Pro-Life Church Says They’ll Take Care of Any Babies You Give Them

Like many of you, I’m pro-choice without also being pro-abortion. I would love to see the number of abortions reduced (while birth control use increases) and I’m personally much happier to hear that a woman had a baby and gave it up for adoption rather than chose to abort it. (Of course, that choice depends on the situation and the woman and sometimes you don’t have both options. I get that.)

A lot of Christians are pro-life with no exceptions at all. One of the rebuttals I’ve heard to this stance is that many of these babies would be born with no one to love them or care for them or provide for them. There’s not necessarily an adoptive family waiting in the wings for every baby.

So I was surprised to hear Pastor Vic Pentz make this statement at Peachtree Presbyterian Church at the end of his sermon last weekend:

I make a promise to you now and I don’t want you to keep this a secret… the Peachtree Presbyterian Church will care for any newborn baby you bring to this church.

We will be the family to find a home for that child, and there’s no limit on this. You can tell your friends, you can tell your family, you can tell the whole world…

The church is partnering with Bethany Christian Services (an adoption agency) to make this happen.

I don’t know if it’ll work — these are just the basic details of the program; the devil may be in the details. I don’t know how good the adoption agency is. I don’t know what being a “Christian” agency entails. I don’t know if the church can really handle an overflow of babies. And like I said, adoption isn’t always the best option for all women who don’t want to (or cannot) keep their child.

But.

Isn’t this a better way to go about being pro-life: Giving women the knowledge of security that any baby they keep will be safe and secure?

I think it’s more effective than protesting outside Planned Parenthoods and using other scare tactics.

(via Church Marketing Sucks)

  • Aj

    I’m indifferent, or rather neutral. Early abortions are pretty straight forward but the later it gets the more chance of complication so in pure interest for the health of women I’d like later abortions to be minimized. I couldn’t give less of shit how many abortions there are in the first trimester. My biggest concern is that women are allowed access to abortions if they want them. Childbirth isn’t easy, and neither is being pregnant. I don’t care what situation a woman is in, if she doesn’t want a child it makes perfect sense to have an abortion.

    It’s great that they’re willing to care for any newborn child they are brought. Not so great that they’ll make sure the child will be indoctrinated. It’s better than being hypocritical by being against abortions but not caring for children after they’re born. They’re not going to solve the shortage of adoptive homes. Family planning is so much better than unwanted children for the parents, society, and the planet.

  • Carlie

    Are they also going to pay for all of the pre-natal care the woman will need? Will they pay for any days she needs to take off of work for feeling ill? Will they pay for her to have any psychological counseling she needs? Creating a baby isn’t exactly a walk in the park.

  • Siamang

    To be fair, the Catholic Church has done this sort of thing for centuries in orphanages.

    Recent tragic news stories have shown us, sadly, that the care they offer isn’t always what we’d wish for a child.

    But anyway, I dislike the “well, who’s going to take care of all those extra babies” attitude, which I’ve heard from many people in my life. Sorry, but many churches do run orphanages and adoption agencies, so I do see them as actually working to answer that need.

    That said, I support choice. I also support gay adoption, which the Catholic Church opposes. So I guess it’s worse to be raised by a gay couple than to be raised in an abusive catholic orphanage in Ireland. Got it.

  • sc0tt

    It’s grandstanding.

    Nice idea, little risk of their having to actually do much.

  • http://foreverinhell.blogspot.com Personal Failure

    What the Pastor fails to tell you is that federal law requires every hospital in the US to do exactly what he is offering to do.

  • AllFather

    I know it’s already been said here, but a good point to raise is that these babies will be raise in a highly indoctrinating environment. To the general public and their constituants it sounds like they are offering to take the burden on themselves to staunch the tide of abortions by offering a far more pleasant solution, but at the same time each of those unwanted children is going to grow up to become tithe paying members of the “Body of Christ,” have as many babies as possible themselves and then infect their children to start the whole cycle over again.

