Evangelical Christians Are Opposing… What?!

These two headlines fit together nicely…

And…

Evangelicals want to stop Michelle Obama’s anti-obesity campaign because she’s obviously trying to convince children to stray from the Christian faith!

It all makes sense now…

Here’s something else that doesn’t make sense: Evangelicals don’t want the government telling people what they should or shouldn’t eat, but they have no problem with the government telling women what to do with their bodies.

How do Evangelicals get through the day without constantly feeling ashamed of themselves…?

  • fea24

    I’m convinced that they just don’t think because it would make their heads explode.

  • Jonas

    Hemant,

    You’ve got it wrong:

    …the government telling women what to do with their bodies.

    Evangelicals have no problem with the Government telling women what Evangelicals want women to do with their bodies.

  • L.Long

    The TOTALLY deluded have no problem making things up as to what they want.

  • Lynn

    That’s because in THEIR minds… eating healthy isn’t a morality issue and the abortion issue is.

  • ludovico

    …except when those bodies contain living, breathing, pain-feeling human beings.

  • Josh Evolved

    It’s called cognitive dissonance and a superiority complex. That is all.

  • Rich Wilson

    One of the HuffPo comments says

    Where in the study referenced in the article are the stats that support her assertion that “Evangelic­als Resist Obama’s Childhood Obesity Push” ~ I actually clicked through the to Pew Site, looked at the survey, read that survey report and I see political party breakdowns­, racial breakdowns­, and age breakdowns . . . but NO religious breakdowns­.

    I would like to know how she got from the published informatio­n that she referenced to her conclusion­s.

    According to another article on this survey: Pew researcher Michael Dimock. “In our report, we did not emphasize that there was any religious link to attitudes on this issue, and our suspicion is that this is mostly a political, not a religious or denominati­onal issue.”

    And here’s the original report: http://people-press.org/report/712
    and I don’t get the ‘Evangelical’ angle.

    I think HuffPo headlines should be taken with a grain of salt.

  • Eric C

    Everybody needs to stop dictating how everyone else live their lives. No one knows what is right for me except me, not the church, not the government and not special interest. I say fuck off to all of you controlling assholes.

  • Charles

    Are we sure that this isn’t an Onion headline?

    Please be an Onion headline… *click* Damnit.

  • http://thingsfindothinks.com AndrewFinden

    they have no problem with the government telling women what to do with their bodies.

    More accurately, they have no problem with the government telling women what they can’t do to the unborn bodies in their wombs. It has nothing to do with a desire to tell women what they can do with their own bodies.

  • hoverFrog

    Men can get fat but not pregnant.

  • Richard P.

    @Rich Wilson
    From what I can see I would say they are counting that tea party as the evangelicals, as that seems to make up the majority of that nutter group. They do stand at 65% opposed.

    So, that is really not that much of a stretch.

  • heebs

    No, the problem lies in that time spent being active is not time spent praying. They feel that they need to devote every spare moment to God.

  • Demonhype

    How fun. It’s okay to enact legislation to FORCE women to do what Evangelicals want them to do with their own bodies (BTW, early-term abortion–which comprises the vast majority of abortions–does not involve “living, breathing, pain-feeling human beings” but a clump of cells with no more than potential which resides in an actually living, breathing pain-feeling human being, that is an established fact, learn it and move on) but what amounts to an awareness campaign is somehow Big Gub’mint enforcing diets on all the fact Jesus-freaks.

    Well, these are the kind of people who think “reason is the devil’s whore”, so this kind of ignorance should come as no surprise.

  • Richard P.

    Ah AndrewFinden,
    Thanks for clearing that up.

    So women are only vessels of containment for fetuses. Tell me at exactly what stage do women lose that classification of being a human and transfer into being a container. Or should we just treat them as containers in waiting prior to conception.

    Maybe we should open for discussion as to whether their actually being humans at all, or just interactive incubators.

