10 Things You Can’t Do and Still Call Yourself “Pro-Life”

10 Things You Can’t Do and Still Call Yourself “Pro-Life” June 21, 2013


Being “pro-life” had always been something that was central to my identity. I learned early on, that in order to be a good Christian, one was expected to be “pro” or “in favor of” life- which made complete sense, and still does.

As Jesus followers, we follow the one who can lead us to eternal life and life abundant, and therefore should hold a worldview that is intensely in favor of life. Great. I’m all on board.

What I grew to find increasingly problematic however, was the dishonesty of the term; a term which at face value should indicate an ethos which is always radically in favor of life, really was simply a term to indicate I was against abortion. It didn’t legitimately represent a holistic life ethos which always sided in favor of life.

It still doesn’t. When someone says “pro-life” our thoughts immediately go to the age-old abortion debate (something I’m not interested in hashing out on this blog), when instead it should cause us to think of an all-encompassing value system which shows a primacy for the value and dignity of life in all respects, and at all stages.

A beautiful term, which I would be proud to wear if understood accurately, has been reduced to a single issue. As the cultural definition of the term has taken root, it has become a less-than-honest term that further separates society in an us-vs-them mentality.

Those who oppose abortion are deemed “pro-life”, and those who may not oppose abortion in all circumstances are not pro-life.

How dishonest.

Those who oppose abortion and advocate to see it become illegal in all forms are not necessary pro-life; as is often the case, they are simply pro-birth. Likewise, those who do not oppose abortion in all circumstances are not necessary any less pro-life than the former.

Instead of the tiresome polarization this term often brings, I would love to see a new understanding of the term give birth. One that no longer gives false impressions about holistic life value systems… one that is far more accurate in how it is used. I have decided to begin using the term in a legitimate way- a way that represents a total and complete value, not just for the unborn, but for the post-born as well.

Recently, Mark Sandlin wrote two fantastic posts which you’ve probably read- “10 Things You Can’t Do While Following Jesus” and “10 Political Things You Can’t Do While Following Jesus.” (If you haven’t, go read them- they’re good.) With his blessing, I’m going to borrow the format in a quest to illustrate what the term “pro-life” should legitimately express. So, if you’ve always considered yourself pro-life, allow me to show you the 10 things you can’t do while legitimately professing to be on the side of life.

10 Things You Can’t Do and Still Call Yourself Pro-Life

10. You cannot support unrestricted, elective abortions, after the age of viability.

While I don’t want this to be a post about abortion, I would fail in my argument that the term pro-life need be holistic and represent all life, if I didn’t list abortion. While I don’t favor the complete abolition of abortion in all circumstances, I think it’s an easy call to oppose elective abortions which occur after the age of viability.

In my other life as a photographer I volunteered for a fantastic organization called Now I Lay Me Down To Sleep. My role as a volunteer photographer, was to travel to the local medical centers and to take portraits for families who had lost a child. Usually, the children I took portraits of were pre-born, and died in the womb. It was one of the most difficult jobs I have ever done, as I attempted in some small way to help grieving families by giving them a tangible memory of their child. During those portrait sessions, I had some rare opportunities to see life up close. While we have all seen artistic renderings of what an unborn child looks like, I have had the rare opportunity to be someone who has actually held them in my own two hands. From 18 weeks gestation (twin boys), to babies who were due to be born any day, I have seen life close up. And, all I can say for me, is that I know this is life, that it is precious, and that this must be an element of a pro-life ethos.

While there will always be debate on this issue, and I’m not fishing for any here, for children who are able to survive outside of the womb independently, it should be an easy call to be opposed to elective abortions in these cases, and to side on the side of life.

9. You cannot oppose a livable, minimum wage.

 After adjustments for inflation, the minimum wage today is $2 less an hour than it was in 1968. [1. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/20/10-minimum-wage_n_3474024.html] However, a study by Restaurant Opportunities Centers United revealed that by simply raising the federal minimum wage from the current $7.25 to $10.00 an hour, it would lift 58% of the working poor out of poverty. [2. ibid] There are millions of Americans stuck in an inescapable life of poverty- not because of laziness, but because their hard work at lagging minimum wages are insufficient for basic needs, such as housing. According to the Low Income Housing Coalition, the best case scenario for minimum wage workers can be found in Arkansas and West Virginia where one would only need to work 63 hours a week at minimum wage in order to rent a two bedroom apartment at fair market value. Live in New York? You’re looking at working 136 hours a week in order to pay just for housing. My home state of Maine? That’s 81 hours a week. [3. http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2012/05/30/opinion/5302012wage/5302012wage-jumbo.jpg]

It’s impossible to say that we are legitimately in favor of “life” when millions among us are unable to afford basic housing regardless of how hard they work.

8.  You cannot advocate, support, or passively tolerate economic policies which oppress the poor, minorities, or any other marginalized group.

 I’m not going to get into which policies I personally feel do or do not oppress the poor because I don’t want my overall message to get sidetracked by political assumptions; the fact remains that we cannot claim to be in favor of life while simultaneously oppressing the poor. All throughout scripture, we are warned about this and in fact, in Amos 5, Isaiah 1, and other prophets, God makes it quite clear that our religious activity is offensive to him if we are failing to defend the poor and needy. Job wanted it on the record that he had never oppressed a poor person. Jesus warned that the judgement of the nations would be a judgement based upon how they treated the poor and vulnerable. And when the disciples sent Paul out? Their last words were “remember the poor” (Gal  2:9-10)

Being in favor of life, must mean being in favor of the poor and oppressed.

 7. You cannot oppose gender equality

Being in favor of life, means we equally value the life of both genders. In 2013, we should seriously be ashamed that women still earn approximately 73% of what men earn for the same work, and that places like Texas just declined to become the 43rd state to pass a law against gender based wage discrimination. But, it gets more tough than that: as scripture teaches, there is no longer “male or female, slave nor free”, and as a result, we need to demand an end to gender based discrimination in our churches as well.