    I am not saying it is a bad things for unwanted children to be cared for, I just don’t think the motives of this church are as white as the undriven snow as they would like everyone to believe.

  • http://www.sappari-zenzen.net eruvande

    That’s real nice, but did they go into why women should be forced to carry to term a fetus with anencephaly or other horrific birth defects? ‘Cause I’m pretty sure you can’t adopt such a kid out. ‘Cause it usually dies within a day or so.

    On a serious note – it is actually nice to hear a pro-life group offering to do something substantial rather than just hollering about “baby-killing”. I do applaud them for adopting this stance (unintentional pun), especially if they follow through. But it would be even nicer if they would accept that abortion is not just, and not always, about not wanting your baby. There are so many stories of women who desperately wanted to give birth, but their fetuses just weren’t going to live, or would live a very short time in a whole lot of pain, or would kill their mothers in the process of birth. Women are not, on the whole, monsters who just can’t wait to kill a baby. The church is addressing a problem they themselves have exaggerated. As a result, they may not get much buy-in, thus reinforcing their distrust of women who abort.

    That said, maybe this could address the MUCH larger problem of women who don’t particularly want their children but have them anyway and beat or neglect them to punish them for existing. The “safe havens” appear to have gotten a lot of response; perhaps this cound do the same.

  • MrMarkAZ

    Two words: Ryan Report.

    The idea of a safe haven is sound, but in no way should it be left up to the churches. I guarantee you that the only interest the churches have is in growing their numbers by any means possible.

  • cat

    Planned parenthood offers adoption counciling. If you go into PP with an unplanned pregnancy and say you want to give birth and give the baby up for adoption, they will give you info and counciling for adoption AND try to help find you affordable prenatal care. If you go in and say you want an abortion, they’ll help you with that. If you really want someone who will respect your decision, whichever one it is, go to PP, not to some weird anti-choice group.

  • J B Tait

    Safe Haven laws often include police departments, fire departments, and churches as well as the hospitals.
    Leaving the baby somewhere safe and being allowed to walk away is a first step, but the foster care system is overwhelmed and adoption isn’t as swift and available as implied, especially if the child has special needs or is from a visible minority.
    It isn’t just newborns, though, because they grow up. What will the un-adopted child do for a family when they age out of the system?

  • Lurker

    I think Charlie says it all. I’m all for pro-lifers and their beliefs, but the churches and religious foundations never offer free care to the mother and child prior to birth, nor services to pay for the birth. Under my current lack of insurance there is NO WAY I could afford regular doctor visits to check on myself and my baby, nor afford giving birth in a hospital, and considering my family has multiples and premature births running amuck in it, there’s a good likelihood that I would need some sort of care even if I tried to birth the child at home.

    I will say that if I were to have a child that I wanted to give up I would probably feel better giving it to a church like this than a massive orphanage or hospital that may or may not treat the child properly. Assuming they don’t get overwhelmed with response to the statement, the pure lacking of numbers would motivate me to seek them out over my other options.

  • Alan E.

    Aj, you claim to be neutral, then continue on to state your opinion on the topic. You have a (relatively) clear position on the subject, and if someone asked you about it, you should at least be confident in your response instead of trying to hide behind it like a shield. Being neutral is not just about not participating, rather not having an opinion one way or the other (my 5th grade English teacher would cringe at the double negatives in this sentence).

  • Aj

    Alan E.,

    Aj, you claim to be neutral, then continue on to state your opinion on the topic. You have a (relatively) clear position on the subject, and if someone asked you about it, you should at least be confident in your response instead of trying to hide behind it like a shield. Being neutral is not just about not participating, rather not having an opinion one way or the other (my 5th grade English teacher would cringe at the double negatives in this sentence).

    I am not for or against abortions, I think unplanned pregnancies are bad, but don’t care whether they’re stopped by abortions or any form of contraception, or abstinence, I really could not give less of a shit. Decreasing or increasing the number of abortions is not a concern of mine. When I say neutral I mean I don’t favour abortions or disfavour abortions, not that I don’t have opinions about anything related to the subject of abortions. I do not use my neutrality as a shield, I am confident in my position, I was describing my position.

