Dear Evangelicals: Is Trump Still “Pro-Life” If He Gets Us All Killed?

Dear Evangelicals: Is Trump Still “Pro-Life” If He Gets Us All Killed? January 4, 2018

statue-of-liberty-2629937_640

When a variety of evangelical arguments failed to morally justify support for Donald Trump in the past presidential election, their argument ultimately boiled down to this:

“But, but, but… he’s pro-life.”

On one hand, I get the argument. The question of “Who will best preserve and uphold life?” is a critical question to me. And while I have never for a second viewed Donald Trump as being anywhere near what I would call “pro-life”, evangelicals seem to be pretty happy– and totally confirmed in their belief that he is exactly that.

Which, of course, leads me to my next question:

Will you still hold to your claim that Donald Trump is pro-life if he gets all of us killed?

Okay, so maybe he won’t get all of us killed, but it’s not an exaggeration to say that he’s well down the road of getting millions of innocent people killed– and if being “pro-life” is actually a value we hold, the “who” part of that equation shouldn’t be all that relevant.

(Unless, of course, you view the sanctity of life one way when it’s the unborn in America, and view it a different way when it’s the post-born in Korea, which actually might be the case.)

I get it– all presidents wage war, or consider waging it. War comes with the position, and isn’t something that changes all that much from one party to the next. I’ve seen both Democrat (Obama) and Republican (GW Bush) presidents be ruthless and bloodthirsty when it comes to firing at whoever the enemy of the day is.

However, even the most bloodthirsty, war-loving presidents, have at least expressed that waging war is a serious, sobering action. And certainly none of them have made light of nuclear war– something that could potentially kill millions in a flash, and ignite violent chaos across the world.

None of them have made light of it until, well… you-know-who.

Screen Shot 2018-01-03 at 4.23.47 PM

On one hand, it’s easy to roll one’s eyes and dismiss yet another tweet that is beyond anything we would have fathomed coming from the presidency– the daily WTF moments have been so many that we can easily be desensitized to the point we overlook things that never before would have been overlooked. And yes, I think we all know that as unstable as Trump seems to be, the idea he’d randomly launch a nuclear war is still something that seems far outside of expected reality.

However, we don’t know that about the leadership of North Korea.

Do we know how restrained they are committed to being?

Do we know how literally taunting them into a nuclear war is being received on their end?

Oh, and I’m not even going to bother asking if Trump understands how shame and honor cultures work, and how publicly dishonoring and mocking their leader is probably more than what will be laughed off as a silly tweet.

If war broke out on the Korean peninsula the death toll would be astronomical– especially if a nuclear warhead were detonated in that conflict. Even without nuclear bombs, war would trigger global conflict and a humanitarian crisis that would potentially be far beyond anything we’ve witnessed since World War II. This is precisely why the situation in Korea has been attempted to be handled delicately by every president of every party for the last generation– everyone on all sides seems to know that war in Korea would be the worst possible outcome, for everyone.

So, back to my original question: Is Trump still pro-life if he gets millions of people killed and triggers a global humanitarian crisis? And what if he did that, not through a rigorous process of foreign policy, diplomacy, and reluctant entrance into war at the end, but simply because he had unsupervised access to his iPhone one night before his bedtime?

Would all that *really* be worth a seat on the Supreme Court?

And I guess pondering all that leaves me with another question for all of my fellow Christians out there on the internet:

If Jesus said, “Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called children of God”, what do we call someone who is intentionally taunting and goading another world leader into what would potentially be the deadliest war in history?


unafraid 300Dr. Benjamin L. Corey is a public theologian and cultural anthropologist who is a two-time graduate of Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary with graduate degrees in the fields of Theology and International Culture, and holds a doctorate in Intercultural Studies from Fuller Theological Seminary. He is also the author of the new book, Unafraid: Moving Beyond Fear-Based Faith, which is available wherever good books are sold. www.Unafraid-book.com. 

Be sure to check out his new blog, right here, and follow on Facebook:


Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!


TRENDING AT PATHEOS Progressive Christian
What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • Matthew

    Good points. I struggle greatly with the pro-life argument, and while I get what you’re so wisely pointing out, I still find myself unable to vote for any of the major parties. None of them are pro-life I don’t think.

  • otrotierra

    Thank you Dr. Corey. Thank you for bringing this message to U.S. White Evangelicals still following Trump’s rage-filled gospel.

  • CroneEver

    I’ve watched evangelicals and conservatives of all brands claim to be pro-life and then vote to take away poor children’s lunches, health care, food, education, and basically anything that gives them something like a good life. I’ve watched them refuse to support and/or take away anything – especially health care and decent wages and maternity leave – that helps pregnant and nursing and single mothers. I’ve watched them ignore the fact that American wars have killed God only knows how many thousands of children and caused miscarriages overseas. I’ve watched them yell at busloads of frightened immigrant children and call them terrorists. I’ve heard them say that “your dead children don’t trump my Constitutional rights.” They’re not pro-life, they don’t have a clue what pro-life is. They are only pro-birth, and then only if it’s an election year. So yeah, to them, Donald Trump is pro-life.

  • ashpenaz

    Let’s assume that there are some pregnant women in North Korea–wouldn’t killing them with a nuclear bomb be the same as mass abortion? Wouldn’t that make anyone who supports a nuclear option “pro-choice”?

  • Newton Finn

    There’s the divisive political posture of pro-life, and then there’s the real thing that can us together: reverence for life.

    https://newtonfinn.com/

  • John T

    I do not believe Trump has ever been prolife. He just spouted off some talking points to con the conservative religionists. Those people fell for it, and Trump closed the deal. Ron Sider’s book, “Consistently Prolife” (I think that is the title) is still extremely relevant, but only for those who place biblical spirituality and devotion to Jesus over the allure of conservatism.

  • John T

    Anyone who supports a nuclear war is supporting mass murder.

  • ashpenaz

    From the standpoint of evangelicals like Graham, Huckabee, Dobson, et. al., supporting mass murder is not a sin–being pro-choice is a sin. So reframing a nuclear attack as pro-choice might help get the attention of evangelicals.

  • Judgeforyourself37

    LMAO

  • Judgeforyourself37

    The GOP is pro birth and pro fetus. Once that fetus becomes a child, he/she and his/her mother are on their own. Being Pro Life is a hell of a lot more than just being Pro Fetus/Pro Birth. It is caring for all of humanity. It is providing Medicaid, Section 8 Housing, SNAP, CHIP, and other needed care for the poor. If you want women to continue their pregnancies, then be ready to help to support the poor women who do continue their pregnancies and deliver their babies. Be ready to support Prenatal care for poor women.
    The Democrats are more sensible, and realize that the GOP just wants to cut, cut, cut, when it comes to help for the poor, and thus they support a Woman’s Right to Choose, to terminate a pregnancy. Oh, you will say “Use Contraception,” well, yes, if they can afford it as the GOP wants to eliminate the ACA that allowed women to obtain FREE contraception. Plus, even with FREE contraception, sometimes there are contraceptive failures.
    Abortion is STILL LEGAL, although for poor women often have difficulty in accessing their right to abortion.
    One other point, Matt, you, judging from your name, are a male. When men can become pregnant, then, and only then can you tell women that they cannot terminate pregnancies.

  • Judgeforyourself37

    Trump has never been Pro Life, because he is too busy being Pro TRUMP, he thinks only of himself.

  • Al Cruise

    “They’re not pro-life, they don’t have a clue what pro-life is. ” Well said. Plus their support for the death penalty. Many are OK with it even if it’s proven that some innocent people have been wrongly executed.

  • CroneEver

    I forgot to add on that they’re almost always 100% in favor of the death penalty. Thanks for bringing that up.

  • FrankScotsman .

    I swear, before the end of this insane administration, I expect to get my first ulcer…that is if we survive this administration. I just can’t handle the daily stress of Trump as POTUS.

  • FrankScotsman .

    Very nice summation.

  • Think Light Blue

    Also a large percentage are pro-gun. Don’t know how you can be “pro-life” and pro deadly weapons at the same time.

  • Bones

    Aaaaaahh you’ll get the same reaction when you point out the Canaanite genocide in the Bible where every non-virgin woman was slain……ie pregnant women….shit happens.

  • Val–Standing

    Basically, all the blame for this situation of having a mentally disturbed man such as Trump being able to kill millions with a simple order is being placed on those of us who oppose unrestricted abortion.
    I would like to give another perspective here.

    I think that everyone–liberals AND conservatives–who associate abortion-opposition with the “far right” should take a look at this book review for “Defenders of the Unborn” by historian Daniel Williams.
    It details the progressive roots of the modern day pro-life movement.

    http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/02/daniel-williams-defenders-unborn/435369/

    Conservative icons, like the late Ronald Reagan, and the late Berry Goldwater were early advocates of abortion-legalization, while liberal icons, such as Edward Kennedy and Jesse Jackson, fought to protect unborn lives from a progressive prospective.

    I STILL see granting legal protection to the weakest and most voiceless humans among us as what being progressive SHOULD be all about.

    The DNC is activily hostile to Democratic candidates who oppose ANY legal measures to limit even late-term abortions.

    Owing to my conscience, I could not vote for Trump or Clinton in the last election.

    Most Democrats have betrayed progressive principals for big donations from abortion-advocacy groups, and they have written off CONSISTENT progressives like me.

    I feel certain that Trump, who almost certainly is just catoring to pro-life voters when he ‘claims’ to be against abortion, is partially in office owing to the Democrat’s extemist abortion views.

    A study of Google searches on election day shows that abortion was an important ‘last minute’ issue for voters or POTENTIAL voters on election day.

    http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/abortion-immigration-toection-day-google-searches/article/2606813

    Assuming we all survive this Trump Presidency, I think the Democrats need to do some serious re-thinking on this issue.

  • Matthew

    Thanks for the thoughts. I’ve heard some of them before.

    Edited

  • Matthew

    I do have to qualify my up-vote though … I’m not ready to call Trump mentally disturbed, though I am also not a Trump supporter. Thanks. Nice post otherwise.

    Edited

  • Bones

    According to the latest book, he may well be. (Or suffering from dementia)

  • Bones

    It’s doubtful that abortion was a ‘last minute issue’. Obama had the same policies as Clinton.

    You are aware of what the alternative is right???……..Back to back alley abortion clinics and coat hangers for the poor, while rich women hop on a plane.

    Btw you might want to look at the reasons why women abort…..

  • Nelson C Clark

    you must know he will win by a landslide again in 2020 , you only have seven more years to get those ulcers . Maybe you won’t survive , however the United States will be much better . No worries about N Korea as China will annex that small broke country and it’s demented dictator will just be a small paragraph in history .

  • Bones

    Depends who his opposition is. Trump’s approval ratings are the lowest of any US president and that’s after his first year.

    You don’t know much. China likes having North Korea there as it acts as a buffer against the US military based in South Korea.

  • Val–Standing

    Well thanks for your commentary as well.

  • Val–Standing

    “It’s doubtful that abortion was a ‘last minute issue'”.

    My assertion about abortion POSSIBLY being a “last minute issue” was backed up with some evidence.

    “Obama had the same policies as Clinton.”

    Obama did not openly support the repeal of the Hyde Amendment, Clinton did.

    “You are aware of what the alternative is right???”……..Back to back alley abortion clinics and coat hangers for the poor, while rich women hop on a plane.”

    As incredible as it sounds, you have been lied to about illegal abortions and maternal deaths.

    Bernard Nathanson, co-founder of NARAL, admitted that he and his associates knew that the claims of 5,000 to 10,000 criminal abortion deaths were false.

    By far, the largest factor in reducing such deaths over the decades has been improvements in medical care–especially the invention of antibiotics.

    http://realchoice.blogspot.se/p/wouldnt-more-women-die-if-roe-fell.html?m=1

    Sorry, but I think it is you, along with many others who accept abortion-on-demand for that reason, that need to do some research.

  • cken

    The authors first mistake is thinking evangelicals are pro-life. They aren’t. They are pro-birth. They could care less what happens to the fetus after it is born.

  • Bones

    Meh posts from pro-life sources as evidence.

    The Twisted Ethics of Dr. Bernard Nathanson

    http://www.barf.org/articles/0010/

    And the washington Examiner is on an anti-abortion Crusade eg

    What happened to Hillary Clinton’s campaign was a public rejection of abortion

    http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/what-happened-to-hillary-clintons-campaign-was-a-public-rejection-of-abortion/article/2634329

    Some more fun facts

    Most people in the US are for abortion – surveys show 57% of US citizens say abortion should be legal in all/most circumstances while 40% say it should be illegal in all or most cases.

    http://www.pewforum.org/fact-sheet/public-opinion-on-abortion/

    Abortion when it was illegal

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=exJGGbfEdLc

    Romney was anti-abortion v pro-abortion Obama.

    Obama on abortion

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TCifpbfQlOM

    Romney lost….

    You would have to be stupid to think that Obama voters voted for Trump because of abortion ot that abortion was a ‘ last minute issue’…..

    Seems you need to do more research than just accept what anti-abortion sites say.

    Because you’ve fallen for their lies.

  • Matthew

    I know there has been speculation, that is for sure.

  • Matthew

    There might be some truth to this. I know two people specifically who voted for Obama, but who are also anti-abortion.

    The other truth is, though, there really is no room in the democratic party for those who are anti-abortion. I have to do some research of course, but of the top of my head I don´t think there are any current democratic senators or representatives who are anti-abortion.

  • Bones

    Truth to what?

    Obama is pro-abortion……

    Surveys show most Americans are pro-choice……

  • Matthew

    People are strange, when you´re a stranger …

  • CroneEver

    Yes, I’ve often puzzled about that. Yes, I can understand self-defense, and if anyone tried to harm my grandchildren, I would go to extremes to protect them. But how anyone can defend killing someone who’s trying to steal their TV set, I’ll never understand.

  • In 2006 there was Senator Casey from Pennsylvania. I don’t know if he is still in office or not.

  • The late Mr. Pastor at my old church (who fancied himself an apostle and prophet [like in the Bible] and a “bishop to the nations”) used to say that if he were in the government, he would be threatening to nuke countries like Iran, or advising Presidents to do so, and said he thought people were too afraid to do so. He would ask, “Wouldn’t it be great for the apostles and prophets to be in charge?”

  • Some Fundamentalists even use those passages to justify genocide today. (The worship leader at my old church thought that the Palestinians should be subjected to genocide; and Mr. Pastor appealed to those verses in justifying genocide. He also justified it because he saw a report of Palestinian kids making violently antisemitic comments, and said that because they were taught to hate at such a young age, they will inevitably hate unless Jesus. Of course, that is based on a faulty but popular assumption that because someone’s parents believed X, therefore they must believe it as well. The whole ex-Evangelical movement is evidence against that assumption.)

  • Val–Standing

    I get it–you don’t think much of the late Dr. Bernard Nathanson’s character.
    Even if you are correct on that matter, and even if you dislike this article/site that I referenced, the purple and white graft with the heading–
    “Abortion Deaths Since 1940” (here is the link again)
    http://realchoice.blogspot.se/p/wouldnt-more-women-die-if-roe-fell.html?m=1
    is pretty solid evidence that maternal mortality started to rapidly drop–year-by-year–at around the same time that antibiotics were coming into widespread use.

    MM’s owing to abortions have continued to drop since then, owing to medical advances, and the Roe v Wade ruling barely made a trickle.

    From that, I would conclude legal abortion-on-demand to ‘save women’s lives’ is bogus reasoning, unsupported by actual evidence.

    “Most people in the US are for abortion – surveys show 57% of US citizens say abortion should be legal in all/most circumstances while 40% say it should be illegal in all or most cases.”

    I think that the “most circumstances” part of the poll should be better defined, as should the points in pregnancy where they believe that these abortions should be legal.

    In this Marist poll, it was found that more than six in 10 Americans (61 percent) oppose the use of tax dollars to fund abortions in the United States.

    It also showed that nearly three-quarters (74 percent) want abortion restricted to, at most, the first trimester.

    http://www.kofc.org/en/news/polls/opose-taxpayer-funding.html

    The ‘Roe’ decision originally made abortion-on-demand legal through 28-weeks, now 20-24.

    You DO know that the US has a very extreme legal abortion position, one of the most extreme in the world today, I might add??

    Finally you stated that
    “Romney lost….
    You would have to be stupid to think that Obama voters voted for Trump because of abortion ot that abortion was a ‘ last minute issue’…..”

    As stated, Obama seemed to consider the Hyde Amendment as ‘settled law’, Clinton did not.

    Also, Obama did not make inferences in a debate–just a couple of weeks before the election–that gave the appearance of opposing ANY law that would restrict abortion at ANY stage for ANY reason.

    Clinton did.

  • Matthew

    Thanks.

  • $144948586

    “Back to back alley abortion clinics and coat hangers for the poor, while rich women hop on a plane….”
    So we realize these methods are grotesque when the only difference is convenience…I didn’t know this was the standard for morality.

  • SamHamilton

    Who is Mr. Corey quoting when he says that Evangelicals say that President Trump is “pro-life?” I’ve never heard anyone say Trump is personally pro-life. I heard some Evangelicals argue in favor of Trump over Ms. Clinton saying he would do more for the pro-life cause than Clinton would or that he’d appoint pro-life judges. But I haven’t heard anyone actually say that Mr. Trump, himself, is pro-life. I find that Mr. Corey does this frequently. He creates a quote, attributes it to “evangelicals,” and then attempts to rebut it. There are various flaws in this method of argumentation. The first being that not all evangelicals think the same thing. The second is that the position or quote he attributes to evangelicals is often not even what particular evangelicals are saying.

  • While Trump may not be “presidential,” he is effective. North Korea has been pounding its chest for decades in a deliberate attempt to gain traction in its pursuit of nuclear weapons. The passive approach was what NK has always counted on. Now, finally, a president uses savage language back and North Korea backs off. Notice that right after Trump’s “I’ve got a bigger button” Tweet, Kim Jong Un stated he wasn’t trying to start a war and resumed talks with South Korea. The only language animals like Jong Un understand is force. That’s the world we live in. One would have thought leftists like Mr. Corey would get that after watching appeasement fail over and over again. Some people never learn.

  • theprozacqueen

    No because the lives of people Over Here who Look Like Us are the ones that matter…the others don’t count.
    (/sarcasm, but apparently true to some)

  • Val–Standing

    I actually did vote for Obama (twice), even though I vehemently opposed his strong pro-abortion stand, but Clinton’s extreme position was just too much for my conscience to bare.

  • theprozacqueen

    I think a lot of people who consider themselves anti-abortion would still call themselves pro-choice because while we might not like the idea of an abortion (I certainly don’t), we don’t presume to know what is going on in other people’s lives that would make them seek an abortion. I think a lot of “pro-birth” (because that’s all they really are) evangelicals/fundamentalists miss this-that not everyone believes the same way they do and politicians work for *everyone*, not just them. I wasn’t raised a Christian so this attitude might be too “worldly” for some people, but there’s a lot to be said for consistency and I think that what a lot of people call “pro-life” falls short because they’re not as concerned with what happens with a person once they’re born. We’ve covered this before, but the idea of Everyone Counts, Not Just Us seems to be too abstract for some people to grasp.

  • otrotierra

    #ThingsJesusNeverSaid

  • Bones

    Well it’s convenient for you…..

    It’s no surprise that so called libertarians want government to legislate against people’s rights.

  • otrotierra

    And yet again your self-professed ignorant “I’ve never heard..” excuse fails to logically counter anything Dr. Corey wrote. Someday you’ll learn that your pattern of self-admitted ignorance will never equal nor counter the informed, convincing arguments of others.

  • Bones

    Still using pro-life sources huh….

    Simple fact is if abortion is illegal then women (poor ones) will just go to illegal doctors like they did before Roe v Wade.

    The US doesn’t have an extreme position on abortion. The Netherlands has unrestricted abortion.

    And the US has less abortions than many countries….

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/jan/05/abortion-laws-around-the-world-from-bans-to-easy-access

    And yes Obama was pro-abortion.

    Obama in 2012 capmaign

    https://www.c-span.org/video/?c4568903/obama-abortion

    In fact Obama attacked Romney’s total abortion ban in the campaign.

    No, Hilary didn’t lose because she was ‘ pro-abortion’…

    That’s a dumb argument put forward by the anti-choice mob.

    And yes, most Americans support abortion access…..and that group is growing….

    http://www.pewforum.org/fact-sheet/public-opinion-on-abortion/

    You need to read more, apart from anti-choice propaganda.

  • Bones

    Clinton’s stance was no different to Obama’s. You’ve fallen for right wing lies.

  • Bones

    This was after the US Ambassador said talks with North Korea were a waste of time……

    Nikki Haley (3 days ago)
    “So North Korea can talk with anyone they want but the US is not going to recognise it or acknowledge it until they agree to ban the nuclear weapons that they have.””

    The talks have more more to do with North Korean athletes going to the Winter Olympics in PyeongChang.

    “We look forward to candidly discussing interests from both sides face-to-face with North Korea along with the North’s participation in the Pyeongchang Winter Olympics,” Unification Minister Cho Myong-gyon told reporters.

    As usual you got it wrong Sanctimonious Mouse…..

    And Trump’s Jerusalem announcement has worked a treat among Palestinians…..

  • Bones

    Btw using your ‘logic’. Obama won because he was pro-choice.

    Romney was anti-choice and got shredded by Obama for it.

  • SamHamilton

    Do you know who he’s quoting? Surely, in order to say that “Evangelicals say X” there’s got to be a good number of Evangelicals saying X. That’s basic logic. I mean, if I said “black people say X” or “Coloradans say X” it would be helpful to my argument to demonstrate that black people or Coloradans were actually saying X. I’ll await your response to my question…

  • raven nevermore

    Corey is upset about us taunting North Korean wingnut, Rocket Man. That’s real insightful! Wow, hold me back. Meanwhile the wingnut North Korean country has been taunting us for decades. Corey has shown, I think, what the pacifist mind is like – no courage, but often misuse Scripture. To be a peacemaker means to be making peace, namely between two people, not nations. Rocket Man is not looking for peace, but Pres T is, through strength and courage. Pres T has courage, with Major Mathis there will also be strength. Corey, even with your military background you may speak with experience, but not with wisdom or insight, not this time.

  • Val–Standing

    “Still using pro-life sources huh….”

    If you are talking about the Marist poll, yes, that was a bit pro-life biased.

    Your polls (Pew Research Center), seemed to have a pro-abortion bias to me.

    As for the ‘Real Choice’ article, you can basically call all of it anti-abortion propaganda–if that pleases you–EXCEPT for the “Abortion Deaths Since 1940” graph it referenced.

    IF you have a graph showing that maternal deaths from legal/illegal abortions actually WERE significantly effected by the RvW decision, you are free to link them.

    I think you–and lots of others–have been “had” by decades of erroneous claims about abortion and mother’s dying.

    I can think of three explanations for the fact that RvW did not significantly lower the numbers of women dying from abortions, and it is likely a COMBINATION of all three.

    1) Fewer woman have abortions when they are illegal.

    2) Illegal abortions were not as dangerous as the legal abortion advocates have claimed.

    3) Legal abortions, by and large, are not as “safe” as portrayed.

    “Simple fact is if abortion is illegal then women (poor ones) will just go to illegal doctors like they did before Roe v Wade.”

    Just discussed that issue, above.