  • http://thingsfindothinks.com AndrewFinden

    @Richard P – Nice strawman. Shame it has no resemblance to what I wrote or meant.

  • Richard P.

    When you tell us that once they hold a fetus they no longer have a right to decide what happens to them what do you call it?

    Oh I am sorry did I take what you said to it’s logical conclusion and you don’t like it?

  • carlosm7

    Michelle is talking about food, and the evangelicals want to divert it to religion… they can’t even make a good strawman, can they?

  • http://thingsfindothinks.com AndrewFinden

    @Demonhype

    early-term abortion–which comprises the vast majority of abortions–does not involve “living, breathing, pain-feeling human beings” but a clump of cells with no more than potential which resides in an actually living, breathing pain-feeling human being, that is an established fact, learn it and move on)

    A foetus (which is what an embryo is after the 9th week) is not a baby or a person, but it is living, and it is a being of the human species.
    There is no debate about whether abortion is causing the death of an embryo or foetus – the debate is only about whether causing that death is ethically justifiable or not.

  • http://thingsfindothinks.com AndrewFinden

    @Ricahrd P

    Oh I am sorry did I take what you said to it’s logical conclusion

    No, you did not.

    When you tell us that once they hold a fetus they no longer have a right to decide what happens to them what do you call it?

    I didn’t tell you that at all.

    Rights are often tempered with responsibility and the rights of others. I did NOT say that women don’t have right to decide what happens to them – I’m saying that this right ought not to just trump the rights of others. So the issue ISN’T about whether women have rights, but whether the unborn as well. I’m not much defending that view as pointing out the way the water is being muddied by strawmanning the opponent’s position .Ad the anti-abortion side is guilty of obfuscation by using equivocations and loaded terminology – calling foetuses babies and referring to abortion as murder – IMO both sides are guilty of obfuscation that doesn’t allow a real debate about the issue to take place. I hope you can drop the sarcasm and assupmtions long enough to actually see the point I’m making, and maybe even attempt a rational discussion about it.

  • http://www.laughinginpurgatory.com/ Andrew Hall

    Little known fact: Jesus did not feed the multitude with fish and loaves, but with deep fried Mars bars and Kentucky Fried Chicken.

  • annette

    I have a friend who is an Evangelical and whose chiropractor father has been an Evangelical and wildly anti-obesity for years. My friend was telling me, just a couple of months ago how angry he was at Michelle Obama and how stupid her campaign against obesity is. And it’s because he’s anti-Obama.

    I can’t believe I’m reading this exact thing here. He’s not just one cracked nut–he’s one of many!

  • Gibbon

    By all means they appear to be hypocrites, but when you understand Protestant theology those inconsistencies start to become less of a problem.

    They aren’t so much trying to restrict or repress the mother but rather trying to liberate the foetus. As AndrewFinden pointed out it is literally to do with protecting the foetus from the mother. The reason why they don’t care for the mother has everything to do with the Protestant theology and the tenet that every human is inherently sinful and that they alone must achieve salvation, and that if they don’t only they are at fault.

    As far as conservative and Evangelical Protestants are concerned every person is in control of their own life, and that includes foetuses which are viewed as being full humans that should be free to decide their own lives and are solely to blame if they suffer in life. That’s why they give up on the foetus once it is born.

  • CanadianNihilist

    Isn’t gluttony is sin?

  • Rich Wilson

    @Richard P
    for the sake of journalistic integrity, if they meant tea party, they should have said tea party. Lots of other groups were largely for/against. They could have said old white people vs. young black/hispanic. They could have said Republican vs. Democrat. Those would be things actually in the poll. But instead they decided to manufacture a headline by inferring something that wasn’t in the poll.

    I’m honestly surprised people don’t have a problem with the way that story is presented.

  • Kamaka

    There is no debate about whether abortion is causing the death of an embryo or foetus – the debate is only about whether causing that death is ethically justifiable or not.

    Your moralising about “death of an embryo” and “ethical justifiability” is way off base. It’s none of your business in the first place…y’know, like shut up and butt out.