  • John L

    Any hospital I’ve been to in my area has a sign out that states that they do the same thing. Probably better to give it to a hospital who will give it a check up before giving it to an adoption agency.

    This is a good step though for anti-abortionists because this actually helps the problem and discourages the abortions they don’t like instead of lobbying to make them illegal.

  • Sarah TX.

    Do they offer post-adoption counseling? I just finished reading The Girls Who Went Away. It deals specifically with women who in many cases were forced to give a baby up for adoption, but I imagine that women who choose such an option may have similar feelings.

  • http://theframeproblem.wordpress.com Ron Brown

    Hemant – and others who feel similarly:

    Why do you want there to be less abortions? What about abortion do you find to be, on the one hand, morally permissible, but on the other, something that should be avoided?

    I’m pro-choice myself. And I can see a number of very practical reasons for why it would be good for abortion frequency to be lowered, particularly via increased sexual responsibility (e.g., using protection). Practical benefits:

    * abortions are expensive and take up doctors’ and medical professionals’ time from other things;

    * abortions are disruptive to the lives of those having them and some of those around them – e.g., family, the guy; similarly, so can be accidental conception, what with the dilemmas and stress that can result;

    * abortions are not a physically pleasant experience;

    * While I don’t support the pro-life side, perhaps some of them would be less upset if more people practiced effective safe sex (and then some will be similarly offended by this, too). Of course, you could say “fuck’em, who cares what those self-righteous dogmatists think”. But, hey, if we can lower the frustrations of others while costing ourselves nothing – actually, we’d be helping ourselves and society generally in lock-step – then why not?

    Are these all of your reasons, Hemant? Are there more? Sometimes when I hear people – especially politicians – talking about decreasing abortion frequency, I get the feeling that part of the reason (perhaps feigned) is some sort of consideration for the life being destroyed. But I personally don’t get why a rational informed pro-choicer would care about this. We have no reason at all to believe the fetus will experience any kind of suffering beyond what an insect might feel upon being stepped on the millisecond before it’s life ends. I’m not sure how developed late-termers are, but I imagine that given the political climate on this issue, they’re probably at a stage where they can experience little to no suffering. And even if they could experience a brief moment of confusing and fuzzy suffering, so? How bad could it possibly be, given their low development and complete inability to anticipate – let alone fear – what was happening? Not to mention that it’ll be over with very quickly.

    I get the pragmatic reasons for wanting to reduce abortions. But how many pro-choicers are there who want to reduce abortion because of some sort of compassion for that which we have no reason to believe will consciously experience anything (or that, at the very most, any sort of experience will be of a very crude, unspecified and extremely short-lived nature) that will or will not be done to it, and which would incur no sense of loss?

  • beckster

    You shouldn’t adopt a child to save it from abortion. You should adopt a child because you want a child.

    Imagine being the child growing up knowing your parents didn’t adopt you because they wanted you but because they hated abortion. I would hope any child adopted through this “program” is not told the basis of it in order to spare their psychological development.

  • http://goodreasonnews.blogspot.com Good Reason News

    Oh, will they also take care of all the medical bills the expectant mother will have to pay plus assume any liability should the mother suffer complications? Will they also stop enforcing the concept that an unmarried pregnant woman should be ashamed and outcast from society? Will they also concede that a child adopted and raised by a homosexual couple can be just as happy and well-developed as a child raised by a heterosexual couple or even by a single parent?

    If all those are yes’s then I’d say the church has taken a step.

  • Jen

    Some random and unrelated thoughts:

    1. Like Hell I am giving up my (fake) pregnancy to some religious wack-a-doos to be some arrow for Jeebus. But Hemant, since you have decided to place a value judgment on abortions, and have decided that adoptions are good, I am bringing you any future babies I have.