    “The US doesn’t have an extreme position on abortion. The Netherlands has unrestricted abortion.”

    Actually, most countries that allow abortion-on-demand do so though the first 12-weeks–NOT through the first 24-weeks, as the US does.

    The US is one of only seven countries in the world to allow purely elective abortions after 20-weeks of pregnancy.

    The Netherlands are one of those seven, and their laws are no more extreme than ours are.

    https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.washingtonpost.com/amphtml/news/fact-checker/wp/2017/10/09/is-the-united-states-one-of-seven-countries-that-allow-elective-abortions-after-20-weeks-of-pregnancy/

    Here is an excerpt, which also sites a similar report from a pro-abortion source.–

    ‘This list of countries correlates with another similar report, also from 2014, published by a group that supports reproductive rights. (The gestational limit breakdown has remained consistent since the 2014 report with the exception of Mozambique, according to the group.)

    North Korea and Vietnam: No specified gestational limit, though regulatory mechanisms vary.

    China: “Abortion is virtually freely available in China, and there are no defined time limits for access to the procedure,” according to Pew Research Center. China now has a “two-child” policy, and human-rights advocates have criticized China’s population and family planning laws.

    United States: No federal ban on gestational limit, but 43 states have prohibitions on gestational limits, from 20 to 24 weeks, or the point of “viability,” according to the Guttmacher Institute, a reproductive rights research group. There are some exceptions made, usually for the life or health of the mother.

    Canada: No federal gestational limit, but provinces and territories vary as to whether they will offer abortion services after a certain gestational age. Some offer abortion services up to 12 weeks, others up to 24 weeks. (This is similar to how states operate in the U.S.) Abortions after 20 weeks are not always readily available for Canadians, so women are often referred to a clinic in the United States, according to an abortion rights group in Canada. These procedures may be paid in full or in part by provincial governments.

    Netherlands: Abortions are allowed up to 24 weeks. After that period, abortions are allowed only if the unborn fetus has an untreatable disease and would have little to no chance of survival after birth, or for the physical or mental health of the pregnant woman.

    Singapore: Abortions are allowed up to 24 weeks. After that, abortions are only allowed to save the life of, or for the physical or mental health of, the pregnant woman.”

    “And yes Obama was pro-abortion.”

    I never claimed he wasn’t.

    I said, in my last post, that he accepted the Hyde restrictions of publicly financed abortions as accepted law–where as Clinton vowed to repeal them.

    I also added that Clinton’s refusal to specifically support ANY law that restricted abortion in ANY way during the last debate (within two weeks of the election) did not go over well.

    AND, Obama may well have lost some progressive pro-life voters as well, just not enough to lose the general election.

    “You need to read more, apart from anti-choice propaganda”

    How about YOU not relying so much on anti-life propaganda sites?

  • Bones

    Pres T is a nutcase and a moron.

    And his name is mud in Palestine.

  • Val–Standing

    “Clinton’s stance was no different to Obama’s. You’ve fallen for right wing lies.”

    http://www.patheos.com/blogs/formerlyfundie/dear-evangelicals-trump-still-pro-life-gets-us-killed/#comment-3694274425

  • Val–Standing

    “Btw using your ‘logic’. Obama won because he was pro-choice.

    Romney was anti-choice and got shredded by Obama for it.”

    http://www.patheos.com/blogs/formerlyfundie/dear-evangelicals-trump-still-pro-life-gets-us-killed/#comment-3694274425

  • Snooterpoot

    I would like to add that men have an equal responsibility for prevention of unplanned pregnancies.

  • Bones

    What you actually want to do is make women (poor ones) have unsafe abortions because banning abortions will not stop them.

    Pew Research isn’t pro-abortion just because you don’t like it.

    It’s survey was from a sample size of 35 000

    This is a peer reviewed study on abortion before Roe v Wade

    The Public Health Impact of Legal Abortion: 30 Years Later

    “Roe v. Wade transformed abortion from an unsafe, clandestine procedure to one performed under safe, medical conditions. The 1970s thus saw a reduction in abortion-related complications and deaths as safer options became available to American women choosing to terminate an unplanned pregnancy. Since Roe v. Wade, a full generation of Americans have come to expect abortion services to be available alongside other health services.

    However, the topic of abortion remains one of the most controversial areas of public policy. The intense public debate has allowed us to know more about legally induced abortion than about any other procedure. Although the available medical evidence does not directly address society’s moral issues, it allows an objective insight to the health effects of wider access to legal abortion. Despite polarized opposition to the choice of legal abortion, the public health data have helped guide judicial rulings, legislative actions and surgeon general’s reports, which have together allowed safer choices for American women of reproductive age.”

    https://www.guttmacher.org/journals/psrh/2004/01/public-health-impact-legal-abortion-30-years-later

    As for what happens when abortion is banned you need only look at Latin AMerican countries. Abortion laws haven’t reduced abortion s at all.

    1. El Salvador
    El Salvador is one of the worst countries for abortion-seeking women worldwide. In the Central American country, the procedure is banned in all cases. Without legal option, the Ministry of Health estimates that 19,290 risky clandestine abortions took place in El Salvador between 2005 and 2008. If word gets out that a woman terminated her pregnancy – whether through speculation, gossip or if the woman seeks medical help for procedural complications – she risks jail time. The “crime” of an abortion, or even a falsely assumed abortion, is punishable there by up to eight years in prison. However, there have been cases where women received much higher sentences. The Alliance for Women’s Health and Life found that 147 Salvadoran women were charged with abortion-related crimes between 2000 and 2014, some given sentences as long as 40 years.

    2. Honduras
    In Honduras, abortion is also criminalized in all circumstances. Those who undergo a clandestine procedure face up to six years behind bars. Still, thousands take the chance – many of them girls and teens. According to Ipas, a nonprofit organization working to eliminate deaths and injuries from unsafe abortions, 22 percent of hospital discharges that stem from abortion complications involved girls between the ages of 10 and 19 years old – many of them victims of rape. This year, there was a major push by Honduran feminist groups to loosen the country’s strict abortion laws. However, in May, a commission of lawmakers declined to even recommend that Congress make any change to its total ban.

    3. Dominican Republic
    Like El Salvador and Honduras, the Dominican Republic also has a total ban on abortions. Dominican women who are found guilty of having had the procedure face up to three years in prison, while the medical personnel who help provide the service can get up to 10 years behind bars. Despite the health and jail risk, several Dominican women still obtain clandestine abortions. In a study titled “Abortion Situation in the Dominican Republic,” Profamilia, a nonprofit reproductive rights organization, asked 2,436 students at different colleges in the country about abortions. Of them, 295 said they had undergone the unlawful procedure. Moreover, 67.1 percent said they knew a woman who administered a self-induced abortion on herself. While most people in the Caribbean country don’t believe women should have the right to choose an abortion, a CID Gallup Latin America from 2015 showed that 77 percent of Dominicans do favor abortions to save a mother’s life.

    4. Nicaragua
    Nicaragua also prohibits abortions in all cases. Like other countries on this list, its complete ban has not stopped women and girls from obtaining the procedure. Instead, it has made it unsafe. According to estimates from IPAS, at least 100 Nicaraguan women died over the past five years because they weren’t given legal, safe abortions. Those suspected of having an abortion face up to two years in prison, while those who helped administer one risk six years. Unlike in El Salvador, however, the state doesn’t usually forcefully go after people who had the procedure. Many times, the biggest punishment comes from within one’s community. Oftentimes, relatives and medical personnel denounce women and girls they suspect had abortions. According to police reports from 2003 to 2013, 290 people during this time were either denounced or detained for seeking an abortion.

    https://fierce.wearemitu.com/things-that-matter/chile-just-approved-abortion-in-some-cases-but-these-latin-american-countries-still-have-strict-laws/

    and Paraguay which even banned a 10 year old raped by her stepfather from having an abortion

    [Abortion in Paraguay: some disconcerting data].

    A study conducted in 1979 on 3800 Paraguayan women in fertile age revealed that 30.7% had abortions, that the frequency of abortion was 14.5/100 pregnancies, and that the highest incidence was to be found among unmarried women or among those living in consensual unions. 35% of women seeking abortion had more than elementary school education, as compared to 26% of illiterate women, 36.4% lived in urban areas, 45% lived in consensual union, as opposed to 27% who were married, 40% had parity between 4 and 7, and about 40% were aged between 30-44.

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12311399

    Or we could just see what is happening around the world and the correlation between abortion laws and unsafe abortions…..

    Unsafe Abortion: Unnecessary Maternal Mortality
    “Worldwide, some 5 million women are hospitalized each year for treatment of abortion-related complications such as hemorrhage and sepsis, and abortion-related deaths leave 220,000 children motherless.4,5 The main causes of death from unsafe abortion are hemorrhage, infection, sepsis, genital trauma, and necrotic bowel.1 Data on nonfatal long-term health complications are poor, but those documented include poor wound healing, infertility, consequences of internal organ injury (urinary and stool incontinence from vesicovaginal or rectovaginal fistulas), and bowel resections. Other unmeasurable consequences of unsafe abortion include loss of productivity and psychologic damage.

    The burden of unsafe abortion lies not only with the women and families, but also with the public health system. Every woman admitted for emergency postabortion care may require blood products, antibiotics, oxytocics, anesthesia, operating rooms, and surgical specialists. The financial and logistic impact of emergency care can overwhelm a health system and can prevent attention to be administered to other patients.”

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2709326/

    In fact those countries (like Tunisia and South Africa) which have liberal abortion laws have lower abortion rates than those countries where abortion is legal.

    Tunisia

    ” In 1965, Tunisia became the first Muslim country to legalize abortion, as part of an effort to end unsafe abortion and improve women’s health. However, the right to have an abortion was limited to women who already had at least five children. In 1973, the law was further modified to allow abortion for all women, regardless of their marital status or number of children.
    Since that time, cases of unsafe abortion have almost disappeared and the maternal death rate has fallen, because abortions are regulated and generally performed under high medical standards. In addition, the abortion rate has declined from 11 abortions per 1,000 women of reproductive age in 1990 to approximately 7 abortions per 1,000 women in 2003.
    Tunisia was also the first country in the MENA region to authorize the use of medical abortion as an alternative to surgical methods in 2001, after conducting a series of clinical studies that demonstrated its effectiveness, safety, and acceptability. Through ongoing research, collaboration, and innovation,
    ONFP continues to focus on improving family planning services while simultaneously ensuring that abortion services are safe and accessible to women. ”

    South Africa

    Following the legalization of abortion in South Africa, for example,deaths due to unsafe abortion decreased by 90 percent from 1994 to 2001.

    http://www.prb.org/pdf08/MENAabortion.pdf

    Actually my country has no Federal law at all on abortion….So technically it’s open slather.

    As for Clinton, there’s a lot of anti-choice propaganda eg

    False: Ted Cruz claim that Hillary Clinton backs ‘unlimited abortion’ to moment of birth

    “Earlier this year, PolitiFact National and the Fact Checker at The Washington Post each noted that Clinton had repeatedly declared she’d support a law limiting late-term abortion if it includes exceptions to protect the health of the woman.

    PolitiFact National rated False a claim that Clinton “believes that all abortions should be legal, even on the due date of that unborn child.” That ruling noted Clinton had said she supports restrictions on late-term abortions except in cases of rape, incest and when the mother’s life and health are in danger–which wasn’t the same thing as unequivocally supporting abortions “even on the due date.”

    The Fact Checker gave four Pinocchios to a claim that Clinton “supports that a child can be aborted any time up until the moment it is born.” Conceding that some abortion opponents deem the “health” exception for abortion a loophole that allows a woman to get a late-term abortion, the story said “the fact remains that Clinton is on record as accepting that there can be restrictions to abortion well before the imminent birth of the baby.””

    http://www.politifact.com/texas/statements/2016/oct/09/ted-cruz/false-ted-cruz-claim-hillary-clinton-backs-unlimit/

    And Obama won by attacking Romney’s anti-abortion laws…..

    The sites I rely on are medical sites – not right wing opinion.

  • Bones

    False: Ted Cruz claim that Hillary Clinton backs ‘unlimited abortion’ to moment of birth

    “Earlier this year, PolitiFact National and the Fact Checker at The Washington Post each noted that Clinton had repeatedly declared she’d support a law limiting late-term abortion if it includes exceptions to protect the health of the woman.

    PolitiFact National rated False a claim that Clinton “believes that all abortions should be legal, even on the due date of that unborn child.” That ruling noted Clinton had said she supports restrictions on late-term abortions except in cases of rape, incest and when the mother’s life and health are in danger–which wasn’t the same thing as unequivocally supporting abortions “even on the due date.”

    The Fact Checker gave four Pinocchios to a claim that Clinton “supports that a child can be aborted any time up until the moment it is born.” Conceding that some abortion opponents deem the “health” exception for abortion a loophole that allows a woman to get a late-term abortion, the story said “the fact remains that Clinton is on record as accepting that there can be restrictions to abortion well before the imminent birth of the baby.”

    http://www.politifact.com/texas/statements/2016/oct/09/ted-cruz/false-ted-cruz-claim-hillary-clinton-backs-unlimit/

  • raven nevermore

    Oh. Well, knowing Trump, I’m sure he will build something great from the mud. What will happen next?

  • Snooterpoot

    Hi, otrotierra! I wish I had some measure of confidence that the evangelicals who should read this and take it to heart really would.

    It just seems to me that the rage those folks feast on is too intoxicating for them to let go of it easily.

  • Bones
  • Bones

    Highly doubtful. Your faith in your messiah is misguided.

  • Snooterpoot

    Did you really use the Knights of Columbus as a neutral, unbiased source?

  • Snooterpoot

    Thank you, Bones, for that well researched and referenced comment.

  • Snooterpoot

    Oh, please. Jesus didn’t limit the definition of peacemakers. That’s just evangelical warmongering bullscat.

  • Val–Standing

    You have polls, I have polls, and “polls change”.

    Much more importantly, did YOU really just ignore the “Abortion Deaths Since 1940”
    graph without showing how it was wrong?

  • raven nevermore

    I see no reason to doubt what Jesus has to say. See Matthew 5: 9 where the concept is derived. I take it you do not understand the Bible. OK. Now consider yourself informed. Just trying to be peaceful.

  • raven nevermore

    I rather trust God/Jesus for results. It is not complicated.

  • Val–Standing

    “PolitiFact National rated False a claim that Clinton “believes that all abortions should be legal, even on the due date of that unborn child.”

    I never used the term “even on the due date of the unborn child”, though I know others did.

    “That ruling noted Clinton had said she supports restrictions on late-term abortions except in cases of rape, incest and when the mother’s life and health are in danger”

    In Clinton’s last debate, she vaguely spoke of how she would not oppose SOME restrictions on abortion in the third trimester, which tells me that she certainly would not push for any on her own.

    And yes, since the word “health” was not qualified, it would indeed include “mental health”, which in turn could be ANY abortion ANY time the pregnancy is ‘unwanted’, whether “fact checkers” acknowledge that or not.

    Just out of curiosity, why would deliberately killing a viable or possibly viable baby–as opposed to induced birth/emergency C-section for strictly PHYSICAL medical reasons–EVER be justified in a rational person’s mind??
    That type of “abortion” is more properly called ‘infanticide’.

    I am, BTW, still waiting for REAL evidence–not cliques or individual stories–that RvW saved vast numbers of women’s lives.
    That was, afterall, a pretty significant factor in that ruling.

    I also haven’t heard you admit that you misspoke when you stated that the US abortion laws were not extreme–by world standards.

  • Bones

    It’s got nothing to do with what Jesus said but how you’ve blatantly interpreted it to fitr your own agenda.

    Jesus lived at at time of National resistance to Roman Occupation which manifested itself in several wars against Romans. The idea it was only about ‘personal’ peace is completely ridiculous and dishonest.

  • Bones

    God/Jesus isn’t Trump.

    And he most definitely has screwed up any hope of peace in the Middle East.

  • Bones

    Obama’s laws aren’t extreme.

    But your false claims have been shown for what they are.

    Antichoice propaganda.

    Why do you want to see women die?

  • Bones

    Lol she’ll use any anti-choice site which confirms her beliefs.

  • Bones

    More importantly do you ignore the many women dying in countries where abortion is banned?

  • Bones

    Bet you said the same about GWB.

  • raven nevermore

    The context is Jesus talking to the people, on a hillside – sermon on the mount remind you. The word’s meaning is personal, as in to make, to make peace, not national. Peace.

  • raven nevermore

    Come on, what hope for peace was there before? None. Last I heard, there are 9 more countries that will move the embassy’s to Jerusalem. The only people that do not want peace are the Palestinians. They have a history of screwing it up – intentionally! That is not rational.

  • Bones

    The context is in a time of war, rebellion and rampant Nationalism……That’s why Christians didn’t get involved in the Jewish-Roman Wars.

  • Bones

    All those countries are lackies of the US like Guatemala……

    Yes its ok for Jews to steal Palestinian land….

    Annnd again you show you have no idea what you are talking about.

    No wonder you worship Trump.

  • $144948586

    I didn’t make such a claim.
    If you have hate in your heart, let it out.

  • otrotierra

    U.S. White Evangelical fear-mongering and frenzy are indeed well-documented in the comment sections of Dr. Corey, Sojourners, and RedLetterChristians. And their intellectual sloth has predictably increased under White Evangelical Trump. I share your skepticism, though I’m thankful for Jesus-followers like Dr. Corey who dare to speak truth, no matter how politically upsetting it is.

    Educating White Evangelicals can indeed be tiring, as they often behave like toddlers, sometimes frightened, sometimes irate, almost always navel-gazing. In this very comment section, for example, SamHamilton wants to debate Dr. Corey but isn’t willing to educate himself on current events; he instead expects others to do the work and spoon-feed him the facts. Their digital footprint on Disqus is a permanent record, and their tantrums and denials and obfuscations will be rich data for future scholars studying the end of U.S. White Evangelical hegemony.

  • raven nevermore

    You stretch the context and it becomes out of context – spare me your Israel hate.

  • TS (unami)

    He didn’t “hate” Israel, raven — Bones was asking you to look at the historical context and you seem to be unwilling to do that.

  • TS (unami)

    Children play with mud pies… what does that tell you about our president, again?

  • Matthew

    Check out “Peace Catalysts” by Rick Love.

    For the longest time I was trapped in the fundamentalist mindset that peace in the scriptures meant only personal, spiritual peace. Rick
    does a great job of biblically challenging this notion.

  • Val–Standing

    I am, BTW, still waiting for REAL evidence–not cliques or individual stories–that RvW saved vast numbers of women’s lives.
    That was, afterall, a pretty significant factor in that ruling.

    I also haven’t heard you admit that you misspoke when you stated that the US abortion laws were not extreme–by world standards.

  • kaydenpat

    Exactly. Republicans who now are in full control of Congress have let CHIP lapse, are trying to destroy the ACA and have done nothing meaningful to help children. They want to control women and force them to give birth under all circumstances. The stance of Conservatives has nothing to do with love of babies but with control over women.

  • raven nevermore

    I checked on the book and the organization associated with Rick Love. I’ll keep the book on my list.

  • Al Cruise

    “Their digital footprint on Disqus is a permanent record,” Exactly, I am bantering with one on another blog called the “General,” his moniker is a picture of a Confederate General. The denials they make and the dichotomies they live in are truly amazing. I think to continually challenge them is necessary. I would like to give you some accountability and confess at one time when I was in that demographic. I remained silent over the years, while witnessing, racism, misogyny, homophobia , even though in my heart I felt that things didn’t line up . It was when a pro TGC pastor with masters degree in Divinity from top Evangelical seminary [and had spent time at then Mars Hill] came onto the scene and destroyed everything that was built between several Churches to support the least amongst in the community I changed. Just one example of many, because of him, we lost a female pastor who was gifted in helping the homeless deal with addiction and suicidal thoughts. Any questioning done through the so called “proper channels” was dealt with responses like , ” your challenging God’s anointed,” ” it’s all gossip” ” this is just following scripture” and so on. It was shortly after this the scales fell of my eyes , and it became clear, speaking out for justice is our calling. Thank you for your support.

  • Val–Standing

    “What you actually want to do is make women (poor ones) have unsafe abortions because banning abortions will not stop them.”

    That is NOT my goal, and this topic is too important for ‘one-liners’ and stereotyping people who see issues differently than you.

    I will let you know that, for whatever reason, I did not see this long post of yours when you first made it.
    It was only later, after I made a ‘re-posting’ reply to a later post you made.

    It is good to actually research important topics like this before ‘assuming’ anything.
    Contrary to what you think, I only use abortion-opposing sites on really important abortion-information (not sure that I include polls among that “really important info”), when it can be backed up by actual reports/figures.
    I also try to keep it as short as possible, so as not to turn readers away by being overwhelmed.

    First, I will say that I was specifically posting about the claims made in the US about TOTAL (legal AND illegal) maternal mortality rates associated with law-changes about abortion, compared with medical advances–such as the widespread use if antibiotics–effecting MM-abortion rates.
    Nothing in your long post has contradicted my claim that–in the US– RvW did little-to-nothing to lower MM rates associated with abortions.

    Since you could not find stats contradicting that one all-important MM/abortion graft in the ‘Real Choices’ article, you decided to look towards other countries to try to make your case that legalized abortion “save women’s lives”.

    “Pew Research isn’t pro-abortion just because you don’t like it.”

    The first poll of theirs that you linked to me asked respondents their opinions of abortion’s legality in vague terminology.

    Instead of asking if abortion should be legal without having to give a reason, it just asked if abortion should be legal for ‘most reasons’.

    To me, that implies that most people actually OPPOSE RvW’s abortion-on-demand ruling.

    It is important that polls also break opinions down according to gestational ages.

    But, as I have indicated, polls are quite subjective–depending on how something is praised–and they change.

    I will also add that the ‘Guttmacher Institute’ is highly pro-abortion, and any info they dispense should to be double-checked.

    “The Public Health Impact of Legal Abortion: 30 Years Later

    “Roe v. Wade transformed abortion from an unsafe, clandestine procedure to one performed under safe, medical conditions. The 1970s thus saw a reduction in abortion-related complications and deaths as safer options became available to American women choosing to terminate an unplanned pregnancy. Since Roe v. Wade, a full generation of Americans have come to expect abortion services to be available alongside other health services.”

    Again, ‘fancy statement’, but no actual facts to contradict the figures that were represented in my link.

    The above link WOULD have been dead-on accurate with actual stats if it were referring the effect that the the effects that the widespread use of antibiotics had on the MM-abortion rates of the 1950s, however.

    “As for what happens when abortion is banned you need only look at Latin AMerican countries. Abortion laws haven’t reduced abortion s at all.”

    I will start by making it clear that neither I–nor most others who oppose abortion in the US–favor prosecuting aborting mothers.

    That was generally NOT the case in America before legalization, and that is one reason for not trying to extrapolate how pre-Roe abortion in the US compared to countries that actively prosecute women obtaining abortions today.

    Aa far as I know, all abortions in the Latin American countries that cited–El Salvador, Honduras, the Dominican Republic, Nicaragua, and Paraguay–have always had abortion illegal, and the authors are ASSUMING that legalizing the procedure would lower MM abortion rates.

    My key word there was “assuming”.

    Why did the author not point to a Latin American country that actually HAD experience with legalizing abortion and then re-criminalizing it for MM rate comparison?