    It’s not the business of any of the god-bullies, either. What part of “personal medical decision” are you people having trouble with? Where do you and your got-bot allies get off insinuating yourselves into the private medical affairs of others?

    More accurately, they have no problem with the government telling women what they can’t do to the unborn bodies in their wombs. It has nothing to do with a desire to tell women what they can do with their own bodies.

    There you are so wrong. The Theocrats and Autocrats have great desire to control what women “do with their bodies”. They are deeply invested in coercing women to create more soldiers, priests and kings.

  • http://annainca.blogspot.com Anna

    It has nothing to do with a desire to tell women what they can do with their own bodies.

    I don’t believe that to be true. Why else would the pro-life movement be rabidly opposed to contraception and comprehensive sex education? By all appearances, it seems that conservative evangelicals desire to control women’s (and men’s) bodies long before there is an embryo or fetus to be concerned about.

  • Jonas

    Gibbon:

    As far as conservative and Evangelical Protestants are concerned every person is in control of their own life, and that includes foetuses which are viewed as being full humans that should be free to decide their own lives and are solely to blame if they suffer in life. That’s why they give up on the foetus once it is born.

    Question to someone who knows:

    Do conservatives/Evangelicals believe people are sinful from birth, or from conception? If they believe foetuses ‘have sinned and fall short of … God’ it would follow in their view they must allow the foetus to be born, and ‘Born Again’

    As to Anna’s comment about pro-lifers being opposed to artificial birth control, :

    one: Politics makes strange bedfellows,
    – Right wing Catholics viewing life as sacred, and being against birth control as a rule.

    two: Artificial Birth Control leads to recreational sex, leads to the chance of abortion. — We can look at this when we ask ‘who’s doing **it**’ Are political groups trying to criminalize contraception for married couples? – Just review the state of the laws in the early 1960′s.

    Eisenstadt v. Baird, 405 U.S. 438 (1972)
    – Contraception for unmarried couples

    Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965)
    – Contracepton for married couples

    These were CT, and MA cases. So how far back is the current extreme Right taking us?

  • ButchKitties

    More accurately, they have no problem with the government telling women what they can’t do to the unborn bodies in their wombs. It has nothing to do with a desire to tell women what they can do with their own bodies.

    The two are not separable. The fetus is attached to the woman. It draws nutrients from her blood. It puts her at risk of a myriad of medical conditions. Telling a woman what she can do with the thing living inside her body IS telling her what she can do with her body.

    Given the general opposition they hold to all of the social programs that help reduce abortion by reducing unwanted pregnancy, I strongly suspect that abortion laws have as much to do with punishing “sluts” as it has to do with protecting fetuses.

  • Paul

    That conservative evangelicals oppose in knee-jerk fashion, against all rationality, M. Obama’s mom & apple pie campaign to exercise and reduce obesity parallels quite nicely their lack of rationality in matters theological.

    The confluence of dogmatic thinking politically and theologically in the U.S. is quite scary if you stop and think about its implications.

    Yikes. I go to sleep trying to think about rainbows, and puppies, and rainbows, and puppies and rainbows . . . .

  • Secular Stu

    @Rich Wilson: I also have a problem with the way this is presented.

  • JD

    Given the comments, it seems to me to be more along the line of Republicans trying to “poison the well”. They can’t afford to give the slightest credit to Obama. It seems like you could take an Obama policy, law, position or quote and put a Republican’s name on it and they’ll lap it up, but if it’s attributed to Obama they’ll reject it. This really puts me in a quandry, I don’t think Obama’s path is really the best, but Republicans aren’t mature enough to run the US either.

  • Sydny

    I felt like the name of the 2nd article was a little misleading- it wasn’t an official stand of Evangelical Christians, but statistics pulled from the survey. I believe there is a possibility of some correlation/causation business going on in this post.

  • Miko

    Evangelicals don’t want the government telling people what they should or shouldn’t eat, but they have no problem with the government telling women what to do with their bodies.