Sometimes when I need to get my blood pressure up, I listen to Youtube videos of “Pastor” Steven Anderson- he’s the same pastor who threw an Obama supporter out of the church mid-service, yelling “murderer” but yet also has sermons on why women shouldn’t be allowed to vote, why women should only wear dresses, and why he carries his wife around the house each day (to show her that he’s in charge).

If we really value life, we need to actively oppose gender based discrimination everywhere we find it, even if that’s a little too close to home for our comfort.

6. You cannot hold anti-immigrant sentiments or support oppressive immigration policies

As people of the way, we must remember that the immigrant population is one that is mentioned over and over again in scripture. We are commanded to be hospitable to them, be generous with them, and to treat them no differently than those who are native born.

To live in one of the richest countries in the world, and to live in a nation which consumes copious amounts of the worlds resources, it doesn’t show a value to life when one wants to continue consuming but simultaneously build fences to keep our poorer neighbors out. The worldview of “this is mine, leave it alone” is incompatible with a pro-life ethos. It reminds me of a story Jesus told one time about a rich man who lived in a gated community but ignored a poor man on the other side of the gate… lets just say, things didn’t work out so great for the rich man.

5. You cannot oppose healthcare for all

I’m not necessarily an apologist for Obamacare, but one cannot say they are legitimately pro-life while opposing equal access to healthcare– especially by the poor. To say “you are required to carry your baby to term” in one breath and then say “but want vaccines so that your baby doesn’t get sick and die? Sorry, you’re out of luck there” is the opposite of being pro-life. Arguments like this reduce the movement to simply being pro-birth, and nothing more.

I recall an occasion during one of the many, many, many republican debates during the last primary season. Ron Paul was asked if someone who was ill, but didn’t purchase healthcare, should simply be allowed to die. Members of the crowd quickly shouted out “yeah!”, and Paul’s response, left me unconvinced that he fundamentally disagreed with the statement.

Ensuring people have the medical care they need to live, is part of being in favor of life.

4. You cannot use dehumanizing language

Throughout history, the use of dehumanizing language was a precursor to oppression. Once we begin referring to other human beings with language that underemphasis or obscures their humanity, we have committed the sin of blasphemy by ignoring the imago dei in that person. If we use dehumanizing language for long enough, we’ll start seeing those individuals as less than ourselves- which make it much easier to begin oppressing them, even in subtle ways.

Racial epithets, the “R” word, and even the term “illegal” (which in addition to being derogatory, is a totally dishonest term), dehumanize an individual and make them less than ourselves. This is inconsistent with a pro-life worldview, and inconsistent with the God of scripture.

In Philippians 2:3, Paul tells us that with humility, we need to “consider others more important than ourselves.”

3. You cannot support unrestricted gun rights

 This one should be the most obvious, but it’s not. Individuals with a pro-life worldview need to take a more reasonable approach to this issue than those who typically control the narrative. If one holds a foundational belief that we need to radically side on the side of life, then we ought be willing to sacrifice some of our rights in order to be true to that guiding principle. The Christian life bids us to set aside our own personal rights and interest in the name of others, and we can start here on the issue of gun control.

It’s an impossible argument to call oneself pro-life, but to also argue that any citizen ought have access to military grade assault weapons, which are objects designed to take life away. There is no other purpose for guns, beyond killing things. To resist reasonable, middle-ground measures such as background checks, registrations, and mandatory safety training does not indicate that one is holistically on the side of life. In society, we recognize that cars are great tools, but can also harm people. As such, we require a license to operate one, registration of all cars, insurance on cars in case someone is injured, and accountability measures for people who don’t play by the rules. To completely abandon that logic with guns, is beyond fathomable- especially if one claims to be in favor of life.

People who are legitimately in favor of life, need to be far more reasonable with compromise on the whole gun discussion.

2. You cannot support the death penalty

Being pro, or in favor of life, means that we are in favor of all life. That includes those who are on death row. If we are Jesus centered in our approach and development of this worldview, we see that Jesus himself in John chapter 8, stood in the way of an imminent execution. And, while perhaps the law had the right to demand death for certain criminals, as far as Jesus was concerned there isn’t anyone alive who is worthy of acting as the hangman.

Culturally, we know that capital punishment is expensive, ineffective, and inconsistently practiced across racial lines– which alone make it an unjust practice even without solid theological reasons for opposing it. Worldwide, 93% of all executions are carried out by China, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, and the United States. Hardly the international pro-life community, no?

Our culture in the US has become so captivated by retributive justice, we have completely lost sight of the task of restorative justice, which God has called us to as ministers of reconciliation. If we value life, we must strive to see lives restored instead of lives destroyed.

1. You cannot support, advocate for, or participate in war

Screen Shot 2013-06-21 at 2.44.33 PM

I served in the Armed Forces for almost 10 years, and they were some of the best years of my life because of the people I served alongside of. However, today as a Jesus follower and an Anabaptist, I now realize how inconsistent advocating, supporting, or participating in war is for someone claiming to have a pro-life worldview.

I remember one time in particular, during Operation Allied Force. We had the opportunity to write messages (image of me, above) on bombs before they were dropped– and we did. I’m ashamed to admit, we had a lot of fun doing it. To this day, I have no idea who those bombs killed or how I could have been so lighthearted about participating in death. I’m so very sorry for participating in that, especially with an easy spirit.

War is incompatible with a way of life that radically sides with life, and stands in the way of death. Those of us who truly wish to live out a pro-life ethos, must be busy pounding our swords into plowshares, and must refuse to make or train for war as we await the restoration of all things.


If you see yourself as pro-life, great- because I see myself that way too.

However, if you’ve worn that label simply because you want to abolish abortion- please, let me challenge you to expand what it means to truly be pro-life, instead of simply being pro-birth.