    Believe it or not, there is just such a country in Latin America–ideal for this type of research–that was oh-so- conveniently left out of this ‘unbiased’ study.

    That country is Chile.

    Yes, this article that I am quoting from–‘Legalizing Abortion in Chile Would Have Dire Consequences’– is obviously against legalizing abortion, but it provides actual stats from before-and-after abortion laws that are hard to refute.

    https://www.pop.org/legalizing-abortion-in-chile-would-have-dire-consequences/
    “Since abortion became illegal in Chile in 1989, maternal mortality has actually decreased by 69%.[1]”

    “In fact, there are proportionally fewer maternal deaths in Chile than in the United States where abortion is widely available. [2]The legal status of abortion has had absolutely no effect on the health of women in Chile. In fact, making abortion illegal may have actually decreased the number of clandestine abortions. Be that as it may, the death and hospitalization rates due to abortion have decreased since 1989.[3]”

    Much of the rest of your post continually compares “presumed” abortion rates (how can one get accurate stats on a procedure that is illegal–especially in undeveloped countries) to reported abortion rates in more developed countries.

    Poverty and social structures are clearly important factors in abortion rates–whether legal or not.

    Lack of decent medical care in undeveloped countries with high MM rates can make one wonder if abortions would actually be ANY “safer”– or would they just be more numerous–if they were legalized??

    I would also like to see a graph similar to the one that I provided a link (link, NOT download) that shows comparisons of MM-abortion rates over the decades before any blanket connections to legalizing abortions and reduced MMs rates can be made.

    If an abortion opposing site can make it plain and simple, why can’t abortion advocacy sites do the same?

    I already addressed your last two paragraphs in my last long post to you, and feel no need to do it again.

  • Godson Geld

    We all know Jesus really meant…”Blessed are the warmongers”.

  • otrotierra

    The bigotry you seek is nowhere in my post. You’ll have to invest your bigotry-seeking skills elsewhere.

  • Bones

    The Jewish-Roman Wars were a historical fact and is the context for the New Testament

    It led to the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple.

    No wonder you worship Trump.

  • Bones

    That’s an ironic post from you…..

  • Bones

    So you don’t want abortions illegal.

    Women having abortions is just an inconvenience for you.

  • otrotierra

    Al, thank you for sharing your insights and lessons learned through a fascinating journey. I truly admire your unapologetic affirmations of truth in the face of wide-scale intellectual and moral sloth. The Cranach blog at Patheos Evangelical is a hotspot for narcissistic White Nationalist Patriarchy, and will certainly make for an interesting case study for future scholars trying to better understand the fragile masculinity enabling the era of Trump. The “General” and his friends that you’ve been educating thrive at spaces like Cranach precisely because their privileged, self-serving perspectives will never be called into question. Then you arrived and spoke out.

    I see you speaking out, just like the few who bravely intervened in the TGC culture you reference above. I don’t know the whole story, would certainly love to know more, but respect your boundaries. The point is, we have a responsibility to speak truth to oppressive power, and I am thankful for your continuing contributions.

  • Bones

    “Contrary to what you think, I only use abortion-opposing sites on really important abortion-information”

    Lol…..so you only use anti-choice propaganda when it suits your purpose – which is to make women have illegal abortions.

    Medical advances aren’t going to stop women having complications from illegal abortions.

    As for Latin America they get their statistics from botched abortions and surveys….not assumptions….thats you assuming.

    And on Chile

    Relevant Statistics
    Chile’s population is approximately 15 million, of which 27 percent is under 15 years old (2002).
    The fertility rate is 2.3 children per woman, and the annual population growth is 1.2 percent (2002).
    Reported maternal mortality is 16.7 per 100,000 live births (2002), down from 22.3 in 1997.
    Unsafe abortion accounts for an estimated 25 percent of maternal mortality (2004).
    An estimated 160,000 abortions occur annually in Chile.
    The most recent data (from 1996) shows that contraceptive use in women of childbearing age was 60.1 percent.

    https://www.hrw.org/legacy/women/abortion/chile.html

    And then we have

    Abortion in Chile: the practice under a restrictive
    regime

    “Chilean Ministry of Health data show that in 2008,
    over 33,000 women were hospitalised due to
    abortion complications.8 A review by Molina
    et al. of 10-year hospital discharge data on abortion
    found that 10% involved ectopic pregnancies,
    40% fetal abnormalities, and 34.7% registered
    as unspecified or unknown reasons for the complications.9
    The study concludes that the “unspecified”
    reasons could be attributable to induced
    abortions.9 Although several estimates exist,6,10
    the actual number of induced abortions is
    unknown. Based on a 1.94 global fertility rate,
    64% contraceptive use and over 33,000 hospitalisations,
    a prominent epidemiologist recently
    estimated the annual number of abortions
    as 60,000 − 70,000.* Others have estimated
    over 100,000.9”

    Abortion practices in a context of illegality
    While the ratio of hospitalisation to prosecution
    suggests that the law is completely ineffective
    for sanctioning abortion, it succeeds, nevertheless,
    in filling women with fear and stripping them of
    their right to decide about their own bodies.
    Although the law fails in its aims to prevent abortion,
    it has a strong symbolic power which signals
    to women that they cannot escape an unwanted
    pregnancy without consequences. A vast majority
    of the interviewees believed that abortion should
    be a right, provided and guaranteed by the State.
    In their testimony, they said that the very experience
    of operating in secrecy generated the worst
    (subjective) fears and (objective) risks.

    http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1016/S0968-8080%2814%2944811-0

    And

    Unsafe Abortion: Unnecessary Maternal Mortality

    Relationship With Abortion Law
    “Abortion laws have a spectrum of restrictiveness. Nations may allow abortions based on saving the mother’s life, preserving physical and mental health, and socioeconomic grounds, or may be completely unrestrictive (Figure 2). Data indicate an association between unsafe abortion and restrictive abortion laws. The median rate of unsafe abortions in the 82 countries with the most restrictive abortion laws is up to 23 of 1000 women compared with 2 of 1000 in nations that allow abortions.4 Abortion-related deaths are more frequent in countries with more restrictive abortion laws (34 deaths per 100,000 childbirths) than in countries with less restrictive laws (1 or fewer per 100,000 childbirths).1

    Figure 2
    World abortion laws. Reproduced with permission from the Center for Reproductive Rights.
    The same correlation appears when a given country tightens or relaxes its abortion law. In Romania, for example, where abortion was available upon request until 1966, the abortion mortality ratio was 20 per 100,000 live births in 1960. New legal restrictions were imposed in 1966, and by 1989 the ratio reached 148 deaths per 100,000 live births. The restrictions were reversed in 1989, and within a year the ratio dropped to 68 of 100,000 live births; by 2002 it was as low as 9 deaths per 100,000 births (Figure 3). Similarly, in South Africa, after abortion became legal and available on request in 1997, abortion-related infection decreased by 52%, and the abortion mortality ratio from 1998 to 2001 dropped by 91% from its 1994 level.6

    Figure 3
    Live births and proportion of maternal deaths due to abortion. Reprinted from The Lancet, Vol. 368, Grimes DA et al, “Unsafe abortion: the preventable pandemic,” pp. 1908–1919, Copyright 2006, with permission from Elsevier.4
    Less restrictive abortion laws do not appear to entail more abortions overall. The world’s lowest abortion rates are in Europe, where abortion is legal and widely available but contraceptive use is high; in Belgium, Germany, and the Netherlands, the rate is below 10 per 1000 women aged 15 to 44 years. In contrast, in Africa, Latin America, and the Caribbean, where abortion laws are the most restrictive and contraceptive use is lower, the rates range from the mid-20s to 39 per 1000 women.3

    Less restrictive abortion laws also do not guarantee safe abortions for those in need; better education and access to health care are also required. In India, unsafe illegal abortions persist despite India’s passage of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act in the early 1970s. The act appeared to remove legal hindrances to terminating pregnancies in the underfunded (national) health care system, but women still turn to unqualified local providers for abortion. Clearly, the implications of the law never reached the population that most needed to rely on it.7 This example is also seen in Cambodia, where abortion is legally available on request and women often attempt to abort themselves before turning to hospital.8”

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2709326/

    Even includes a nice graph.

    It’s plain and simple. Countries who have banned abortions have far higher deaths for complications from abortions.

    No wonder you get information from anti-choice sites.

  • Jesus not only didn’t say that, he didn’t say anything about how national leaders ought to deal with hostile enemies. Alas, we have to claw through this stuff with common sense and national intelligence. North Korea has been playing the world like chumps for a long time. Pacifism isn’t working. I ask in all honesty: should we go ahead and allow NK to build a nuclear arsenal and aim warheads everywhere? Maybe we should and leave it in God’s hands. I’m not completely sure, actually. This has nothing to do with the quality of Trump’s character but about his effectiveness as a leader. Unfortunately, we don’t get to have a Sheriff of Mayberry in the White House.

  • Val–Standing

    When I ask for specified, easily verifiable information (as I provided you on RvW and MM in the US), your response is to change the subject to OTHER countries.
    Instead of providing the clear info that I asked for, you chose to quickly copy-and-paste reams of online articles instead.

    These articles DO NOT specifically
    address the numerical info that I requested, but, rather, seem to be designed to “keep me distracted” instead.

    I have, thus far, only read the text that you copied-and-pasted about Chile.
    I asked you VERY SPECIFICALLY if you have before-and-after legalization maternal deaths related to abortion–LEGAL AND ILLEGAL combined.

    I will wait until I get a ‘ya’ or ‘nay’ from you on that before I read and respond to the rest of your post.

    Thank you.

  • Bones

    I haven’t heard you misspoke when you’ve been wrong about everything.

    Roe v. Wade saves lives

    Let the facts speak, as seen by Dr. C. Richard Gulick when he was an obstetrical resident from 1971-74:

    “Before Roe v. Wade, we saw terrible things, consequences of illegal abortions,” he said.

    “Before that Supreme Court decision, Barnes Hospital admitted at least two patients per week for criminally induced, septic (severely infected) abortions. The last year of my residency, after Roe v. Wade, the hospital rarely, if ever, admitted another case of septic abortion. This decision has saved countless lives.”

    Gulick said residents were instructed to perform the following for any woman who came into the emergency room with vaginal bleeding:

    • A pregnancy test

    • A blood count to find out if there was a probability of sepsis (serious infection)

    • An X-ray of the abdomen to see if there was any evidence of uterine perforation

    http://www.stltoday.com/opinion/columnists/roe-v-wade-saves-lives/article_66536452-0690-50ec-949f-fb40b1a7ee69.html

    Once again Americans support abortion

    Both Colorado and Mississippi overwhelmingly voted down anti-abortion legislation

    http://data.denverpost.com/election/results/amendment/2008/48-definition-of-person/

    http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/09/us/politics/votes-across-the-nation-could-serve-as-a-political-barometer.html

  • Bones

    Derp….the only one distracting anything is you who has to move on after each of your anti-choice articles have been rebutted.

    Fact: Prohibition doesn’t work…..

  • raven nevermore

    Read other posts by Bones. He may be a peddler of hate. And, I do get the history. There was no war, except a few uprising by Jews against the Romans. Those Jews were the real authentic people of Palestine. Bones like to argue for the sake of an argument without any results. He does know history, but possibly lacks the ability to interpret nuances. He is fun to deal with, but it goes nowhere because of his perceived hate for religion in general. I may be wrong, but that’s how I have seen it.

  • Val–Standing

    I am not doubting what you say, but I am saying that, unless you can provide NATIONAL statistics from the 1940s (when antibiotics were introduced) through at least a couple of decades post-Roe that contradict the stats I provided, the legalization-reduces-maternal deaths in the US argument simply does not hold, certainly not to anywhere NEAR the levels that abortion advocates have stated.

    Remember, I am also counting the death rates from LEGAL–not ‘just’ illegal–abortions.

    I am not at all sure that you are doing the same.

  • Val–Standing

    Interesting thing is, I haven’t moved the goal post–you have.

    IF RvW had truly had a real role in reducing the total number of maternal abortion deaths nationwide, the stats would be easily accessible.
    They clearly are not.

    As I stated yesterday, you have been “had” by the abortion industry, and that is something that I know you will never admit to.

  • Al Cruise

    Thank You! Sometimes I feel I go over the top a bit , I don’t do it out of anger , but to seek justice, that’s a hard distinction to get across with text. Anyhow sometimes people who behave like belligerent selfish Children, you need to speak to them in kind. I always try to only punch up at those who are as you say “privileged with self-serving perspectives” if you ever see me punching down on someone who does not deserve it, please call me on it.

  • paganheart

    Because people like her believe that women who die from illegal abortions are nothing but wh*res who deserve their fate.

    Or at least that’s what my father-in-law was told, back when he was a medical resident in Detroit in the early 1960s, when girls and women, bleeding to death or suffering massive septic infections due to illegal abortions, turned up in the Emergency room on a weekly basis, and some of his “pro-life” colleagues turned their backs and refused to help them.

    I trust the medical professionals who lived and worked in the “bad old days” before Roe v. Wade. I don’t trust propganda from from “pro lifers” who clearly believe women are nothing more than breeding stock, not even human.

  • paganheart

    If he was as sexually promiscuous as he claims to have been, I have no doubt that he’s financed an abortion or two.

  • Mr. James Parson

    What about Rep. Scott DesJarlais, of Tennessee,

    A Christian Republican congressman has openly admitted to sleeping with his patients while he was a doctor, and even pressuring them into abortions despite his public anti-choice stance, but it’s all okay in his mind because he says God forgave him.

    Source: https://www.nova-magazine.net/republican-pro-life-congressman-slept-patients-paid-abortions/

  • Mr. James Parson

    I am afraid to ask for Citation.

    I fear you will have no trouble finding it.

  • Mr. James Parson

    Why should they care? They are getting the votes that they want AND winning.

    https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/f5352a6c594682f3768cfe36b7bdf2f7a3e8f8f9aa54614d1b99b08410365e24.png

  • Mr. James Parson

    Just out of curiosity, what do you think of government funded contraception? What do you think of mandatory comprehensive sex education?

  • Mr. James Parson

    Relief will start in the mid-term elections. Hopefully

  • Mr. James Parson

    No one is pro-abortion

  • Basically, my source was what I heard mostly in men’s prayer meetings; I think it did come from the pulpit a few times.

  • TS (unami)

    I’ll be over here watching you two, with popcorn. Carry on.

  • Matthew

    Not sure …….

  • raven nevermore

    Funny. But we are legends in our own minds. Ha.

  • raven nevermore

    Worship Pres T? No way. It’s better than that. it’s as though I have a buddy in the White House who has courage; he has my back. I actual think, you know, more than just believing, that Pres T cares for America and to improve the world from bad situations, that chaos encouraged by BO. That’s not worship, but the power of reason. Sure, with some faith that it will work out for the best. Give Trump a chance. And I’m not even an American. Peace.

  • Val–Standing

    Oh, and a friend just sent me this–
    FiveThirtyEight, hardly a conservative source, gives Marist an A rating:
    https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/pollster-ratings/

    Let that sink in.

  • Val–Standing

    You say you don’t like the abortion-opposing links that I have sent you.
    Well, I have a surprise!

    A pro-life friend just sent me this about pre-Roe “back-alley abortions”, in “A Pro-Life Feminist Balance Sheet”

    http://blog.secularprolife.org/2017/02/a-pro-life-feminist-balance-sheet.html

    Search for the blue-linked words ‘were done by physicians as certified and competent’
    then enlarge sheet 949.

    In short, even physicians favoring relaxed abortion laws conceded that illegal abortions of the time (early 60s) were not nearly as deadly as most people believed they were.

    While this source–like all of yours on this matter–does not give specific before-and-after RvW stats–it DOES conform with the all-important ‘abortion deaths since 1940’ graph that I sent you yesterday.

  • Val–Standing

    Actually, I have really that I have debunked the “‘RvW’ ruling saved thousands of women’s lives every year” myth with that one graph that you STILL have not countered with actual maternal-abortion death stats from those years.
    And I KNOW you have tried!

    As for your other statement, that laws discouraging abortion do not work, I will let you try to disprove THESE facts.

    Yes, this is from an abortion-opposing site, but–just as with the graph–you SHOULD be able to give me counter stats from a pro-abortion site.–

    http://blog.secularprolife.org/2017/08/pro-life-laws-stop-abortions-heres.html

  • Herm

    nevermore will you see Lenore, never have you known Jesus.

    Perhaps, you understand your pastor but you clearly do not hear to understand what the Rabbi is instructing His disciples, children of God who live.

    Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called children of God.

    Matthew 5:9 (NIV2011)

    “You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.’ But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also. And if anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, hand over your coat as well. If anyone forces you to go one mile, go with them two miles. Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you.

    “You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be children of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? And if you greet only your own people, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that? Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.

    Matthew 5:38-48 (NIV2011)

    And whoever does not carry their cross and follow me cannot be my disciple.

    Luke 14:27 (NIV2011)

    Pointing to his disciples, he said, “Here are my mother and my brothers. For whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother and sister and mother.”

    Matthew 12:49-50 (NIV2011)

    On one occasion an expert in the law stood up to test Jesus. “Teacher,” he asked, “what must I do to inherit eternal life?”

    “What is written in the Law?” he replied. “How do you read it?”

    He answered, “ ‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind’; and, ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’”

    “You have answered correctly,” Jesus replied. “Do this and you will live.”

    Luke 10:25-28 (NIV2011)

    You can only inherit eternal life as a sister, brother or mother of the Christ. By an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, or a taunt for a taunt, rather than carrying your own cross, you show yourself to all, who are with and in Christ as His sibling of God, as not a peacemaker, not Christ’s student (disciple), and certainly not a child of God doing the will of his/her Father in heaven.

    nevermore a child of God, you show yourself to be one of those who knows not what they do, one of the world.

    the Spirit of truth. The world cannot accept him, because it neither sees him nor knows him. But you know him, for he lives with you and will be in you.

    John 14:17 (NIV2011)

    Now, who does not understand the Bible? Consider yourself potentially more informed … your choice.

  • TS (unami)

    Aren’t we all. ;-)

  • I don’t think this is Corey at his best but, to be fair, the evangelical community has rallied round Trump because he furthers their cause and they are generally pro-life. What it really boils down to is the fatallistic theology that welcomes the ‘end-times’ hastening Christ’s return. In a scenario where the premier world leader is inches away from the red button many evangelicals are drooling like bloodhounds.

    This is scarily reminiscent of 1935 Germany where the predominent church strand is omminously aligned with the state and a leader has emerged who will happily pander to the religious right for his own ends. Of course Trump is about as intelligent as a bumper sticker and expendable now he’s got his donors their tax cuts. Trump is dumb enough to start a nuclear war but his exit won’t automatically stop the USA descent into the abyss taking religious lemmings with it.

  • raven nevermore

    Thank you for reminding me, and for the effort with Scripture. You are, however, the first to make the Poe connection. But unlike the Lenore case, I do not morn, especially over my loss of my old sinful past. That is presumptuous of you, therefore, to conclude I do not know my Savior Jesus. Perhaps you felt the wing of some flyby ideas without the madness. I’m sure you’ll put that together.

    So, you are saying peacemaking is connected with being perfect as God is perfect. Yet, God was not always a peacemaker; Jesus also took time to make a whip before he turned over tables in the outer temple court. But I can see what you’re saying, although that is an incomplete concept, as I just demonstrated. For another example, war is terrible in every way possible, but necessary to maintain or begin, peace. I have always associated the perfect context with the sense of being complete as in knowing what we are as a person that is spiritually alive in Christ, what we are all about in personality because of that spirituality given by God – as God is full of who he is (see Ephesians 3: 19). God is not conflicted about himself, estranged from himself, as humans can be (even Poe). Only pacifists are conflicted as to what it means to be an authentic maker of peace, because they begin with the wrong premise; as Corey’s article. To be a maker of peace is more complex, not as you want to suggest as an either/or. Have I read too much in what you claim?

  • “Anti-abortion” is not a pro-life position no matter how you look at it. Outlawing abortion takes health care away from women, and, in doing so, kills them, some during the pregnancy in question, others months, years, and decades later. How many people are alive today who would not be had their mothers not had an abortion prior to their conception? I am one myself. Had my mother’s first pregnancy not been terminated, she would have died and I would not be here.

    The arguments for outlawing abortion do not rest upon Scripture, and many run counter to Scripture. It is just a bill of goods, and many, sadly, have bought it.

  • Herm

    raven, thank you for your respectful reply to my borderline presumptive taunt!

    You have, in fact, not read enough in what I “claim“.

    “Put your sword back in its place,” Jesus said to him, “for all who draw the sword will die by the sword. Do you think I cannot call on my Father, and he will at once put at my disposal more than twelve legions of angels? But how then would the Scriptures be fulfilled that say it must happen in this way?”

    Matthew 26:52-54 (NIV2011)

    Do you consider yourself a child (son and/or daughter) of God today, or is this only a hope derived from your faith for later?

    “Anyone who loves their father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; anyone who loves their son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me. Whoever does not take up their cross and follow me is not worthy of me. Whoever finds their life will lose it, and whoever loses their life for my sake will find it.

    Matthew 10:37-39 (NIV2011)

    Do you consider yourself worthy of Christ, with and in you, and you with and in Him?

    Before long, the world will not see me anymore, but you will see me. Because I live, you also will live. On that day you will realize that I am in my Father, and you are in me, and I am in you. Whoever has my commands and keeps them is the one who loves me. The one who loves me will be loved by my Father, and I too will love them and show myself to them.”

    John 14:19-21 (NIV2011)

    Put yourself in the shoes of any, that you would consider, perfectly (hypothetically, as if such were possible) loving mortal father on earth today. Would you send your infant children into war against your, and yours’, enemy when you had a “spare” (comedy relief) twelve legions of immortal angels at your command? Why would you believe, then, that our Father in heaven would send His infant children into war in an effort for peace?

    Jesus, portrayed as the perfect Prince of Peace in the Bible, last in the line of royalty (demanded by the Israelites of God but not first volunteered by God) began by the murderer, adulterer, King of War David (which was the cause and beginning of the war with Ish-Bosheth). This is important because what was actually finished on the Jesus’ cross was any false presumption that God advocates war as a means to peace. Salvation was recognized for all mankind because the Holy Spirit of God (the Spirit of truth) was no longer, when the curtain was torn top to bottom, available only to the reigning high priest for counsel, not because Jesus’ sacrifice, as the Son of God, paid some hypothetical ransom from evil. All children of God are to carry their cross today, as did Christ, unable to draw their sword, for if they are to die in battle with the enemy of all life it is on their cross not by the sword, ever again. Our Teacher, directly in the words of God (that is not in any way the Bible), makes it completely clear that peace and joy are found, on earth and in heaven, only in the eternal spirit and never in the temporal carnal (ashes to ashes, dust to dust).

    Please, read and consider this closely, especially “not a hair of your head will perish” following “they will put some of you to death“. All that Jesus spoke to then happened within 70 years and will continue past today. No war has brought peace for mankind.

    Then he said to them: “Nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom. There will be great earthquakes, famines and pestilences in various places, and fearful events and great signs from heaven.

    “But before all this, they will seize you and persecute you. They will hand you over to synagogues and put you in prison, and you will be brought before kings and governors, and all on account of my name. And so you will bear testimony to me. But make up your mind not to worry beforehand how you will defend yourselves. For I will give you words and wisdom that none of your adversaries will be able to resist or contradict. You will be betrayed even by parents, brothers and sisters, relatives and friends, and they will put some of you to death. Everyone will hate you because of me. But not a hair of your head will perish. Stand firm, and you will win life.