    What amazes me is that most people who realize this doesn’t realize that it cuts the other way too: if you realize that women should have control over their bodies, then logically you should think that people should have control over what they eat as well.

    JD:

    This really puts me in a quandry, I don’t think Obama’s path is really the best, but Republicans aren’t mature enough to run the US either.

    Or, as H.L. Mencken put it, “Under democracy one party always devotes its chief energies to trying to prove that the other party is unfit to rule – and both commonly succeed, and are right.”

    Neither party is any good; “democracy” as conceived of in the U.S. is just a scam to trick people into thinking that real alternatives don’t exist.

  • http://thingsfindothinks.com AndrewFinden

    @Kamaka

    Your moralising about “death of an embryo” and “ethical justifiability” is way off base. It’s none of your business in the first place…y’know, like shut up and butt out.

    A) I wasn’t moralising – if you actually read what I wrote I was simply clarifying what the debate is actually about and didn’t make any judgement about who was right.
    B) You’re begging the question. If the pro-life movement is actually correct (please, please notice the if at the start of this sentence) and the foetus has rights which are being ignored, then it’s as much their business as it is their business to stand up for others whose rights are being ignored. To say that it’s none of their business just begs the question and assumes that there are no rights being ignored. The same goes for your calling it a ‘personal medical decision’ – that too begs the question and assumes there is only one party involved, which is the whole issue under debate.
    C)At NO point have I made any reference to religious arguments – I don’t think religious objections are sustainable in a debate about legislation, however if there are ethical objections, then they should be discussed and not simply dismissed as is want to happen.

    There you are so wrong. The Theocrats and Autocrats have great desire to control what women “do with their bodies”. They are deeply invested in coercing women to create more soldiers, priests and kings.

    Maybe so – I’m not in favour of either of theocracies or autocracies, and it’s disingenuous to tar all who oppose abortion with this.

    @Anna

    Why else would the pro-life movement be rabidly opposed to contraception and comprehensive sex education?

    Maybe that’s one of those American peculiarities that I, not being American, simply don’t understand. I am not opposed to either.

    @Jonas

    If they believe foetuses ‘have sinned and fall short of … God’ it would follow in their view they must allow the foetus to be born, and ‘Born Again’

    I’ve never heard anyone use that logic. (and without wanting to get into any theological debates – because that is not my rationale -as I understand the protestant view of ‘original sin’ it is not that we are born ‘having sinned’ but that we are born sinners – that is, we are not sinner because we sinned, we sin because we are sinners – it’s talking more about an inclination.. but I don’t think it’s really relevant to the issue). The rational of pro-life arguments is that the unborn are human beings and therefore, we shouldn’t kill them.
    I recognise that some add a religious layer to that, but let me be clear that I am NOT arguing that.

    I’m keeping clear of talking about ‘persons’ because that is a somewhat subject social construct, but we can look at biology and see that embryos and foetuses are of the species homo sapiens (human) and so if a being is human, how can we then say they are not a human being?

    @Butchkitties

    The two are not separable. The fetus is attached to the woman. It draws nutrients from her blood.

    A fair point – though the dependence on a mother doesn’t stop with birth, and we expect mothers to take responsibility for their children.. if foetuses are human beings (see above) then why doesn’t that responsibility exist pre-nataly?

    Telling a woman what she can do with the thing living inside her body IS telling her what she can do with her body.

    Perhaps – but only because of perceived rights of the ‘thing living inside her body’ – it’s not about her rights per se, and that is my original point: it is a strawman (a distorted portrayal of the opposing view in order to knock it down more easily).
    And, excluding cases of rape, a woman is willingly engaging in an activity in which there is, even with contraception, a chance of conception. I think we must take responsibility for our actions and their potential consequences when that consequences is an embryonic human life. (please note that this responsibility wouldn’t be an issue if it wasn’t a human life in the midst)

  • http://hoverFrog.wordpress.com hoverfrog

    AndrewFinden

    Rights are often tempered with responsibility and the rights of others. I did NOT say that women don’t have right to decide what happens to them – I’m saying that this right ought not to just trump the rights of others.

