This Thing That Happens When I Change My Mind

So. I’ve started noticing this weird pattern. Just, weird.

Here’s an example from a comment responding to what I wrote about leaving Christianity and becoming an atheist:

A personal relationship with Jesus is what you were missing in your childhood and young adulthood, and that rejection of Jesus Christ has estranged you from your family and caused you to go 180 degrees the other way. I want you to know that I am praying for you; that you would seek Jesus with your whole heart. He died a horrible death because His love for you is so great!! I know He will never reject you, no matter how long you have refused his salvation and indescribable love.

It seems I never really “got” Christianity.

Here’s another example, this time from a response to what I wrote about leaving creationism and coming to accept the science behind evolution:

Libby doesn’t say whether she attended a Christian or secular college. Sadly, in the USA today there isn’t much difference between the two types of schools concerning Genesis—and even the authority of the Bible—as surveys in Already Compromised showed. Either way, she was challenged, fought for a while, and gave up. It’s difficult to say why, but she does seem to have some misunderstandings about Genesis and the Bible despite her exposure to creation apologetics.

It seems I never really “got” Christianity.

Oh and look at this! This one comes from a response to what I’ve written about leaving anti-abortion politics behind and becoming pro-choice:

Sadly, this blog post is little more than a testament to the fact that Libby never actually properly understood the pro-life ethic in the first place. It serves as a warning that we, the pro-life movement, need to ensure that our members have actually properly reasoned their way to the pro-life commitments they profess, rather than just merely going along with the rest of pro-life crowd, because their parents told them to do so, without ever being adequately formed in the profoundly important and logically sound ethical truths that we proclaim.

It seems I never really “got” the pro-life movement.

Seriously, this is getting old.

Because the thing is, if anyone got it, it was me. Jesus was my best friend and closest confidant, I devoured every creationist book I could get my hands on, and I cried over the deaths of the unborn. No one who knew me then would ever have questioned whether I “got it.” I was “on fire” for God, the sort of teen and young adult conservative evangelicalism holds up as an example of success. Nobody questioned whether I “got it” until I changed my mind.

On Orgies, Bisexuality, James Dobson, and Evangelicals
My Kindergartener Knows What It Means to Be Transgender (and the Sky Hasn't Fallen)
I Have Never Seen a Supernatural Entity Create a Universe
The Real Travesty of the "Hero Mom" Story
About Libby Anne

Libby Anne grew up in a large evangelical homeschool family highly involved in the Christian Right. College turned her world upside down, and she is today an atheist, a feminist, and a progressive. She blogs about leaving religion, her experience with the Christian Patriarchy and Quiverfull movements, the detrimental effects of the "purity culture," the contradictions of conservative politics, and the importance of feminism.

  • Katherine H

    hmmm, I never really “got” any of that stuff either. But I blame growing up in a non-religious, egalitarian household, in a modern, secular society that values science. Huh.

    Or maybe it’s just, y’know, being able to think for myself.

  • chervil

    Lol. “sadly”. Passive aggressive, followed by some holier than thou blather. “I’ll pray for you”. No you won’t, anytime someone writes that, they just lied, it’s just another passive aggressive weapon that translates to “lalalala I’m not listening, don’t wanna hear, and excuse me while I take this opportunity show off my moral superiority by writing ‘I’ll pray for you’ but if I was really moral, religious and godly, I wouldn’t feel compelled to actually write it. And now I’m going to click on another link and forget I ever wrote this in 2 seco—”

    • Lucreza Borgia

      On top of that, how likely is that link going to be to something they typically rant and rave as being evil?

      • Chervil

        Yes, it sounded to me like these were people patrolling around looking for someone to scold. They didn’t sound “sad”, they sound gleeful, gloating and smug.

        Of course, ‘no true Scotsman’, though, that’s a lesson I have to keep relearning. Questioning someone’s background, education and experience if their outcome doesn’t match yours, well, it just simply isn’t do

      • Chervil

        *Done. My son decided to jump on my lap just as I was posting.

  • Rachel

    Sad but true: it’s way easier for them to assume that you never got it in the first place than to reexamine their own beliefs and worry they might be wrong.