    Luke 21:10-19 (NIV2011)

    The peace and joy that many of us (disciples of the Messiah and not) enjoy was made possible because from the Jesus’ cross we know not to be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather, we know to be afraid of the One who can destroy both soul and body in hell. (Matthew 10:28)

    Jesus had great anxieties having to invoke the power of His cross. Should that time come for me I will have great anxieties having to invoke the power of my cross. You see, it is not out of the question that my family of mortal Man and my nation of convenience will demand my allegiance to them by drawing my carnal sword (yet, once again, especially since I foolishly did so in Vietnam in the name of peace) in place of my allegiance to my family of eternal God on my cross that I bear today.

    To be a promoter of peace I will only mount my cross because, from Who I know now, an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, and a taunt for a taunt has no end unless the awareness and influence of your enemy, or you, is physically and in spirit totally wiped out.

    “Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword.

    Matthew 10:34 (NIV2011)

    Coming out of his mouth is a sharp sword with which to strike down the nations. “He will rule them with an iron scepter.” He treads the winepress of the fury of the wrath of God Almighty. On his robe and on his thigh he has this name written: KING OF KINGS AND LORD OF LORDS.

    Revelation 19:15-16 (NIV2011)

    I know a greater peace and joy today than I did throughout my first 50 years on this earth. I will fight all our destructive enemies, who do not know to represent God in the Spirit of truth, with only the sword of my mouth. I am not above wielding my homemade whip to drive commercialism out of my Father’s house.

    Violence is the nature of our temporal carnal cosmos. It took more than 13 billion years for a fragile mankind to even begin to evolve out of the violence from a seeded big bang. Modern humans are not much more than 200 thousand years old (with an average of 50 years between the cycles of carnally dying and birthing generations) with civilization from hunter gathers beginning about 9 thousand years ago, in the Fertile Crescent. Civilization as we know it today appears to have begun about 6 thousand years ago. Jesus, the prophesied Christ, was not realized 2 thousand years ago. God has no beginning and has no end. There was no written Bible, pointing to the Spirit of truth as the only reliable Teacher, for all mankind to read for themselves until less than 600 years ago (not that the world was, in the majority, literate enough to even read it then). How much do you believe that you know of the truth of God and the universe that you have gleaned from many controversial sources in your less than 120 years of age?

    No, to be a “maker of peace“, in the example of my Lord Brother, it is not “more” complex than carrying my own cross in love for my enemy and allegiance to the Lord my God in all love.

    Have I written more than you can bear in refuting your implied claim that war is necessary for peace on earth?

  • raven nevermore

    Thanks again for the in-depth reply. I know I am a child of God today, and worth of being in Christ and Christ in me; it’s not just a hope, but a reality that results in a changed life and forever growing. Your next question is theoretical: Would God? Should God? Why and why not, sort of thing. I could say yes or no. You are working on the presumption that God would not use war anymore. I’m not prepared to rule that God does not utilize war, whereas you are as a premise for making peace. Really, I’m somewhere in the middle, but not a pacifist. Pacifists are always on the far side of not being involved, such as Corey often claims and apparently so do you.

    Keep carrying that cross. The conversation may have run its course. I will say we are shooting across each other’s bow (keeping with the military theme). I have to ask one thing. Do you belong to the Hebrew Roots Movement? I consider them to be a heretical group that Christians join. You may have the last word.

  • Chuck Johnson

    Don’t be so confused, Benjamin.
    Trump’s pro-life stance is authoritarian. It is aimed at limiting the decision making powers of pregnant women and their doctors.
    Trump’s bellicose stance regarding North Korea is authoritarian. “You will do what I tell you because I have more bombs.”

    Trump’s valuation of human life is not much.
    He is too busy valuing himself and his power, fame and money.

  • Bones

    I’ve posted heaps of graphs which you just sweep under the carpet.

    Maternity Morbidity rates increase in Abortion restrictions.

    That’s a verified fact shown all around the world.

    I know you can’t dispute it.

  • Bones

    Oh you found another prolife site.

    Well I suppose I’d try to change topic too after your Chile example backfired in a flaming death….

    Facts:

    Abortion restriction don’t work….women still seek out abortions….but they make people like yourself feel better about yourselves.

    Where abortion is illegal one of the leading causes of death of women is unsafe abortions.

  • Herm

    God never chose war!

  • raven nevermore

    I have no doubt that God does not want war. But war is that thin line when it cannot be avoided. Recall there was “a” war in heaven. God chose David and made him into a warrior. Yet, when David wanted to build a temple, God would not have it because he had blood on his hands. God had a thine line. Here is the bottom line, which you may not grasp nor does Corey. The situation is not an either/or. To reject that is to refuse reality. I think God is more flexible than what the pacifist would dare. Old Moses referred to the Lord God as a warrior, or the Authorized Version as a “man of war” (Exodus 15: 3). What I am claiming is that in the background of Christian spirituality there is God who is not to be messed with. I promise, I will not reply, not matter if you reply. Thanks for the exchange. Peace.

  • Bones

    Meh you are a hater of Palestinians including some of the oldest churches in Christianity.

    Why do you support Jews taking over Palestinian land?

  • Bones

    You still think north Korea meetin about the winter Olympics has something to do with trumps tweets.

  • Bones

    They are on here.

    Plenty of trump worshippers.

  • Matthew

    The word “Borg” reminds me of this guy :-). Listen closely …

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sY_Yf4zz-yo

  • Val–Standing

    I can and do dispute it.
    Before and after RvW figures dispute it.

    Before and after studies from Chile dispute it.

    The paper that I sent the you from the early1960s showed that even professionals trying to legalize abortion back then acknowledged that illegal abortions were generally “safe” for the mother.

    Oh, and this recent very pro-abortion “Mother Jones” article was incensed that Hawaiians had less access to abortion than mainlanders, and mentioned how women “had to carry their babies to term”.
    http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2017/12/abortion-access-is-a-myth-for-rural-women-in-hawaii/

    But, interestingly enough, “women dying from dangerous abortions”, were not mentioned.
    IF that were occuring in Hawaii, MJ would have been shouting it from the highest rooftops!

    It is very complex to accurately compare abortion rates between countries, because of all the variables.
    But, looking at CIA stats on MM rates (which include maternal deaths from births, miscarriages, and abortions), Ireland has among the lowest MM rates in Western Europe–and well below ours.
    https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2223rank.html

    Poland, one of the few former-Soviet-dominated countries to have restricted abortion laws, has one of the lowest MM rates in their region.

    So, it looks like even with all the massive violence against unborn children in our world today, safety for women has NOT been improved.

    Oh, and one more thing. Going by child abuse stats in the US, RvW did nothing to reduce those, either. In fact, they went UP for decades following the ruling.
    http://abort73.com/abortion/child_abuse

  • Val–Standing

    Wrong again.

    This can hardly be described as a “pro-life” site, and it confirms that abortion deaths among woman have gone DOWN since abortions became illegal in Chile.
    https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2014-11/mi-tca110614.php

  • SamHamilton

    Exactly. There are millions of evangelical Christians in the U.S.

  • $144948586

    I believe abortions are murder.
    Of course, I’d be tactful in dealing with folks, but the fact is 98+% of abortions are for convenience: this is grotesque. I’d call this cold-blooded murder, but I can understand where they are coming from: “I’m too young; I’m too poor; I’d be a terrible parent. I’m not ready…” People have desires and wishes they’ve gotta sacrifice for kids; I get it. But is that really the child’s fault?

    In the RARE cases of rape and incest, I’d of course say, “I see where you’re coming from.” And dialogue.

    “So you don’t want abortions illegal.”
    I’ll leave this up to the person who legitimately owns the property upon which the abortion took place and between the individuals involved (namely the father and mother whose child it is). It’d be forbidden on my property.

  • Val–Standing

    Repeat, ‘FiveThirtyEight’ is hardly a conservative source, and gives Marist an A rating.

  • Val–Standing

    No, you ignore the fact that was not the case in the US, and most likely not other places, either.

    Facts are stubborn things, Bones.

  • Val–Standing

    Yea, it’s like you asking me “why do I abuse my cat” when you have plain evidence that is a lie, but you won’t admit it.

  • Herm

    raven, your concept of God is skewed. You read your Bible without the Teacher, only traditions of theology (the study of God not a relationship in God). You speak from no more authority, especially with scripture as your only source of authority, than did the Pharisees, the Sadducee, the teachers of the law or the high priest Caiaphas who all together murdered the Son of Man/Son of God in God’s name as the reigning scriptural authorities.

    If the Messiah actually was your only Instructor [Matthew 23:10] you could not have sat in judgment, with such certain authoritative condemnation of actual children of God, as you just did. No, Jesus is not in you and you in Jesus, as is true of all children of God today, boldly speaking the word of God [Acts 4:31], directly with and in God as Their child.

    Even in your Bible this is witnessed and quoted in testimony as directly from the mouth of the Christ, with directive assists I was directed to share with you:

    “You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.’ [Exodus 21:24, Leviticus 24:20, Deuteronomy 19:21] But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also. And if anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, hand over your coat as well. If anyone forces you to go one mile, go with them two miles. Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you.

    Matthew 5:38-42 (NIV2011)

    Even left with only your own judgment, without the Spirit of truth whom you do not see beyond the pages of your Bible, cannot you see that “You have heard that it was said” is diplomatic for, “what you have been taught to believe God ordered, We did not“?

    You have a problem that will not be solved until you become a humble little child student with, in and of God. I have been where you are. I knew and invited the Holy Spirit into all my circles of the study of God only by what I had been taught to read in the Bible. Only, when I gave up all trust in Man to support my relationship in God, who I knew by intellectual and logical study was more real than anything carnal, did I receive the one appearing as a dove … did I hear my Father say, “this is My son, whom I love; with him am I well pleased”. I heard, together with my Father, my Lord and Rabbi say, “this is My little new born brother, now one with Us in Our Spirit, whom We love; with him We are well pleased”. That was 23 years ago. I went from a respected adult authority in Man to a loved little child in God.

    You asked once if I was a part of a heretical group. There are loaded “christian church” words that are used to keep the flock inline that I do not hear in Christ’s church, which is in the Spirit and in truth [John 4:23-24]. A few of those words of fearful condemnation from theologians sitting in judgment are; heretic, blasphemer and backslider. Do you see that Jesus was forced to mount His cross by the power and authority of those words?

    I am speaking the word of God alive in this moment directly for you.

    Please, before you speak so certainly in judgment of others, as to their not “understanding” the Bible, consider that you may be totally blind to He who the New Testament is directing you to for all truth meted out exactly as you can bear.

    “If you love me, keep my commands. And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another advocate to help you and be with you forever— the Spirit of truth. The world cannot accept him, because it neither sees him nor knows him. But you know him, for he lives with you and will be in you. I will not leave you as orphans; I will come to you. Before long, the world will not see me anymore, but you will see me. Because I live, you also will live. On that day you will realize that I am in my Father, and you are in me, and I am in you. Whoever has my commands and keeps them is the one who loves me. The one who loves me will be loved by my Father, and I too will love them and show myself to them.”

    John 14:15-21 (NIV2011)

    “I have much more to say to you, more than you can now bear. But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all the truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come. He will glorify me because it is from me that he will receive what he will make known to you. All that belongs to the Father is mine. That is why I said the Spirit will receive from me what he will make known to you.”

    John 16:12-15 (NIV2011)

    Your Bible, in any version written, edited, rewritten, compiled, edited, rewritten, and published for your learning, is not the sacred word of God. It was not written by God, nor inspired by God, beyond the inspiration its authors had to document, in testimony, their relationship with God they had in that moment, as they could bear, shared with the world.

    I share gospel truth with you this moment, in testimony as I can bear, the relationship I have in God. I have used, for you, testimony from over 1,900 years ago (before the world was round and this earth was then the point that all the heavens revolved around) to substantiate that even then Christ was speaking the truth as His audience could bear. Jesus is my divine Brother today as we both share the same Father. We each are focused as one by the will of our Father to be constructive, productive, empathetic, compassionate, sympathetic, supportive and forgiving for all responsible aware and influential life. I could go on but I don’t believe you can bear much more of this, if you even got this far.

    You appear to be very serious in your pursuit to represent God’s will, but so were the Pharisees, the Sadducee, the teachers of the law, the high priest Caiaphas and Saul who could murder children of God in God’s name supported by scripture touted to be holy as God’s inerrant word. Can’t you have intellectual faith enough in your studies to understand that the Good News is that the Holy Spirit (available then only to, but ignored by, Caiaphas to counsel with in his judgment of the Christ) is here to counsel with and in you, and all of us, today, and has been ever since the curtain before the Holy of Holies was torn top to bottom (Mark 15:28, Matthew 27:51)?

    I know nothing relative to what I know there is to know, an eternities worth of growing yet ahead. I know God (by any name given Them by Man) as one little one of what seems like an infinite God from my perspective within. Just as I cannot bear yet to know the fullness of our finite temporal carnal cosmos, I cannot bear to appreciate the fullness of our infinite and eternal spirit (the image gifted Man) God. As a little infant child (only 23 revolutions of earth around its sun old relative to my divine family of no beginning, no end and no physical boundaries) one of, with and in God in the eternal Spirit bound in all love I am nurtured, adored, supported, played with and taught infinitely more certain in peace, joy and security than I was by my very responsible, sincere, capable and loving parents of Man.

    raven, are you beginning to understand that your concept of God is possibly skewed as it clearly was for the Pharisees, the Sadducee, the teachers of the law, the high priest Caiaphas and Saul. Who is the only Teacher you can trust, have certain faith in, for the truth, according to your scripture?

    Once a child of God, born of the Spirit, baptized (immersed) forever more in the Holy Spirit of God, disciple of the living Messiah, we are never left orphaned. We know that to be so directly from God’s hearts and minds, speaking as One, and we know to anticipate that on faith if we believe the testimony of witnesses to the Messiah’s words in your Bible.

    God does not condone war and has officially substituted the cross, that all children on earth of God carry today, as a path to forgiveness for those who know not what they do.

  • Realist1234

    That made me laugh. Are you a ST fan too? lol I thought the Borg were pretty stupid. They were assimilating left, right and centre, yet you could walk about on one of their cubes if you werent considered a ‘threat’. You wouldnt get so well treated in the White House.

  • I don’t have any intelligence on that, and I suspect you don’t either.

  • Realist1234

    Im assuming Trump actually said he was ‘pro-life’ in the context of abortion, though I seem to have forgotten that in all the nonsense he has spoken. Re NK, its just political rhetoric. Im against nuclear weapons because of their indiscriminate nature, but if NK became a nuclear ‘clear and present danger’, not just to the US but to numerous countries around the world involving millions of people, should those countries’ governments not take appropriate, non-nuclear action against such a government? Thankfully the Allies were prepared to fight against the evil of Nazism.

    I also find your argument rather disingenuous. I agree he should not be talking about using nuclear weapon against anyone, but as I said that is rhetoric, though it should be noted the US is the only country in the world to have used such weapons against others. Ive always found it rather hypocritical of the US in complaining about other nations developing them. You cant have any but we’re keeping ours! But is he and other nation leaders not simply trying to protect the people he is responsible for?

    As for abortion, Im assuming you are ‘liberal’ when it comes to that issue – correct me if Im wrong. In the UK around 186,000 abortions were carried out in England and Wales alone in 2015, with about 9 out 10 abortions carried out up to 12 weeks pregnancy.

    See https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/pregnancy-and-baby/pregnancy-weeks-9-10-11-12/?

    However, abortion is allowed up to 24 weeks and about 1 in 50 were carried out after 20 weeks pregnancy, thats 3,700.

    See https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/pregnancy-and-baby/pregnancy-weeks-21-22-23-24/?#your-body-at-21-24-weeks-pregnant

    Are you still convinced of your ‘liberal’ stance?

  • cken

    Yes he did. Remember when He told Moses If the town didn’t let them pas through they were supposed to go in and kill everybody and everything in the town.

  • Bones

    Well yeah I do….

    However Small, North Korea’s Olympics Talks Are a Victory

    http://time.com/5092347/north-korea-kim-jong-un-moon-jae-in-winter-olympics-pyeongchang/

  • Bones

    Lol trump couldn’t give a rats about you.

    This is how twisted American politics and Christianity has become.

    1930s Germany once again…..

    Christians have learned nothing….

  • Bones

    Yeah well as a a ‘libertarian’ it’s nice of you to impose your beliefs and morals on others by the government. That’s pretty convenient for you.

    So long as you leave big business alone, hey….

    All of a sudden the government imposing laws (read your morals) on people is a good thing.

    I wasn’t aware that people were wandering around the US having abortions in people’s houses?

    Are they having gay sex in your house as well?

    That must be inconvenient for you.

  • Bones

    “I don’t have any intelligence.”

    You should have stopped your post there.

  • Bones

    Yeah, you got nothing……

    Maybe Clinton abused your cat.

  • Bones

    They are as shown to you…..

    How’s that wonderful country of Chile going?

  • Bones

    Lol……the ultimate cherry picker…..

    You can’t wait to put young poor girls in jail can you?

    It’ll make you feel good.

  • Bones

    Grow a brain…….

    Those are figures from the Chilean government…….

    Abortion restrictions don’t work.

  • Herm

    cken, you probably know I don’t remember, anymore than you remember. Do you remember, when the Lord said to Moses, “But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise”? Neither you, nor I, is old enough to remember. We weren’t there and we weren’t with the Messiah, the Lord Jesus, when He is written to have said differently.

    I am not arguing the Bible, I am pointing to the truth. God never chose war for any in Their image to rival one another. Vice-President Cheney chose war in Iraq, not God. President Eisenhower chose war in Vietnam, not God. President Bush and the U.S. congress chose war in Afghanistan, not God. I can vouch for all three of those wars because I was present.

    http://www.patheos.com/blogs/formerlyfundie/dear-evangelicals-trump-still-pro-life-gets-us-killed/#comment-3697819620

    I can, also, testify to what I am taught by the Teacher as I can bear.

    God never chose war. This is what I am told.

    Adam, Eve, Cain and Able is at best a metaphor relative to the first farms and ranches in the Fertile Crescent, 9,000 year ago. Our physical cosmos began over 13 billion years ago computed by the time it takes for our earth to revolve around our sun (which is just over 4.5 billion years old using the same time reference). This is what I am told as I wasn’t at any of those events.

  • Bones

    You are aware that women travel from Poland to get abortions….

    Look on a map sometime.

    So Hawaii just proved your claim about US law as nonsense…

    well done…..

  • Bones

    Yeah, think of how many people were saved from hell.

    That should make you feel better.

  • Bones

    Remember when Jesus told his disciples to organise themselves into battalions in the Roman-Jewish War……

  • Bones

    Yeah, you people made the same excuse for invading Iraq……

    You don’t have any other clue apart from blowing people up.

    But you won’t be going over so why the f*** do you care.

    I don’t even know why the US is involved?

    This is a relic of the Cold War.

  • Bones

    You certainly are.

  • Ron McPherson

    “I don’t even know why the US is involved”

    Many white evangelicals over here believe the US has replaced Israel as God’s chosen people. They literally think God favors us over the world. That God is on our side and has been since Jefferson penned the Declaration of Independence. As such, that means we have the right to police the world. We have the right to possess weapons of mass destruction but countries fearing our invasion do not. That God desires the interest of the US at the expense of any other foreign nation.

  • Val–Standing

    I personally think that abortion is too important an issue to be decided by ANYONE’S “poll”.

    I only brought this particular poll up in the first place because YOU brought up a poll that you felt helped your side

    I mentioned the fact that this polling organization got an “A” rating from a ‘non-pro-life propaganda source’ only after you went out of your way to discredit it.

    Also, although I disagree with almost everything you have said on the issue of abortion, I have never resorted to deliberately misrepresenting your views, as you have done with me.

    “You can’t wait to put young poor girls in jail can you?

    It’ll make you feel good.”

    You know perfectly well that I stated in no uncertain terms that I oppose prosecuting mothers for abortion.

    If your pro-abortion case was as strong as you let on, you would not feel the need for willful lying and character-assassination.

  • raven nevermore

    No hate. That’s rather presumptuous of you. I’m disappointed in you. But, to your question. Israel is better at management. Why do you hate and be an anti-Israel person?

  • Val–Standing

    OK, show me some stats that DISPUTE this, and show that making abortion illegal again in Chile actually INCREASED MMRs at that time.

    I am “all ears”.

  • $144948586

    Again, I’ve not made a claim [about government].

    I’ve also not made any statements about “houses”.

    Yes, gay sex in my house would be an inconvenience for me…sex between anyone besides my wife and me in my home would be inconvenient….hopefully they’d wash their own sheets or towels for my or my wife’s convenience.

  • Val–Standing

    While I am sure that some women do travel, many do not–can not.

    The MMRs in Poland are stunning lower than other, abortion-on-demand countries that were associated with the former USSR.

    I do not see the very pro-abortion ‘Mother Jones’ omitting information about Hawaiian women resorting to less safe abortions, IF they were happening.

    I think it is fair to assume they are NOT happening, even though legal abortions are apparently hard to come by in Hawaii (or so MJ claims).

    It would also seem to be harder for Hawaiians to travel to the mainland than for the Polish (and Irish) to travel to ‘abortion havens’.

  • Val–Standing

    As I already stated, let’s see your stats that directly contradict my sources on Chile’s MMRs when abortion was legal vs when they made it illegal again.

    Put up or (you know).

  • Val–Standing

    And perhaps abortion really is a factor in why Republicans currently control the House, Senate, AND White House, even though there are more registered Democratic voters in the US than there are registered Republicans.

  • Matthew

    Sorry Bones … it was meant for Realist1234.

    Maybe you have read Rutledges´ book too? :-)

  • Matthew

    Hello Peter. Happy New Year :-)!

    I´m wondering how Rutledges´ book is going. Have you finished it?
    If so, could you offer up a short summary and your thoughts on it?

    Matthew

  • Realist1234

    Hi Matthew , HNY to you too!

    Ive finished her book. It was hard going at nearly 700 pages. It was ok but Im not sure I would particularly recommend it. She refers to Anselm a lot and wrote a whole chapter on his views, which to be honest I ended up skipping over as it went on and on. In summary, she argues for a multi-themed view of Jesus’ death with which I would agree, emphasising substitutionary atonement and Christus Victor. She views ‘sin’ as a ‘Power’ which Jesus dealt with on the cross. I would agree with that up to a point. She goes into some of the OT background, and how for example Hebrews relates to it. She seems to favour some sort of universalism, which I dont agree with, but she is honest enough to say she isnt sure.

    Now that Ive read it it’s unlikely I would read it again.

    Peter

    PS if you come across any good books let me know!

  • Bones

    It’s ironic in that the same way Evangelicals worship Trump, Kim’s people worship Kim…

    Maybe there’s a message there?

  • Bones

    That’s why Colorado and Mississippi voted down state abortion restrictions.

    Maybe voters voted for Obama because he was for abortion….unlike Romney who wanted a total ban….and back when they voted for Bill Clinton……and then they changed their mind with George W Bush.

    Keep going with your crazy theories.

    I’m sure those people in the Rust Belt voted for Trump because of abortion and nothing to do with not having jobs.