    Equally the rights of the fetus do not trump the rights of the woman.

    And, excluding cases of rape, a woman is willingly engaging in an activity in which there is, even with contraception, a chance of conception.

    Why “excluding rape”? How is the cause of the fertilization of the ovum a factor in deciding the rights of the fetus? If a mother brings to term a child produced by rape does that child have different rights to another child? Of course not. If you are granting rights to the fetus then you must treat the fetus as an entity in it’s own right and not as a part of the woman’s body.

    Of course the woman retains her own rights and is under no obligation to maintain the life of the fetus, just as you or I are under no obligation to maintain the life of a stranger. She may choose to terminate the connection between them and have the fetus removed from her body. If you are granting the fetus rights then live saving or preserving medical intervention could then be applied. Rather silly considering that a fetus is unable to survive without the support of the woman. Support that she is under no obligation to provide.

    All you would succeed in doing by granting separate rights to a fetus is to make the doctor’s job much more difficult and encourage a trade of back street abortion. Surely it is better to permit the termination of a pregnancy and provide medical support to ensure that the mother remains safe during and after the procedure.

    You probably think that this is not enough. I would agree. As a society we should want to reduce the number of abortions. They are often traumatic for women, costly and have long reaching repercussions. Education should be provided for men and women on the use of contraceptives to prevent pregnancy and for safe, chemical terminations (morning after pill) so that women don’t resort to abortion as often. I assume we all want the same results but the religious right have a strange way of achieving it.

  • Baconsbud

    I haven’t read all the comments but I do have a question. I saw comments saying that the government is basically telling everyone what to eat. Are they telling people what to eat or are they providing guidelines to what are healthy food chooses?

  • Carlie

    I saw comments saying that the government is basically telling everyone what to eat. Are they telling people what to eat or are they providing guidelines to what are healthy food chooses?

    Those guidelines are then used to determine what people on food stamps can and can’t get with their allotment. So in effect, they aren’t just telling people what to eat, they’re forcing them to eat certain things. In some states they’re even trying to control which stores they shop at for food (see Minnesota), and it’s only recently that farmer’s markets in some states have been allowed to accept food stamp benefits.

  • SWare

    The program Michelle Obama is pursuing, is designed to combat childhood obesity.

    http://blogs.suntimes.com/sweet/2010/02/michelle_obamas_lets_move_camp.html

    I fail to see how this “forces” anyone to eat something they don’t want to eat aside from making school lunches healthier (oh what a crime!). Don’t religions have food requirements of their own thus telling its followers what they can/ cannot eat? It is the time of lent in which meat on a Friday is surely a hell-worthy trespass.

  • TheRealistMom

    @ baconsbud

    The ironic thing is, it’s the conservatives who try and tell people what they can eat, or should eat- particularly the poor ones.

    The farmer’s market example above. Subsidies to dairy farmers to encourage eating more cheese and milk. Having fainting spells if people use their food stamps at Whole Foods. (Now, personally, I think that’s a waste since often Whole Foods isn’t any ‘better’, just costlier, but most conservatives use it as an example of ‘zomg waste!1 Damn hippies!!1!) Anything that is not cheap and processed is ‘too good’ for us folks who need some assistance to feed our kids.

    The ideas that Michelle Obama i s putting forward in the anti-obesity campaign are very mild. Get out and play an hour a day. Look at serving sizes. Make healthier choices for meals and snacks. Nothing over the top, very common sense, aimed in a friendly way at kids. She has commercials on the Disney channel that are very positive about making food choices and such, without loading the kids up with “omg you’ll get fat!!”. But since it comes from the First Lady it MUST be come LIBRUL PLOT to force us to eat certain things. Rush Limbaugh actually had a hissy fit because yaknow, real Americans don’t eat veggies. Or something.