  • swimr1

    You’re their biggest threat. Not someone who hasn’t heard the “good news” but someone who’s not only heard it, but lived it and rejected it. The only possible way for a believer who doesn’t want to think that it’s possible to lose your faith to respond is to decide that you didn’t ever truly believe. Been there, done that! How else can they explain god “letting you go?” That’s not supposed to happen! Unless maybe they’re heartless Calvinists who think god absolutely did create some people specifically for eternal damnation…

    • Eamon Knight

      This. Because if you can fall away, then so can they, and that’s a terrifying thought. So quick, let’s cook up a rationalization that insulates us from that possibility!

      • Kodie

        If, as they believe, their salvation depends on it, wouldn’t it at least be rational to fear anything that can take that away from them?

        Vice versa, to steal from Pascal’s Wager, nothing really bad can happen to me if I started to become a Christian or had some curiosity. If any of that made sense to me, I don’t risk a whole lot just to learn what it is. It can’t fry me in hell to read what it’s about and see if it has any plausibility compared to not believing it. That’s what having an open mind is. The other way around, because they believe something and not just believe it’s true, believe there are severe consequences to stop believing it, they are too threatened by the possibility of it happening and rationalize that if someone falls away, they opened themselves up to sin and seduction of atheism* despite knowing the consequences for that, something a true Christian would never do.

        *This is also considering the major theme of atheism seems not to be that it’s housed in reality, but that it’s immoral and what people who leave Christianity must be attracted to.

    • Eli

      Exactly my thought on this too. People who say you must never really have understood seem to be of the mindset that not only is their view correct, but it is obvious and inevitable if you understand it correctly. “Truth” with a capital “T” is not available for questioning because that would be illogical and go against the very definition of “Truth”. At least, that’s my view from the outside, but since Libby finds this reaction weird, maybe that’s not quite correct.

    • John Small Berries

      Bingo. Thus, rather than conceding the possibility that someone might have genuinely believed that and then rejected it for rational reasons, they retreat into the arrogance of claiming to know your mind better than you do.

    • Shane

      Exactly. If true believers (like true Scotsman) can wake up, then anyone can, and the message isn’t all that impressive. That scares the hell out of them deep down.

      I for one am damn glad you did believe, and that you woke up. This blog is one of only 6 I read weekly, and it is always worth it. Keep it up.

    • M

      +1 Internet to you. Well-said.

  • RMM

    Ha! The no true Scotsman. Gotta love it…

  • Chris Campbell


    I would say that eventually you “got” it even more than them!

  • Sarah-Sophia

    I think some people can’t accept change. Especially if the alternative is something that is complicated. Believing that God is the answer to everything is simpler than trying to solve the question on your own (or sometimes, like in politics, solve a problem when people come up with different answers).

    • TheSeravy

      Too true. I was debating with a friend about whether the bible is true and whether the Christian god is benevolent. There were moments when I felt kind of bad because she really looked like her world is about crumble. I give her full credit for being willing to discuss the issues at all though.

      As much as religious doctrine may seem useless to atheists, it’s literally the theists’ way of life and they feel genuine distress when being questioned about something so fundamental to them. Sometimes theists don’t realize how condescending and self-righteous they sound when they criticize people for not “getting it” or a godless childhood or not having read the bible properly or ask where your source of morals are without god or “just didn’t look hard enough”.

  • Rebecca

    Oh, that is my pet peeve, being told by family members and former fellow church members and my peers from the Christian college I went to – that I was never truly a Christian, as obviously if I had ever truly been “safe in the arms of Jesus,” I would never choose to leave. And yet, like you, Libby, if there was ever a genuine, good, Christian girl seeking her Lord and Savior’s will for her life, it was ME. But this doesn’t mesh with the whole once saved, always saved doctrine, and obviously now as a feminist and liberal and agnostic I can not be a Christian, they must say I was never a true Christian, that I just walked the walk. SO patronizing!

    • Rebecca

      And the ironic part is how proud of me my circle of acquaintances were of me when I was growing up – I was told countless times what an intelligent godly young woman I was and yet now that I have left the things behind I once held dear I must have stupid reasons and how dare I question God. And while my mother was suspicious of my eagerness to learn, my thirst for academia, since it could be potentially devastating to my future role as a mere wife and mother, my stepfather spoke proudly of my intellect and oh, the things God would do with this gift in the future. And the last time I saw him he called me an idiot…

      • Libby Anne

        This. So much this.