Let’s redefine the term pro-life to honestly encompass a holistic worldview which sides on the side of life.



"Still waiting for this "tangible proof" of the legendary "King David" and Kingdom & City ..."

No, The Gospel Isn’t “Good News” ..."
"Well you are condemned as a liar once again, Dennis!Your claim of evidence is debunked ..."

No, The Gospel Isn’t “Good News” ..."
"What "subjective reality" do you detect within the evidence and absence of evidence based observations ..."

No, The Gospel Isn’t “Good News” ..."
"Reading is a critical skill.The question posed to you is what other world religion has ..."

No, The Gospel Isn’t “Good News” ..."

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!

TRENDING AT PATHEOS Progressive Christian
What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • Heather McCuen Dearmon

    i cannot believe i have actually come upon a blog that i AGREE with! i have been reading dozens of your posts, and am so thankful that you are so eloquently saying all the things i have thought, felt and believed but could not express as well.
    i agree with all 10 points here, and have for years. i have made quite a few fundies outraged by even mentioning them.
    i SO appreciate your blog entry that comes after this one. i am a vegan because i believe, as a child of God, i have been called to be a good steward of the earth and His creatures, and to support factory farming is not doing so. i get many eye-rolls and pats on the head for having such a “silly” stance.
    you may not have guessed, but i am also a “former fundie” and so is my husband. we haven’t quite recovered yet. i still harbor some anger towards the fundamentalists who hurt me and those in the public eye who continually tick me off, but Father is helping me, more and more, to forgive and to not let myself get too worked up over things i cannot change (insert Serenity Prayer here.)
    i have a blog that i have used, from time-to-time, to lash-out/rant at the some of the frustratingly crazy mindsets of fundamentalists, and yet, “despite all my rage i am still just a rat in a cage.” So, i will probably be posting more of YOUR blog entries on my fb now, since you say everything way better than me, and you seem to be able to handle the comments from your readers quite well. i blocked all comments on mine.
    it’s so nice to have found you, and am looking forward to your book! Christmas presents for fundie family members? i think so!

  • Heather McCuen Dearmon

    i cannot believe i have actually come upon a blog that i AGREE with! i have been reading dozens of your posts, and am so thankful that you are so eloquently saying all the things i have thought, felt and believed but could not express as well.
    i agree with all 10 points here, and have for years. i have made quite a few fundies outraged by even mentioning them.
    i SO appreciate your blog entry that comes after this one. i am a vegan because i believe, as a child of God, i have been called to be a good steward of the earth and His creatures, and to support factory farming is not doing so. i get many eye-rolls and pats on the head for having such a “silly” stance.
    you may not have guessed, but i am also a “former fundie” and so is my husband. we haven’t quite recovered yet. i still harbor some anger towards the fundamentalists who hurt me and those in the public eye who continually tick me off, but Father is helping me, more and more, to forgive and to not let myself get too worked up over things i cannot change (insert Serenity Prayer here.)
    i have a blog that i have used, from time-to-time, to lash-out/rant at the some of the frustratingly crazy mindsets of fundamentalists, and yet, “despite all my rage i am still just a rat in a cage.” So, i will probably be posting more of YOUR blog entries on my fb now, since you say everything way better than me, and you seem to be able to handle the comments from your readers quite well. i blocked all comments on mine.
    it’s so nice to have found you, and am looking forward to your book! Christmas presents for fundie family members? i think so!

  • So glad you found it, Heather! Glad to have you as a reader.

  • So glad you found it, Heather! Glad to have you as a reader.

  • Digger

    Thank you, Cynthia. And very well written–you have a talent! I’m using the “your face is not glowing” line. Forgive me if I fail to list you in the bib.

  • Digger

    Thank you, Cynthia. And very well written–you have a talent! I’m using the “your face is not glowing” line. Forgive me if I fail to list you in the bib.

  • Digger

    “Isn’t it even stranger how someone could be against the death penalty and be pro-choice?”
    GREAT line!

  • Digger

    “Isn’t it even stranger how someone could be against the death penalty and be pro-choice?”
    GREAT line!

  • Stuart O’Quin

    Strange… everything on this list seems to be thematically tied to the preservation and respect of life. The numbers closest to being tangential appear to be encouraging us to help the “oppressed, poor, and the needy.” I wonder where a pro-lifer might find that crazy notion!

  • Bill610

    Well, I see that I am late to the party. I commend you for your willingness to advance some original thinking on this issue, but I can’t say that I much agree with you.

    A disclaimer so that you know where I am coming from: I am an evangelical Christian and a libertarian. Christians believe that life is sacred;libertarians believe that no one has the right to initiate force against another person (I would have thought that this might align you, as an Anabaptist, with my perspective a bit, but I would have been wrong). Abortion has always been a tough case for libertarians, because if one believes that personhood begins at conception, then abortion is an initiation of force against the unborn child, and therefore could be legitimately outlawed; but if personhood begins at some other point, then preventing an abortion before that point would be an initiation of force against the mother.

    As one who opposes the use of military force in war, surely you can understand the libertarian concern about the initiation of force by agents of the government against people who are not using force or fraud against anyone? When we pass a law, whether that law says “you can’t have an abortion” or “you can’t rob banks” or “you have to offer a ‘living wage’ to your employess”, you are not simply wishing a good thing into existence; you are ultimately authorizing people with guns to arrest those who do not follow that dictate, and to use violence against them if they do not cooperate.

    So, let’s take your living wage recommendation as an example. When you require a living wage, you are not actually waving a magic wand and rewriting the laws of economics. Rather, what you are doing is coming between two people who are willing to agree that one will work for the other, and threatening one or both of them with violence if they make that agreement. Who am I to decide for someone else whether not working at all is better than working for less than x dollars an hour? Who am I to threaten them with violence if they disagree with my assessment?