    2. I have never understood those baby-drop off programs that apply to churches. Hospitals, police stations, and fire stations are staffed 24/7, but aren’t most churches closed at least part of the day?

    3. What Sarah Tx said. The Girls That Went Away had me bawling. Adoptions as they were performed in the 50s and 60s were awful, awful things, and even today, they aren’t entirely peachy. I know I couldn’t give up my baby (except to Hemant) and know that my relationship with said kid is entirely based on the whims of the adoptive parents (as I understand it, only in Oregon can open adoptions be legally enforced).

    4. What Ron Brown said. One cannot say they want to reduce abortions without placing a value judgment on it. When I hear women say things like, I am pro-choice, but I could never have an abortion myself, I think, well, I hope you vote pro-choice, but seriously, that is a bitchy and judgmental statement to make. If you think there are no circumstances where you personally would have an abortion, then your imagination is seriously lacking.

  • Another Atheist

    What about the half a MILLION children in foster care right now? Why don’t they start with those? Honestly, this is such bullshit it makes me see red. These people could care less about all the kids around the world who are starving, who don’t have clean drinking water, who die from preventable diseases, who do not have access to a decent education or any education at all. But if I want to have an abortion, they throw a fit. Please. Help the ones that are already here first.

  • Carlie

    I think everyone who thinks they have anything to say about abortion should be forced to read both “The Girls Who Went Away” by Ann Fessler and “When Abortion Was a Crime” by Leslie Reagan. Like others here have mentioned, I cried my way through the first book. Then I read the second and got angry.(Basic summary: statistical analysis that shows that when abortion is illegal the abortion rate stays the same, but the maternal death rate skyrockets.)

  • Moxiequz

    When I hear women say things like, I am pro-choice, but I could never have an abortion myself, I think, well, I hope you vote pro-choice, but seriously, that is a bitchy and judgmental statement to make.

    Just because someone wouldn’t want to have an abortion themselves doesn’t necessarily mean they’re passing judgment on others.

    Nor does it mean they wouldn’t have an abortion under any circumstances whatsoever. Often times, especially in casual conversation, people don’t qualify their statements with every single exception and extenuating circumstance that might exist.

    I’m pro-choice. I’m also at a point in my life right now that – under normal circumstances – I would not have an abortion. I feel that’s the right choice for me. That doesn’t mean I believe it’s the right choice for every woman – even those with equivalent lifestyles, health, options, etc.

    If that makes me “bitchy and judgmental” so be it.

  • Emily

    Sometimes when I hear people – especially politicians – talking about decreasing abortion frequency, I get the feeling that part of the reason (perhaps feigned) is some sort of consideration for the life being destroyed. But I personally don’t get why a rational informed pro-choicer would care about this.

    Yes, this is precisely why the “pro-choice not pro-abortion” formulation bugs. What does it mean to be “pro” or “anti” any research validated medical intervention?

    I feel about abortion exactly the same way as I feel about root canals – I hope never to have either, as they’re both expensive and unpleasant; I’m glad my public school education included information on methods to reduce their possible necessity, as well as information about the fact that such methods aren’t always sufficient (and what to do if they’re not, in fact, sufficient); and I think good insurance and/or government health care programs would provide payment for both.

  • medussa

    The best comment so far has been from Another Atheist:

    What about the half a MILLION children in foster care right now? Why don’t they start with those? Honestly, this is such bullshit it makes me see red. These people could care less about all the kids around the world who are starving, who don’t have clean drinking water, who die from preventable diseases, who do not have access to a decent education or any education at all. But if I want to have an abortion, they throw a fit. Please. Help the ones that are already here first.

    This church is making a claim it can’t fulfill, but the only ones to pay the price will be the unwanted children born and then raised in rotating foster homes and overfilled orphanages.
    And if this church actually has the power to place so many children, then why the hell haven’t they helped the kids who are already waiting?

    I agree I prefer this approach of anti-choicers to the one of attacking women at clinics, but only because it’s less invasive and in your face.