  • ButchKitties

    A fair point – though the dependence on a mother doesn’t stop with birth, and we expect mothers to take responsibility for their children.. if foetuses are human beings (see above) then why doesn’t that responsibility exist pre-nataly?

    Actually, that dependence can stop at birth because after birth, that dependence becomes transferable.

    We shouldn’t equate being human with being a person without taking factors other than DNA into account. We generally don’t consider it murder to remove life support from a permanently brain-dead coma patient, even though that patient is still human, because the lack of brain function means that the personality is gone. A first trimester fetus has yet to develop cerebral cortex activity. It’s human (so are the cheek cells you destroy every time you swallow) but not a person yet.

    More to the point, any rights the fetus might have should not override the rights of the pregnant woman. We have consistently ruled that one person’s right to life does not override another person’s right to bodily autonomy. If your son is dying of heart failure and a matching candidate just died in the ER, you can’t take the heart you need from the cadaver unless his family gives permission. The right of the survivors to say what happens to their loved one’s body parts comes first. I can’t force you to donate part of your liver to me, even if the reason I need a liver transplant is because you poisoned me. Your right to say what happens to your liver comes first. A fetus’s right to life does not equal the right to take over a woman’s body without her permission. The fact that evangelicals object to forced organ donation unless that organ happens to be one that is exclusive to women is telling of their true motives.

  • Jonas

    hoverfrog on Andrew@

    Why “excluding rape”?

    Because apart from Rape, by definition the woman gives consent. Which is what Andrew said. Forms of rape may include but are not limited to: ‘date rape’, ‘rape by stranger’, ‘rape by relative – incest’, ‘statutory rape’ – ‘Legally unable to give consent’

    When a man and a woman have consensual sex, even with contraception there is a chance of pregnancy. The couple should be prepared to deal with that eventuality, if it should arise. – I believe that was the point he was making.

    hoverfrog:

    How is the cause of the fertilization of the ovum a factor in deciding the rights of the fetus?

    I don’t believe he was making this argument. However the ‘method of fertilization’ will affect how the woman views the fetus. – For example: could you raise a child of rape?

    If a mother brings to term a child produced by rape does that child have different rights to another child? Of course not.

    Yet this is Strawman, in that if the baby is born alive and healthy, it has survived to term. The woman is not obligated to raise it. This says nothing about the fetus, when it is dependent on the mother.

    @hoverfrog:

    Of course the woman retains her own rights and is under no obligation to maintain the life of the fetus, just as you or I are under no obligation to maintain the life of a stranger.

    FYI: If someone who knows CPR and Advanced First Aid starts CPR/AFA on a patient, he or she can not stop half way through, and walk away. They must continue until help arrives. However, unless they are medical professionals, they are not obligated to start.

    hoverfrog:

    I assume we all want the same results but the religious right have a strange way of achieving it.

    And that could be a bad assumption. I too feel comprehensive sex education would reduce the need for abortion. But alas – I’m not in politics.

    Further common sense:
    anyone running on a platform of:
    “Women ask to be raped” and “Pregnancy is god’s punishment on women” wouldn’t be electable.

  • ash

    @Jonas,

    Consent to sex is not consent to pregnancy, therefore rape or has no bearing on Andrew’s argument of fetal rights. If he was trying to make the point you claim he may be, it’s a non-argument – even in a happy relationship, there are circumstances that would make a woman decide to have a termination, some women go on to birth and raise kids conceived through rape. Also, having an abortion IS dealing with the possible consequence of sex.

    if the baby is born alive and healthy, it has survived to term. The woman is not obligated to raise it. This says nothing about the fetus, when it is dependent on the mother.

    The suggestion is that a woman is obligated to waive her rights to bodily autonomy for nine months of her life. This is the important part, and the part I have never seen reasonably answered by any anti-abortioner. Just so we’re on the same page, here’s the thought experiment that addresses the problem;
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Violinist_%28thought_experiment%29

  • Ben

    “Evangelicals don’t want the government telling people what they should or shouldn’t eat, but they have no problem with the government telling women what to do with their bodies.”