    Who am I to threaten someone with violence if they choose to own a weapon that I don’t think they should have? Isn’t it the height of hypocrisy to use force–probably implemented with the very same weapon I forbid them to have–to take that weapon away from them?

    There are many Biblical calls to give generously to those in need and to care for the poor and the widows. I do not see any calls in scripture to give someone else’s money generously, whether for welfare, health care or any other otherwise perfectly good cause.

    I largely agree with you on war and the death penalty, though I would also recognize that each can be appropriate in specific contexts. Of late, I have had little reason to trust our government’s decisions in either of these areas.

    Finally, as a matter of rhetorical politeness, it is generally accepted that it is appropriate to refer to someone on one side of a debate by the term they prefer to be called. That’s why I don’t like terms like “anti-choice” or “pro-death”. It’s also why I don’t tell people in the pro-choice camp that they can’t use that term any more until they recognize that people should be able to choose whether or not to use any drug they like, sell their bodies in prostitution, and choose whether or not to pay their taxes.

  • Robert Estienne

    This author has a rather absurd understanding of rights. 3, 5, possibly 8 (depending upon your definition of “oppress”, and 9 demonstrate this. On guns, for example, the author seems to imply that some people’s rights are violated simply because other people are merely made more capable of killing them. I’m sorry, but if there has not been an actual right violated, then no right has been violated (and you do not have a right to “feel safe”, or to feel anything, for that matter). To say that some people should be prohibited from owning guns because they might commit crimes is to punish them for things they haven’t done.

    Next, saying that people have a right to healthcare is problematic because healthcare does not exist unless it is produced by human labor. To say that it is a right, then, implies that people (at least certain people) are morally obligated to practice healthcare, and that choosing a different line of work is immoral. If a person has to take some positive action to create that which you claim is a right, then it isn’t a right.

    Minimum wage is problematic because of an economic term called marginal product of labor. In general, workers are paid their marginal product – that is, the amount of value the employer figures that the worker adds to the revenue. If the minimum wage is higher than the worker’s marginal product (as it is for many people who are currently unemployed) then the worker will be laid off.

  • jerrycstanaway

    Why don’t you have to take an absolutist position against abortion? I don’t support war or the death penalty under any circumstances-if I suddenly made exceptions for abortion in extreme circumstances, how is that being consistent?

  • 10) The child is a growing human being as far back as the zygote. We do not speciate into a new organism upon birth. Someone being “helpless to live on his own” is not an ethical reason to commit murder.

    9) Minimum wage is NOT meant to be a living wage. Minimum paying jobs are excellent for students, first time workers, or someone reentering the work force with a new skill set, etc.

    Raising the minimum wage costs jobs. For every “poor person lifted out of poverty”, how many are fired or cannot work at all? Plus, one only needs to be making about $25,000 a year and have a roof over their head to be in the top 5% in the world as far as standard of living/wealth goes. Furthermore, the benefit is only temporary as the market adjusts. Most of the odd jobs I have had in my life would not have been offered had the amount they needed to pay me been higher.

    If we wish to promote life, we need to promote systems that allow for decent social mobility and foster growth in the job market. My parents were very poor when I was born, but over time (like most americans) they were able to upgrade living standard, house size, etc. Preventing people from even getting onto the social ladder (by a high minimum wage or failed policies like Obamacare that cost jobs) is the opposite of this. A wide variety of jobs available at different payment schemes/skill sets is ideal.

    I’m disabled and get about $7000 a year, and I would consider my standard of living very high. (I have shelter, ample food, a computer, money for toiletries, etc). I even have a little extra for hobbies and entertainment. That money comes from tax-payers, something I am very conscious of and try to repay with civic volunteer work where I can.

    Jesus asks us to -personally- give to needs, not to be out there promoting social policy that actually harms the poor in the long term.

    8) I have rarely met a pro-life person who was out fostering programs that harm the poor. In fact, most I have met advocate for social changes that allow charity and aid to be given more freely. Conversely, most of my personal hardships (healthcare, otherwise) have come from democratic governors or obamacare. As for minorities, the republican party was founded in large part to end slavery, and has continued to fight for the freedom and equal rights of minorities despite opposition from the democratic party, so it is not surprising that more pro-life people are republican than democrat. Do not swallow the lie that “having the same stuff” makes one equal, or start parceling stuff out based on color of skin vs. character. Where there is rampant inequality (such as there often being inferior schools in minority areas) it usually has a foundation in bad social policy, such as using funds from property taxes for schools or civic needs. {Which just feeds inequality, as richer areas will be able to have nicer things, and the poor can’t just move into those areas easily – plus when the many can vote themselves free stuff from the few, then that also leads to unsustainable bad policy}.

    7) I don’t know personally of any pro-life people who promote gender inequality – though certainly there are high-profile figures who do not represent the body at large who try to get ratings or sell books off incorrect views (a problem that has been happening since the early church). Many pro-lifers (the Christian ones, anyway) hold to a Christ & the church centered view that men and women have different roles to reflect Christ, or that wives respect their husbands as the head of the family just as the church submits to Christ and Christ was obedient to God.. (And no one is claiming that Christ is not equal to God!) – sure. Marraige is meant to be a partnership of equals working together as God designed them to reflect the higher spiritual reality of Christ and the church. There is no room in that for tyrannical dictatorship or abuse. Wage discrimination is not because of gender, but what goes along with gender (different fields of work, time off so less work history in the same field). It stands to reason that a mother that spent much of her work life raising kids, despite her skills, will be paid less than a man who has been consistently in the job force and has amassed a work history. While there may be a fix for this socially, it can’t be found with people mixing up correlation with causation.