      • kagekiri

        Yeah. I was known as “Bible answer man” at my church (presumably like Hank Hanegraff’s radio show back in the day), yet when I deconverted, my family openly questioned my knowledge of scripture (along with my love, trustworthiness, sanity, desire to do good, etc). It’s now just infuriating more than anything, but at the time, it hurt quite a bit.

        So, I quoted all the scriptures that caused my doubts, and they assured me I must be misinterpreting them, that there must be an alternative explanation in the original language (or that I was demon-possessed and trying to free myself to live sinfully). Explanations that they (of course) couldn’t provide and that I had never heard of in 20 years in church and 7 full years of BSF International being the Biblical know-it-all, and being the one who had read more apologetics than any of them in my desire to fully ground my faith.

        Anyway, the most honest defense I got was “Well, I’ve never thought of that.” Of course, the conclusion of “…so you must be doing it wrong” ruined it anyway.

  • Rachel Marcy (Bix)

    Goodness, these people have a lot of gall. It’s also basically gaslighting–they’re trying to undermine your reality.

  • Jaimie

    I know how you feel. It’s the same over here. The truth is, that like you, I DID get it. And I believed it for a long time. The problem is that……well……there are many problems. Even with a different upbringing with parents who are balanced, good Christians and good people, I ran into them.

    Like the god who is always faithful, but in real life seems notoriously unreliable. Like the ever-increasing holes I found in theology stemming straight from the Bible, his word. Like Hell and my worship that seemed the very definition of appeasement. Becoming like children and anti-intellectualism. Life experience and growing knowledge about the physical world around us. So many, many more.

    I thought carefully about these things; over a long period of time I weighed and measured them, and ultimately found them wanting.
    I get it. I just don’t want it.

  • somaticstrength

    I’ve gotten that too, and I’ve never understood it, because I feel like it should cause more doubt for themselves.

    I mean, a person who looks God in the face and rejects him — I mean, that’s the stuff of their hell beliefs. You did CHOOSE hell, right? Rejecting God outright like that says free will, says that hell is entirely justified because you, with all you know of God, still rejected him.

    But just a “you must have never been a REAL Christian”…I don’t understand, because that says that someone who fully believes they have a relationship with God, who does all the right things, believes all the right doctrine, who looks just like *them* could still find themselves lost and astray from God with no way to get back. If you were never really a Christian, than that means that if you had died while you *thought* you were won, you’d still be in hell with a God who says, “Sorry, I never knew you.” Doesn’t that mean they have ever chance of the same thing happening to them? If a person can *believe* they have a relationship with Jesus all the way down to their core and still not, then their profession of faith means nothing…and they’d never be able to know if they actually have a relationship with God because just because a person believes they do means nothing. Seems like it’d be scarier to me.

    • Lucreza Borgia

      Meanwhile, most of these same people would be falling over themselves to talk about how godly someone like Jack Schaap is even though he had sex with a minor that he was counseling or that as long as you still believe in god, no sin is too great.

  • Shawn

    You can be a great Christian if you’re illiterate or brain damaged or seven years old, but apparently you can’t reject it unless you’ve tackled a long list of great philosophers (and of course not even then). There’s a huge double standard there and most of us ex-religious types just have to be amazed that the religious never seem to understand that.

    • Rebecca

      I laughed aloud at “unless you’ve tackled a long list of great philosophers” – the philosophy majors at my college are the worst at thinking they have all the answers and who am I to cross them and God? Once on a Facebook discussion on my wall stemming from something I said about the impossibility of God being omni-benevolent and omnipotent, one of that type told me that, since Kerkegaard hadn’t found these to be exclusive, how could I?

      • Eamon Knight

        Whereas Epicurus did. For any opinion, you can probably find a Phamous Philosopher who agrees with it.

        Which is not to denigrate philosophy — but you have to engage the arguments, not just quote authorities (that being a recognized fallacy, after all).

      • Noelle

        But why don’t we denigrate philosophy?

      • Petticoat Philosopher

        Did Philosophy take your lunch money when you were a kid, Noelle?

      • Noelle

        I’ll admit I don’t care for philosophy. I have very little patience for a philosophic discussion. I was trained a scientist. That I can get into. Tests, statistics, math, studies, chemical pathways, etc. find a theory and test the heck out of it. I can respect that. I can understand that. I can participate and own that. Long, meandering, wordy conversations that never end? Not my thing.

