes from Planned Parenthood and others groups that attempt to paint themselves and abortion as a caring, loving act. As well as lukewarm Christians in fallen churches who agree with them and parrot their talking points.

    In the United States even if a person doesn’t intend to kill and accidentally (without any forethought)kills someone in the commission of a dangerous felony they can be charged with murder as can anyone driving the get away car. It’s called the felony murder rule.

    Unfortunately, the criminal code definitions are irrelevant since laws that protected babies in nearly every U.S. state were overturned by the tyranny of the Supreme Court. Abortion is on the same legal grounds as slavery when it was legal.

    For a thorough analysis of Roe v. Wade visit this url: http://www.scribd.com/doc/134129400/Is-Heartbeat-Legislation-Constitutional

    Ironically, once the newborn exits the mother the laws kick in and the baby is protected. What was “legal” 5 seconds earlier is “murder” 5 seconds later.

    If it wasn’t “murder” then Dr. Gosnell in Philadelphia would not be sitting behind bars having been found guilty of three counts of murder. Did he care about the women and the babies too?

    From his perspective when the baby comes out too quickly and he kills it outside the womb the difference is trivial. If the baby didn’t have any rights 5 seconds before how can there be any logic in respecting its legal rights 5 seconds later simply because it’s now outside the mother — still attached via the umbilical chord?

    I am sure that he sees it as hypocrisy. The truth is that it’s murder irrespective of whether he dismembers the baby inside the womb or outside of it. We even have a legal double standard if someone other than the mother kills the child in the womb without her consent (see fetal homicide laws).

    A man who punches a woman in the stomach and kills the baby is potentially guilty of homicide. If the mother does the same thing we call it an “abortion” and those who help her are considered “loving” and “caring” by the pro death community.

    And that’s because their sense of right and wrong is perverted by the God they serve. When congregants worship themselves as God then pretty soon everything looks permissible and those who commit atrocities don’t appear to be so evil, and why should they? What separates them is simply circumstance.

    If they subjectively define a group as “good and loving” then that must be the truth since outside of their own imagination there is no objective standard. And that’s rebellion against truth and the source from which all truth flows.

    God.

    The “reproductive rights” movement is nothing more than goddess worship in exchange for sex. We’ve given women a special status to kill their children and exempted doctors who assist them from prosecution in exchange for unlimited access to sex.

    And then to make that pill go down a little easier they’ve come up with some feel good propaganda about how they love and care for women — and they’re well meaning people who don’t feel that dismembering babies in the womb is such a bad thing. They work hard to dehumanize their victims so that people who still have a moral fiber in their bones will not act.

    The best defense armchair accomplices can come up with is, “The propaganda is so good that I believe some of them have fully deluded themselves into believing it… therefore we need to give them a hug.”

    And so those armchair accomplices watch television or even defend them.

    It’s important that lukewarm Christians get their heads around that fact. As long as they think it’s a bunch of caring, loving, otherwise wonderful men and women dismembering these babies they will be less likely to stand up against tyranny.

    You realize that if someone plans your murder for days, weeks, and even years in advance it’s not a defense to say that because they thought you were a sub-human black or hispanic it’s not murder.

    No modern day jury would acquit someone simply because they’re racist.

    Fortunately we don’t need to worry too much about their mens rea. These are licensed physicians who know exactly what they’re doing. Some of them even admit it out load and tell the world, “I’m killing babies!”

    Watch this video: http://youtu.be/ixDX7rnpZnM

    The truth about abortion is ugly. If that video doesn’t convince you, nothing will.

    “How many of them did quit and join the pro-life cause?” – Ken

    Three in that instance, but there have been hundreds across the nation who were rescued by people who showed up outside of their clinics and displayed true love. People who didn’t wink at their sin, but told them there was another path where they could use their skills for good rather than evil.

    It’s easy to figure out who really loves you. When you’re deep in sin and separated from God — it’s the people who actually show up on the life rafts. And not the people debating from their living rooms how long you can possibly tread water before drowning in sin.

    Abortion is evil, and until lukewarm Christians realize that they’ll be winking at it. If they really loved clinic workers they would tell them the truth and where their choices are leading them. However, if they only love themselves, and want to feel better about their own inaction, they’ll repeat abortionist rationalizations until they’ve convinced themselves that they’re awesome, along with the abortion doctors and their staff.

    Anyone who tolerates the murder of the unborn is INTOLERANT of God and his most basic teachings. If life itself doesn’t matter I don’t need to worry about how everything else plays out.

    If lukewarm Christians cannot see things that are “self evident” how can we can expect their blind eyes to lead us anywhere good? Those blind men and women must first have their eyes opened to the sin of abortion before they’ll rise up and do anything about it.

    And so that is the prayer, that their eyes will be opened. And that they will see the sin of abortion and the mountain of sin in their own lives that have allowed them to ignore the symptoms of rebellion against God.

    As a nation we must fall on our knees and repent … and beg forgiveness from a just God. The alternative has already been experienced once in this country over slavery and I think Jefferson’s warning is still relevant today.

    “God who gave us life gave us liberty. Can the liberties of a nation be secure when we have removed a conviction that these liberties are the gift of God? Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just, that his justice cannot sleep forever.” – Thomas Jefferson

    P.S. I’m going to give you the final word on this thread since I think you understand my position and the logic behind it.

  19. Steve, I’m sorry to see that even though I’ve supported a pro-life pregnancy center and I call abortion wrong, I must be a lukewarm Christian parroting the Left’s talking points just because I believe this issue is morally complex. That sort of judgmentalism gives your movement a bad name and makes many people, pregnant or not, dislike you so much that they won’t consider your arguments. How many of those clinic workers quit and joined the pro-life cause when they were called sinners?

    We don’t call accidental killing “murder,” we call it “manslaughter.” In other words, we recognize a moral distinction between intent and lack of intent.

    Yes Supreme Court decided wrongly in Roe vs. Wade, but it makes no sense to call it tyrannical for doing its job. That just makes you sound like a sore loser.

    Gosnell was convicted of breaking the law, not performing legal abortions. The pro-choice movement wants to focus the discussion exclusively on hard cases such as when a mother’s life is endangered. But you guys talk as if every abortionist is a Gosnell aborting a child that could survive outside the womb. Most abortions are performed in the first trimester of pregnancy, at a point at which the existence of sentience and personhood is debatable. Women who choose to abort at a later date do so for various reasons other than malign intent. They don’t deserve to be lumped in with George Huguely, and they know it, and they instinctively turn away from people who insist on doing it.

    A conservative writer in the NY Times yesterday made the point that “though women often grieve a miscarriage, there is no human society where people mourn a fetus 12 weeks after conception to the same degree they do a stillbirth at 7 months or (especially) the death of a 1-year-old. In [standard pro-life talk] schema, these distinctions have no moral validity. But moral intuition senses they do.” Moral intuition distinguishes a human fetus from a born human being.

    Along the same lines, if abortion is murder, do you favor charging mothers who abort with that crime? It’s not enough to want to charge abortion providers – it makes no sense to charge one murderer but not the other. It’s no excuse either to answer that they shouldn’t be charged because Planned Parenthood misinforms them, and the poor things don’t know. That’s patronizing. A law equating abortion with murder would probably prevent most abortions. Do you favor such a law? If so, I applaud your consistency. If not, then perhaps you sub-consciously recognize a moral distinction that your rhetoric doesn’t reflect. Again, if you adjust your rhetoric to reflect the complexity of the issue, you’ll convince more people that abortion is wrong. Oversimplification looks like intellectual dishonesty, and just turns them away. Planned Parenthood will know we are Christians by our love, or they won’t know it at all.

    I’m not asking for the last word. I’m asking for answers to my questions.

  20. From a different point of view: if our child was alive today would be 24 or 25 yrs old. Instead our child spontaneous aborted, as my wife of 31 yrs had enter into the the 11th week of pregancy. We tried again 6 months later and my wife spontaneous aborted again when getting really to start week # 13. So when people on both side of fence get in these mud throwing fits, no one win. Especially the unborn child, excuse me that was all changed under Roe vs Wade. Yes there is allot of aging couple who tried to have childern but failed. We could not adopt due to way rules of engagement was written back than. So something else to think about.Adoptation market was tight back than.

  21. Ken, I promised to give you the final word … and so I invite you to respond to this comment as the final thought. Whether you’re a Christian is irrelevant to me personally – lukewarm or otherwise. However, I stand outside of churches who are next door to abortion clinics who don’t lift up a finger to stop it. I’ve witnessed the truth about the fallen church simply because I stand beside them and watch their pastors ignore human sacrifice across the street or next door.