  • Bones

    Same if they had an abortion in your house…..

    Does the US have a problem with people rolling up and having abortions and gay sex in people’s houses?

  • Bones

    Lol… I can’t even tell which article you’re even writing about.

    You’re all over the place.

    Some of us don’t have time to be arguing over stupid theories.

    The point has been made.

    You have your ‘information’ which is based on anti-choice abortion sites.

    Btw I live in a state in which abortion is only legal if it involves the threat to the mothers health.

    And we have 14000 abortions every year….

    So I know you write bullshit.

  • Bones

    So why do you support Jews taking Palestinians land?

    I’ve studied with Palestinian Christtians who were driven out of their homes at gunpoint and their land given to Jews.

    Why do you support that?

    It is weird that Christians support the oppression of other Christians by religious extremists.

    And just this week

    Form the Patriarch of Jerusalem – the head of the Orthodox Church

    Christians are at risk of being driven out of the Holy Land

    For millennia, Jerusalem has been hallowed ground for all religions. But the activities of radical settler groups are putting this peaceful status quo at risk

    Today, 7 January, is Christmas, according to the Orthodox Christian calendar. And Orthodox Christians are keeping the feast in the Holy Land, where Christmas – and Christianity – began.

    Much attention has been paid recently to political decisions recognising Jerusalem in one light or another. The media attention highlights the seemingly intractable political struggle here. But as well as the threat to the political status quo, there is a threat also to the religious status quo, a threat instigated by radical settlers in and around Jerusalem, the heart of Christianity. And one group that has always been a pillar of society in the Holy Land – Christians – seems to have been rendered invisible in this standoff.

    Christians have lived a history in the Holy Land that spans more than two millennia. We have survived countless invasions, and have flourished under many different forms of government. We know that our survival has depended on the principle that the holy places must be shared by and be accessible to all. For it is the holy places that have given meaning to the region for both inhabitants and conquerors of all faiths. The protection and accessibility of the holy places are understood through a set of rules called the “status quo”, which has been followed by all religious and governmental authorities of the region through the ages.

    When the successor of the prophet Muhammad, Caliph Omar ibn al-Khattab, invaded Jerusalem in 637, he was greeted by Patriarch Sophronios, the then ethno-religious leader of Jerusalem. Together they signed a covenant that paved the way for an era of peace. This covenant was based on an understanding of shared custodianship of the holy places.

    Now various sides want to claim the Holy Land, including Jerusalem, as the exclusive possession of only one people. This treats with contempt the mechanism that has maintained peace and our multi-religious landscape for generations.

    Jerusalem is a sacred gift, hallowed ground, for the entire world. Attempts to possess the holy city, or to define it in terms of exclusivity, will betray its true nature.

    Recently Christian communities from the Holy Land came to the UK to seek support for our plight in the face of legal and land threats to the Christian church in the Holy Land. We were moved that church leaders from across the UK came to our support. In meetings with Prince Charles and government ministers, as well as with church leaders, we highlighted a proposed “church lands” bill signed by 40 members of Israel’s Knesset that would restrict the rights of churches to deal independently with their own land. We also discussed threats to church land around the Jaffa gate of the Old City of Jerusalem.

    The UK’s Catholic Cardinal Vincent Nichols summed up the view of many when he told us that the proposed bill represented “an intolerable infringement of the status quo and the legitimate rights of the churches, and should be recognised for what it is: an attack on the property rights of the Christian community”.

    In addition to the church lands bill, one of the foremost threats to Christians in the Holy Land is the unacceptable activities of radical settler groups, which are attempting to establish control over properties around the Jaffa gate. The properties in question are in the heart of Jerusalem’s Christian quarter, the seat of all the patriarchates and headquarters of the churches, and less than 500m from the Church of the Holy Sepulchre.

    The Patriarchate has lodged an appeal with the Israeli high court of justice, but if our efforts prove unsuccessful the result would be immensely damaging to the integrity of the Old City. If the settler groups were to gain control of the properties, they would be able to pursue their aggressive campaign of removing non-Jews from the City and from these strategic centres at the heart of the Christian quarter, threatening the very presence of Christians in the Holy Land.

    The Christian understanding of holy places is that all people have claims to the sanctity of their holy places, because holiness is a divine characteristic, not a human one. No party should ever be able to make an exclusive claim over a holy place – in this case, over the holy city of Jerusalem.

    We shall continue the fight for this cause because it is right and because it is our basic pastoral duty.

    • Theophilos III is the Orthodox Patriarch of Jerusalem

  • Matthew

    Best book of 2017:

    Sinners in the Hands of a Loving God — Brian Zahnd

    Good books I have read or am reading so far this year:

    (Re)union — Bruxy Cavey
    The Prophets — Abraham Heschel
    Sacred Word, Broken Word, Biblical Authority and the Dark Side of Scripture — Kenton L. Sparks (reading this one for the second time)
    Restoring the Woven Cord, Strands of Celtic Christianity for the Church Today — Michael Mitton

    From what and how you post, I think you might really like (Re)union.

    Be blessed Peter.

    Matthew

    [Edited]

  • Bones

    Let us know when you do that.

  • Bones

    And people have voted twice against state based restrictions on abortion…

    Let that sink in….

  • $144948586

    Misdirection is a sin, Bones.

    The problem the first world has is the murder of innocents and the 98% particularly for convenience.

  • Bones

    From your own article

    “In Chile, it is estimated occur 13,000 to 18,000 illegal abortions each year, representing a death risk of 1 in 4 million women of fertile age and leading to about 16% of hospital discharges due to any type of abortion. ”

    Yep abortion bans work really well….not….

    Maybe you can argue with yourself.

    Btw you’ll be happy to know they’ve relaxed the restrictions on abortions in Chile through recent legislation.

    Because you care for women so much.

  • Bones

    Maybe you should stop thinking about what people are doing in their personal lives….No one’s coming around to your house to have an abortion or gay sex. You can always shoot them anyway….

    I suppose for you an abortion for a rape victim is just an “inconvenience” or even a single woman…

    I mean it’s fine for you for companies to be immoral…..

    But hey imagine how few abortions there would be if welfare was banned like you want it to.

    It makes sense.

  • Bones

    Der it’s easy to travel in Europe…..ffs look at a map.

    Most women have their abortions in Germany where abortions are legal…..

    Well done Poland for forcing women to have abortions in Germany.

    More Polish women seen seeking abortions abroad

    https://www.reuters.com/article/us-poland-abortion/more-polish-women-seen-seeking-abortions-abroad-idUSTRE67P46Z20100826

    More abortion ban failure.

    Makes people feel good about themselves though……

  • Bones

    This is the country where your own source says has 13-18000 illegal abortions a year……

    I don’t think I have to do anything.

  • Bones

    Btw my wife had complications in her first two pregnancies which nearly claimed her life. She had to have a number of transfusions which cost $20 000 a pop.

    If they hadn’t have worked we’d have been facing the decision to abort.

    But that would be an inconvenience for you.

    Thank you, socialism.

  • Tim

    Unfortunately, most Evangelicals’ definition of ‘pro-life’ extends only to unborn babies.

  • $144948586

    “Maybe you should stop thinking about what people are doing in their personal lives….No one’s coming around to your house to have an abortion or gay sex. You can always shoot them anyway….”
    I’ve not said I’m going to stop them, except in the case that I own the property they do it on–where it’s my legal right.

    That being said, I will preach that it is murder.

    “I suppose for you an abortion for a rape victim is just an “inconvenience” or even a single woman…”
    As I said, I get it.

    “I mean it’s fine for you for companies to be immoral…..”
    This is baseless.

  • apoxbeonyou

    “Israel is better at management.”

    WTF? You mean by going to villages while people are sleeping and killing them or forcing them onto trucks and dropping them off at the border? That sounds more like terrorism than management.

    Or maybe you meant turning off their water or power for hours every day, or only sending garbage trucks once a month instead of once a week? Or maybe you mean enacting laws to refuse service based on ethnicity? Is that what you meant by ‘good management’?

  • $144948586

    At least theirs extends there.

  • Realist1234

    Deluded Americans lol.

  • SamHamilton

    Note that otrotierra never responded to my question. Either she doesn’t know the answer, and is therefore just as ignorant as I am about whose words Mr. Corey is quoting and attributing to evangelicals in general (which would make her criticism of my ignorance quite pathetic), or she knows to whom he’s referring but isn’t willing to enlighten me.

    Regardless, over the years, I’ve found her behavior to be pretty trollish. She’ll post something inflammatory and then, when confronted, disappear. She was warned about this several times on the Red Letter Christians website by the blog moderator. Most of the time I just ignore her petty statements and move on.

  • Val–Standing

    Not everyone travels.
    My point about Poland’s low MMRs in comparison with its neighbors–all former Soviet dominated countries–stands.

  • Val–Standing

    Again, LOWER than when abortion was legal.

  • Val–Standing

    I care about what is statistically true.
    Apparently you don’t.

  • Val–Standing

    Changing topics again when points that YOU bring up are disputed.

  • Val–Standing

    I presents statistical facts–as figures before and after legalization.

    You supplied nothing but emotionalism, copy-and-pastes, and platitudes.

    I think we will leave our ‘cases’ for future readers to decide.

  • Ron McPherson

    Yes, that has occurred to me as well. Eerily similar in some ways.

  • raven nevermore

    Thank you for the extensive report. The problem is, no matter what is said to defend Israel and their land and country, Palestinians never want peace, nor do Arabs want anything to do with them including Iran, except to use them to make war. The Palestinian people today is not identified as those from Jesus time. They are a mix of various peoples. Therefore, those that hate Israel by defending Palestinians, cannot be taken seriously. Personally, I think the whole mess in the Middle East is crazy, which is perpetuated by the warmongering Palestinians. The whole mess is a BIG FAT LIE, perpetrated by Palestinians. Why isn’t that questioned by the haters of Israel? People say to others, “You hate Palestinians.” But few say to the pro-Palestinians, “You hate Israel.” There is no hate from me for either group. I think you are rather have some wrongheaded conclusions, and, you think I do.

    I know there are Palestinian Christians thrown into a divided existence. But their leaders feed them lies about Israel and its history. So, where is the hate coming from? It cannot be from Israel since they are reacting to bombs thrown at them. I think I have a realistic understanding without the malice.

  • raven nevermore

    See my reply to Bones. According to you, Israel doesn’t have the right to defend itself against those that what to kill them with extreme prejudice and steal their land! Israel has turned the land into something prosperous, plus leading inventions and medications. What have the Palestinians done for the world? Do you think they brought more chaos attached with pure hate? Perhaps you don’t.

  • Bones

    Wullaj is married to a Palestinian Christian.

    Those of us who know Palestinians know the lies spouted by Israel.

    It’s good to see you agree that Palestinians can defend themselves from Jewish aggressors.

    And yeah, you express your hate against Palestinian as worthless inconveniences to the state of Israel.

    As for hate…..you can’t beat Jewish hate for Palestinians….

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IZH9XEfh8Ms

  • Bones

    Israel is not defending itself.

    It is taking Palestinian land and giving it to religious extremists. If these were Muslims you’d be all over it.

    Lol you don’t hate Palestinians but you call them liars…..

    Yeah you have a real understanding of malice.

    Actually the Palestinians are far more tolerant than I’d be if my home was occupied and given to religious extremists.

    Let’s not forget who assassinated the Israeli PM who sought peace with Palestinians.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tIcT5TIovAs

  • Bones

    Not everyone here lives under a rock……

    Who’s Who of Trump’s ‘Tremendous’ Faith Advisers
    The Republican candidate finally names his campaign’s evangelical connections.

    “Trump was forthright, said he would support pro-life judges. Respectful, and warmly received.”

    Reed praised Trump’s decision to identify as pro-life in 2011, and later that year, Trump spoke at the Faith and Freedom Coalition’s Road to Morality event.

    http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2016/june-web-only/whos-who-of-trumps-tremendous-faith-advisors.html

  • Bones

    As opposed to people……

  • Tim

    At least? Not far enough to show integrity in the matter, IMO.

  • Realist1234

    Did you take out the ‘easy’ bit? lol

  • Matthew

    Yeah … I wasn’t trying to suggest that by your posts one could conclude that you can only handle easy reads, but after reading my response I could see how such a conclusion could be drawn :-). Sorry.

  • otrotierra

    Thank you Bones for yet again introducing U.S. Evangelicals to simple facts.

  • apoxbeonyou

    My wife and her whole family are Palestinian. They are a family of nurses and machinists. They are beneficial members of society.

    Do the Palestinians not have a right to defend themselves when someone encroaches on their land? Do they not have a say? Or should they just submit and be trampled over because the other guy has bigger guns?

  • raven nevermore

    Good for those that have trade skills and professional skills – as any group does. I have met some myself (not in the Middle East). On the other side of the argument, it is the Palestinians that are attempting to steal land which never belonged to them. The Palestinians today are a mix from various groups for which the Arabs care not a bit for, and Iran only uses as tools against Israel. I admit, Palestinians are in a nowhere position. The questions you present are evidence of the propaganda perpetrated by the terrorists from the Palestinians – these are not Christians; if they are, they believed a lie.

    With respect to what Bones mentions, which is related to your questions, Israel does use the religious zealots to move into disputed land. Again, we must ask: Why? Because it goes back to the terrorists and the lies they spread, from the Palestinians towards Israel who has the right to the land. To dispute that is to ignore history and to ignore the lies that the terrorists tell their people about Israel. The whole situation is a mess, which probably can be pointed to the British when they pulled out. However, to blatantly accept the Palestinian position as legitimate, without any credibility to what Israel claims, is so far removed from logic and truth of history, that an unbiased, non-hatful person is obligated to question. I will question that, because of intellectual honesty. Anyway, I don’t want to go in circles. But I welcome your response. Peace.

  • apoxbeonyou

    “that are attempting to steal land which never belonged to them”.

    My wife’s family has lived on that land for generations; LONG before any European Hebrews came into the picture. They trace their lineage to the original Christian movement in Galilee.

    In a village a few miles away, her uncles and aunts were REMOVED FORCIBLY by the IDF and trucked to Jordan in ’48. Some of them stayed, some returned. This is not propaganda; it happened.

  • HJW1219

    Bones

    I’m happy to hear that you didn’t have to make a choice. I think until people have to be in position medically, where you realize, that, this topic suddenly realize this might not be theoretical any more it It chances a person. So unless it’s someone like you, I stay away from the debate. B/c whether in real life or the internet. People can say they feel x way. Until one has been part of either of our lives. I don’t care about their opinion.

    B/c someone like Josh, it’s real easy to say To have an abortion you are committing murder. I am pro life b/c I don’t more unborn babies being murdered. That there aren’t many women lose to their lives considering we save unborn babies. I have stats to prove it doesn’t happened often!!!!!!!!

    Go though my situation ( less serious than yours but still a scary one where we realized it how although I’m christian how I truly feel about the topic) or yours. When push comes to shove him and his wife they have to chose which life to save. (It’s his wife not some random woman from a survey he posted,) Then he tell me they decided yes this is need murdering a baby and they couldn’t do that. So he is a going to be single dad raising a child. As opposed to aborting ( which he says is murder) the baby and saving the mom. I will respect his opinion. Until then, I don’t care about the millions of Josh’s out there and their opinions.

    I also hope that Josh’s of the world never have to go though to have to come face to face with the issue to actually see what it’s like. B/c I won’t wish that on anyone to have to truly understand this.

  • otrotierra

    Thank you wullaj for exposing raven to basic truth, no matter how upsetting it is to U.S. Evangelicals still supporting zionist terrorism.

  • raven nevermore

    That is a nice heritage to have.

    How far back do we go? Some say the current Palestinian people go back to the Philistines. Who knows for sure. If that is the case, according to biblical record, the Lord drove them out, but the Philistine people disappeared. The land was given by God to the Hebrews, the Jewish people of today. Nobody claims to be a Philistine today – although some are called that in a derogatory way. Yet, today, nobody wants the Palestinians, except Israel for a labor force. It isn’t that they were not given any land – the terrorists want to take it all, and, they want to kill Israeli people. Not all Palestinians are wingnut killers. But a lot are wingnut haters, which I cannot support. Incidentally, I am not Jewish. You can have the last word.

  • Bones

    Yes, some people think people have abortions because they love them.

    In the real world it isn’t black and white but 50 shades of grey.

  • Bones

    Yeah it seems fine for Israel to have thousands and thousands of Palestinians working in Israel….Hasn’t someone told them they’re terrorists?

    And you seem to want to go back to Roman times……And according to the Bible the whole destruction of the Temple was a judgement on the Jews….Anyway it’s like a person of Native american heritage whose family has lived the whole last century in Norway rocking up to your house and demanding their land back.

    You are aware that Israel doesn’t run the West Bank but has an occupying military force in it.

    The Palestinians don’t want to become Jordanians (who aren’t occupying the west Bank and bringing in religious extremists) neither do they want to become Israelis. Neither do the Israelis want the Palestinians to become Israeli citizens because Israel would no longer be a Jewish State. Israel wants the land WITHOUT the Palestinians.

    Palestinians want to be Palestinians. They are currently stateless.

    Why does democracy no longer count?

    FFS you go to war in Iraq and Afghanistan for freedom and democracy while paying the Israeli military to deny the same to Palestinians.

    That’s the hypocrisy the rest of the world sees.

  • Bones

    So what did we get out of the Korean talks…..

    “”All our weapons, including atomic bombs, hydrogen bombs and ballistic missiles, are only aimed at the United States, not our brethren, nor China and Russia,” Pyongyang’s chief negotiator, Ri Son Gwon, said.

    I hope that makes my American friends feel better.

    Yay, Trump…….

    Oh and North Korea gets to send their cheerleaders to the Olympics….

    Win/win for North Korea…..while South Korea doesn’t get any missile tests heading their way while they host the games.

  • Bones

    The outcome of the talks are that North Korea can go to the Olympics with their cheerleaders and that their nukes are aimed at you, Sunshine.

    Well done, Trump.

  • Bones

    Lol….you know over here I get people all the time rocking up to my house wanting to have an abortion and gay sex in my house….sometimes both……

    Let us know when you enter the real world.

    But leave those businesses alone hey Josh…….

  • Bones

    The topic was the popularity of abortions and polls.

    I would say where people actually vote is a far more accurate poll……Heck Mississippi is a conservative state and still voted it down. Bad luck that you didn’t like that point.

  • Bones

    Lol I presented heaps of statistics…….

    Which of course you’ve swept under the carpet……..

    In fact your own articles show that anti-abortion legislation doesn’t work.

  • Bones

    Nope.

    Why would people have illegal abortions if abortion was legal?

  • Bones

    Poland is next door to Germany……..Polish women get abortions in Germany…..

    I’m sorry that fact is inconvenient for you.

  • Bones

    Well it’s a statistic from your article…….

    Thanks for proving that abortion bans don’t work.

  • HJW1219

    EXACTLY! How many actually willing to give up their life or spend their life as single dad backing up this belief they have.

  • Bones

    “the scriptures meant only personal, spiritual peace.”

    That was news to Christians in WW1…..

    “……though the clergy always pray ‘Give peace in our time, O Lord’, as a rule they refrain from preaching much about it, and during the war left the ‘Sermon on the Mount’ severely alone. The few who ventured to do otherwise ran the risk of losing their pulpits, as some of them actually did.”

    Mrs Septimus Harwood, ‘The Peace Society: Its Origins, Work, Difficulties and Mistakes’ (paper read at the 14th Annual Meeting of the Peace Society, NSW Branch, Royal Society Hall, Elizabeth Street, Sydney December 13, 1921): 5

  • $144948586

    I’m sure they do. And I’m sure you let them. And I’m sure 98 percent of them were for nothing more than convenience–not rape, not incest–just the collateral damage of a woman and her proclivities.
    Congratulations.

  • Bones

    Only after I tell the kids to go to bed.
    And Yeah having abortions is just a covenient excuse for poor women.
    Why do poor women make things so inconvenient for you?

  • Matthew

    Thanks Bones.

  • $144948586

    I’m not the one making this about poor women. You are.
    Why are children who, through no choice of their own, such an inconvenience to their mothers who abort them? Why are they deserving of murder?

  • IconoclastTwo

    “To be a peacemaker means to be making peace, namely between two people, not nations.”

    This is the kind of sophistry that leaves me wanting to vomit when I think about what believers like you actually do, not what you say you allegedly believe in. There’s also nothing courageous about pushing for a confrontation that’s likely to get millions of innocent people killed when alternatives to doing so exist.

  • IconoclastTwo

    “What have the Palestinians done for the world?”

    You are bigoted filth and even though christians might believe in forgiving you I don’t.

  • IconoclastTwo

    Nobody has to lie to them in order to convince them that they’re being oppressed…when they are, in fact, incontrovertibly being oppressed.

    I know I might as well be talking to a brick but I’ll say it anyways.

  • Val–Standing

    “Poland is next door to Germany……..Polish women get abortions in Germany…..

    I’m sorry that fact is inconvenient for you”

    I never denied that ‘abortion tourism’ exists.

    I simply stated that that alone would not explain their EXCEPTIONALLY low MMR for the area.

    I said that not EVERYONE has the means to travel.

    Sorry THAT fact is ‘inconvenient’ for you to accept.

    I will add that IF the Mother Jones article was correct about the restricted access to abortion in Hawaii (I did say “if”), then the fact that there is no mention by the very pro-abortion author of women resorting to more dangerous abortions is very telling.

  • Val–Standing

    Before you point it out to me, this article was written on a pro-life site.

    It discusses the difficulties in getting accurate stats about abortion when it is illegal, and how Guttmacher’s studies use some pretty questionable methods in estimating the number of illegal abortions in developing countries.

    http://blog.secularprolife.org/2018/01/international-unsafe-abortion-studies.html?m=1

    BTW, the abortion-MM graft in my earlier post to you (pre-Roe to now) still stands, at least in the US.

  • Val–Standing

    “I would say where people actually vote is a far more accurate poll….”

    Again, I have not been one to keep bringing up polls or the one to conclude that they are even that important on an issue such as this.

    I am unsure if I have sent you this or not.
    It Isn’t a ‘poll’, but an actual numerical study of google searches on election day.

    As you were quoted as saying, the VOTERS–or, perhaps more concisely, the NON-voters.

    http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/abortion-immigration-toection-day-google-searches/article/2606813

    As I mentioned before, registered Democratic voters outnumber registered Republicans, yet it is the Republicans who currently control the House, the Senate, and the Presidency.

    How many pro-life progressives–like me, who were disgusted by BOTH Trump and Clinton, did not vote for either one??

    The original premise of this article was the idea of Trump, ‘claiming’ to be pro-life, then starting a nuclear war.

    I really do think there are enough sane people surrounding Trump that it won’t happen.

    But, if I am wrong, it may be fair to say that the Democrat’s very extreme abortion stance, likely resulting from their financial dependence on ‘big abortion’ for campaign donations, will have played a role.

  • Bones

    You’re obsessed with ot….

    Notice the lack of engagement with the Evangelical Palestinian hater…..

    Your silence is more deafening than the words you speak.

    Which is weird because there are thousands of Palestinian Catholics.

  • Val–Standing

    Lol “I presented heaps of statistics…….

    Which of course you’ve swept under the carpet……..”

    I have not seen any stats from you comparing countries MMRs before and after making abortion legal or illegal, as I have (with both the US and Chile).