  • Truthspew

    I had an inkling that I didn’t believe any of it when I was about eight years old. But I didn’t know what it was, just a strong dose of disbelief. And this while I was in Catholic schools for the first twelve years of my education.

    By age 15 or so I was taking the Confirmation classes. At the final interview with the priest I point blank told him I didn’t believe any of it. That I found a lot of it offensive, loved some of the good parts, but on the whole couldn’t consider myself Catholic let alone Christian.

    They confirmed me anyhow.

    I’ve caught endless flak from my father over it. You can guess he’s a true believer. It’s to the point where we no longer speak. He can have his little asshole god party.

  • Kodie

    What that is is confirmation bias. People don’t seem to understand how their own brains work, and I think that might be more important science than teaching evolution. Well it’s part of evolution, how we got these brains.

    I still find it as difficult to believe I could ever be a Christian, as much as they insist that you just have to listen or look at it the correct way, or with an open mind, or find the same shallow arguments they find convincing. Nothing seems to really matter to them outside of that. They can read things that argue against the existence of god and none of it gets in if they say, well it sounds good on paper, but that’s against what the bible says, or Jesus says, or that I already know god thinks. It’s like doing a math problem where 2+2=4, and they say well yeah I can count too, but the bible sums that up as 5 and that may not seem to be true but it is. You just have to trick your mind to believe it anyway, and none of that “4″ nonsense will ever seem right to you again.

    Unlike most of the people in this thread, I wasn’t raised with a religion/Christianity, but it seems if you ever were very deeply religious and now are not, “4″ keeps nagging at you, and you curiously look into it. If it nags at you instead that “4″ threatens your “5″ you build a barrier instead. This is where the person wrote in that, to paraphrase, the devil is trying to get you away from god, or “5″ by making too much sense. It’s a siren to you, so you either follow it or are poisoned against following it “for your own good.” It seems rather natural that “true Christianity” involves a lot of vigilance against letting “4″ seduce you. If you were seduced, you forgot that, so you must not have been into it for real.

    • Mogg

      That’s a pretty good description of it, Kodie.

  • Christine

    Speaking as someone that (I suspect) a lot of those who make these nasty comments would not consider to be a Christian, perhaps, by their books they’re telling the truth. It may well be that, as far as they’re concerned, you’re not a Christian if you actually think about doctrine, if you actually question, if you actually do what the rest of the world considers necessary to be engaged with something.

  • Jessica

    I’m still a Christian (though probably not by conservative standards) and have come across this issue a lot. I think it is part of the same poisoning the well that you raised with Debi Pearl — make sure no one listens to a source that is now suspect. I don’t think that’s intentional necessarily, but it comes from a need to protect core doctrine and discredit false teachers, whether they are spreading atheism or the wrong version of Christianity. You can’t consider something and reject it because others might do likewise.

    In my case I was frustrated but also frightened when I questioned doctrine because those around me did not even allow for the possibility that I was mistaken; instead I was “deceived.” The implication was always that changing my mind involved active intervention by the devil (which of course I never ever wanted) in which I failed to protect myself adequately against. Questioning was, itself, opening yourself up to Satan and allowing yourself to be “led astray.” There was no such thing as disagreement between thinking persons. The wrong person was who once held right thoughts was actively “led away” by the devil. So of COURSE that person could never have had a “right understanding’ in the first instance, or they wouldn’t have allowed themselves to be led away.

  • Sam

    There is a powerful thing in the evangelical community that serves as almost an “understood” or unexamined Argument from Authority. Evangelicals, when presented with evidence contrary to their beliefs, rarely change them, because of an assumption that one of their Leaders – Strobel or Lewis, perhaps – has the answer they lack.

    I believe one reason this happens is because of the No True Scotsman ideas mentioned in earlier comments. They believe so strongly that there is evidence to support their positions, even though they don’t know what it is, that anyone who is argued out isn’t a “true believer”.

  • Damien

    As a Christian of the Catholic variety, I agree with Ms. Anne’s reaction about being told she didn’t “get” Christianity when she thought she did. Catholics have a more realistic view on these matters: people can, and often do, change their minds about religious and other ideas. Even archbishops can and have changed their minds.

    In my view, the protestant revolution of the 1500’s rejected the fullness of truth and truncated Christianity. This picking and choosing, especially the “Bible alone,” rejects the historical Christianity and forces an incomplete understanding and doctrine, which leads to incoherent conclusions and simplistic beliefs, like “you never were really a Christian.”