    There is a remnant that shows up and I am glad they’re involved (it’s better than the alternative), but they’re a tiny fraction of the “Christian” church. If you felt like you were being lumped in with the “lukewarm Christians” then that’s between you and God. Only God knows if you’re lukewarm or red hot. Again, this tragedy isn’t limited to Christians.

    I don’t need to quote scripture to come to a final determination and I normally don’t refer to it unless the other person states that they’re a Christian. The baby has an unalienable right to life from the moment of Creation – end of debate. Not because I said so … because it’s the social contract upon which the nation was built on July 4th, 1776. I don’t need to worry about their intent. It’s completely irrelevant to me from a strategic perspective.

    On a personal level it’s meaningful. I’m happy to listen to mothers tell me their individual stories and explain how they came to their decision. However, nothing they say will change my conclusion about the right of the baby to live and not be dismembered. It doesn’t matter how much I identify with the mothers and how fondly I feel toward them. That is simply not in the equation – and to the extent that guides the thinking of a pro lifer it will make them highly ineffective in my opinion.

    That’s not to say that we shouldn’t minister to those women and help them, but that’s a different subject altogether. The abolishment of abortion must take place irrespective of that happening or not – although I want them to be helped, etc. However, I don’t confuse that with the goal of banning abortion.

    We can debate about “manslaughter” and “felony murder” – two different laws altogether. It’s not called “felony manslaughter”. And since you ignored my focus on the “doctor” it’s probably not worth debating since I will not be persuaded that they have no idea what’s going on.

    Statements like these tell me that you’re simply not reading what I wrote, “Women who choose to abort at a later date do so for various reasons other than malign intent. They don’t deserve to be lumped in with George Huguely, and they know it, and they instinctively turn away from people who insist on doing it.” – Ken

    Did you read this, “Some of the mothers are misinformed … and that misinformation comes from Planned Parenthood and others groups that attempt to paint themselves and abortion as a caring, loving act. As well as lukewarm Christians in fallen churches who agree with them and parrot their talking points.” – Steve

    And the lukewarm Christians I’m talking about include some of the pastors who are on the board of directors of Planned Parenthood. I’ve had multiple discourses with them … one in Charlottesville.

    I also stated, “You appear to be lumping an organization that generates a profit from abortion and is well known for distorting the truth with private individuals who might be debating a philosophical or political point (rather than just re-stating abortion industry talking points).”

    Abortion doctors know what they’re doing. You seem to be unwilling to admit it and keep refocusing on the mothers who you seem to believe don’t have any ill will toward the baby. 50% of them have been there once before… so the odds that they had no ill will starts to get lower as the abortions rack up. I talk to women who tell me, “I knew it was wrong…. I knew I was killing a baby…”

    What do you say to them?

    None of us can read their minds. More than likely some knew what they were doing was wrong… and some were misinformed. That’s a side issue since we’re not talking about criminalizing their actions and figuring out how long they should go to prison. You want that to be the actual debate rather than the baby who has an unalienable, non-negotiable right to life. Even if every mother had no ill will toward the baby and aborted it because she was misinformed that wouldn’t change a thing. Abortion would still be wrong no matter how misled they were… and some of the people you defend (Planned Parenthood) are the ones guilty of misleading and misinforming pregnant mothers.

    The debate is not, “Do these mothers know what they’re doing?” … we could pass laws that require every woman to listen to a beating heart and watch an ultrasound and abortion will still need to be banned. It wouldn’t matter to me if 100% knew what they’re doing – because their mental status is irrelevant to the unalienable right to life of the unborn baby.

    Planned Parenthood fights every attempt to address that issue, including mandatory ultrasounds, information pamphlets with alternatives, etc. So to the extent you think that’s the central issue you should be very upset at Planned Parenthood.

    The mother is not the focus of the ban on abortion. It’s the baby. The more the baby is brought front and center the easier it will be to end abortion. Abortionists want our focus to be on the mother and create her as the victim. The more people reiterate their sympathy for the mothers the more I wonder if they actually understand the goal of the pro life movement: banning abortion. Yes, we can and should love the moms (many of whom are pro lifers standing outside of the clinic where their child was killed) – but that love is just an empty word if we ignore the babies who are being dismembered by the thousands every day.

    One way to is to introduce the intended victims to the public. And from my experience the public really hates looking at the carnage to the point of jumping out of their cars and calling the police. If you want to see an upset community show them the dismembered remains of an unborn baby: the intended victim of an abortion. Then you will realize that a lot of them actively don’t want to know the truth – willful ignorance. The truth about abortion is horrific.

    They would much prefer to debate the mental state of the mothers and waiting periods. When they see the ripped apart limbs it’s not quite so easy to stomach – just as seeing crippled boys returning from a war reminds them of the true cost of foreign conflicts. It wasn’t just a bunch of speeches about reproductive rights – it was millions of corpses. It was darkness on an unprecedented scale.

    How much love do we really have for others if we cannot have moral clarity on something so simple as the murder of unborn babies? I’m talking about society.

    Some people may have worried about how the plantation owners were going to survive without free labor – but they had to end slavery irrespective of how much sympathy people felt toward the plight of the plantation owner.

    Ditto for abortion…

  22. Whether or not you lumped me in with lukewarm Christians isn’t between me and God. You say you were really talking about pastors on the board of Planned Parenthood (who would probably say much of the Christian Right is lukewarm on other justice issues – I don’t think either side is lukewarm), but you didn’t actually mention them. Anyhow, I’m sorry to see you not answer straightforward questions but instead reiterate and defend beliefs I’ve stated time and again that I agree with.

    I have by implication addressed the moral responsibility of abortionists – note that I’m using the pro-life term – by saying that I see abortion as wrong but I understand why some people are pro-choice. Yes, abortion doctors know what they’re doing. Yes, many women have multiple abortions. Yes, many believe they’re doing wrong. No, that does not show ill will on their part. It shows things like sorrow and desperation and concern for already born children. No doubt some women are callous and these few might deserve a term as harsh as “murderer.” The vast majority do not, and as I’ve said I think it’s counter-productive to label them as such.

    I am not debating whether or not aborting mothers should be charged with murder. I am saying that if you don’t think they be charged with a certain crime, you must at some level know they’re not committing it. In that case, you’d best drop what you think is a rhetorical advantage, but actually hurts the cause, and match your rhetoric to your conviction. I have already criticized Planned Parenthood, and I would say more in that regard if I were debating someone who wholeheartedly defends them. Yes, they’re dishonest. We should be rigorously honest ourselves.

    Statements like these tell me that you’re simply not reading what I wrote . . . Did you read this . . .

    Yes, and I responded that “It’s no excuse either to answer that [mothers who abort] shouldn’t be charged because Planned Parenthood misinforms them, and the poor things don’t know. That’s patronizing.”

    area, I’m really sorry for your loss. That must be hard to live with still. But I wrote earlier that although I criticize Steve for one of his tactics, I respect him for his devotion to the pro-life movement. Blunt debate is not mud-slinging.

  23. Hmm… okay… this is my final, final response. ;-)

    “Whether or not you lumped me in with lukewarm Christians isn’t between me and God. You say you were really talking about pastors on the board of Planned Parenthood (who would probably say much of the Christian Right is lukewarm on other justice issues – I don’t think either side is lukewarm), but you didn’t actually mention them. Anyhow, I’m sorry to see you not answer straightforward questions but instead reiterate and defend beliefs I’ve stated time and again that I agree with.” –Ken

    I said lukewarm Christians include some of the Pastors. You could be in their number too, or not. Abortionists love to complain that they’re being judged and condemned (not you personally, abortionists). If I said they’re going to burn in a lake of fire – would that modify reality? They will not go to heaven or hell based on my assessment. Therefore I cannot really condemn anyone to hell or grant them passage into heaven. If people get their feelings hurt because I don’t like their logic or their tactics that’s out of my control, as is their eternal destiny.

    I don’t even know if you’re a Christian. Lots of people claim to be Christian but then as we examine the teachings of Christ we realize they don’t actually follow Him. It’s like saying I’m a Dodgers fan who never attends any games and roots for them to lose. The term “Christian” has a meaning. And some people follow the parts they agree with and ignore the rest – that seems like a good definition of lukewarm.

    My only exposure to you has been online. And for purposes of this discussion your religious beliefs are not a central issue, because it isn’t about being a Christian (lukewarm or otherwise). And whether you’re hot or cold when it comes to the teachings of Christ is not critical to the discourse. You could be a Hindu or an Agnostic and still believe a baby has an unalienable right to life and reject Christ outright.