    THOSE types of stats are by far the strongest.

    “In fact your own articles show that anti-abortion legislation doesn’t work.”

    No legislation in the world can make abortion–or any other crime ‘disappear’.

    If that is how you judge successful legislation, that is an impossible standard to obtain.

    Please re-read my first paragraph.

  • Bones

    From Reviews in Obstretrics and Gynaecology

    Every year, worldwide, about 42 million women with unintended pregnancies choose abortion, and nearly half of these procedures, 20 million, are unsafe. Some 68,000 women die of unsafe abortion annually, making it one of the leading causes of maternal mortality (13%). Of the women who survive unsafe abortion, 5 million will suffer long-term health complications.

    https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/fb18d233c8708eb232949a5e684a11dccb49f43bad72b3c01f87efbda90a1e24.jpg

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2709326/

  • Bones

    Main Points

    *The World Health Organization deems unsafe abortion one of the easiest preventable causes of maternal mortality.
    *Data suggest that even as the overall abortion rate has declined, the proportion of unsafe abortion is on the rise.
    *Methods of unsafe abortion include drinking toxic fluids; inflicting direct injury to the vagina, cervix, or rectum; or inflicting external injury to the abdomen. Complications also arise from unskilled providers causing uterine perforation and infections.
    *Worldwide, 5 million women are hospitalized each year for treatment of abortion-related complications, and abortion-related deaths leave 220,000 children motherless.
    *Data indicate an association between unsafe abortion and restrictive abortion laws.
    *Preventing unintended pregnancy, providing better access to health care, and liberalizing abortion laws to allow services to be openly provided can reduce the rate of abortion-related morbidity and mortality.

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2709326/

  • Bones

    It’s poor women who have abortions derp……

    Reasons U.S. women have abortions: quantitative and qualitative perspectives.

    “The reasons most frequently cited were that having a child would interfere with a woman’s education, work or ability to care for dependents (74%); that she could not afford a baby now (73%); and that she did not want to be a single mother or was having relationship problems (48%). Nearly four in 10 women said they had completed their childbearing, and almost one-third were not ready to have a child. Fewer than 1% said their parents’ or partners’ desire for them to have an abortion was the most important reason. Younger women often reported that they were unprepared for the transition to motherhood, while older women regularly cited their responsibility to dependents.”

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16150658

    It’s an inconvenience for you though…….

  • Val–Standing
  • Bones

    People actually voted against abortion restrictions in Colorado and Mississippi….and by quite a margin.

    I know that’s inconvenient for you.

    As for search engines on election day – what a crock of sh*t….they could be from anyone……and the washington Examiner is a conservative anti-choice publication.

    You’ve already lied about clinton who was an appalling candidate not because of abortion. The rest of your post about ‘big abortion’ is just lunacy from anti-abortion propaganda.

    Why didn’t YOU vote for Trump if abortion was such a big deal – he said women who had abortions should be ‘punished’.

  • Bones

    You mean the MJ article which directly contradicts your own assertion that US has the world’s most extremist abortion laws……

    And many many Polish women travel to have abortions…it’s strange that you count poor women who can’t travel as some type of success. Same with Northern Ireland where women can get FREE abortions in the UK.

    But that’s your mindset.

    You don’t really care about people at all.

  • Val–Standing

    Here are a few quotes from that article you linked me to, and my replies.–

    “In Western nations, only 3% of abortions are unsafe, whereas in developing nations 55% are unsafe.”

    Can the same thing not be said about childbirth between developed and undeveloped nations?

    “The median rate of unsafe abortions in the 82 countries with the most restrictive abortion laws is up to 23 of 1000 women compared with 2 of 1000 in nations that allow abortions.4”

    Again, most legalization of abortion is occurring in the ‘developed’ world, where ALL medical procedures are safer.

    “Abortion-related deaths are more frequent in countries with more restrictive abortion laws (34 deaths per 100,000 childbirths) than in countries with less restrictive laws (1 or fewer per 100,000 childbirths).1”

    REPEAT, most legalization of abortion is occurring in the ‘developed’ world, where ALL medical procedures are safer.
    This huge fact cannot be emphasised enough.

    “The world’s lowest abortion rates are in Europe, where abortion is legal and widely available but contraceptive use is high; in Belgium, Germany, and the Netherlands, the rate is below 10 per 1000 women aged 15 to 44 years. In contrast, in Africa, Latin America, and the Caribbean, where abortion laws are the most restrictive and contraceptive use is lower, the rates range from the mid-20s to 39 per 1000 women.3”

    One more time, childbirth and medical procedures in general are safer in the developed world.
    Have I stated that enough times now??

    I will also add that the fact that reliable contraceptive usage in more developed countries, and, most important of all, women’s education levels are likely underrated factors in reducing all pregnancy-related maternal deaths.

    This article only barely mentions that even when abortion is legal in developing countries, that does not automatically make it ‘safe’.

    The Chilean study, a truly ‘one-of-its kind’ in studying a country’s MMRs before-and-after legalization, was not referred to at all in your article.
    https://www.google.com/amp/amp.nationalreview.com/corner/300129

    Nor did they mention this study in Mexico, showing LOWER MMRs in Mexican states that have not legalized abortion.
    https://www.pop.org/permissive-abortion-laws-do-not-reduce-maternal-deaths/

    Before you go accusing all my sources of ‘bias’, I would like to point out how your referenced article pointed to reduced MMRs in Romania when abortion restrictions were eased in the 1990s.

    What it DID NOT point out was that MMRs ALSO fell in Poland–which RESTRICTED legal abortion around the same time (when the Soviet empire fell).
    https://savethestorks.com/2017/10/apparently-millions-will-die-without-abortion-lets-get-facts-straight/?nabe=5788403127025664:1&utm_referrer=https://www.google.com/

    And, of course, they left out the ‘good-old USA’, where RvW did little-to-nothing to decrease maternal deaths from abortions, despite widespread claims by abortion promoters to the contrary.

  • Val–Standing

    “People actually voted against abortion restrictions in Colorado and Mississippi….and by quite a margin.”

    As I understand it, you are talking about proposed laws that would have made nearly every abortion illegal.

    While you can argue that the public would not accept that, that hardly translates into supporting abortion for any and all reasons throughout pregnancy, as the RvW ruling did.

    I would definitely guess that if proposals were made to restrict abortion to the most extreme cases, and to virtually ban it after, say, 10-weeks, that they would pass in pro-life states.

    And “I know that would be inconvenient for YOU.”

    “As for search engines on election day – what a crock of sh*t….they could be from anyone……and the washington Examiner is a conservative anti-choice publication.”

    Here you go disputing my sources again, when ALL of your sources are total pro-abortion propaganda peices.

    What a double-standard!!

    If you have ANY evidence at all that the google search news story was in error–other than your obvious emotionalism and denialism–go for it.

    Until you produce such evidence, I will go for the google reporting research to be 100% true.

    “You’ve already lied about clinton who was an appalling candidate not because of abortion.”

    I have already said, AT LEAST THREE TIMES, that Clinton actively wanted to overturn the Hyde Amendment, which would have forced taxpayers to pay Medicaid abortions for any and all reasons at any and all stages of pregnancy.

    Obama did not like that Amendment, but seemed to regard it as settled law.

    I also mentioned the fact that Clinton came across as an abortion-extremist in the last debate.

    Even if Obama’s views WERE as extreme as the ones that Clinton expressed, he at least had the good sense to not be so obvious about it. That is likely why her abortion extremism was googled so much on election day, and some Democratic voters decided to stay home as a result.

    “The rest of your post about ‘big abortion’ is just lunacy from anti-abortion propaganda.”

    That is why Planned Parenthood endorsed Clinton in the primaries, which even Bernie Sanders took displeasing note of.
    As I remember, he caught heat from abortion extremists for saying ANYTHING even slightly derogatory the “almighty” Planned Parenthood.

    It is amazing that you and other so-called “progressives” can whine about campaign finance reform, and special interests controlling our elections, but be totally oblivious to the financial incentives of the abortion profiteers as being a part of that group.

    “Why didn’t YOU vote for Trump if abortion was such a big deal – he said women who had abortions should be ‘punished’.”

    Do you have reading problems, or are you being deliberately disingenuous?

    For the THIRD time–THIRD–I favor legally punishing abortion providers–NOT the women themselves, as was done pre-Roe.

    And since I am progressive, I think the reasons that I could not vote for Trump were obvious.

  • Val–Standing

    “You mean the MJ article which directly contradicts your own assertion that US has the world’s most extremist abortion laws……”

    I have shown you good sources, including “fact checkers” that confirm that the US is among the seven most abortion-permissive countries in the world today.

    Your denialism of “inconvenient facts” is getting tiresome by now.

    “And many many Polish women travel to have abortions…it’s strange that you count poor women who can’t travel as some type of success. Same with Northern Ireland where women can get FREE abortions in the UK.”

    Already answered that–twice, I believe.

    It is not my problem that you are not reading my posts before you just keep repeating yourself again and again.

    “You don’t really care
    about people at all.”

    Pure projection, Bones–because you obviously don’t care that the weakest and most voiceless humans among us are being killed by the stronger because their existence is “inconvenient”.

  • Bones

    Obama was elected….twice…..

    “I would definitely guess that if proposals were made to restrict abortion to the most extreme cases, and to virtually ban it after, say, 10-weeks, that they would pass in pro-life states.”

    Once again it’s inconvenient that even in a conservative state like Mississippi, abortion restrictions were not passed.

    “Here you go disputing my sources again, when ALL of your sources are total pro-abortion propaganda peices.”

    Lol…someone doesn’t like having their anti-choice sources questioned. Actually my sources are those who work in Medicine and Obstetrics and Health….Yours are ideologues.

    “If you have ANY evidence at all that the google search news story was in error–other than your obvious emotionalism and denialism–go for it.”

    Derrrr…..there is no correlation at all between abortion searches and last minute voters…..That was not proven by the article.

    In fact it was written by an anti-choice media organisation quoting one of Trump’s anti-choice campaigners

    The head of a major anti-abortion rights group is coming on board as chairwoman of Donald Trump’s pro-life coalition.

    Marjorie Dannenfelser, the president of the Susan B. Anthony List, is assuming that position on Trump’s behalf, her organization plans to announce Friday. Co-chairs are slated to be rolled out later this month.

    Dannenfelser will seek to mobilize “national and statewide anti-abortion leaders, with a particular emphasis on people in battleground states,” to activate their “spheres of influence” in support of the Trump campaign, said SBA List spokeswoman Mallory Quigley.

    The addition of Dannenfelser, a onetime sharp critic of Trump, to a leadership role on behalf of his campaign is the latest sign that Trump has consolidated support from socially conservative leaders who were initially skeptical of him.

    https://www.politico.com/story/2016/09/donald-trump-marjorie-dannenfelser-abortion-228252

    The Washington Examiner offered no data at all. Just someone’s interpretation. Oh and notice how you’ve left out immigration.

    Nah, it’s going to take more than Trump inspired anti-choice propaganda to convince anyone other than people such as yourself.

    “I have already said, AT LEAST THREE TIMES, that Clinton actively wanted to overturn the Hyde Amendment, which would have forced taxpayers to pay Medicaid abortions for any and all reasons at any and all stages of pregnancy.”

    And Clinton already stated there would be no change to laws with regard to late term abortions.

    As for Bernie Sanders….he was disappointed the LGBT organisation and Planned Parenthood aligned themselves with Clinton…he was and has been behind them 100%.

    Sanders – “We’re taking on not only Wall Street and the economic establishment, we’re taking on the political establishment. So, I have friends and supporters in the Human Rights Fund [sic], in Planned Parenthood. But you know what, Hillary Clinton has been around there for a very, very long time, and some of these groups are in fact part of the establishment. I will challenge anybody with regard to my record on LGBT issues. I was one of the few, relatively few, to oppose and vote against DOMA [Defense of Marriage Act], et cetera. In terms of women’s rights, I believe we have a 100 percent lifetime pro-choice record.”

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/01/20/sanders-draws-criticism-after-calling-planned-parenthood-and-other-groups-part-of-the-establishment/?utm_term=.e99da2fa9bbc

    Your lies have caught you out….yet again….And Sanders would have beaten Trump.

    “And since I am progressive, I think the reasons that I could not vote for Trump were obvious.”

    So as abortion wasn’t an issue for you, neither was it an issue for the vast majority.

    If it was pro-choice Jones would never have defeated anti-choice Moore in Alabama. Bad luck for you there. Better have a whine about that.

    Btw progressives don’t defend Authoritarian governments and policies. You may as well just claim yourself as antigay and progressive.

    But then you’ve lied about most things…so it’s no surprise. Funny, you’d fit in well with Trump.

  • Bones

    “I have shown you good sources, including “fact checkers” that confirm that the US is among the seven most abortion-permissive countries in the world today.”

    Your own article just showed that is not the case…unless Hawaii is no longer part of the US.

    That’s a pretty inconvenient fact for you.

    Btw

    Policy Trends in the States, 2017

    Seems most US states are applying restrictions to abortions….

    https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/43b2d012dc24e28892541750813e24dbb398c4f84a49ac7fb5fc238931d6a596.png

    https://www.guttmacher.org/article/2018/01/policy-trends-states-2017

    And as I’ve posted yet again anti-choice laws in Poland and Northern Ireland are not stopping women having abortions. It’s only preventing those who can’t afford the trip.

    Poor women in other words. Do you call that a ‘progressive’ attitude?

    “Pure projection, Bones–”

    No…that’s a conclusion based on your posts…you rejoice that poor women can’t afford to travel for abortions as a ‘success’ and you call yourself a ‘progressive’ while aligning with the Far Right such as in Poland and Chile.

  • Bones

    “I favor legally punishing abortion providers…..”

    So….like Hitler then…..where abortionists were sentenced to death or concentration camps….

    In Mein Kampf, Hitler wrote, ‘We must also do away with the conception that the treatment of the body is the affair of every individual.’ Sounds familiar….

  • $144948586

    It’s sad that these same considerations aren’t made when engaging in sexual activity. Hardly a reason to warrant a child’s murder.

  • Val–Standing

    All I stated about Poland and Chile was that MMRs went DOWN after abortions became restricted or illegal.

    Sorry you react to FACTS with childish character-attacks.

    As I said, you either are not reading what I post, or you are being willfully disingenuous.
    Either way does make you look good.

    Hawaiian LAW, as in ALL the US, is bound by the extreme RvW ruling of the US–including allowing abortions for “mental health” reasons throughout the third trimester.

    Abortions without ANY “justification” what-so-ever are allowed from 20 to 24 weeks into pregnancy.

    Did you understand my last few sentences??

    Very few–VERY few–other countries allow purely elective abortions (or “mental health” abortions, either) so late into pregnancy.

    MJ “claimed” that access–NOT THE LAW–was a problem in Hawaii.

    DID YOU GET THAT LAST SENTENCE, also??

  • Bones

    The facts are you support repressive legislation from Far Right countries. You quote them as some sort of successful model.

    And you claim to be a progressive.

    Enough with your lies.

    We’ve all seen enough.

  • Bones

    Yeah it’s the woman’s fault.

    Darn it poor women, you make life so inconvenient for Josh.

  • Val–Standing

    Wow, emotionism and attacking one’s character are really easy for you when you have no other good arguments.

    I was talking about ABORTION LAWS and MMRs from various countries–that is all.
    I said nothing about their other policies AT ALL.
    Your smearing is not even subtle.

    But, if ‘I’ am somehow “responsible” for the general policies of countries that still make intrauterine child killing illegal, will YOU take responsibility for the “pro-choice” policies of the most populous country on earth, China?

    You know, China, with its numerous human-rights violations?

    With its Draconian laws about family sizes, and record of heavily coerced and FORCED abortions??

    Oh, and add to that fact that China ia one of the only countries in the world with NO animal protection laws what-so-ever!

    And what about North Korea being on the list with the US as among the seven most abortion-permissive countries of the world?
    Shall I align THEIR policies with you as well??

  • Val–Standing

    You know as well as I do that Hitler only opposed abortion among Arians–forced abortion in concentration camps was not at all uncommon in the NAZI era.

    Since China and North Korea are pro-abortion, perhaps YOU should be aligned with them?

  • Bones

    Yes Hitler opposed abortions among Arians and sent abortionists to concentration camps and even death….He didn’t give a toss about what people did in them because most of them were going to die anyway.

    China of course had forced abortions…..you would have to be particularly dishonest to compare western abortion policy with China’s population control.

  • Bones

    Huh….you’ve quoted policies from far right countries as some evidence of which you wish the US to aspire to…like Chile and Poland…Interesting how these are countries dominated by Authoritarianism and Church laws.

    And you’ve quoted from Trump’s head of anti-choice as some evidence of the roll of abortion in the election.

    Those are facts…..

    Perhaps you can enlighten me as to how a progressive supports regressive Authoritarian laws?

    And now you dishonestly compare China’s forced abortion policy with liberal western countries.

    Fun fact: Nowhere in the western world with liberal abortion laws will you be forced to have an abortion.

    Enough with your emotionalism and dishonesty.

  • Val–Standing

    “Once again it’s inconvenient that even in a conservative state like Mississippi, abortion restrictions were not passed.”

    I guess misrepresenting what I said (IF you read it at all) is standard fare for you.

    I know that it would be an “inconvenient fact” for YOU to know that the proposal that I suggested in my last post–which would NOT be enforceable under RvW–would likely have passed handily in Mississippi.

    “Lol…someone doesn’t like having their anti-choice sources questioned. Actually my sources are those who work in Medicine and Obstetrics and Health….”

    I think it is fair to say that your above source is openly pro-abortion, and likely profits from them as well.

    Some of my sources you are just “claiming” are bias because you basically do not like what they are saying.

    And, even my OBVIOUSLY ‘biased’ sources have actual links to REAL studies and REAL stats.

    I really do not care at all what sources you use–as long as they have actual stats and links–I just don’t go for your clear double-standard.

    “Derrrr…..there is no correlation at all between abortion searches and last minute voters…..That was not proven by the article.”

    All I did was point out the fact that ‘abortion’ was the number one googled issue on election day.

    You can disagree with my linking that fact to Trump’s victory, but unless you show me disputing evidence, I have no reason what-so-ever to believe that the story itself was incorrect.

    Why don’t you email the ‘Google’ corporation about this, and show us their answer??

    “Oh and notice how you’ve left out immigration.”

    This issue of “immigration” was not what we were posting about.

    And, if I read the news story correctly, ‘immigration’ was the SECOND most googled issue–AFTER ‘abortion’.

    “And Clinton already stated there would be no change to laws with
    regard to late term abortions.”
    We agree on that one, that she ‘not-so-elquently’ stated at the final debate.
    I think that was part of her problem.

    I guess the fact that you are not disputing that she wanted to change Medicaid laws so that they would force taxpayers to fund abortions for any and all reasons, at any and all stages of pregnancy, is the same as you tacitly admitting that you were WRONG all the times that you emphatically stated that there was ‘no difference’ between Obama’s and Clinton’s abortion policies. Good.

    I am very aware that Bernie Sanders was totally pro-abortion.
    That was actually part of my point.

    Even though, as you stated, he had a 100% pro-abortion voting record, he was still heavily criticized by radical pro-aborts for daring to say anything even REMOTELY critical of their sacred ‘Planned Parenthood’.

    “Your lies have caught you out….yet again….”

    If you actually interpreted my last post as claiming that Sanders was not pro-abortion, I think your STUPIDITY has caught you–‘yet again’.

    “And Sanders would have beaten Trump”.

    Maybe, maybe not. We will never know.

    “So as abortion wasn’t an issue for you, neither was it an issue for the vast majority.”

    Remember my above quote about ‘stupidity’?

    Since I am progressive on most issues, I quite obviously would have supported Clinton, had abortion not been a BIG issue for me.
    Instead, I left the Presidential selection blank.

    “If it was pro-choice, Jones would never have defeated anti-choice Moore in Alabama.”

    Since, in the case of the Alabama elections, Moore was accused of rape, I do not see that as a good example of an election challenge between an abortion opposer and an abortion supporter.
    I would actually be saying the same thing if the roles were reversed.

    “Btw progressives don’t defend Authoritarian governments and policies. You may as well just claim yourself as antigay and progressive.”

    As I have already stated, unless you want to answer for the crimes of pro-abortion countries such as China and North Korea (and I forgot to mention Lenin’s USSR war crimes), I would strongly recommend that you quit these ridiculous character-assassinations in place of real responses to the REAL issues.

    “But then you’ve lied about most things…so it’s no surprise. Funny, you’d fit in well with Trump.”

    Exposing inconvenient facts is not the same as ‘lying’, and I think your character-assassination of those you disagree with is what would REALLY fit in well with the Trump administration.

  • Val–Standing

    In regards to the Nazis and abortion, I think that readers of this post will find this article quite unique.

    http://digitalcommons.liberty.edu/lusol_fac_pubs/26/

    “China of course had forced abortions…..you would have to be particularly dishonest to compare western abortion policy with China’s population control.”

    Excuse my, Mr. Hypocrite, but I believe it was YOU–not ME–that started this exchange of character-assassinations
    by comparing their opponents abortion policies to “Authoritarian” governments??

    Ever heard the saying that those who “live in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones”?

  • $144948586

    I’ll choose a mother’s inconvenience over murder any day. I don’t wager death of an innocent for irresponsibility of another as just, and you don’t either.

    Thanks for the admission.

  • Val–Standing

    Since YOU are the one who initiated the “guilt by associations”, and are now whining like a child when it is turned on YOU, I would say that
    your “emotionalism and dishonesty”, is all you have left at this point.

    Lenin, the first person in modern times to openly legalize ‘abortion-on-demand’ , was guilty of war crimes, BTW.

    Now, I vote in favor of stopping this ridiculousness that YOU initiated.

    In fact, I really do not think we have anything more to say in any of these exchanges that has not already been said.

    As I said days ago, we should just leave it at what we have said and let future readers decide which one of us was correct.

    But, IF you want to keep going, especially with the guilt-by-association posts, I WILL throw it back at you.

  • Bones

    “In regards to the Nazis and abortion, I think that readers of this post will find this article quite unique.”

    So the same policies Hitler had in Germany….weird that…..

    Of course abortion was illegal in the West so was being gay……..I’ve already said that Hitler didn’t care what people did in Concentration camps .
    German Law was quite permissive of abortions until Hitler came to power.

    This is even more unique…..

    “The Reich Central Office for the Combating of Homosexuality and Abortion (German: Reichszentrale zur Bekämpfung der Homosexualität und der Abtreibung) was the central instrument of Nazi Germany for the fight against homosexuality in Nazi Germany and the fight against abortion. It was based on a similar organisation set up by Stalin to combat alleged immorality in the USSR.”

    And from anti-Nazis……

    “In “Students Against Tyranny – The Resistance of the White Rose,” Inge Scholl writes, “The Nazis tended to view the German woman, despite the concealing verbiage of ‘motherhood’ essentially as a unit of reproduction. Consequently, to prevent the obstacles that the Weimar Republic had allegedly placed in the way of conception and childbirth the Nazis enforced anti abortion legislation zealously. Between 1934 and 1938 there was a 50 % increase in convictions. They also closed birth control clinics and placed every obstacle in the way of the propagation and distribution of contraceptive devices, practices, and knowledge. These policies were supported and endorsed by the Catholic Church in Germany. The battle for births had, like all Nazi campaigns, an ominously negative side. Only appropriate women, the truly Aryan (White) were encouraged and expected to have offspring prolifically. The fear was Jews, gypsies, the disabled, those suffering from hereditary illnesses, the presumed a-socials would breed and thus degrade the German bloodstock.”

    http://www.dailylobo.com/article/2017/03/30-fejer-letter

    Bizarrely abortionists were arrested and sent to concentration camps where they continued performing abortions….