    If you’re going to reject Christianity, I recommend you understand the original, historical version and not the truncated, incoherent versions before you reject it. It’s not simple or easy, but it’s worth it.

    • acoustic_alchemy

      If you’re going to reject Christianity, I recommend you understand the original, historical version and not the truncated, incoherent versions before you reject it.

      Erm, isn’t this a “not a real Christian” argument too? You’re basically saying that if only she was Catholic, and not one of ‘em ahistorical Christians, Libby would have totally groked what God wanted and stayed a believer. IIRC, Libby was Catholic for some time, and still became atheist. Was she doing Catholicism wrong too?

    • AnyBeth

      Indeed she was.
      Under the blog’s banner, get the drop-down menu under “Views.” Click on “Atheism”. Read it. Notice the second paragraph.
      Libby Anne did the Catholic thing on her way to Atheism. Consider perhaps she did understand what you call the “original, historical version” before calling herself an atheist. Not that it would have been any less valid had she not, and I think it’s a very presumptuous to suggest otherwise. No less presumptuous than the things she wrote about here.

    • Kodie

      Why is it a good thing if it’s not simple or easy? And is that what you tell yourself – that people who reject it must have been put off by the mountains of homework and not because none of that makes it true?

    • Carlie

      There is an overwhelming amount of information available that shows Catholicism is not the original, historical version of Christianity either.

      • Rosie

        I’m pretty sure Orthodoxy has the best claim to being “the original”, but I’m also pretty sure one could argue that they don’t much resemble the early church (before the Council of Nicaea) either.

    • Malitia

      Original historical version? Early Christianity wasn’t a unified movement at least since St. Paul began preaching to non Jews (and before that it was a subsect of Judaism). Those early congregations got reformed into something unified and fit to be a state religion at the First Council of Nicaea (so anything not fitting, like Gnosticism got eliminated). Then there was the split when Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy separated around the fall of the Roman Empire. Coptic Christianity branched off even earlier if my memory serves right. etc.

      In short: The original version didn’t survive. All we have are branches that managed to evolve from it (many times by getting political power and ruthlessly exterminating opposition).

      • Rosie


    • TicklishMeerkat

      @Damien… it’s simple and easy, until it isn’t. Then it’s really hard and complicated and requires a ton of work to understand. Did Jesus hide his truth from everybody, as he told the apostles he did, or did he bring a religion whose yoke was easy? You can’t have it both ways. You sound awfully arrogant and condescending, like you’re implying that the writer here is just not as smart as you are, just hasn’t researched her opinions as well as you have, and just doesn’t understand as well as you do. But what if she does? Where does that leave you?

      I know the thinking. I used to think that way too. Libby is saying something different from the religion you’ve chosen, and you can’t both be right. Obviously the religion can’t be wrong, so therefore it must be her. She did something wrong, and you just have to figure out what so your religion’s reputation is safe.

  • Annie

    I’ve noticed the same thing when Catholic women (or any non-Catholic women as well) choose to use a method of birth control other than NFP: they are told they just need to learn more about it.

    • luckyducky

      Haha, yes! And if you failed to make it work for you, you just didn’t do it the right way. Yes, in fact I did, which is why I have a child to show for it…, oh, you didn’t mean that “it.”

      I think this has far less to do with a particular stripe of religion but a desire to have our life choices validated as “right” by others choosing it for themselves and seeing opting for other options as a reject of our choices as “right.” You get the same kind, if not the same degree, of sentiment about anything from dietary choices (vegans anyone? and I say this as a veg. who avoids eggs and dairy), to whether or not you should use cloth diapers, stay at home or go back to work, homeschool, etc. Religion and its subdomains are just special cases because we evoke divine authority and occasionally use such authority to berate, beat, and kill each other over whether or not we should eat pork, face a certain way, have red carpet in the place of worship, etc.

    • Christine

      Speaking as someone for whom NFP doesn’t work, I can somewhat understand where that sentiment comes from anyhow (not that I support it). I’ve read lots of pro-birth control access articles which suggest that any form of periodic abstinence is the rhythm method. Charting gives a fairly accurate (for most people) picture of when you ovulate (yes, I know, this is more effective in a society that has science education). The failures of the method are generally due to problems with abstinence, not with not understanding when the woman is fertile.