    It’s easier to identify the hypocrisy if someone claims to follow Christ and turns a blind eye to abortion. However, you’ve stated repeatedly you’re against abortion in your defense of those who choose it. So far you haven’t said, “I’m personally against abortion, but I would never impose my morals on others.”

    Did you used to believe that? Because this conversation would make a lot more sense if that’s where you’re coming from originally. That might explain why empathizing with the women is so ingrained in your thinking rather than being focused on the intended victims of the abortion: defenseless babies.

    “No, that does not show ill will on their part. It shows things like sorrow and desperation and concern for already born children. No doubt some women are callous and these few might deserve a term as harsh as “murderer.” The vast majority do not, and as I’ve said I think it’s counter-productive to label them as such.” – Ken

    How do you know it’s sorrow and concern for already born children? Nearly 40% of women who get abortions have no children whatsoever. 22.4 million babies in the United States had their live stolen by parents with no children. And regarding the other 60% .. why aren’t those women placing the babies they cannot support up for adoption? I have a lot more faith that a person who is “concerned about others” would follow that path rather than have the baby murdered. Instead I hear women say, “Oh no, I could never live with myself knowing someone else is raising my baby. “ And then they get an abortion.

    That sounds like selfishness. Let’s repeat the word so it sinks in: selfishness.

    Source: http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_induced_abortion.html

    The correct term for what is happening is murder. That is what doctors are doing 3,287 time a day in this country. They are premeditated and they’re being paid to do it. Normally when you hire someone to kill a third party (a hit man) it’s considered murder.

    We can debate about what the parents knew (their mens rea) … but we won’t be having a debate about the doctors. They’re licensed physicians who are committing murder plain and simple. Whether you want to call everything else manslaughter is a side issue. Where I want you to focus is the baby and what happens to it.

    There is no question that the babies are being murdered by licensed physicians. And let’s call it that and stop pretending it’s something else.

    I understand that you have compassion for the women getting abortions. That’s not the issue. If you think that the problem is there isn’t enough compassion for the women you’re mistaken. There is so much compassion for the women that there is often no compassion for the baby.

    That’s among some of the pro lifers standing outside of the clinic. They have so much compassion for the women that the minute the intended victim is displayed a conflict ensues. And that’s because the feminist rhetoric has infiltrated the ranks of the pro lifers.

    In front of some clinics the ministry is almost exclusively to the women with almost no thought given to the baby. Some of them tell me they’re not there for the babies.

    Women are not being called murderers as they entire the clinic in the present day. That’s all abortionist propaganda. Most of them are being addressed by men and women who are post abortive themselves. Anyone who thinks that is going on has spent very little time outside of abortion clinics in recent years. The pendulum has swung so far toward focusing on the mother, rather than the intended victim, that the efforts of the pro life movement has been derailed in some cities.

    I’m all for helping the mothers – but I don’t confuse that with the injustice of abortion that must be stopped. And creating euphemisms and distractions to make the pill of abortion go down easier will not end it.

    That doesn’t mean there isn’t a place for compassion for the mothers and fathers.

    Rachel’s Vineyard is a great ministry for post-abortive mothers and fathers. It’s a retreat that allows men and women to ask for forgiveness and name their babies. They also have a formal ceremony for the baby. In your world none of them would need any of this because they’re all innocent and misled. However, the people that come out of that program are changed. Once they have sought forgiveness and had closure on their decision to have their baby aborted they can move on and many of them become awesome pro lifers.

    Imagine how different the story would be if someone was patting them on the back, “You didn’t do anything wrong. You were young and impressionable. You were just worried about your future. Stop punishing yourself and just focus on your career.”

    And that’s the winking at sin that must stop. What they’re doing is sinful and it ruins lives. And the best way to remedy sin is not to run toward it, wink at it, or pretend it never happened. It is to repent and sin no more. That’s the difference between Christ and a lot of lukewarm Christians – they’re so caught up in confusing “tolerance” with “love” that they’re trading in a blessing from God for a short term gain by making the person think everything is okay.

    Everything is not okay. Abortion is a cancer that eats away at people for the rest of their lives if they do not seek a cure. And we’re not helping them by making excuses. That’s what a child does. The only way for these men and women to be healed spiritually is to confess their sins and seek forgiveness. And that’s true for the clinic workers too.

    I stand with post abortive men and women – many of them are my best friends. I know that there is such a thing as redemption since that is how God works. All of us sin – all of us fail. However, the secular path of accepting the sinner and the sins is simply wrong. The sins have to stop… whether it’s the sin of tolerance, the since of abortion, or the sin of inaction.

    Most of us can pick our poison. I was inactive for decades and I knew it was wrong. I knew babies were being murdered, but I was too selfish, self centered, and self worshipping to do anything about it. I even dated women (several) who were post abortive and expressed feelings of horrible guilt over their decisions, but I followed the prescription of the secular world, “Buck up… everything will be alright.” And that didn’t help anyone. I didn’t know how to deal my own sin of inaction, let alone their sin of participating in the murder of their child.

    Now I recognize my “tolerance” and “inaction” as flat out sin. And it’s easy to see it all around me. Most people want others to like them so much that they’re willing to tolerate evil to gain that acceptance. And that is why abortion is rampant.

    I want you to be compassionate, that’s a good trait. But don’t let your compassion lead you down the path of tolerating sin and doing nothing about it. I hope you will help women by letting them know there is a way that seems right to them, but the end is destruction. And that forgiveness and turning away from that destructive lifestyle by going in a different direction (God) is the only solution that will save them. Maybe you’re already helping them in this way?

    Or maybe you don’t care about these women… and you just want to debate whether others are tolerant of their sin? Only you and God know the truth of your motives and intentions.

  24. Steve, thank you for the reply. I’m a Christian. I belong to a church, attend the church weekly, tithe to the church, say the Nicene Creed, read the Bible and pray daily, etc. I’ve always been pro-life and have never subscribed to the argument that people of faith shouldn’t “impose” their morals on others. That is a specious and unfair argument, as I’ve often argued in other forums.

    I don’t think selfishness is the only reason women choose abortion over adoption. It’s not as if adoption guarantees a child a good life. You and I may believe that life is a gift from God, but not everyone believes that. Not everyone thinks any life is better than no life. Atheists and skeptics don’t necessarily believe that. Women disturbed and depressed about being abandoned by the child’s father, or about the angry disapproval of their friends and family (etc.) and the prospect of poverty and lost opportunity, are not always going to feel that’s true.

    This is one reason why assigning one level of moral culpability to abortive mothers and a greater one to abortionists fails the test of logic. Intimate knowledge of what happens to an aborted fetus does not automatically make people of good character pro-life, because a bad life causes far more pain than the momentary pain of abortion – not to mention that at what stage the fetus even feels pain is not a settled matter. Imagine that you lack faith – wouldn’t you ever doubt whether you should bring more suffering life into this world?

    Characterizing every abortion as selfish, no matter what the circumstances, also seems somewhat callous. Technically yes, the choice could often be called selfish. But the unselfish choice is sometimes so self-sacrificial that it requires downright heroism, and only heroes have the right to harshly criticize the less than heroic. Yes many good people are eager to adopt and love children, but it must still be very difficult for any woman not to worry about her child’s prospects when she can’t raise it. The pro-life movement needs to acknowledge that adoption is not a simple and easy solution. I’m sure you acknowledge that when you counsel mothers, but that piece of the picture sure goes missing in other contexts.

    We haven’t even talked about women who’ve been raped or who are still emotionally children themselves. We haven’t even talked about the psychological scars of centuries of abusive patriarchy that make many women so adamant about not having their choices limited by men. Condemn abortion, but we aren’t limited to either excusing abortion or calling abortive mothers and the people who help them cold-hearted murderers. We aren’t limited to either excusing abortion or demonizing abortion providers. I don’t understand why I have to explain that, but I shouldn’t be surprised I do. Yours is the side that still often talks about gays as if they’re all “godless” and “disturbed” and licentious even when they’re asking to be allowed to commit to each other in marriage, never acknowledging that they can love each other, never acknowledging that their love for each other might make marrying each other seem good and right to them, never acknowledging the tragedy of the fate you scorn them for not accepting. That’s morally obtuse. It has nothing to do with speaking a painful truth in love. It’s a spectacular failure of love.

    I don’t know how you personally talk about gays, and I do admire your commitment to saving human life. But I can’t help but thinking you guys would be ten times more effective if you just went and sat in sackcloth and ashes for a few election cycles, and let the world see you reconsidering your tone. Maybe we all should.