    Lol…the forced abortion policies of China are seen nowhere in the West….Yet you agree with Hitler…

    Bizarre..for someone who claims to be a progressive and quotes Trump supporters.

  • Bones

    Wow you really try to justify your own lying…

    Sanders was disappointed that Planned Parenthood didn’t back his campaign just like the LGBT rights organisation…..So that must mean you hate gay rights too then hey? It’s no surprise that you see Planned Parenthood as some evil organisation to be banned by some Authoritarian government. The fact that the vast majority of its work has nothing to do with abortions is inconsequential.

    “I think it is fair to say that your above source is openly pro-abortion, and likely profits from them as well.”

    It’s a medical journal…not a Trump antiChoice supporter. Hmmmm who to believe…the right wing ideologue promoting Far Right abortion policies and quoting Trump supporters or people who work in the field.

    Tough one that….

    “Since, in the case of the Alabama elections, Moore was accused of rape, I do not see that as a good example of an election challenge between an abortion opposer and an abortion supporter.”

    Oh you mean people vote for other issues….It took you a while but you finally got around to it….

    “Exposing inconvenient facts is not the same as ‘lying’, and I think your character-assassination of those you disagree with is what would REALLY fit in well with the Trump administration.”

    Seems the only one quoting Trump and his supporters………is you.

    Fun fact: Progressives don’t seek to impose regressive and Authoritarian laws on people. Unless you think Far Right Poland, Chile and Trump are progressive.

  • Val–Standing

    The link I made in my last post about Nazis and abortion was for the readers, NOT you.

    I feel quite sure that you barely looked at it, much less absorbed what it was saying.

    Now , I will repost part of an earlier post that I made to you.

    I vote in favor of stopping this ridiculousness that YOU initiated.

    In fact, I really do not think we have anything more to say in any of these exchanges that has not already been said.

    As I said days ago, we should just leave it at what we have said and let future readers decide which one of us was correct.

    But, IF you want to keep going, especially with the guilt-by-association posts, I WILL throw it back at you.

  • Bones

    Yes, women mustn’t make things inconvenient for you.

  • Val–Standing

    Lenin, the first person in modern times to openly legalize ‘abortion-on-demand’ , was guilty of war crimes, BTW.

    I really do not care at all what sources you use–as long as they have actual stats and links–I just don’t go for your clear double-standard.

    Even though, as you stated, Sanders had a 100% pro-abortion voting record, he was still heavily criticized by radical pro-aborts for daring to say anything even REMOTELY critical of their sacred ‘Planned Parenthood’.

    Since, in the case of the Alabama elections, Moore was accused of rape, I do not see that as a good example of an election challenge between an abortion opposer and an abortion supporter.

    I would actually be
    saying the same thing if the roles were reversed.

  • Bones

    Perhaps you have the transcript of Lenin’s war crimes court…

    Oh you don’t…..

    More fabrications…..

    Well that’s not surprising.

    You obviously don’t care for any facts at all and only read sources which come from the Far Right and Trump supporters.

  • Bones

    Lol…the link was in a post directed to me……

    Why would a progressive support Hitler legislation?

    And Trump supporters?

  • Snooterpoot

    Provide information from an unbiased source and I will consider it.

  • Val–Standing

    You know, you are really NOT helping yourself by continuing your nasty, very ill-informed posts.

    Your profile lists you as a “teacher”, and you are asking ‘me’ about Soviet atrocities under Lenin?

    Ever heard of the Ukranian famine in the early 1920s, caused by Soviet policies?

    http://www.ukrweekly.com/old/archive/1988/458814.shtml

  • Snooterpoot

    Matthew 5:9 says, “Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called children of God.”

    Please explain exactly how that limits the definition of peacemakers.

  • Snooterpoot

    Well, since using tax dollars to find abortions except in very limited circumstances is already illegal the Marist poll result on that question doesn’t really mean anything.

  • Val–Standing

    I provided you with the numbers of women who died from (known) abortions well before and well after RvW.

    The information on the linked-graph is from official sources.

    If you don’t believe it, and are unable to produce any counter stats from official sources, I guess we will just leave it at that.

  • Snooterpoot

    Yeah, well, “official sources” is just vague enough so as to be meaningless.

    Neither of us will change the other’s mind,so I don’t see any point in taking the conversation any farther.

  • Val–Standing

    Unless you can show that the official stats that I provided on maternal abortion deaths were wrong, I agree.

  • Bones

    You claimed Lenin was a war criminal because of abortion….

    I was asking for the transcript of his trial…..

    No wonder you accept Trump’s nonsense.

  • Bones

    Btw if we’re going to make up nonsense then we can say

    George W Bush is anti-choice and a war criminal.

  • Val–Standing

    I never said Lenin had a trial.
    Your ignorance about what happened in the Ukraine was pathetic, and your trying to cover up your insulting ignorance only makes it worse, “teacher”.

  • Val–Standing

    If you were a Ukrainian, I seriously doubt that you would refer deliberate mass starvation as “nonsense”.

    Bush HAS been called a war criminal by some, and I am not about to defend him, but I do not see him guilty of ANYTHING close to communist (the FIRST to introduce the world to abortion-on on-demand) level of guilt.

  • Val–Standing

    “Bones Val 16 hours ago
    Lol…the link was in a post directed to me……

    Why would a progressive support Hitler legislation?

    And Trump supporters?”

    Why would a “progressive” like you support the same legislation (abortion-on-demand throughout pregnancy) that Lenin first introduced into the modern world at around the same time that he was committing genocide against the Ukraines?

    Oh, and the fact that you called me a ‘liar’ when I stated that Lenin had committed war crimes really doesn’t help your credibility on much of ANYTHING.

    Or that China, which is one of the only countries in the world today with NO animal protection laws, is so pro-abortion that it supports FORCED abortions?

    Or that North Korea, with its HORRENDOUS prisons and civil rights violations?

    Or a gruesome procedure that Hitler forced on concentration camp victims?

    Or how your pro-abortion advocacy aligns so well with racists.

    http://blog.secularprolife.org/2016/08/racist-creeps-reject-pro-life-message.html?m=1pro-abortion.-

    Nixon’s racist abortion remark
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/5626338/President-Richard-Nixon-said-it-was-necessary-to-abort-mixed-race-babies-tapes-reveal.html

    I am actually pleased that you decided to ignore my advise the other day when I suggested that we stop these exchanges, because, almost EVERY insulting, ignorant, and repetitive post that you are making to me is making both you AND other pro-aborts look worse and worse.

    If fact, since I am a frequent poster on certain pro-life sites, I PROMISE that I will show some of our exchanges as examples of how clueless and mean-spirited so many abortion worshippers like you are!

    So, keep going. You have no idea how much you will be helping our cause!

  • Bones

    Yes all politicians who support abortion are war criminals……like any politician in the West….

    Oh look at Ceauşescu in Romania….

    Romania, 1966: dictator Nicola Ceaușescu releases Decree 770. It is a ban on abortion, except for women over the age of 45 or who already have four children under their care. It also considerably restricts access to contraception. Behind those measures stands Ceaușescu’s great vision of a “New Man”: he wanted the Romanian population to grow to 10 million by 1990 – within 24 years. A whole generation was to arise, one that hadn’t known anything but state socialism, and a new man was to be created, following the soviet model. Almost overnight, many kindergartens and schools were built.

    At first, the experiment seemed to be successful: Decree 770 caused the birth rate to rise from under 2 to more than 3 children per woman within a year – the goal being 4 children per woman. A study published in 2013 exposes the dramatic side effects of that policy: the rate of deaths caused by abortions rose from about 20 per 100,000 in 1966 to a tragic high of 150 per 100,000 in 1982. Three years later, the decree was made even stricter, which caused the mortality rate to sink briefly, before returning to the same level in 1989.

    The law was so strictly enforced that authorities even kept a close look on menstruations, in order to interrogate the women who did not become pregnant. Doctors performing abortions received harsh sentences, and many women resorted to the services of amateurs, often with fatal consequences.

    Romania, 1989: a bloody revolution strikes. The very generation that was supposed to be the pride and foundation of the country, the children of Decree 770, had Ceaușescu removed from power, arrested and executed. One of the first measures taken by the new social democratic government was to revoke Decree 770 and thus make abortion legal.

    http://www.cafebabel.co.uk/article/a-total-ban-abortion-in-romania.html

    Ceausescu was actually tried and executed….

    https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/5242f7340fe5ea3488e11488808c026f1df853180a230eb329afb5a0375ab0a0.jpg

    I think we see the stupidity in your (il)logic.

    I wasn’t aware that progressives supported Authoritarian legislation.

    Or Pinochet in Chile……

    And quotes Trump supporters as evidence….

  • Bones

    Lol…..you’ve lost it now.

    Still dishonestly comparing China’s abortion laws with the West.

    Well that’s the type of person you are.

    A person who wants to see Authoritarian policies such as in Far Right governments introduced into the West…..

    I take it you still don’t have Lenin’s war crimes tribunal transcript….

    Btw China was one of the first countries to legalise homosexuality…

    Must mean gays are bad too then…

    It’s no surprise that racists actually support abortion bans….because they’re all about the survival of their race. Like Hitler was derpaderp.

    Oh and….

    The Quiet Racism of Abortion Bans

    https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2012/08/the-quiet-racism-of-abortion-bans/261665/

    Have you run out of Trump supporters to quote?

    Yes I look forward to you showing how every western politician is a war criminal because of abortion.

    And using Trump supporters and Far Right governments to advance your anti-Choice cause.

    I suppose according to you then Hitler was a progressive….Oh and Trump.

  • Bones

    Other Right Wing Dictators who banned abortions (aside from Hitler and Pinochet)

    Mussolini,
    General Franco
    Stalin (lol Lenin!)
    General Suharto
    Ayatollah Khomeini
    Islamic theocracies – pick one
    Ante Pavelić (leader of Nazi Ustase)
    Marshal Petain (Vichy France) The Last Woman Guillotined in WWII France Risked Her Life Over Abortion Rights http://historycollection.co/last-woman-guillotined-world-war-ii-concentration-camp-survivor-lead-legalization-abortion-france/2/

    Add to that the many Far Right governments in Latin America eg E Salvador where women who miscarry are arrested on suspicion.

    Fun fact: progressive = advocate of social reform….the opposite is traditionalism – keeping things the way they were.

    I take it you have no more ‘evidence’ from Trump’s campaign members?

  • raven nevermore

    It actually expands it to each Believer, which is better than a nation. Jesus spoke to people and when as a group it was that each person had a responsibility or a purpose to accomplish.

  • Val–Standing

    Posting with you has accidently made me realize that I can upload this graph.
    The one that I have kept talking about to you.

    That bit of ‘tech’ is good to know (thanks, I guess).

    Now, show me how it is wrong.

    https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/7707ee9da39db94c74ac79431991e904fc9f45a105e01ea0560c1ae2bae2a2bd.jpg

  • Bones

    Lol…Jesus the right wing American was referring to arguments about your neighbour’s fence and which pew you sit in….

    That verse carries even more weight in a time of war….like Jesus and Matthew was in….

    Hence why churches never preached on it in times of war. It is a subversive political message to the powers of the world.

    At least show a bit of honesty when reading the gospels.

  • Val–Standing
  • Val–Standing

    Besides the Alt-right, here’s my list of additional people/groups/countries in TODAY’S world that are just fine with abortion-on-demand.

    https://www.campusreform.org/?ID=10332

    https://www.google.com/amp/www.foxnews.com/story/2007/06/13/infanticide-abortion-responsible-for-60-million-girls-missing-in-asia.amp.html

    https://thoughtcatalog.com/jim-goad/2014/07/abortion-is-murder-but-thats-ok-with-me/

    http://www.returnofkings.com/16089/how-to-convince-a-girl-to-get-an-abortion

    https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.lifesitenews.com/mobile/news/teacher-of-the-year-murdered-for-refusing-abortion-police

    https://www.liveaction.org/news/15-times-planned-parenthood-caught-helping-rapist/

    I will also say that there is something unique about the fact that the very first leader to introduce legalized abortion-on-demand to the modern world was Lenin, the one who began initiating the Soviet atrocities.

    I think I have also made my point that when I give you an unpleasant fact–such as the one that I gave you about Lenin, your first reaction is to smear and make a fool out of yourself, rather than to check it out via google.

    I am sure we could both go on and on with this, but I would vote for MOVING on to the issues at hand, and stop the smearing.

    That’s what adults do, you know.

  • Bones

    You might want to brush up on your history.

    Abortion was legal in the USA until the 1850s….

    The surprising history of abortion in the United States

    There was a time when abortion was simply part of life in the United States. People didn’t scream about it in protest, and services were marketed openly.

    Drugs to induce abortions were a booming business. They were advertised in newspapers and could be bought from pharmacists, from physicians and even through the mail. If drugs didn’t work, women could visit practitioners for instrumental procedures.

    The earliest efforts to govern abortions centered on concerns about poisoning, not morality, religion or politics. It was the mid-19th century, long before abortion became the hot-button issue it is now.

    https://www.google.com.au/amp/s/amp.cnn.com/cnn/2016/06/23/health/abortion-history-in-united-states/index.html

    In fact it wasnt made a criminal offence until the later 1800s.

    Maybe Lenin was George Washington.

    Adults dont use dishonest arguments…well unless you’re like Trump.

    Btw i hope you sent trump a thank you card for his global gag rule on foreign ngos.

  • Val–Standing

    “Still dishonestly comparing China’s abortion laws with the West.”

    No more dishonest than you linking me with other authorian dictators who make abortion illegal.

    Your double-standards and childish whining are getting quite tiring.

    “Well that’s the type of person you are.”

    True, I’m the type of person that has a SINGLE standard.

    And, if I did happen to start smearing an opposing poster FIRST, I wouldn’t start self-pitying when they gave some of it back to me.

    “I take it you still don’t have Lenin’s war crimes tribunal transcript….”

    Again, I said NOTHING about “transcripts”.

    I said ‘war crimes’.

    If someone has to be CONVICTED first, that would mean that Hitler did not commit any crimes, either.

    Why don’t you just ‘man-up’ and admit you did not know about Lenin’s crimes??

    “Btw China was one of the first countries to legalise homosexuality…”

    So that has exactly WHAT to do with their forced abortion policies??

    “Must mean gays are bad too then…”

    What kind of stupid statement is that, and WHAT does that have to do with forced abortion??

    “It’s no surprise that racists actually support abortion bans….”

    So, you missed the link to the the article about the Alt-Right that I gave?

    Their leader FAVORS abortion-on-demand SPECIFICALLY because he wants black babies aborted!

    God you are deluded!

  • Bones

    Lol….you’re linking people from Trump’s campaign as well as promoting Far Right Poland and Chile as examples of wonderful abortion legislation.

    You’re the one linking these as evidence and now you’re going tinto hysterics for being associated with the ALt-Right.

    If the shoe fits……

    Btw we could fill a book with war criminals who banned abortion….because that’s what Authoritarian (especially Fascist) governments are like….

  • Bones
  • Val–Standing

    “You might want to brush up on your history.”
    This is going to be a fun post for you, Bones–I guarantee it!

    Besides speaking out for the most defenseless and voiceless humans among us, and championing other progressive causes–such as universal healthcare, animal welfare, etc., I have a few other interests–science and history.

    Since you brought up the history of abortion in the US, you have given me motivation to repost some very interesting, and not very well known historical facts.

    I will add that just like with lot of other things you have said, you are not accurate when you say that the US laws in regards to abortion were ANYTHING comparable to the USSRs in the 1920s.

    The US did NOT codify legal abortion in the 1800s.
    Owing to scientific ignorance, the crime of abortion was defacto legal prior to so-called “quickening”.

    It was the progress of scientific knowledge that lead humanitarian doctors such as Dr. Horatio Robinson Storer, in the late 1850s, to understand that “quickening” was a totally irrational way to define when human life in the womb should be protected.
    He rightfully argued that human life should be protected from its beginning–at conception.
    Here is an excerpt–

    Dr. Horatio Robinson Storer
    (born in 1830)

    “Storer earned his M.D. from Harvard Soon after starting his practice in the U.S., he noticed something peculiar: many of the problems his female patients had were the result of abortions.

    Abortion was a taboo subject in 19th century America and was hardly ever discussed.

    Now, Dr. Storer knew the best science of the day, which had recently concluded that human life began at conception, rather than the medieval conception of “quickening.” This meant that abortion was the taking of an innocent human life. Terrified at the prospect that innumerable children were quietly being killed by their parents every year, he devoted himself to researching the full extent of the problem for the next few years.In 1859, on the eve of the American Civil War over the evil of slavery, he wrote a report for the American Medical Association (AMA) on his research which concluded that the nation was suffering from another evil few even knew existed: that “thousands and hundreds of thousands of lives are… directly at stake, and are annually sacrificed” as a result of abortion.

    In a journal article he published the same year, he explained his horror at what he had discovered:

    If we have proved the existence of fetal life before quickening has taken place or can take place, and by all analogy and a close and conclusive process of induction, its commencement at the very beginning, at conception itself, we are compelled to believe unjustifiable abortion always a crime.

    And now words fail. Of the mother, by consent or by her own hand, imbrued with her infant’s blood; of the equally guilty father, who counsels or allows the crime; of the wretches, who by their wholesale murders far out-Herod Burke and Hare; of the public sentiment which palliates, pardons, and would even praise this, so common, violation of all law, human and divine, of all instinct, of all reason, all pity, all mercy, all love, we leave those to speak who can.

    At the time, the AMA had no formal guidance on abortion, so Dr. Storer formed the association’s first committee on the subject. In 1860, they wrote a letter to Congress and State legislatures explaining the scientific discovery that life began at conception and asking for new laws to defend the unborn.

    With the help of early feminists, they succeeded: new laws were passed throughout the country that greatly restricted abortion and subsequently saved millions of lives. Scholar Dr. Frederick N. Dyer has done the math and figured out that most people living in the U.S. today have at least one direct ancestor saved by those laws. That means that if you’re an American, you probably wouldn’t exist without the work of Dr. Storer.”

    Notice how this article contained the passage “with the help of early feminists, they succeeded”.
    Yes, back then feminists were PRO-LIFE, as I still am today.

    https://churchpop.com/2016/02/23/19th-c-pro-life-doctor-hero/

    If you did not like that source, here is another one about Dr. Storer and
    The Physicians’ Crusade against abortion in the 1800s.

    Excerpt–
    “Physicians’ Crusade Against Abortion
    BY Frederick N. Dyer

    Few, if any, academic works have had the impact on abortion of James Mohr’s 1978 book, Abortion in America: The Origins and Evolution of National Policy, 1800–1900. It is routinely and erroneously cited as proof positive that the 19th-century “Physicians’ Crusade against abortion” had nothing to do with unborn babies and much to do with two other considerations: physicians’ concern about the safety of abortion for women and their attempts to eliminate quacks and squeeze out competition from midwives. Since, it was argued, physician-induced abortion was no longer dangerous in the 1970s and since medical regulation had eliminated the quacks, there was no reason to retain the laws against abortion.

    Although wrong about the reasons these physicians crusaded against abortion, Mohr and several other historians correctly recognized one key result of the Physicians’ Crusade. This was the passage of stringent laws against abortion in nearly every state and territory. These remained in effect with little change in most states until overturned in Roe v. Wade.

    During the deliberations leading up to that 1973 decision, it was also claimed (principally in two law review articles authored by Professor Cyril Means, Jr.) that these laws were passed to protect women from a no-longer-dangerous operation. It was also claimed that concern for the unborn child was not an important factor underlying the enactment of these laws. A majority of justices accepted these false claims and all the state laws the physicians had lobbied to have enacted were overturned.

    Mohr’s book, however, has proven extremely important in popularizing a serious misunderstanding about the motivation behind the anti-abortion laws of the 19th century. Yet, as I show in both my first book, Champion of Women and the Unborn: Horatio Robinson Storer, M.D., and in the forthcoming The Physicians’ Crusade against Abortion, Mohr’s own volume contains evidence to show that he understood that the motives of Dr. Storer and hundreds of other physicians were grounded in a deep concern for unborn children. This is not some dry in-house academic debate: Abortion in America has played, and continues to play, a huge role in shaping the way policy makers and academics understand why the stringent anti-abortion statutes were passed.

    One instance where Mohr’s book came into play was the 1989 Supreme Court case involving a Missouri abortion law. Many on both sides of the issue pondered whether the High Court might use Webster v. Reproductive Health Services to significantly cut back, even overturn Roe. (The Court did neither.)

    A number of friend-of-the-court briefs were filed by groups who opposed Missouri’s law. One brief, signed by 281 professional historians, acknowledged that “physicians were the principal nineteenth-century proponents of laws to restrict abortion,” but denied that concern for the unborn was one of their reasons. The brief asserted that the life of the fetus “became a central issue in American culture only in the late twentieth century.”

    What were the physicians’ motivations, according to the historians’ brief? They asserted that physicians were concerned about protecting the health of women, regulating the medical profession, keeping women in traditional roles, and preventing the descendants of immigrants from becoming dominant in the population. The historians argued that since these reasons now were obsolete or not credible, the Court should reaffirm the constitutional right to abortion it had announced in Roe v. Wade. The brief relied heavily on Mohr’s book.

    In truth, however, Abortion in America actually showed that almost all of these physicians opposed abortion because they saw it as the killing of a living human being. In his book Mohr acknowledged that the “sincere belief” of physicians “that abortion was morally wrong” “helps to explain the intensity of their commitment to the cause.”

    Mohr wrote, “The nation’s regular doctors, probably more than any other identifiable group in American society during the nineteenth century, including the clergy, defended the value of human life per se as an absolute. Scholars interested in the medical mentality of the nineteenth century will have to explain the reasons for this ideological position. . . . But whatever the reasons, regular physicians felt very strongly indeed on the issue of protecting human life. And once they had decided that human life was present to some extent in a newly fertilized ovum, however limited that extent might be, they became the fierce opponents of any attack upon it.”

    Mohr went on to note, “Physicians who personally believed abortion to be morally wrong–and their many fervent writings on this subject must be taken as evidence of their sincerity–must have been frustrated by the persistent lack of public support for their position.” However, Mohr provided almost no examples of these “fervent writings” in his book. In his chapter, “The Physicians’ Crusade against Abortion,” he provided a single extended quote from an Illinois physician, James S. Whitmire, written in 1874:

    Many, indeed, argue that the practice is not, in fact, criminal, because they argue that the child is not viable until the seventh month of gestation, hence there is no destruction of life. The truly professional man’s morals, however, are not of that easy caste, because he sees in the germ the probable embryo, in the embryo the rudimentary foetus, and in that, the seven months viable child and the prospective living, moving, breathing man or woman, as the case may be.