    6) Most Pro-lifers ARE pro-immigration, however they are pro legal immigration and for expanding the legal avenues. “Give me your poor, your huddles masses, yearning to breathe free”. Pro-lifers are also usually for political asylum and offering temporary refuge. They are not for illegal immigration, as every illegal immigrant is a legal immigrant that can’t come in, and you are correct in saying this is a misnomer as they haven’t even agreed to be bound by our laws. Furthermore, why is it that legal immigrants are caught up in red tape for years while others can secretly enter and wait for amnesty? Legal immigration leads to a nation of citizens, allowing immigration by virtue of their unallowed presence leads to a country of dependents who have already realized that the law is worthless.

    The children of illegal immigrants, who had no choice, should be reached out to in aid and sympathy, but they should be put on paths of legal citizenship. You are also correct that we should be out there helping our neighbors and making sure their needs are met – whether they are citizens or not. We do not have to do this by supporting unjust laws, however.

    5) As a poor person harmed by Obamacare, I can say “yes, we can”. Healthcare is not a social right. Rather, we -personally- need to be out there aiding the poor and sick and needy. Governments that attempt to give healthcare to all end up with poor service that actually leads to the death of the most vulnerable citizens. Furthermore, being pro-life does not mean pro-eternal-physical life. Many pro-lifers are pro-eternal life in Jesus, but that does not mean we should care about living forever *on earth*. In fact, an unhealthy interest in preserving one’s youth or living as long as possible via artificial means can be a huge stumbling block to finding eternal life in Jesus. I do personally think that government can be part of healthcare, but its best in an emergency capacity (staving off outbreaks, passing out cures, etc). No good comes from government taking from the general welfare to start overseeing the specific welfare of individuals.

    4) I agree everyone should watch their language, and never view others as less than human. I would disagree that this a rampant problem with pro-lifers, though one can unfortunately find people from all views slinging around name-calling.

    3) Read the book of Esther. God is fully supportive of groups defending themselves, even if it takes life. Furthermore, our nation obtained freedom precisely because the common man was armed, and part of maintaining that freedom is to make sure the common man stays armed and ready. If a military is allowed a vastly greater force of arms than the people, then it is no longer “We the People” who rule. The constitution does not allow infringement upon the right to bear arms (that is anything that makes owning a weapon out of reach or impractical for the normal person due to unnecessary expense or cumbersome guidelines, etc) – something that has already occurred with unrealistic feeds or ammo restriction, etc.

    2) The retributive justice of capital punishment helps us understand our need for a savior. While I do think the system needs reformed in many places, having capital punishment is actually necessary from a Christian worldview. This is because God is both loving and just.

    While it might be easy to say “Christ forgave, so we should never condemn a criminal to death” – this misses an understanding of what forgiveness is. Christ’s forgiveness is a pardon granted because our crime merited the death penalty. Christ had to die so that God could grant us this pardon! A pro-life view understands that for man to receive eternal life, someone had to die to take our place.

    Would you take the penalty in a condemned man’s place? That is what Christ did so we would not have to die. The sentence of a judge stands, hence why all men are condemned to death and hell unless they accept the free pardon of God by claiming Christ’s blood.

    We cannot, however, upend the judicial system and make it so there is no need for pardons because sin no longer merits death. That is the equivalent of the errant philosophy that because God is loving He won’t send anyone to hell (rather than the correct view that He wants all men to live, so came Himself to give them a way of pardon and freedom should they take it).

    Society also has its judicial system for the punishment of wrongdoing, which is pro-life for society.

    1) Are you saying God is not pro-life? This is a radical misunderstanding of God. While God wants everyone to come to life, in the same way pro-life supporters are against murder and seek for others to live, there are cases where war must happen. Consider how the 11 tribes of Israel came together to wipe out the tribe of Benjamin. This was not anti-life, rather the tribe of Benjamin was lost in death as it was. Once the tribe was cleaned out it went on to become an important tribe (Paul was a Benjamite). While we no longer can inquire of a priest to ask if a war is just, we have Christ as our High priest. The founders of America debated back and forth on whether war was justified, but eventually determined it was, as there are times for all men when they must rise to fight injustice.

    I would fully agree that countries enter wars all the time that they need not, and that there is no need for pro-life people to support these, excepting that they should still be supportive of the troops who are laying their lives down for the country. It is not the troops in the end who bear responsibility, but the leaders of a nation.

    War is very different than murder or genocide or the unjust slaughter of the innocent, and in these hard cases a person must examine the character of God and His words to determine what something falls under. {A good red-flag is always when a ‘war’ is against a group of civilians, not an opposing army, such as the jews tortured and killed in the holocaust, or christians being burned to death, etc}

  • Exactly! (Lol, that was a lot more succinct than my post) That sums it up perfectly!

  • gabi532

    sadly enough, the opposite is true…at least in the States..

  • Kate Waller

    So basically you believe that “Pro-life” = “Quality of life”, where as I believe that “Pro-life” = “don’t kill”. I would suggest backing your opinions up with some scripture, otherwise it’s just another political opinion.

  • access to medicine, housing, etc., is not a “quality of life” issue. They are survival issues.

  • Phil A. Buster

    In other words you can’t be an a US citizen that supports the Constitution. I think you need to find a new country to live in.

  • Donald Schiewer Jr.

    It was probably his tzit tzit and not an Indiana Jones whip.

  • Austin

    Seems like you’re trying to create a debate around semantics. Turns out, we need a label of some sort to describe “people who do not support abortion” so that we don’t have to say “people who do not support abortion” every time we’re referring to “people who do not support abortion”. The reason that we need labels (or nouns in general) is to allow us to discuss things efficiently (hopefully reading “people who do not support abortion” 4 times is as frustrating as writing it was). It seems like what you’re doing is taking a term that is by-and-large accepted to mean a certain thing, assigning a new meaning to it and then getting angry at people who don’t use it in the same way you do. Respectfully, most of the “Christian” articles I read these days have some similar ploy of overloading vocab so they can claim some extra knowledge of the new thing they’ve defined. If you want to say, “I don’t support war”, don’t say that “animal-lover”, “business-owner”, or “pro-life” all mean that you can’t support war. Those are understood terms in their own right, and you shouldn’t just re-define them for the sake of an article.