  25. Just when I thought I was done writing responses… =-)

    “This is one reason why assigning one level of moral culpability to abortive mothers and a greater one to abortionists fails the test of logic. Intimate knowledge of what happens to an aborted fetus does not automatically make people of good character pro-life, because a bad life causes far more pain than the momentary pain of abortion – not to mention that at what stage the fetus even feels pain is not a settled matter. Imagine that you lack faith – wouldn’t you ever doubt whether you should bring more suffering life into this world?” – Ken

    Whether they feel pain is irrelevant. If feeling pain was the sole criteria then it would be permissible for doctors to murder people while under anesthesia. We don’t allow it because it’s obvious to everyone that irrespective of whether they feel the pain of being murdered they have an unalienable right to life. The same is true for the unborn.

    Now you’re a proponent of social eugenics? The only “good life” is the one that a mother or father prescribe? I am quite confident that if we went into a maximum security prison with a loaded revolver and placed it to the inmates temples and said, “Ken wants to be compassionate and end your suffering. Do you agree that you’re better off dead?” … the vast majority would disagree with you.

    The subtext is that those already alive would be better off and “more safe” if those prisoners are dead. And that’s why killing off people they think might harm them seems a little more palatable rather than the heavy lifting of helping those communities improve. We could lower the crime rate overnight by murdering everyone in prison, but it would still be objectively immoral.

    That kind of social elitism is extremely dangerous. Rather than addressing the root of the problem it seeks to apply the most extreme measure (a death sentence) to solve it. If a child is going to grow up “suffering” a difficult childhood the solution isn’t to kill the child to end the suffering, anymore than the solution to a sore thumb is to cut it off.

    If what you’re saying had a shred of truth to it then it would be permissible to kill toddlers based on a third party’s speculation about their future. Meanwhile we can barely predict tomorrow’s weather! And even if we had a crystal ball and knew their life would not be easy that is still not our choice to make on their behalf. I don’t think it would be easy to live nearly motionless in a wheelchair for decades — but Stephen Hawking seems to disagree! If his mother aborted him because she felt he would suffer in a wheelchair that would still be murder because that wasn’t her choice to make — because it’s not “her” life.

    He’s written books from that wheelchair.

    Why not be compassionate to the mother and the child? That sounds like the “Christian” thing to do. This reminds of the story of women fighting over custody of a baby in the Old Testament– the woman who was okay with cutting the baby into halves solved the dilemma. And perhaps the people who are okay with killing babies rather than sparing their lives and improving their social condition reveals a similar truth.

    Are they exhibiting genuine love or are they only looking out for themselves? They’re certainly not their brother’s keeper! It’s also highly racist since most of the babies we would kill based on their idea of the “good life” is reflective of the dominant culture. If poverty is a disease then entire countries could be wiped out based on the same faulty logic.

    This really bring home the scripture verse, “There is a way which seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death.” Proverbs 14:12

    “But it seems better to take it as a warning against following a perverted or uninstructed conscience. Conscience needs to be informed by God’s Word and ruled by God’s will to make it a safe guide. When properly regulated, it is able to pronounce a verdict upon contemplated action, and its verdict must always be obeyed. But warped by prejudice, weakened by disuse and disobedience, judicially blinded in punishment and in consequence of sin, it loses all power of moral judgment, and becomes inoperative of good; and then, as to the way that seemed at the moment right, the end thereof are the ways of death.” – Pulpit Commentary

    “Characterizing every abortion as selfish, no matter what the circumstances, also seems somewhat callous. Technically yes, the choice could often be called selfish. But the unselfish choice is sometimes so self-sacrificial that it requires downright heroism, and only heroes have the right to harshly criticize the less than heroic. Yes many good people are eager to adopt and love children, but it must still be very difficult for any woman not to worry about her child’s prospects when she can’t raise it. The pro-life movement needs to acknowledge that adoption is not a simple and easy solution. I’m sure you acknowledge that when you counsel mothers, but that piece of the picture sure goes missing in other contexts.” – Ken

    I think all mothers are heroes in a culture where it’s legal to kill the child. And becoming a parent is all about self sacrifice. However, the reason our society is okay with killing babies is because they’re not having sex to create babies and become parents. They’re having sex for entertainment purposes — so their goal was never to have a child in the first place. And that is why the Catholic Church was spot on when it warned about the effects of birth control in Humanae Vitae (I’m not Catholic, but I agree with the Pope’s assessment).

    For more of my thoughts on this topic please read: http://www.scribd.com/doc/147357061/An-end-of-Irish-Independence

    Our main disagreement hinges on moral relativism. I believe that abortion is objectively wrong. It’s murder. Even before I find out who was involved and their rationalizations I already know it’s murder.

    Very few abortionists make a similar defense for rape or pedophilia.

    If I came upon a woman on the ground beaten to within an inch of her life and she said, “A stranger just raped me against my will.” I don’t need to perform any mental gymnastics to figure out if that was wrong or not. I don’t need to kneel down and say, “Are you sure the rapist knew what he was doing?”

    That doesn’t mean there were not extenuating circumstances. Maybe a gang of thugs held the rapist down against his will and injected him with drugs and he went into a mad rage; raping and pillaging? Okay, so the thugs who were injecting people with drugs against their will that resulted in rapes are the bad guys… but we’re not left wondering whether what happened to the poor woman on the ground was objectively wrong.

    At best we’re just trying to ascertain the guilty parties.

    You’re caught up in assigning levels of blame because deep down you don’t want to admit its murder. I don’t know if that’s because you don’t believe in objective right or wrong or because you’re letting your compassion for others get in the way of rational thinking. It’s possible a mother was misinformed by the doctor and misled by her parents, but that doesn’t change the fact that a baby was murdered.

    Here is the definition of murder, “The unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another.”

    An abortion requires an appointment and a lot of preparation. We’re only debating how many people who are involved are guilty of murder: the doctor, the boyfriend who drove her there, the clinic workers, the parents who encouraged her to get an abortion, etc. The list is pretty long — but there is no question that the baby was murdered.

    I think it’s callous to ignore the baby and pretend it wasn’t murdered because the truth doesn’t sit well with you. And the fact that your conscience is unwilling to yield on this issue is cause for concern.

    ” We haven’t even talked about women who’ve been raped or who are still emotionally children themselves. We haven’t even talked about the psychological scars of centuries of abusive patriarchy that make many women so adamant about not having their choices limited by men. Condemn abortion, but we aren’t limited to either excusing abortion or calling abortive mothers and the people who help them cold-hearted murderers. We aren’t limited to either excusing abortion or demonizing abortion providers. I don’t understand why I have to explain that, but I shouldn’t be surprised I do.” – Ken

    What does a defenseless baby in the womb know about the “patriarchy”? Even if what you’re saying is true does that justify a second sin? This is just more rationalizing wrong.

    Let’s talk about rape. Does the rapist who is the guilty party get the death sentence? How long are they in prison for usually? Do you know of any rapist who received a life sentence without the possibility parole in modern times? And yet we’re going to give an innocent third party the death sentence? How do two wrongs make a right? How is that justice?

    That your mind so easily slides into vindicating the assailants rather than empathizing with the victim is really puzzling to me.

    Why not make the rapist pay child support? And you seem convinced that children conceived in rape always have a horrible outcome. That’s not true. I’ve had the good fortunate to interview women who were conceived in rape and in one case I had an opportunity to interview the mother and I think you should watch that video before you draw any further conclusions about rape and abortion.

    The Miracle of Forgiveness (Part I): http://youtu.be/lPKx1HUJhDc

    The Miracle of Forgiveness (Part II): http://youtu.be/OXznY2uC2r4

    Here is a scripture verse to consider if you ever start thinking innocent babies conceived in rape should be put to death, “And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose.” Romans 8:28

    If we believe that a problem is too big for God then that’s just an indication that our faith in God is too small. If it seems impossible to you or me then we just need to remember, “But Jesus beheld them, and said unto them, With men this is impossible; but with God all things are possible.” – Matthew 19:26

    Too often our rationalizations speak to the smallness of our faith in God. If we place our complete faith in God then seemingly impossible situations can be solved — not because of our ingenuity and greatness, but because of God’s greatness.

    God loves these unborn babies and their mothers. And rather than throwing them the anchor of secular humanism that encourages them to sin — we’re called to present the message of God’s love for them and His ability perform miracles in their lives. God knows their problems and their suffering and He’s willing to bless all of those who turn to Him and away from their sinful nature.

    “If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land.” – 2 Chronicles 7:14

    Our nation can be healed from our rebellion against God.