    It’s not their bodies.

  • Jonas

    ash:

    The suggestion is that a woman is obligated to waive her rights to bodily autonomy for nine months of her life.

    Just to be clear, this is the suggestion of the Pro-Life movement, (as they currently call themselves)

    Yes, ‘consent to sex’ is not ‘consent to pregnancy’ but it could be called: ‘consent to risk of pregnancy.’ Just as while driving sober, you could be hit by a drunk. The state of Mass tries to resolve the driving risk by mandating insurance.

    Having an abortion can be viewed as insurance, in this case. However as you bring up circumstances that lead the woman to decide to terminate – let’s consider one. A Family is looking forward to a new child, but tragically finds out it will have ‘Down’s Syndrome.’ – (one example – Portrayed in Season 1 Episode 3, of St. Elsewhere)

    In this example, should it not be the decision of both parents whether or not to raise a handicapped child? The Family is of means, the woman’s health is not endangered, and were the child ‘normal’ she would have no question but to keep it.

    Is it not selfish of the woman, to decide unilaterally for both parents, and the ‘Child’ – Child’s spirit – if you’re religious? Yes?
    Well this is what was portrayed in that particular St. Elsewhere Episode. The wife went ahead with the abortion, unknown to the father. Sure it’s only a 1 Hr. show, and it had to appeal to a larger audience than today. But – as a whole St. Elsewhere showed a pattern, by never ever having a problem pregnancy resolve in a way other than abortion.
    And that was a bias on the part of the writers, and producers of the show.

  • ash

    Jonas, I think you may be confused.

    should it not be the decision of both parents whether or not to raise a handicapped child?

    To raise? Sure. To not continue the pregnancy? No. Because only 1 person is pregnant, so only that person can make that choice.

    I don’t watch St. Elsewhere, I don’t care about your issues with it. It’s irrelevant. Would you mind not bringing a fictional show into a real life issue affecting real life women?

  • TheRealistMom

    When I was pregnant with my third child, and there was the real possibility he had trisomy 18 (Edwards syndrome), he and I discussed what we would do if the amniocentesis came back positive. We already had one child with a genetic anomaly (trisomy 21, Down syndrome).

    We as a couple decided that we would not continue the pregnancy should the fetus carry the lethal defect.

    HOWEVER, if he’d turned around and tried to insist that I carry a doomed fetus to term, I have a lot of words to describe what he could have gone and done to himself, and none of them polite. It would have been MY body carrying a fetus that had no chance of meaningful survival, and would likely die in utero. It was in no way, shape, or form his choice in the end.

  • Kayla

    Since I am not raising other people’s children, whether or not they choose to have an abortion is irrelevant to me. That’s their business. Don’t understand why people get so emotional about something that has nothing to do with them.

    Perhaps some women would go through with their pregnancies if they knew they would have support to help raise their children post-pregnancy.

  • MB

    I read the article that the friendly atheist points to at the Huffington Post. It doesn’t say why they oppose it and certainly nothing about straying from the faith. People have opinions, and on this issue it probably doesn’t have anything to do with their faith. I think there are some unsubstantiated conclusions being drawn.

  • Dale701

    Is the sperm alive? yes
    Is the egg alive? yes
    Which one has a soul?
    Or do they each have a half a soul?

    I once told my brother, who was a bible thumper, that if the soul ( I see no evidence for) enters at the time of conception, then the best action for Christians to take, would be to get pregnant as often as possible and to then terminate, this would get the most souls to heaven, otherwise the fetuses would have a 99% chance of ending up in hell, for 70 years on earth.
    This would be a no brainer.
    Then after child bearing age, just pray for forgiveness.
    Problem solved.
    He went away and thought about it.
    He then changed his mind and said babies did not get a soul untill they were born.

    I wish I had asked him how he came to this conclusion, but he is dead now.


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X