  • Keith Lyding

    This is a horrible list–your first entry for abortion after “the age of viability”

    If you support abortion before “the age of viability”, I have some disheartening news for you: you are not pro-life (at least in regards to abortion)

    Your intro causes you to lose all credibility BEFORE I even got to your list…

  • Kate Waller

    Without scripture, it’s just another socio/political opinion. I’m not saying that most of your points a bad…quality of life is important. I have been dirt poor…no electricity poor, homeless poor. However, I still believe that your way of defining pro-life is skewed.

  • Amy B

    To be sure, he never once mentioned a political side or leaning. The first time conservative was mentioned was your bringing it up and engaging the stereotypes. ;)

  • Amy B

    This is a really bad type of argument (using an unrealistic and improbable hypothetical) , please do not continue to use it.

  • Amy B

    Nah, but being pro-birth totally lets you worry more about money than humans.

  • Jim H.

    Interesting, but some parts of this don’t exactly line up with the Catechism. You are also using terms like “gender equality” which have entire connotations you didn’t address. And you most certainly don’t have to prudentially select the government as your agent for wealth redistribution – through healthcare or whatever. Try again.

  • Rosalinda Lozano

    This list is dumb! Only a leftist Liberal would equate all of these things with the pro life cause and yet, agree to ignore the murders of 5000 unborn per day via abortion. Dumb!

  • Rosalinda Lozano

    Christians believe the word of God and God says Homosexual behavior is an abomination. Carry on.

  • Lamont Cranston

    Congratulations! You’ve just inspired me to donate $25 to an abortion provider near me in your name.

  • Jeff Preuss

    SomeChristians believe the Word says that. Others don’t.

    Carry on.

  • tiorbinist

    The list goes off-track at 9 and stays that way.

    Guest Contributor presumes that being against murder means that you _must_ be against all kinds of death at all costs. This is progressive clap-trap.

    The Commandment says “Thou shalt not murder”, not “Thou shalt not kill”. Anyone who thinks that it is better to let an armed assailant murder your family than to kill them yourself is simply an idiot, and doomed to extinction, which is probably a good thing.

    The CDC has proven time and again that more people are injured and killed accidentally at the hands of trained law-enforcement than their fellow citizen, the Supreme Court has recognized that the police have no responsibility to protect your life or your family’s, and if someone attacks your country and you refuse to fight them off, your fear and hatred of war will cost you your life and your countrymens’ lives, all for nothing.

    “The poor will be with us always” and “Those who do not work do not eat” are a higher authority than these mishmash progressive anti-commandments. I’m under no obligation to support needless inflation and fat-catting of robber barons to satisfy the inability of Guest Commentator to accept that some jobs aren’t worth $15/hour. Nor can I accept GC’s inability to separate immigration from illegal aliens: I fully support a sensible immigration policy. What we have now is not sensible, and the people GC is talking about are not immigrants, they are law-breakers just for crossing the border illegally, and what I “cannot” support is rewarding them for it.

    In short, this is an insane presentation of the progressive agenda, starting from a single point of agreement, and demanding that every other point be accepted based on the first, without showing a single reason that any of the other nine anti-commandments have a thing to do with the first.

  • tiorbinist

    Perhaps, Benjamin. And perhaps access to medicine is not fostered by possession of a “healthcare insurance” policy which you are forced to buy, but which has either a doctor or a hospital, but not both, and a deductible and premiums so high that you have to sell your firstborn to pay for it.

    So the real problem is that while the claims are really good sounding, “access to medicine, housing, etc”, the back end is totally idiotic: runaway inflation, rising debt, decreasing hospitals and doctors, rising medicine costs, increased taxation, decreased quality of life, etc. Add to this the demand that we “cannot” oppose immigration (when what Guest Contributor really means is “you cannot oppose the illegals crossing the border”) and you simply guarantee the destruction of the economy and the ability of America to help anyone else.

    This is what makes questions like illegal aliens, right to life, uninfringed right to bear arms, etc, so difficult: You can come up with really easy sounding, attractive ideas which cannot be put into practice… and you’re right where you started, but with the addition of unnecessary frustration because your utopic ideas aren’t happening.

  • robert

    Minimum wage is not made to be a living wage; it is an entry level job as a stepping stone to other opportunities, mainly for youth. Anyone who is looking at a minimum wage job as a career has not carefully considered their own personal choices and the ramifications thereof. Moreover, the logic behind the article is flawed. He creates a false dilemma, and expands or creates his own definition of terms (pro-life). But this is how most “progressives” argue, isn’t it? This is old-hat, rehashed, boring arguments (one is not pro life unless___) that would fail a schoolboy’s logic class. One can certainly be pro-life in the proper sense, and still have other ideas about the issue within the article; most people understand that the term “pro-life” is speaking of unborn babies right to life. What do we call those who agree with all of the things mentioned in the article, and yet agree with abortion? Pro-choice…not pro-life. Not impressed with the logic of the article.