  26. “Yours is the side that still often talks about gays as if they’re all “godless” and “disturbed” and licentious even when they’re asking to be allowed to commit to each other in marriage, never acknowledging that they can love each other, never acknowledging that their love for each other might make marrying each other seem good and right to them, never acknowledging the tragedy of the fate you scorn them for not accepting. That’s morally obtuse. It has nothing to do with speaking a painful truth in love. It’s a spectacular failure of love.” – Ken

    I’m addressing this separately because it’s off the topic of abortion. There are no sides when it comes to objective truth. That doesn’t mean that everything I say comports with objective truth because I’m a fallen human, but I recognize that irrespective of my opinion there is only one standard that matters.

    Homosexuality is the sin of perversion, but I don’t think homosexuals should be mistreated because they want to engage in a sinful act. Anymore than I think people who engage in premarital sex should have their freedom restricted. Provided that they’re not harming innocent third parties (e.g., abortion).

    I tell them that I reject homosexuality as a sin, without rejecting them. God loves homosexuals just as much as he loves promiscuous heterosexuals or brothers and sisters living as man and wife (incest). And God wants them all to turn from their sinful lifestyle and follow Him. And with regard to their desire for marriage I don’t think the government should be regulating marriage.

    The fact that the government is involved means that my opinion suddenly matters on something that would normally be a private issue. If I have to “vote” on a referendum endorsing homosexuality the answer will always be “no”… but I shouldn’t have to vote on something that should be a private contract between two consenting adults.

    It could also include a non-legal religious ceremony. And for those who are spiritual a religious ceremony before God and men is all that is needed. The idea that we need to get Uncle Sam’s seal of approval is a bad one in my opinion. This would also get rid of divorce courts that sign people up by statute to a host of things they may not have agreed to if they knew all of the facts beforehand.

  27. Steve, you frequently confuse my view with views I only don’t condemn people for holding, and confuse my not condemning with agreeing. I’m not vindicating pro-choice advocates. I’m trying to understand without automatically presuming the worst of everyone in a large and diverse group– I’m giving the benefit of the doubt. I think that falls under the rubric of loving one’s enemy.

    I didn’t say that pain is the sole reason not to abort, but it’s a reason pro-lifers often cite. Neither did I say that patriarchy justifies abortion; I said that it makes some people pro-choice. Neither did I say that only kids raised by their mothers and fathers can have good lives. What I do say is that pro-life rhetoric often romanticizes life (“the gift of life”), as if to withhold it is cruel and to give it is compassionate, plain and simple. Don’t forget either, that after this life, some people who might have been aborted will experience eternal suffering. Life is not an unalloyed gift.

    Yes, Stephen Hawking apparently has a high quality of life – many other people who can barely move and are somewhat less intelligent do not. Those comparisons just lead to a utilitarian argument, and on utilitarian grounds pro-lifers lose. The real argument against abortion is not that life is sweet, or that with enough faith God will solve all our problems, or that most suffering people prefer life to death, or any such analogue, all of which are too simple to be true. It’s that human beings do not have the right to destroy human life God created in His image.

    Conversely, absent the existence of a God who forbids the destruction of human life (and who will eventually end suffering), we are free to judge for ourselves and for our unborn children whether or not life is worth choosing. Members of the pro-life movement typically posit an opposition of interests between aborting mothers and their fetuses, but as far as that goes the mother has the right determine what’s in the fetus’ best interests because the fetus is too young to know. The true opposition is between the will of the would-be abortive mother and the will of God. We should argue that abortion is wrong, but when we characterize pro-choice advocates we have to bear in mind that many don’t believe in God or have a different idea of God. This leads them to different conclusions.

    A depressed mother who decides not to give birth is not practicing social eugenics, she is thinking about one particular situation. Aborting a child because you don’t think you can give it a good life is not analogous to killing prisoners in order to lower the crime rate, as should be obvious. Abortion is also not punishment, so sentencing a rapist is not analogous to aborting a fetus. Neither is “killing toddlers” analogous to aborting a fetus; again, the relative degree of grieving indicates an intuitive recognition of a moral difference between aborting fetal life and murder. Yes, rapists should have to pay child support. No, I don’t think kids born of rape always have horrible lives, or that they should be put to death (whatever would give you that idea?. Whether or not women should be forced to carry life conceived in rape is another question.

    Yes, abortion is objectively wrong. No, that doesn’t mean that it’s murder. Your definition is partial and incomplete.The word connotes killing done with malice, as indicated in dictionary definitions. Good definitions are precise. Confusing abortion with murder is sloppy thinking. Calling it murder for rhetorical purposes engenders just the sort of demonization of one’s enemies that you engage in towards Planned Parenthood.

    It’s also highly racist since most of the babies we would kill based on their idea of the “good life” is reflective of the dominant culture.

    First of all, that’s actually the same progressive, outcome-based thinking about race that conservatives reject when liberals indulge in it. An action is not racist just because it affects more members of one race than another even though race isn’t the motive. Secondly, there is no “we” here deciding to abort more black fetuses than white ones. There are individual women making decisions in individual cases. If race is a factor, shouldn’t we conclude it’s racist for whites like you to tell blacks how to behave? Race is not a factor.

    They’re having sex for entertainment purposes

    That trivializes a God-given instinct. Sex can be misused, but that doesn’t mean everyone who has sex outside of wedlock is just out having fun.

    ——

    Every sin springs from perverted desire. A man who loves money more than his fellow man has “turned aside or away from what is good or true or morally right” (Merriam-Webster) just as much as a sexual sinner. He too is a pervert. Christians use the word when talking about gays to indicate opprobrium and moral superiority. It’s a we’re-better-than-them word.

    Regardless of whether homosexuality is good or bad, the fault in the argument that gay marriage redefines marriage is that while “marriage” is a concept, an actual marriage is not. Gay marriage can’t redefine straight marriage because no actual gay marriage can reorder or in any other way affect the way two married straight people relate to each other.

    The argument that marriage is primarily for purposes of procreation leads to the conclusion Rob’s guest yesterday reluctantly admitted was correct, that couples not intending to have kids shouldn’t be allowed to marry. I don’t think too many proponents of that argument are willing to make that admission.

    Also, withholding marriage rights has not prevented gays from becoming parents. Many gay couples do raise kids, and the fact that gay relationships are “sub-optimal” for parenting means that they need the reinforcement marriage provides all the more. It stands to reason – although it has not yet been definitively shown – that kids do best with two, opposite-sex parents. It also stands to reason that two same-sex parents are better than one.

  28. “We should argue that abortion is wrong, but when we characterize pro-choice advocates we have to bear in mind that many don’t believe in God or have a different idea of God. This leads them to different conclusions.” -Ken

    There is true irrespective of the issue we’re discussing. A person might argue that they don’t think pedophilia is wrong if the child consents. And that person might even argue that a thirteen year old is mature enough to make up their own minds when it comes to sexual activities. However, as a society we don’t shrug our shoulders and say, “To each his own…”

    We say there is an definitive standard irrespective of how the pedophile feels about the law. And we label them a pedophile which they might find offensive. And that’s because we have a word to describe people who have sex with underage children whether they agree with the definition or not.

    In other words, there are societal norms that are applied regardless. It’s a social contract.

    And that’s why I don’t yield to the rationalizations of those who abort children. Anymore than I defer to the views of a pedophile when it comes to protecting our children from sexual predators. I bet they could write a book outlining their reasons, but as a society we’ve decided it’s wrong and we ban it.

    The same is true for abortion. It was banned on July 4th, 1776 as was slavery. We articulated basic principles upon which the United States of America would operate. And those principles have made this country great.

    We said that we hold certain truths to be self evident and that among them were life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. And we said those rights were unalienable and that means nobody can take them away — all they can do is steal them. And we further stated that those unalienable rights become operative at the very moment of their creation.

    And just to make it clear that these rights would never be justifiably taken away by a legislature or a court we stated the rights come from God. The highest power imaginable.

    Every colony adopted those principles as law. And yet slavery persisted. And it wasn’t a biblical debate when Abraham Lincoln took the podium. He simply quoted the Declaration of Independence.

    He said either we believe or we don’t.

    Here is what Lincoln said on that podium in 1858, “This declared indifference, but, as I must think, covert real zeal for the spread of slavery, I cannot but hate. I hate it because of the monstrous injustice of slavery itself. I hate it because it deprives our republican example of its just influence in the world-enables the enemies of free institutions, with plausibility, to taunt us as hypocrites-causes the real friends of freedom to doubt our sincerity, and especially because it forces so many really good men amongst ourselves into an open war with the very fundamental principles of civil liberty-criticizing the Declaration of Independence, and insisting that there is no right principle of action but self-interest.” – Abraham Lincoln, Lincoln-Douglas Debates of 1858.