    As for the Safe Haven programs: As far as I know, they haven’t had that much response, and they still leave the future of the child in the same limbo. Here in CA, several dead infants have been found in spite of the Safe Haven Law, but I do know of one family in Arkansas, I think, that dropped all 7 kids off at a fire house, with a note of “I can’t do this any more”: that’s another 7 (emotionally damaged) kids to find homes for…

  • http://lovelivegrow.com Issa

    I would be happy about the offer of this church if it was simply, “If you want to place your child for adoption, we’re here to help in any way we can.” Instead, their position is that they’re trying to “save” babies from abortion, which I’m sure is just a marketing move to later be able to say, “We offered to take their babies, but those awful women STILL killed them.” Uh, no. Neither pregnancy, childbirth, or placing a child for adoption are walks in the park, and there are perfectly good reasons to opt out of them, regardless of how many organizations out there pretending they care about your pregnancy while completely ignoring you and your specific situation.

  • jemand

    infant.

    ugh.

    because if you keep it until it can talk it’s been “defiled” by your evil satanic ways and we want nothing to do with it.

    Look up adoption rates of older children.

    Or heck, any child other than healthy infant whites.

  • Dan W

    I’m rather wary of this, in part because of the “christian” adoption agency the church is involved with. If a woman wants to have the baby and then give it up for adoption instead of getting an abortion, I’m fine with that. But I’d suggest one that doesn’t support any particular religion. I wouldn’t be surprised if the babies given up for adoption in this “christian” agency are sent to some pretty crazy religious zealots- people who I wouldn’t want any innocent baby sent to be raised by.

  • spider

    It sounds like re-establishing religiously run orphanages. And I’m not sure why it’s always better to bring a new life into the world than to prevent it. Kids should be brought into the best possible circumstances wherever it can be helped. No, I think it would be better if they used their efforts to improve the situations of women so that the proportion of pregnancies that are unwanted drop. Yes, that includes birth control, but above all social conditions. Having unwanted children born rather than aborted for some misguided idea that this is somehow always better will not improve social conditions.

  • Goat

    How bout we ban recreational sex and solve the whole problem. Any takers? Anybody? No, so then why bash anyone Christian or otherwise who choose to do something about it. Some women are not emotionally capable of abortion and yet they still can’t keep there pants zipped. So a Christian wants to give them a legitimate out, let him. It’s better then a unwanted kid being raised by unwilling parents.

  • http://www.CoreyMondello.com Corey Mondello

    Look…you too can support unsafe sex and get a child to train and form into a member of your holy war.

    What a great idea; free babies to create a future of a Christian Fundamentalist probably White Holy Warriors.

    Havent we seen enough of them at town hall meetings?

    I hope they atleast get a better education than the nimrods we have today representing the “Bush/Palin” lovers of the USA.

  • shepherd

    Imagine for a moment that you believe, actually believe that from the moment of conception you are a human being and due basic human rights. Suddenly in your eyes every abortion clinic becomes a tiny concentration camp. So in the face of this new holocaust what would you do? Most of you would throw stones and call names. After all isn’t that what most of you do on this website? But the tiny few who can raise your head above your own dogma long enough to be rational might actually try to help the problem instead of just pissing on it. I agree most American christians are sterile, stagnant, judgemental hypocrites too busy waiving there finger at the naughty world to actually lift said finger to help it. But somewhere out there, there has to be Christians who actually practice this love they are always on about. This preacher is one man heading one organization. He can’t help everyone in every situation, but for those few he can help I say more power to him.

  • http://blog.amyadoptee.com Amyadoptee

    I understand your views on religion and abortion. That is not what is the issue for me. As my name implies, I am an adoptee. I look at this in a different perspective. Abortion aborts life. Adoption aborts liberty and the pursuit of happiness for the child involved. We are expected to give up our rights because we were allowed to live. Pretty heavy stuff to dump on an adoptee.