  • Kyle Taylor

    You’re argument is flawed, greatly. First off you are taking the term “pro life” and saying it means more than it actually does. Pro life is what people are called that do not agree with killing unborn children for other than pressing medical reasons. As a “pro life tea bagger” I believe that abortions should not be used as a form of birth control. As far as a livable minimum wage is concerned that is another argument about economics and free market capitalism without government oversight and restraints. Can you tell me how conservatives are oppressing minorities or supporting legislation to oppress minorities? Because we believe that people should be living off of taxpayers and should be out working making a living for themselves and have personal responsibility? Sounds like we want everyone to be able to take care of themselves and be successful so they aren’t being taken care of by and already broke government. I guess it’s summed up like we believe in teaching a man to fish instead of giving him a fish. Now gender inequality, are you serious? I’m not even going to entertain that one. As far as immigration, we conservatives are all firmly believe in legal immigration. As far as healthcare. We all know that single payer healthcare does not work. We are all for an efficient healthcare system but we also know that government cannot give us that, just look at the VA. That is what Obamacare is going to bring us. A bunch of government bureaucrats that only want to line their pockets and won’t give a damn about people’s healthcare. And yes we can support unrestricted gun rights. Because it is our constitutional right. Why should there be restrictions on my ability to protect myself and my family from harm? News flash. Criminals don’t follow laws, if you don’t believe me just look at drug laws. For these next two issues you talk about you should really do more reading in the bible. You say because of the bible I cannot support the death penalty? Did you skip the part of the bible that said an eye for an eye and a life for a life? Being anti abortion does not mean I am anti death. I am all for the death of a scumbag convicted of murder hanging by his neck to pay for his crime. Is the bible not full of war? Where in the bible does it say if you believe in god you cannot participate in war? I seem to recall god telling his people to go wage war on all in the land and that is a whole nother discussion that must be examined before assumptions are made. You’re argument holds no ground you are just a liberal trying to pose an a conservative and we see right through it

  • Spikemare

    Those conservative views are things keeping poor women from being able to afford their children. If you want the woman to have her baby, you have to support her baby. It doesn’t make sense to make her have a baby and not give a shit about her or the baby after it’s born. If you want to complain about the poor your taxes are supporting then you’re not pro-life. I’m pro-choice and believe any child born should be born into a family who really wants them and can afford them. If they want them, great. What if they can’t afford them? Well that’s what we have certain healthcare systems in place for. To keep children with their parents and out of the foster care system.

  • Spikemare

    Or you can shoot the man in a nonlethal manner.

  • Nerdsamwich

    Gotta say #10 is kind of a straw man. Nobody is out there aborting healthy, viable fetuses. You don’t just wake up one day, 25 weeks into a pregnancy, and go, “Nope, I’m done with this. Time to get an abortion!”

  • Nerdsamwich

    How so? Can you give reasons why, for instance, you can support the death penalty and still claim to be in favor of life? How about health care? Look an underprivileged juvenile diabetes patient in the eye, tell him you don’t believe he should have the medications that allow him to continue living, and then tell me that you’re pro-LIFE. Feel free to disagree with the author all you want, but give some examples of why he’s wrong.

  • Nerdsamwich

    You can force his hands around to point the guns in a safe direction, since he’s not going to fire them until the five minutes are up. You could even make him point them at himself, but that wouldn’t be very pro-life of me. I’d do it anyway, but just to see if the guy will really follow through.

  • Nerdsamwich

    If all, of even most, workers were paid their full MPL, there would be no such thing as profit.

  • Nerdsamwich

    Who said anything about the Bible? The author sure didn’t. He was talking about being radically in favor of the sanctity of human life, of making the lives of people your highest value. Nothing in the article says he got these ideas from any book.

  • Nerdsamwich

    That’s kind of the point. The entire article is about how the definition you just gave is terribly dishonest. Can you really vote against giving a juvenile diabetes sufferer the medicine he needs to continue living, then look me in the eye and say that you support life?

  • Nerdsamwich

    How is it valuing human life to force a woman to carry to term a fetus that will never be a live baby? One with severe spina bifida, or anencephaly, for instance?

  • Robert Estienne

    There is profit, not because workers do not get paid their MPL, but because labor is not the only thing that contributes to the productivity of a business. Capital does too.

    And savings also are productive, since the reason people save money is that they believe that the money being saved will be more valuable in the future than it is now (saving for expected future technology or other capital investments which are unavailable or too expensive now), so that today’s savings are paying for tomorrow’s productivity increases which outweigh any productivity increases that could be achieved by spending the money today.

  • Nerdsamwich

    Without labor, you have no product, and therefore zero productivity. Doesn’t matter how much capital you can raise, how efficient your org charts are, how advanced your equipment. If you have no one to make it go, you have nothing.

  • Robert Estienne

    It’s true that you can have no value without labor, but labor + capital creates more value than labor alone. Something has to pay for that capital, and it’s certainly helpful to be able to entice people to contribute capital.

  • Nerdsamwich

    Look, I’m not saying I begrudge a business making money, although our current business paradigm does seem to be strangely feudal. But are you seriously going to sit there with a straight face and tell me that a McDonald’s worker is paid every cent of what he’s worth to the company?

  • Robert Estienne

    Businesses tend to hire up to the point where not one more of the applicants could be hired without that applicant’s MPL being less than the starting wage. If there were an applicant who, if hired, would have an MPL higher than the starting wage, then the business would want to hire that person, because hiring them would increase profits.

  • Guy Norred

    Drop the “strangely” and I would pretty much agree with you.

  • Nerdsamwich

    You’re making my argument for me now. Profit equals the value of labor minus the wages of labor. Efficiency measures like better machinery and lean manufacturing techniques augment the value of labor, but they are, in and of themselves, of as little value as a fancy prosthetic leg with no amputee to put it on.

  • Nerdsamwich

    Have you ever trimmed the hair at your temples? Eaten any shellfish? How about blended fabrics? Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.

  • Nerdsamwich

    FDR would vehemently disagree with you on minimum wage, and he ought to know. He’s the guy who made it happen. It seems from your post as though you somehow think that persons just starting their careers, or those changing theirs, don’t need to make enough to live on. Why is that? And when you say “students”, do you include college? Because college students really can’t afford to work for minimum wage. You further seem to assume that businesses are in the habit of hiring unnecessary workers. Where did you get that idea? Go to your local Wal-Mart and take a look around. Do they look overstaffed to you?

  • Nerdsamwich

    Where does he say that these are Biblically-based statements? On the contrary, he characterizes them as being tenets of a philosophy that radically values human life, that holds life as its highest value, in fact. That’s not a Biblical view at all.