    There were those who disagreed, among them Judge Douglas who responded, “Mr. Lincoln, following the example and lead of all the little Abolition orators, who go around and lecture in the basements of schools and churches, reads from the Declaration of Independence, that all men were created equal, and then asks, how can you deprive a negro of that equality which God and the Declaration of Independence awards to him? He and they maintain that negro equality is guaranteed by the laws of God, and that it is asserted in the Declaration of Independence. If they think so, of course they have a right to say so, and so vote. I do not question Mr. Lincoln’s conscientious belief that the negro was made his equal, and hence is his brother, (laughter,) but for my own part, I do not regard the negro as my equal, and positively deny that he is my brother or any kin to me whatever. Never. (cheers)” Judge Douglas, Lincoln-Douglas Debates of 1858.

    Later Abraham Lincoln asked an important question. “I should like to know, if taking this old Declaration of Independence, which declares that all men are equal upon principle, and making exceptions to it, where will it stop? If one man says it does not mean a negro, why may not another man say it does not mean another man? If that declaration is not the truth, let us get this statute book in which we find it and tear it out.” –Abraham Lincoln

    The abortion debate is no different. Today it’s obvious that the exceptions were not limited to the slaves. The exceptions included our own unborn children. Abortionists promote “self interest” as the only right principle of action, but the Declaration of Independence stands in opposition to them.

    The abortion question is settled by the Declaration of Independence regardless of how they feel about God or abortion. In the same way it was settled for plantation owners who had a long list of reasons for owning slaves. The social contract that founded our nation was the logical basis for the end of slavery.

    And it is the basis for the end of abortion as well. These unborn babies have an unalienable right to life from the moment of their creation irrespective of the rationalizations of those who seek to take their lives.

    It’s simply non-negotiable.

    “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” Declaration of Independence, July 4th, 1776.

    ______

    “Yes, abortion is objectively wrong. No, that doesn’t mean that it’s murder. Your definition is partial and incomplete.The word connotes killing done with malice, as indicated in dictionary definitions. Good definitions are precise. Confusing abortion with murder is sloppy thinking. Calling it murder for rhetorical purposes engenders just the sort of demonization of one’s enemies that you engage in towards Planned Parenthood. ” – Ken

    It’s not sloppy thinking or rhetorical — it’s factually correct.

    You need to read the penal code since that’s where the word takes it meaning and not a dictionary definition. When a defendant is charged for “felony murder” the prosecutor doesn’t look up the word in the dictionary. They look it up in the criminal code.

    It’s not limited to “malice”.

    For example: http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/Docs/PE/htm/PE.19.htm

    Dr. Gosnell was charged with “murder” because he intentionally or knowingly caused the death of another person. There was no requirement of malice.

    You may disagree with the legal definition of murder, but that’s the correct definition. In fact, pro lifers could complain that you’re engaging in rhetoric when you incorrectly apply the word and demonize those who are familiar with the legal definition and apply it appropriately. However, I think you’re only guilty of not being familiar with penal codes.

    We can debate the mens rea of of the mothers, but it’s extremely rare to find an abortionist who isn’t up to speed on what’s really going on. They’re murdering babies and they know it. We’ve already seen one late term abortionist look into the local news camera and say, “I know I’m killing these babies.”

    In case you didn’t watch that video, here it is again: http://youtu.be/ixDX7rnpZnM

    Dr. William Fitzhugh, who is aborting babies in Charlottesville, wrote about not wanting his clinic workers to see the babies struggling for their lives during partial birth abortions. He sued to keep partial birth abortion legal and those horrific comments were in his deposition.

    “The one thing that … I don’t want the staff to have to deal with is to have a fetus that you remove and have some viability to it, some movement of limbs, because it’s always a difficult situation.” – Dr. William Fitzhugh

    Source: http://www.lifeissues.org/pba/march-30-2004.htm

    Babies moving around and fighting for their living is a difficult situation? It doesn’t seem to be too difficult for their apologists portraying them as model citizens.

    They know the babies have a beating heart and developing brain. They’re the paid executioners.

    Let’s dispense with portraying them as babes in the woods.

    That doesn’t mean they’re beyond redemption. Even murderers can fall before the Lord and ask for forgiveness and change their sinful ways. That’s exactly what happened to Dr. Bernard Nathanson who founded NARAL and created many of the myths about abortion that continue to this day, including back alley abortions and thousands of women dying in botched illegal abortions.

    Here is what he said, “In NARAL we generally emphasized the drama of the individual case, not the mass statistics, but when we spoke of the latter it was always ‘5,000 to 10,000 deaths a year.’ I confess that I knew the figures were totally false, and I suppose the others did too if they stopped to think of it. But in the ‘morality’ of our revolution, it was a useful figure, widely accepted, so why go out of our way to correct it with honest statistics?”

    Source: Source; Bernard Nathanson, M.D., Aborting America (New York; Doubleday, 1979), 193.

    The CDC reported 39 deaths due to illegal abortions in 1972. The truth and the abortionist rhetoric are often not on good terms.

    “An action is not racist just because it affects more members of one race than another even though race isn’t the motive.” – Ken

    If you think Planned Parenthood’s history isn’t steeped in racism then you have not read the Margaret Sanger story who was a eugenicist. Affirmative Action is based on the very principles you decry. Some politicians want public universities to accept students based on a race blind basis, which would eliminate most African Americans from the top schools.

    Are you against affirmative action based on the same criteria? If the outcome results in a dramatic decrease in blacks getting into top schools should we ignore the result simply because the stated criteria is “race blind”?”

    [I’m not supporting affirmative action, just using it as an example.]

    When Planned Parenthood’s founder is racist, speaks at Klu Klax Klan meetings, and their abortion clinics are in minority neighborhoods and it’s minorities who are being killed at a disproportionate rate should we pretend that it’s irrelevant to the minorities?

    “It is a vicious cycle; ignorance breeds poverty and poverty breeds ignorance. There is only one cure for both, and that is to stop breeding these things. Stop bringing to birth children whose inheritance cannot be one of health or intelligence. Stop bringing into the world children whose parents cannot provide for them.” – Margaret Sanger

    If we could just prevent poor people from breeding with contraceptives then Margaret Sanger’s problems would be solved? It was a Planned Parenthood clinic director that sued to legalize contraceptives that paved the way for abortion on demand in the Griswold v. Connecticut decision.

    Their plan failed miserably.

    And that’s because birth control fails and once abortion is their as a safety net a lot of couples decide to use it as their primary form of birth control. So instead of helping people with her elitist worldview she helped set the stage for the death of millions.

    As a result of the “myth of safe sex” there was a tsunami of unwanted pregnancies. It was like the Nazi’s trying to figure out what to do with the Jews once they moved them into prison camps. Do they keep feeding and housing them?

    The solution was to define them as “sub-human” and kill them. The same solution that Planned Parenthood chose.

    Planned Parenthood’s role was forever changed since now it had to deal with a flood of pregnant women who didn’t want to be a parent. And so they started offering abortion services to address a problem they had aggravated by pushing for easy access to contraceptives.

    And today they’re the #1 provider of abortions, killing over 330,000 babies annually.

    And it didn’t include just the poor… it included every strata of society. When you start with a sinful premise it often leads to unintended sinful results.

    And Sanger’s statements that value a person based on their income is highly suspect.

    Wealth is not the value of a person. They have intrinsic value that is unrelated to their economic situation. The elite who are economically well off are often quick to bring the hatchet down on the heads of those who were not born into wealth.

    I am pretty sure that if it was their head in the guillotine they would feel differently.

    Some of the worst culprits are limousine liberals who use their wealth to kill others under the guise of “population control”. And their supported methods include dismembering babies with beating hearts and developing brains.

    Bill Gates is a good example, as well as his father who sat on the board of directors of Planned Parenthood. Warren Buffet is another guilty party. Shame on them! And shame on us for allowing it to happen.

    We need to rise up and bring an end to an abortion. We must exhibit genuine love to the mothers, fathers, and the babies… and ban abortion.

    Anything else is not love, it’s tolerating sin.

  29. There is [truth] irrespective of the issue we’re discussing.

    I believe that’s why I said abortion is “wrong.” :)

    The abortion question is settled by the Declaration of Independence

    The Declaration declares that life begins at conception? Yes, all men are created equal, but you’re arguing a point no one contends, not the point the pro-choice crowd does contend. Rhetorical overreach doesn’t persuade them it just makes them their eyes. You guys get yourselves all worked up telling each other that Supreme Court decisions not to your liking are “tyrannical,” that Democrats have “kicked God out of the party,” and that the Declaration of Independence bans abortion, and – pardon my bluntness – it just makes you look like a bunch of intellectual yahoos, even other conservatives. The Founders didn’t live in the 21st century and they weren’t born-again Christians. You can’t defend your every political position by prooftexting their writings.