    With that being said, there are other issues with this church. They will have to be licensed and registered to provide foster care to these infants. Bethany Christian Services has had six to seven violations in their foster care program alone in the last year. It seems to me that this Church did not do a background check on the agency itself. This agency is also very good at being coercive to the birth parents that visit their offices nationwide. They do not provide pre or post adoption services to these parents either. Since the Church has not bothered to connect with the Georgia Family Services section of the state government, I do not think that would be a wise choice for any woman considering her options.

  • AnonyMouse

    Well, it’s about time! I’ve been wondering how many of these groups were going to rail against abortion without providing decent alternatives.

    Unfortunately, as Corey points out, all these babies will probably be placed into nice Christian homes, where they will be brainwashed into the local flavor of Christianity. I think I’d rather have an abortion.

  • JL

    It’s not enough, for the multitude of reasons that people have said, but I’m glad that they are attempting to be useful instead of protesting clinics. If they actually manage to place babies with loving homes/capable parents, that would otherwise have been aborted as fetuses, well then, they’re actually supporting their cause without being jerks about it, and more power to them. Perhaps eventually they will even realize that there are other issues that need to be dealt with besides simply the availability of adoption placement.

    The ones that really irritate me are the clinic protesters who try to lure women in with promises of free “medical care” and then take them to what is basically a pro-life propaganda house with a free ultrasound and maybe a few baby clothes thrown in. In my opinion, their premise is deceptive. If the folks from this post are actually doing what they claim – successfully placing babies with families who can take care of them – they are at least not deceiving anyone.

  • http://labkatblog.com Lab Kat

    When I hear women say things like, I am pro-choice, but I could never have an abortion myself, I think, well, I hope you vote pro-choice, but seriously, that is a bitchy and judgmental statement to make.

    I have to respectfully disagree with you, Jen. I am a female and I am staunchly pro-choice, meaning I believe the choice to have an abortion lies with the individual. No one else should make that choice for her. That said, I would not choose to have an abortion myself. And, NO ONE has the right to make that choice for me.

    I see nothing bitchy or judgmental about this. How is it judgmental to support the right of the individual to choose and, in turn, make that choice for yourself? I find it more bitchy to make an judgment call any and every woman (or man, for that matter) who has this view, as if the choice NOT to have an abortion itself is wrong. That’s not a pro-choice position.

  • Carlie

    Lab Kat, I think Jen’s complaint wasn’t for the attitude of being pro-choice but not wanting an abortion, but for the attitude that compels people to voice that loudly every time the subject comes up. It very much then makes the person out to be saying “blah blah blah pro-choice BUT NOT ME I WOULDN’T DO SOMETHING THAT ICKY!” When stated that way, it’s a backhanded slap against the women who have had abortions. If a person is pro-choice, why would they feel like they have to expound on what their own choice would be every time they mention thir support? Plus, it’s a bit privileged to state the hypothetical that one would never ever ever do that, when there are so many possibilities that could make one re-think the position (anencephaly, etc.)

  • Sarah TX.

    I’m pro-choice myself. And I can see a number of very practical reasons for why it would be good for abortion frequency to be lowered, particularly via increased sexual responsibility (e.g., using protection).

    One thing I’ve realized recently is that, even if we make contraceptives free and widely distributed, along with thorough education programs about their use, aborting pregnancies will still be a necessary medical procedure. I am pro-choice but I no longer follow the Democratic plank of “safe, legal, and rare”. I’ll stick with “safe and legal” and leave the value judgment for individual morality.

    (I’m imagining the Surgeon General advocating that coronary bypass surgeries should be “more rare”, instead of advocating that we lower the incidents of heart disease)

  • Jen

    Carlie has my point exactly. Too often I hear women saying they could never, ever, ever have an abortion, and they way they say it adds a (because everyone knows only slutty women have them) and I do get might tired of that “support”. I am pro-choice- full sentence- you needn’t know anything beyond that.