    Actually, a more typical–and certainly more fervent–passage from Whitmire can be found in the same article:

    Persons who engage in this crime, whether they are professional or self-abortionists, have lost all the natural instincts of humanity; they have neither principle nor good morals, and are, hence, an eyesore to society, a plague-spot upon communities where they exist–lepers, whose infectious breath undermines the very foundation of the morals of the people, and should not be tolerated for a single day, when and where they are known.
    Another typical example was a long letter published in the Boston Medical and Surgical Journal in January 1851. In it, Rhode Island physician John Preston Leonard wrote, “Besides these bills of mortality, the records of criminal courts will furnish sufficient proof that this crime is every day becoming more prevalent. It is humiliating to admit that there are a class of physicians who, Herod-like, have waged a war of destruction upon the innocent.”

    Dr. Storer himself penned many eloquent statements in opposition to abortion. In the January 1859 issue of North-American Medico-Chirurgical Review, he wrote, “If we have proved the existence of foetal life before quickening has taken place or can take place and all by analogy, and a close and conclusive process of induction, its commencement at the very beginning, at conception itself, we are compelled to believe unjustifiable abortion always a crime.”

    Unfortunately, later in his book, Mohr confused the issue by discussing physicians’ “professional” reasons for opposing abortion before their “personal” reason of defending the unborn. Most recent books and articles discussing the history of abortion laws continue to emphasize the false statements made in the 1989 historians’ brief.

    The 19th-century anti-abortion laws for which the physicians were largely responsible have received the bulk of attention by historians writing about abortion in America. However, another feature of the Physicians’ Crusade was to inform women that a living human being existed from conception and physicians persuaded many thousands of women to continue pregnancies that they initially asked their physicians to end. Scores of physicians wrote of their successes in persuading these women to continue their pregnancies. Birth certificates documented the successes of countless others.

    Horatio Robinson Storer, the founder of the physicians’ crusade, once astutely noted: “[E]very life saved is, as a general rule, the precursor of others that else would not have been called into existence.”

    https://www.nrlc.org/archive/news/2005/NRL11/Crusade.html

    In more recent times, I would bet my next month’s rent that you have no idea that the modern pro-life movement was actually started by PROGRESSIVES, and, initially, it was CONSERVATIVES–like Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan that were pro-abortion.

    http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/02/daniel-williams-defenders-unborn/435369/

    The book’s author, historian Daniel Williams, is not necessarily pro-life, which makes his information even more believable.

    Thank you for giving me the opportunity to inform readers (YOU are hopeless).

  • Val–Standing

    So, I guess you are no longer claiming that I was “lying” when I said that Lenin committed war crimes.

    Just like you are no longer accusing me of lying about Clinton being even more extreme on abortion than Obama was.

    So that is TWICE you have been proven wrong on these threads.
    But, hey, I can keep going if you can.

  • Val–Standing

    Uh, excuse me.
    Abortion-on-demand was legalized in the US in 1973, NOT 1989.
    So why the misinformation in the graph (or did you just totally make it up?)?

    Also, as you know, abortions themselves have been going down over the last few decades.

  • Val–Standing

    I just found this, so I will add this reply to my last one.
    It is very related to abortion and race.
    http://blog.secularprolife.org/2018/01/lets-talk-about-abortion-and-race.html?m=1

  • Hall

    Good research there!

  • Val–Standing

    Thanks!

  • Bones

    Lol, Reagan signed some of the toughest anti-choice laws in US history.

    Yep, he was pro-choice.

    Doesnt take long to sift through your lies.

    Like i said abortion was legal in the 1800s until anti-abortion legislation was introduced in the late 1800s..

    Thanks.

    And no Lenin…..

    I wasnt aware hitler and pinochet were progressives?

  • Bones

    Well apart from Reagan being pro-choice……which is just a flat out lie.

  • Bones

    Lol…that wasn’t from the US.

    Its the result of Authoritarian and conservative policies you support in other countries.

  • Bones

    Why are you dancing around the fact that you link Far Right wing countries and Trump campainers as evidence?

    Its all over the thread.

    The only person talking about George Washington Lenin is you.

    I know its a dishonest distraction to cover up your shameful sources.

  • Bones

    Lol MLK supported Planned Parenthood.

    Maybe he was a racist

    Family Planning – A Special and Urgent Concern by the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr.

    Recently, the press has been filled with reports of sightings of flying saucers. While we need not give credence to these stories, they allow our imagination to speculate on how visitors from outer space would judge us. I am afraid they would be stupefied at our conduct. They would observe that for death planning we spend billions to create engines and strategies for war. They would also observe that we spend millions to prevent death by disease and other causes. Finally they would observe that we spend paltry sums for population planning, even though its spontaneous growth is an urgent threat to life on our planet. Our visitors from outer space could be forgiven if they reported home that our planet is inhabited by a race of insane men whose future is bleak and uncertain.
    There is no human circumstance more tragic than the persisting existence of a harmful condition for which a remedy is readily available. Family planning, to relate population to world resources, is possible, practical and necessary. Unlike plagues of the dark ages or contemporary diseases we do not yet understand, the modern plague of overpopulation is soluble by means we have discovered and with resources we possess.

    What is lacking is not sufficient knowledge of the solution but universal consciousness of the gravity of the problem and education of the billions who are its victims.
    It is easier for a Negro to understand a social paradox because he has lived so long with evils that could be eradicated but were perpetuated by indifference or ignorance. The Negro finally had to devise unique methods to deal with his problem, and perhaps the measure of success he is realizing can be an inspiration to others coping with tenacious social problems.

    In our struggle for equality we were confronted with the reality that many millions of people were essentially ignorant of our conditions or refused to face unpleasant truths. The hard-core bigot was merely one of our adversaries. The millions who were blind to our plight had to be compelled to face the social evil their indifference permitted to flourish.

    After centuries of relative silence and enforced acceptance, we adapted a technique of exposing the problem by direct and dramatic methods. We had confidence that when we awakened the nation to the immorality and evil of inequality, there would be an upsurge of conscience followed by remedial action.
    We knew that there were solutions and that the majority of the nation were ready for them. Yet we also knew that the existence of solutions would not automatically operate to alter conditions. We had to organize, not only arguments, but people in the millions for action. Finally we had to be prepared to accept all the consequences involved in dramatizing our grievances in the unique style we had devised.

    There is a striking kinship between our movement and Margaret Sanger’s early efforts. She, like we, saw the horrifying conditions of ghetto life. Like we, she knew that all of society is poisoned by cancerous slums. Like we, she was a direct actionist – a nonviolent resister. She was willing to accept scorn and abuse until the truth she saw was revealed to the millions. At the turn of the century she went into the slums and set up a birth control clinic, and for this deed she went to jail because she was violating an unjust law. Yet the years have justified her actions. She launched a movement which is obeying a higher law to preserve human life under humane conditions. Margaret Sanger had to commit what was then called a crime in order to enrich humanity, and today we honor her courage and vision; for without them there would have been no beginning. Our sure beginning in the struggle for equality by nonviolent direct action may not have been so resolute without the tradition established by Margaret Sanger and people like her. Negroes have no mere academic nor ordinary interest in family planning. They have a special and urgent concern.

    Recently the subject of Negro family life has received extensive attention. Unfortunately, studies have overemphasized the problem of the Negro male ego and almost entirely ignored the most serious element – Negro migration. During the past half century Negroes have migrated on a massive scale, transplanting millions from rural communities to crammed urban ghettoes. In their migration, as with all migrants, they carried with them the folkways of the countryside into an inhospitable city slum. The size of family that may have been appropriate and tolerable on a manually cultivated farm was carried over to the jammed streets of the ghetto. In all respects Negroes were atomized, neglected and discriminated against. Yet, the worst omission was the absence of institutions to acclimate them to their new environment. Margaret Sanger, who offered an important institutional remedy, was unfortunately ignored by social and political leaders in this period. In consequence, Negro folkways in family size persisted. The problem was compounded when unrestrained exploitation and discrimination accented the bewilderment of the newcomer, and high rates of illegitimacy and fragile family relationships resulted.

    For the Negro, therefore, intelligent guides of family planning are a profoundly important ingredient in his quest for security and a decent life. There are mountainous obstacles still separating Negroes from a normal existence. Yet one element in stabilizing his life would be an understanding of and easy access to the means to develop a family related in size to his community environment and to the income potential he can command.
    This is not to suggest that the Negro will solve all his problems through Planned Parenthood. His problems are far more complex, encompassing economic security, education, freedom from discrimination, decent housing and access to culture. Yet if family planning is sensible it can facilitate or at least not be an obstacle to the solution of the many profound problems that plague him.

    The Negro constitutes half the poor of the nation. Like all poor, Negro and white, they have many unwanted children. This is a cruel evil they urgently need to control. There is scarcely anything more tragic in human life than a child who is not wanted. That which should be a blessing becomes a curse for parent and child. There is nothing inherent in the Negro mentality which creates this condition. Their poverty causes it. When Negroes have been able to ascend economically, statistics reveal they plan their families with even greater care than whites. Negroes of higher economic and educational status actually have fewer children than white families in the same circumstances.

    Some commentators point out that with present birth rates it will not be long before Negroes are a majority in many of the major cities of the nation. As a consequence, they can be expected to take political control, and many people are apprehensive at this prospect. Negroes do not seek political control by this means. They seek only what they are entitled to and do not wish for domination purchased at the cost of human misery. Negroes were once bred by slave owners to be sold as merchandise. They do not welcome any solution which involves population breeding as a weapon. They are instinctively sympathetic to all who offer methods that will improve their lives and offer them fair opportunity to develop and advance as all other people in our society.

    For these reasons we are natural allies of those who seek to inject any form of planning in our society that enriches life and guarantees the right to exist in freedom and dignity.
    For these constructive movements we are prepared to give our energies and consistent support; because in the need for family planning, Negro and white have a common bond; and together we can and should unite our strength for the wise preservation, not of races in general, but of the one race we all constitute – the human race.

  • Val–Standing

    Long speech, but nothing specifically supporting abortion.

    I ALSO support preventive family planning, but I am NOT pro-abortion, and there is no statement from MLK saying that he was, either.

    BTW, Planned Parenthood was “officially” opposed to abortion at that time as well.

  • Val–Standing

    In addition to my reply about MLK, below, I will add this.

    Reagan was PRO-ABORTION in the mid-1960s, along with Barry Goldwater and the well -known racist George Wallace.

    The late Senator Edward Kennedy, along with Jessie Jackson and Al Gore, entered politics as pro-life candidates.
    Again, the link–

    http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/02/daniel-williams-defenders-unborn/435369/

  • Val–Standing

    Since we have both posted about bad people/groups/reasons
    for both the pro- and anti-abortion sides, I think we have both made our points on this aspect of abortion.

    The infamous Adoph Hitler enacted anti-cruelty to animal laws, and even though he was one of the most horrible human beings to ever live, it doesn’t mean that animal welfare laws are wrong.

    I think it is childish to want keep up this guilt-by-association thread, and it also shows you are lacking in real arguments.

    Why not move on??

  • Val–Standing

    No idea what that means, what country you are referring to, or where the authenticity of this graph could be checked.

    You’ll have to do better than that to be taken seriously.

  • Bones

    I haven’t posted from ‘bad people’…

    You have.

    You then tried to associate me with China/Lenin because you got caught out.

    Next time do some research on your sources.

    Then you won’t look like such a twat.

    Also white people shouldn’t be using Martin Luther King to take away people’s civil rights.

  • Bones

    Lol…..this after you just stuck a graph out of your behind with no context at all.

    It’s from Romania….and quoted in

    Reductions in abortion-related mortality following policy reform: evidence from Romania, South Africa and Bangladesh

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3287245/

    and

    LIVES AT RISK AS GLOBAL GAG RULE RETURNS

    https://www.msf.org.au/article/statements-opinion/lives-risk-global-gag-rule-returns

    You should be happy that Trump has reinstituted the global gag rule which will result in more deaths of women around the world. A win for you and Secular ProLife.

  • Val–Standing

    As I said, YOU started associating ME with “authoritarian governments”, and when I threw your own poison back at you, you reacted with childish, hypocritical “outrage”.
    I think you are the one to “get caught”.

    As I also said, we should move on from this ridiculousness, and talk about the issues involved in abortion–on its own merits, without the ‘character assaults’.

    Or are you too devoid of REAL arguments to do that?

    As usual, YOU brought MLK into this discussion, and it was YOU who “presumed” to know his position on an issue that he gave no known public opinions on.

    I know LOTS of people, besides myself, who are pro-contraception, but totally anti-killing AFTER conception.

    I also know that Planned Parenthood was ‘officially’ against abortion in the 1960s.

    It was YOU, NOT ME who was using MLK to further their agenda.

    You are pitiful!

  • Val–Standing

    “Lol…..this after you just stuck a graph out of your behind with no context at all.”

    That is a lie, Bones, I linked the entire article a week ago.
    The graph was IN the article, I just linked the graph itself yesterday.

    Not my fault that you make an idiot of yourself by not checking what I actually send before posting something that makes you look clueless.

    http://disq.us/url?url=http%3A%2F%2Frealchoice.blogspot.se%2Fp%2Fwouldnt-more-women-die-if-roe-fell.html%3AdnKJxvdf9YZhKq6rXNgVsx0cMVg&cuid=431522

    My graphic is for ONE country (the US), NOT a hand-picked, random group of countries picked ONLY because the author thinks that they will help their case.

    Why weren’t Chile and Poland on this “impartial” list?

    Why wasn’t a comparison made of the MMRs between Mexican states with/without legal abortion?

    I think it is obvious why your stats are ‘flawed’.

  • Bones

    Reagan said his California law was his worst law ever.

    And even then he was anti-choice.

    There was no “pro-choice” or “pro-life” lobbying at the time. The battle lines were drawn along religious lines, according to Reagan biographer and former Washington Post reporter Lou Cannon. In 1967, the majority of Californians, including 67 percent of Catholics, had supported liberalizing abortion laws. (California at the time permitted abortions only to save the life of the mother.)

    Catholic Democrats generally were antiabortion, but liberal Democrats pushed for a permissive version of a law to provide women broad access to abortions. Conservatives who were not Catholics, generally Protestants, supported the proposed law, believing the government should stay out of “the boardroom and the bedroom,” Cannon wrote in “Governor Reagan: His Rise to Power.”

    Yet Republican lawmakers wanted to stop a broad-ranging version of the bill from progressing, and pushed for a less permissive version. Some Republicans also believed that if Reagan didn’t sign some sort of abortion bill into law in 1967, the issue would come back every year — or that the legislature would override his veto.

    Reagan was torn. He had not given abortion much thought and had no strong opinion prior to taking office — it wasn’t a leading social issue at the time — but he was faced with a decision that could set the tone for the rest of the country. Not helping with Reagan’s indecision, his staff were split along religious lines on the issue and had no clear consensus on which direction the governor should go. For instance, his legal affairs secretary, Edwin Meese, urged Reagan to sign the bill.

    “I did more studying and soul searching on this matter than on anything that was to face me as governor,” Reagan later said in a radio address detailing his struggle contemplating the law.

    “My answer as to what kind of abortion bill I could sign was one that recognized an abortion is the taking of a human life. … Therefore, an abortion is justified when done in self-defense. My belief is that a woman has the right to protect her own life and health against even her own unborn child. I believe also that just as she has the right to defend herself against rape, she should not be made to bear a child resulting from the violation of her person and therefore abortion is an act of self-defense.

    I know there will be disagreements with this view, but I can find no evidence whatsoever that a fetus is not a living human being with human rights.”

    Reagan reluctantly signed a compromise bill, and said the measure did not fully satisfy him. California became the third and largest state to legalize abortions in cases of rape, incest or when the pregnancy “would gravely impair physical or mental health” of the mother.

    Then, abortions increased exponentially, as doctors took a loose interpretation of the “mental health” provision. Annual abortions spiked, and Reagan regretted his decision once he saw how the law was being implemented. Even Democrats were surprised at how doctors interpreted this “mental health” exception.

    “It’s the only major thing that he ever did as governor or president, that I’m aware of or that I can recall, that he ever said he did the wrong thing,” Cannon recalled to The Fact Checker. Reagan later ran for president on an antiabortion platform.

    https://www.google.com.au/amp/s/www.washingtonpost.com/amphtml/news/fact-checker/wp/2016/03/31/donald-trumps-claim-he-evolved-into-pro-life-views-like-ronald-reagan/

    Why do you lie?

  • Bones

    Lol MLK received the Margaret Sanger award and anti-choice people disgracefully roll Martin Luther King out as an anti-abortionist because of race.

    Its actually anti-abortion policies which are racist. Oh and taking away peoples civil rights which is what you people want to do.

  • Bones

    Derrr how thick are you? Or completely dishonest?

    You’re initial post about clinton was from a member of Trump’s campaign. The person he’s appointed to formulate his abortion policy. Apparently that was some wonderful evidence which was supposed to convince everyone of the evils of Clinton.

    You then post ‘evidence’ from Far Right countries such as Poland and Pinochet’s Chile to show how ‘successful’ these Authoritarian policies are.

    Then you post an article from the white secular Prolife site using racism and Martin Luther King Day to dishonestly appropriate his name to deny rights to prefominately black mothers.

    Just face it. On this issue you side with the Far Right and Authoritarian policies.

    That’s just a fact.

    Thats the thing about you people.

    You are so dishonest.

  • Bones

    Lol…I’m supposed to trawl through all your posts to find a link.

    My graph is for Romania and you and Secular Pro-life can rejoice that Trump will refuse to fund ngos which recommend abortions – no matter how many women it kills.

    Of course your denial places you in the same league as global warming deniers and anti-vaxxers.

    Those who deny the science and data because it disagrees with their ideology.

  • Val–Standing

    “There are none so blind as those who WILL not see”.

    Or don’t WANT to see.

    I really believe, way down deep, that ultra pro-aborts that defend the atrocity of abortion, against all the scientific evidence about the humanity of the unborn child, and against many studies that I have presented here, are afraid, that possibly–just possibly– abortion opponents are RIGHT about the humanity of the unborn, and the INhumanity of abortion.

    They try as hard as they can to crush those thoughts, but they can’t totally do it.
    Nor can they totally wipe out the fears in their minds of how they will go down in history if unrestricted abortion laws are ever changed.

    That is why they lash out, against all reason at anyone who does not share their pro-abortion militancy.

    I will also add that as much as I do not believe that I am wrong in my abortion-opposition, I can tell you for absolute certain that I would rather be wrong in over-protecting very young humans than be wrong in not protecting them at all, especially considering the plentiful evidence that such abortion-permissiveness is NOT necessary to protect the lives of vast numbers of women who would just ‘abort anyway’.

    I am done on this thread.
    You can have the last word.

    Goodbye, and happy new year.

  • Ron McPherson

    Jesus was speaking to an uneasy Jewish populace on the verge of revolting against a foreign power (Rome) who had invaded their land a century or so earlier. If Jesus ever had a chance to advocate for (or even to condone) war, the time was then! Instead, he said things like my kingdom is not of this world, blessed are the peacemakers, blessed are the meek for they shall inherit the earth, he who lives by the sword will die by the sword, turn the other cheek, love your enemies, etc.

    Israel believed themselves to be a covenanted people (nation), not merely blessed individual persons. In other words, it would be hard to compartmentalize his message to individuals absent of what it meant for the Jewish nation as a whole. We tend to read the bible thru a contemporary lens which can really endanger our understanding of it. I see no reason why his words would not have been understood in the context of that time. He was preaching within a politically charged environment (the Romans had squelched zealot Jews revolting against the empire on various occasions). To make matters worse, religion was big business (to the Sadducees), the temple was corrupted (worship had become expensive), and the religious elite were loyal to the Roman empire, not the people they were ministering to. The common Jew lived in poverty while the religious elite kept gaining wealth. I think it would be hard to separate individual responsibility from national responsibility in that particular culture especially. Just my two cents.

  • Matthew

    I think the expectations of Jesus`first century Jewish audience were probably national in scope. Maybe that´s why many of them missed the main point of Jesus´kingdom message? I mean Jesus didn´t defeat (in a historical sense) their Roman occupiers … even if that was the expectation of his first century Jewish audience.

  • Ron McPherson

    I get what you’re saying, though I actually think his message was indeed national in many respects because that’s how the Jews often thought (that’s not to lessen individual responsibility of course). For instance, I believe that Jesus’ message, especially when read in its historical context, stressed that we ‘defeat’ our enemies through love and forgiveness, not violent retaliation. So in that sense, he actually did ‘defeat’ the Romans (because victory within the kingdom looks different than victory to the world), which is what many just didn’t get (and still don’t). I don’t believe Jesus was limiting the love for one’s enemies to, say, one’s next door neighbor whose fence encroaches your property line. I think the Roman empire was included in his charge to love because, well, that’s who the enemy was to common Jews. For instance, Jesus says in Matthew 5:41,”and if anyone forces you to go one mile, go also the second mile,” which was likely a specific allusion to Roman soldiers compelling a Jew to lug his gear for him. That definitely had national repercussions.

  • Snooterpoot

    So, the claim you made in the initial comment, “To be a peacemaker means to be making peace, namely between two people, not nations,” was incorrect because it limits the definition of peacemakers.

  • Snooterpoot

    This just proves the point that having access to safe, legal abortions saves women’s lives.

  • raven nevermore

    My use of the word “expand” is referring to more individual people as persons. I could have been more clear. See Ron McPherson’s post. He seems to have a centrist approach.

  • Val–Standing

    No, it proves that ANTIBIOTICS save women’s lives.
    That is why maternal abortion deaths went down so dramatically in the 1950s, while the RvW decision barely made a ripple.

    Here is the article that the graph came from.

    http://disq.us/url?url=http%3A%2F%2Frealchoice.blogspot.se%2Fp%2Fwouldnt-more-women-die-if-roe-fell.html%3AdnKJxvdf9YZhKq6rXNgVsx0cMVg&cuid=431522

  • Val–Standing

    In the US, RvW seemed to make no difference in regards to women’s safety.

    In other countries when abortion has been legalized/expanded, some maternal mortality rates have gone up, some have gone down, and others, like the US, have basically stayed the same.

    Any honest appraisal of this evidence leads to the conclusion that all permissive abortion laws do is to make pregnancy far more dangerous for unborn humans, but NOT safer for mothers.

    Edit–I have not heard of the “abortion clock”.
    Please tell me more.

  • Judgeforyourself37

    Matthew, you should not be “struggling with the pro-life issue or the pro-choice issue. If you are a male, Matthew, you will never become pregnant. Only the woman who is pregnant has the right to that “struggle.” When you can become pregnant, or become pregnant, then and only then do you have the right to weigh in on this subject.
    The pregnant woman, not her parents, not her boyfriend, not her husband, and not the parents of the man involved have that right, the pregnant woman is the one who must decide, “Do I want to have a baby?”
    You may say, “Why didn’t she use contraception?” She may well have used contraception, but there are failures of contraception.
    Actually the number of abortions has decreased since the ACA now pays for contraception, even the best contraception, the IUD, which is expensive, as a doctor must insert this device, and the woman needs to be sedated for the insertion.
    Trump wants to eliminate the ACA, and free contraception. If this occurs, you will see the number of abortions escalate.

  • Judgeforyourself37

    Agreed, but until men become pregnant many of them will take no responsibility.

  • Judgeforyourself37

    Yes, yes, and yes, that is important. Young people who have had comprehensive sex education, delay sexual intercourse, but when they do become sexually active know how to protect themselves from pregnancy and STDs.

  • Mr. James Parson

    And that is OK.