    You need to read the penal code since that’s where the word takes it meaning

    That’s only where the word takes its meaning in a court of law. But in fact in a court of law the vast majority of most abortions performed are not murder, but are _legal_. So that argument doesn’t help your cause.

    We’ve already seen one late term abortionist look into the local news camera and say, “I know I’m killing these babies.”

    I want to see you guys have the courage to be consistent and call abortive mothers “murderers” too.

    and it’s minorities who are being killed at a disproportionate rate should we pretend that it’s irrelevant to the minorities?

    I’m not going to debate affirmative action. Suffice it to say I’m neither a conservative nor a progressive. But you guys pretend that it’s irrelevant that minorities are kept from voting at a disproportionate rate by stricter voting laws, so you’re inconsistent. You blame Planned Parenthood for Margaret Sanger’s views 100 years ago, claim Abraham Lincoln as an intellectual heir because he was a Republican 150 years ago, but swear yourselves innocent of the racism and sexism of your recent intellectual and demographic forbearers. Amazing.

    We do agree that abortion is wrong, and that it takes a human life, and that it grieves God.

  30. By the way, yesterday’s NY Times has a section entitled “Coming Out on Abortion,” with short essays by women who regret their abortions and women who don’t.

    Here is an except from an article I found linked there entitled “Why I Don’t Regret My Abortion”:

    It was the most ethical choice. The foster care system was and is overburdened and there were already far too many children who needed loving homes stranded in the system. Considering all of the problems with overpopulation and the environment; overburdened health care, foster care and social service systems; and diminishing opportunities for women, who were then making less than 60 cents to every dollar a man made, how could it not have been the most ethical choice for a single woman with no college degree, an unsupportive boyfriend and an estranged family? I’d have more time, energy, and resources – both economic and emotional – to devote to the care of my only child who was born later, when I was ready to be a mom. I’d have a child who was a WANTED child. I did not have to bring a child into the world whose father was not ready or willing to be a good father, much less a good boyfriend or husband. He did not want anything to do with the child that would have resulted if my pregnancy was carried to term, which I considered doing. I was not compelled to marry an incompatible and emotionally unhealthy partner who wanted absolutely nothing to do with my pregnancy, much less prenatal care. The government and/or adoptive parents did not get another mouth to feed due to my extremely low income and inability to care for an unplanned family. The government and I did not have to contend with bringing up a child that would have been born unhealthy or deformed due to a variety of predisposing factors, both hereditary and environmental, such as being on the pill when the pregnancy occurred, being a smoker, etc. The potential for abuse – greatly increased when non-natural parents are involved in a child’s care and upbringing – was eliminated. The short-term pain of having an abortion would never match the long-term suffering of spending a lifetime wondering whether or not the child I had brought into the world would be wanted and well-cared for by the adoptive parents, with whom I would never interact, and who are at higher risk for abusing than are natural parents. Research on the emotional well-being of adoptive children (at the time that I needed an abortion) strongly indicated that adoptive children suffered a great deal more severe psychiatric problems than did those who live with their natural parents. The child was spared not knowing anything about its hereditary health risks, true family history. The child did not have to wonder how much it pained me to let him or her go, and whether or not he or she was in fact a wanted child from the start.

    We need to counter the moral arguments in favor of permitting abortion with the moral arguments against it instead of simply calling people who help women like this “murderers.” That’s morally obtuse. It’s counter-productive.

  31. “That’s only where the word takes its meaning in a court of law. But in fact in a court of law the vast majority of most abortions performed are not murder, but are _legal_. So that argument doesn’t help your cause.” – Ken

    I think we’ve finally come to a conclusion regarding “malice”. It’s not required. A hitman doesn’t have “malice” toward his victims because he’s motivated by money, ditto for most abortionists.

    Irrespective of that…

    Dr. Gosnell is sitting in prison because the legal definition of murder applied to him and I would wager that most late term abortionists did similar things since they’re not calling 911 when they fail to murder the baby soon enough. Douglas Karpen is also under investigation in Houston, TX for allegedly murdering babies outside of the womb.

    What you’re trying to do is create a distinction between “in the womb” and “outside the womb”. Presumably, what you want is for “murder” to only apply when the baby is outside the womb.

    But that escape route is also closed.

    The vast majority of U.S. states have fetal homicide laws that apply to babies inside the womb. If you punch a woman in the stomach and you kill or harm the baby — both the baby and the mother can bring a cause of action against you.

    In other words, if a husband decides he wants to abort the baby and punches his wife in the stomach and kills the baby he will be charged with murder in the majority of U.S. States.

    I thought it was a fetus with no rights? Oh wait, until we decide it has rights when it’s convenient.

    [Note: Ariel Castro, one of the kidnappers in Cleveland, is potentially facing a death sentence for the three abortions he forced on one of the female victims under fetal homicide laws. The charge is aggravated murder… yes, murder. I’ll say it again: murder.]

    Source: http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/crime/2013/05/ariel_castro_fetal_homicide_should_the_alleged_cleveland_kidnapper_be_prosecuted.html

    So whether it’s in the womb is not the deciding factor. The determining factor is whether the mother wants to kill the child. We’ve created a special status for women as a result of Roe v. Wade.

    The Roe v. Wade decision isn’t worth the paper it was printed on. There is no right to privacy in the Constitution that gives a woman a special status in our country to kill an unborn baby. It’s simply doesn’t exist. And that is why they were reduced to politically poetry to tolerate sin in this country by stating it comes from the “emanations” and “penumbras” of the Constitution (see Griswold v. Connecticut). And it wouldn’t matter if there was a Constitutional amendment that granted a right to privacy to murder babies since it would be trumped by the unalienable right to life.

    Roe v. Wade is an example of the Supreme Court legislating from the bench. And it’s not the role of the Supreme Court to amend the Constitution. The Supreme Court has a shaky history when it comes to human rights having also sided with the slavery in the Dred Scott decision. And that error in judgment didn’t alter whether slavery was immoral and illegal.

    Abraham Lincoln didn’t say, “Well, the Supreme Court has spoken and they’re the final word.”

    He quoted the Declaration of Independence which stood in opposition to a rogue Court, the United States Congress, and all of the southern states. And the question was ultimately settled by a Civil War.

    [Note: The Supreme Court never came to the rescue of the slaves. It took a Civil War and a Constitutional amendment to formally end slavery.]

    Your other point is quibbling over the definition of human life to justify tyranny.

    Although fetal homicide laws make your point logically moot, whether it’s “human life” is a completely separate argument. The plantation owners thought the slaves were sub-human and therefore the Declaration of Independence didn’t apply to them — ditto for abortionists.

    This question was raised before the Supreme Court in Dred Scott and the Court simply agreed with the plantation owners that it didn’t apply to the slaves (they were wrong of course).

    If the right to life begins at the moment of creation then the question is settled — and anyone who violates that right does so unjustifiably. We don’t need to quote scripture since that doesn’t apply to every citizen, but the Declaration of Independence does apply to everyone.

    When were you created?

    The abortionists do not have the intellectual high ground. All they have is a weakly reasoned Supreme Court decision and rationalizations to justify their grisly work.

    ___________

    “You blame Planned Parenthood for Margaret Sanger’s views 100 years ago, claim Abraham Lincoln as an intellectual heir because he was a Republican 150 years ago, but swear yourselves innocent of the racism and sexism of your recent intellectual and demographic forbearers. Amazing.” -Ken

    Margaret Sanger died in 1966.

    Margaret Sanger founded Planned Parenthood and they hand out the “Margaret Sanger” award every year. In 2008 Hilary Clinton received that “Margaret Sanger” award. Planned Parenthood obviously thinks she is relevant — even if you disagree.

    You may know your political history extremely well, but for those who are not familiar. The Republican Party was born over the question of slavery. Prior to the Civil War the Whigs and the Democrats were the two main parties. The Democrats were the defenders of slavery.

    I’m thankful that brave men and women were unwilling to accept the status quo and make excuses for the continued enslavement of the black community. Rather than accepting evil they rebelled against it and today the Whigs are a historical artifact.

    Abortion is just an old doll dressed in new clothes.

    And it will take the same kind of resolve to end abortion that it took to end slavery. It will take patriots willing to defend the principles upon which our country was formed.

    The Declaration of Independence provides an extreme remedy to be used after all else has failed, “That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.” – Declaration of Independence, July 4th, 1776.

    Abortion must end. We can peacefully ban it or we can abolish a government that refuses to protect unalienable rights. It’s not our right do that … it’s our duty.

    It’s my hope, prayer, and desire that we can peacefully end the tyranny of abortion.