  • http://labkatblog.com Lab Kat

    I agree stating you are pro-choice yet taking a “look down the nose” attitude toward having an abortion is off-putting and would appear hypocritical. However, I would imagine there are women who, honestly deep in their hearts, cannot think of ever having one. None of the women I know personally who have had an abortion WANTED one or ever imagined having to have one. It is a medical procedure of last resort in most cases.

    I just believe making blanket statements about people’s intentions or personal thoughts doesn’t help anyone.

  • Heidi

    Thank you to the three ladies who recommended The Girls Who Went Away. It looks interesting, and I am likely to buy a copy.

    Like Amy, I am an adoptee. Every adoptee I know, including myself, has emotional issues because of it. I was born in the late 60s (i.e. before Roe v. Wade). I am told that my bio mother was 15 when I was born. And I often wonder what horrors she might have endured because she had no choice. I’m happy to be here, but I have this nagging feeling in the back of my mind that I am here at someone else’s expense.

    There is no easy solution to any of this. And giving children to a church group for indoctrination is a frightening prospect to me.

    That said, yes, it’s better than bombing clinics and murdering doctors. Maybe it will be of help to women who already share this group’s beliefs.

  • Michael

    Who said the members and leaders of this church are going to be doing these adoptions instead of protesting clinics or generally causing problems for people that are exercising their right to medical care? The article makes no mention of this and there are plenty of hours in the day to do both. What’s more churches have been pushing adoption for some decades, sometimes even against the wishes of mothers who want to keep their babies. This seems more like propaganda than a genuine gesture.

  • Pingback: Random Thoughts and Musings » Blog Archive » Optimism in Politics and Personal Choice (#237/365)

  • http://jonathan-keith.com Jon

    Are these all of your reasons, Hemant? Are there more? Sometimes when I hear people – especially politicians – talking about decreasing abortion frequency, I get the feeling that part of the reason (perhaps feigned) is some sort of consideration for the life being destroyed. But I personally don’t get why a rational informed pro-choicer would care about this. We have no reason at all to believe the fetus will experience any kind of suffering beyond what an insect might feel upon being stepped on the millisecond before it’s life ends.

    @RonBrown – That was a extroadinarily inconsistent comment. If you believe that a fetus MAY experience suffering similar to an insect being killed, and you acknowledge that insects are alive, then you have to acknowledge that a fetus is alive. And if a fetus is at one point alive, even if only briefly, why wouldn’t Hemant or any politician feel consideration for a life being destroyed?

    If you are going to be pro-choice, fine – but at least attempt to use some sense of logic so you don’t make pro-choicers look incredibly stupid or admit that you are only pro-choice because you care more about your own convenience than the life of another human.

  • Aj

    Jon,

    You haven’t pointed out any inconsistency, lack of logic, or stupidity. You’re an ignorant fool, you’re the one who makes pro-choicers look incredibly stupid. Who doesn’t acknowledge that a fetus is alive? Life is being destroyed around you constantly with no one considering it, why would anyone need to consider all life being destroyed? Why would anyone be unwilling to admit that they care more about convenience than a life that happens to carry a human genome but not much else? Many fetuses die without anyone knowing they’re pregnant but no one takes a test and holds a funeral for each of them. If you’re going to throw around words like “life” and “human” define them and explain why anyone should care about them.

  • http://www.abortion-support.com Abortion Support

    Let’s give the guy some credit, it is putting your money where your mouth is or walking the walk or whatever metaphor you want to use.

  • Nikki

    I have always held the stance of being pro-choice without being pro-abortion. However, a book and a blog that I read recently changed my mind. Now I’m both pro-choice AND pro-abortion. I would LOVE to see the number if abortions drastically reduced through education and birth control. I can understand why women who cannot bear the thought of having an abortion, would choose to give up their child for adoption. However, I also realize that the vast majority of women will have MUCH greater difficulty in dealing with giving up a child for adoption, than having an abortion.

    The book is _The Girls Who Went Away_, and the blog is http://shakespearessister.blogspot.com/2009/03/breaking-silence-on-living-pro-lifers.html


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X