      • luckyducky

        Failure is failure… and I am not entirely sure how you separate the two. Sure, there are people who are using NFP who play the odds a little more aggressively than is advisable but if you have unprotected sex when you know that you face a high likelihood of conception, you are no longer using NFP as birth control — and that is the problem with the studies that come up with the 99% effectiveness rate. A substantial proportion the women who conceived were excluded from the failure rate because they oh so conveniently were no longer attempting to avoid conception (I am think the change reflects as much the predisposition of those who select NFP as their birth control of choice as it does in the moment or post hoc change of heart — they are much more likely be considering conception month-to-month than those who don’t).

        My animus toward NFP proponents is exactly that though. You are told how good it is for your marriage and spiritual life, how healthy and connected to your body you become, etc. and no one ever tells you that there may be time when it is difficult to read the signs and that you may face the choice between an unknown risk of conception or going weeks or months without touching your spouse (fail to see how that helps anyone’s marriage). And then when you do fail or give up, the message is pretty clear that you didn’t get it — you didn’t try enough of the different methods, you weren’t giving enough in your relationship, you weren’t disciplined enough, if you would just approach it more spiritually it would all fall into line, etc., etc., etc.

        If NFP works for someone, more power to them. Frankly, I don’t care what birth control you use as long as it isn’t hurting you and isn’t hurting anyone else — though I would advise selecting one of the more effective ones. I think NFP great, no-cost way to manage fertility if your fertility is easily managed. But the failure to acknowledge the difficulty that many couples **legitimately** face in implementing NFP reflect not spiritual or moral failure but average life challenges and the varagies of the human body led me down the slippy slope to leaving the Church.

      • Christine

        Well and this is going to come down to basically the argument on civil discourse that’s currently going on. Does one side lying justify the other side doing so. This blog is one of the few places where I have seen honest analysis of NFP. Most other places you either get the “this would require women to use periodic abstinence, i.e. the rhythm method” line, or “NFP is amazing, not only is it the most effective means of birth control, but it makes your marriage so much better” line.

        I think that, in general, we have a hard time as a society talking about birth control other than oral contraceptives. Because those work perfectly for everyone. It’s not like mothers of babies and toddlers have sex, right? And no one ever wants to have babies after using birth control. And no one ever has side effects. IF you have the stubbornness (and/or help from your biology) and understanding to use NFP it’s a great method. IF you have the consistency and biology to use the pill it’s a great method. Let’s get the conversation so that EVERYONE remembers those two “IF”s. (And not try to ascribe virtues to birth control beyond having/not having babies).

      • luckyducky

        Hey, hey! It isn’t only oral contraceptives and NFP. There are several options, not enough but more than 2 types. If anyone is asking, I personally *highly* recommend the IUD. But my feelings won’t be hurt if someone says it isn’t for them.

        That is what feminism at its best is all about isn’t it — more choices not a different “right” one and letting people decide what works best for them.

      • Christine

        “more choices not a different “right” one ”

        This is something we need to see more of in several areas. There is a very real tendency to disagree with someone saying “X is best” by saying, instead “actually Y is best” when what you really mean is “X isn’t really objectively better than Y”. Some of it is subconscious, but that doesn’t excuse any of it.

  • Lana

    They either say you don’t get it, or you were just hurt by your parents. These cop outs wear me out.

  • sezit

    We can have some compassion for them. I was one of them too. It’s human nature – self protection. It’s too threatening to them to think you may be right, because if you thought and believed the same as they do now, and you changed, then all the effort that they have invested might be wasted! Easier to shut down those thoughts. Everyone does it at least sometimes, in all areas of life. For example, ever seen someone whose SF broke up with them and they persisted in attributing reasons that everyone else knows are bullshit? If it’s too hard or painful to process, then it gets turned off. At least for the short term. The good news is that people process this long after you think they are a lost cause, and sometime it takes. I was one of them too.

  • Libertad

    I went on to read the article refuting your “How I left the Pro-Life Movement” post, but had to stop after nearly spraying coffee all over my screen. The man asks, “if the legality of abortion has no bearing on its occurrence … how come the abortion rate is lower in Ireland (where it’s illegal) than [in the UK]?” What he doesn’t know is the pretty big problem the NHS has because so many Irish girls and women cross over just to have safe and free abortions!!