  32. A tyrant is an individual who unjustly treats masses of people, not many people who mistreat one or two or a few individuals each. Malice is a motive when the hit man is hired, so the reason for the murder there is malice. The same applies to a man who punches a pregnant woman in the stomach. He obviously acts with malice. Gosnell was convicted of killing infants born alive, not of performing legal abortions at an earlier, legal stages. I have not argued that there is no right to privacy in the Constitution or that Roe was correctly decided. Neither have I argued that fetal life is sub-human; I have explicitly said it’s human. I get tired of being asked to defend arguments I haven’t made.

    Sanger was opposed to abortion, and wrote in her autobiography that that “”[In 1916] we explained what contraception was; that abortion was the wrong way no matter how early it was performed it was taking life.” The voting rights decision last week is another example of the Supreme Court legislating from the bench. Are you upset? Abraham Lincoln, I apparently need to point out, did not cite the Declaration of Independence or fight the Civil War in opposition to abortion. I’m pro-life too, but I’m not so silly as to cite Lincoln to defend my views. The Democrats defended slavery in the mid-19th century, yes, but legalized racism lived on in the South and when LBJ got the Civil Rights Act passed in 1964, he famously said to Bill Moyers “I think we just delivered the South to the Republican Party for a long time to come.” He was correct. Be serious and tell the whole truth.

    Unless you have something really new to say, I think I’ve said enough on this subject. We agree that abortion is wrong, and I admire your efforts to end it.

  33. . I have not argued that there is no right to privacy in the Constitution

    Correction: I mean to write _a_ right to privacy.

  34. “Malice is a motive when the hit man is hired, so the reason for the murder there is malice.” – Ken

    You’re overlooking an important point. The hit man had no malice and he will be charged with murder regardless. The court doesn’t need to track down the person who hired him to determine their state of mind.

    According to your logic if a person was deluded and a hired a hit man to put someone out of their misery there wouldn’t be a murder. No malice — no murder?

    That’s just not how the law works. Doctors don’t need to have “malice” to be charged with murder. And that is why “murder” is an appropriate description of abortion.

    “Gosnell was convicted of killing infants born alive, not of performing legal abortions at an earlier, legal stages.” -Ken

    Agreed, but when the murder takes place is not the deciding factor. If Dr. Gosnell went to the grocery store and saw a pregnant teen and decided her life would be much better without having to raise a child and punched her in the stomach resulting in a miscarriage he would be charged with murder in the majority of U.S. states.

    It wouldn’t matter if she was 4 weeks or 4 months pregnant.

    The baby doesn’t need to be outside of the womb for murder charges to apply. The only question is whether the mother wanted him to kill the baby — then a completely different standard applies.

    In this instance the mothers wanted him to kill the baby but he wasn’t quick enough. 5 seconds earlier the baby had no rights, solely because the mother decided it had no rights. However, he would be guilty of murder for killing the exact same baby in the womb without her consent.

    So where exactly do the rights of the baby arise? According to the Declaration of Independence they come from God — and not the mother. And that is why I call abortion a form of “goddess worship” since we’re basically replacing God with women.

    Once the baby is alive and breathing outside of the womb the mother’s special treatment ends. She can no longer mandate that the child die since now it magically has rights.

    The hypocrisy of the laws should be getting your attention. The “mother” has a special status which I will be addressing shortly.

    “A tyrant is an individual who unjustly treats masses of people, not many people who mistreat one or two or a few individuals each.” – Ken

    I assume you’re also uncomfortable when I reference the “tyranny of abortion”? Here is a definition of tyranny that is appropriate for abortion, “Absolute power, especially when exercised unjustly or cruelly.”

    The absolute power to take the life of a defenseless babies was unjustly handed to mothers by a rogue Supreme Court in 1973. And that absolute power has been used with extreme cruelty: 56 million casualties and counting.

    3,287 babies are dismembered at the hands of licensed physicians every day in the United States.

    There is no question that abortion is example of tyranny. Abortion is murder and it’s tyranny. Both are appropriate and accurate descriptions of the premeditated taking of a defenseless human life.

    “Sanger was opposed to abortion, and wrote in her autobiography that that “”[In 1916] we explained what contraception was; that abortion was the wrong way no matter how early it was performed it was taking life.” The voting rights decision last week is another example of the Supreme Court legislating from the bench. Are you upset?” – Ken

    No, because I already knew it, but it’s a good point. And that is why I said she set the stage for it with her promotion of contraception. She died before abortion was legal — as previously noted.

    Most people complain about her support of eugenics and perceived racism, but that doesn’t mean Planned Parenthood was innocent when it comes to abortion.

    Contraception became legal and on demand when the Planned Parenthood sued to make it legal in Griswold v. Connecticut. The Plaintiff (Griswold) was the Executive Director of the Planned Parenthood League of Connecticut.

    Source: http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0381_0479_ZO.html

    Once the myth of “safe sex” via contraceptives became the new mantra — unintended pregnancies skyrocketed. And Planned Parenthood modified their business model to meet that need and is the #1 provider of abortions today.

    I wonder if that would upset Margaret Sanger? The unintended consequences of sin usually do.

    The “right to privacy” was promulgated in Griswold v. Connecticut and later applied in Roe v. Wade. And that is an example of a rogue Supreme Court working hand-in-hand with the abortionists.

    All of them were working together to please people having sex outside of wedlock or as a form of entertainment. The sexual revolution (fueled by contraception) had swept across the country and our morals and ethics were a reflection of it. Even if it meant babies being murdered by the millions.

    And this why I said when people start with a sinful premise they often end up with a lot unintended sinful consequences. Men and women wanted to be freed from the shackles of sex within the confines of marriage or for purposes of procreation, and contraception offered that false hope.

    But the cost has been 56 million corpses and counting. And it was the Catholic Church who stood up against it and formally denounced it (contraception and abortion) in Humanae Vitae.

    The Pope was right — it led to a lot of suffering, but sin always leads to destruction. Kudos to the Catholics for not tolerating sin or winking at it.

    Source: http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-vi_enc_25071968_humanae-vitae_en.html

    And today it’s mostly Catholics who are standing outside of the clinics. The secular humanists have had a field day inside the Protestant churches who are now focused on their own version of “free love” … “God loves you and you don’t need to change a thing!”

    It’s like a cheesy late night infomercial.

    “Have all the sex you want… and if somebody dies later come back to church for a hug. We won’t impose any morals on you because you get to make up your own standards.”

    Their God is Santa Claus. Maybe that’s why he gets just as much attention during Christmas as the man who died on a cross and whose name the holiday is supposed to honor?

    But if they act quickly everything will be okay?

    “Those mean, judgmental pro lifers don’t love sinners like the fallen church! The fallen church is the perfect diet — eat as much as you want and you won’t gain a pound. But wait, there’s more… with our “revolutionary” new religion you can sin as much as you want and you won’t receive any rebuke or guidance from others.”

    That would be intolerant, which is forbidden by the new religion because the fallen members of the church are too busy sinning themselves to be intolerant of sin. That doesn’t mean others are immune from sin — it’s just a difference in how they treat it.

    If you went to a doctor with a curable disease and all he ever said is “You’re fine… fit as a fiddle” and never actually addressed your disease you would never get better. The same is true with sin. If it’s never addressed it can never be cured.

    And the cure is going to God for forgiveness and repenting.

    When the fallen church winks at sin that’s not serving God, that’s serving people. God requires us to rebuke sin and not candy coat it so that sinners feel comfortable continuing in their sin.

    And it’s not an example of someone being their brother’s keeper. Rather, it’s an example of them being silent accomplices.

    And we must be silent no more.

  35. “Unless you have something really new to say, I think I’ve said enough on this subject. We agree that abortion is wrong, and I admire your efforts to end it.” – Ken

    Enjoyed the discussion! Thanks for sharing your thoughts.

  36. 'In 1935 Dr. Clarence Chaney wrote in the Journal of American Medicine, “The induction of abortion should be undertaken as reluctantly as one would commit justifiable homicide.”'

    I'm surprised the right-wing, orthodox religious fanaticism that is the ironically named "pro-life" movement (some call it "forced birther movement", would choose a quote that modern! You sure that you don't want to just get honest and go Old Testament?

    America is not a Theocracy. And what you are peddling is neither Constitutional nor is it "health" policy. It is relaigious zealotry that is not even supported by scripture.

  37. That’s right, Patrick, America is not a theocracy. Religious leaders don’t make the laws. We vote on who makes the laws, and religious leaders and religious people get to vote too. They also have free speech, and they can advocate for laws based on their values, just like you can call for laws based on yours. You may not like what religious conservatives believe, and I don’t like some of it either. But they have every bit as much right to participate in the political process as we do.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here