  • Robert Estienne

    Would you not agree, though, that businesses are right to spend a good chunk of their income on efficiency measures expansions, some of which require years of savings along with capital provided by people expecting to earn dividends and capital gains, since it creates more value for the economy as a whole in the long run?

  • Nerdsamwich

    Got no problem with efficiency, nor with hardware upgrades. What I took issue with was your statement that workers are paid the entirety of the value of their labor. By your own admission, that’s just not true.

  • Robert Estienne

    I’m not sure what you mean by “entirety of the value of their labor.” They tend to be paid the difference between the value of the business’ production when they are working and the value of the business’ production when they aren’t there, all else equal (the definition of MPL). In the case of a fully-staffed McDonald’s, one worker could leave, and the rest of the staff can carry on without them, albeit a bit more stressfully. Therefore, one worker’s marginal product isn’t that high. On the other hand, a good CEO vs. a bad CEO can mean huge differences in the growth of a company and hundreds of millions in operating income.

  • Lbj

    #2 is incorrect–“2. You cannot support the death penalty”. The death penalty for certain crimes is the just punishment. It actually shows how valuable life is.

  • Nerdsamwich

    You said it yourself, though not quite as directly: If they aren’t worth more than they’re getting paid, they don’t have a job. If a new cashier at Safeway can’t bring in more money to the store than they pay her to work there, they’re not going to hire her. By definition, that “more” is what she’s worth to the company. She necessarily gets paid less than that, because otherwise they wouldn’t make money. Value of labor minus wages of labor equals profit.

  • Bob

    Please do not let conflict, disagreement and poor acts by people sway your belief in God and your belief in salvation through Jesus Christ alone.

    The Bible states that we are all sinners and PEOPLE will ALWAYS fall, regardless of whether they are saved Christians or not. God knows this will happen, but the problem is not His, and the truth remains the same.

    Turning my back on God due to my issues with the acts of MEN is one of my life’s biggest regrets. When I see Christians(myself included) making mistakes and saying ridiculous things, it in fact strengthens my belief in God. It just proves even more that we all need His Grace!

    When you see a Christian fall, turn to God. When you see Christian hypocrisy, turn to God.

    Proverbs 3:5-6 tells us, ‘Trust in the Lord with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding. In all thy ways acknowledge him, and he shall direct thy paths.’

    Men will corrupt you, God never will.

    Praying for you!


  • Robert Eloi

    Although I disagree with your means of achieving your goals, I wholeheartedly agree with your sentiments. With one exception, and that one exception, gun control, is consistent with the reasons I disagree with your means of execution. I believe that you are relying too much on statist controls to achieve your goals. Before we had government intervention, doctors and hospitals consistently cared for the poor. Before government intervention, the market had already corrected the wages for skilled workers without destroying opportunity for entry level positions. And for the big one, Gun Control, considering that government is proven to be the single most violent entity in this sinful world, why would we allow that same statist entity to be the agency that controls violent capability?
    As a veteran myself, I have come to the same beliefs about warfare that you espouse. It was a shock to my family when I refused to stand and be recognized at my churches last warrior recognition ceremony (veterans day). For the last several years I have wrestled with the warrior nature in me, and the calling of Christ to be a peacemaker and to turn the other cheek. What I currently believe, is that I must turn the other cheek, but that I also have a responsibility to defend my family and others from evil and tyranny.Unrestricted gu n ownership is the best protection from individual miscreants and THE ONLY REAL check against government oppression and violence.

  • Nerdsamwich

    It is a truism among prosecutors that a “death-qualified” jury–that is, a jury that is allowed to hear capital cases, and render capital verdicts–all but guarantees a conviction, if not an execution. It’s estimated that about 4.1% of death-row inmates are innocent, but no one looks at those incarcerated for life. For every prisoner on death row, there are likely hundreds that were sentenced to life in lieu of execution, and who knows how many of those convictions are bogus.

  • Jess Tommassello

    Author thinks they’re freaking Moses. Piss off.

  • koq45

    Being against the death penalty has nothing to do with being pro-choice. Pro-choice is defined as people who believe a woman has a right over her own bodily autonomy.

    Again, taking the term “pro-choice” as “pro-abortion” when any woman who is pro-choice can be against abortion for her own reasons. That’s why it’s called “choice.”

  • James Dwight VanKoughnett

    on point 3) gun control simply leaves the innocent with no means to defend themselves, and has been heavily proven to not only have no reduction on gun crime, but in fact boosts gun crimes, i mean sure, go ahead call the cops (even if you carry a defense weapon) but if your unarmed, that cops gonna have a great time tying to find your murderer/rapist etc. carrying a gun is most certainly Pro-Life (by your very agreeable definition) because it means you beleive firmly in protecting YOUR OWN LIFE, and perhaps, the lives of others, ie; your family.

  • Xerocky

    So little of what you’re saying makes any sense. You’re not really thinking rationally.

  • EntitledPrick

    Except the abortion issue isn’t a debate about the human rights of the mother. You can try to slant it that way all you want, but it isn’t.

    The core, fundamental, irrefutable crux of the abortion debate is whether or not an unborn fetus is a human life, and therefore guaranteed all universal human rights we grant each other, including the right to live.

    No other argument matters until this argument is settled. And it’s not.

  • koq45

    Have you been hiding underneath a rock for forty one years?

  • EntitledPrick

    Forgive me for not clarifying what I meant by settled. The pure, unadulterated wit of your snide remark has shown me my error in the framing of my argument.

    Settled as in MORALLY settled, not LEGALLY settled. A judge has no moral authority in the US – please review the definition of their position, and you’ll see that they (specifically the Supreme Court) exist to determine the Constitutionality of laws and particular court cases. Their opinion, verdict, and commentary after the fact are as morally supreme as any other person on the street.

    I would never in a hundred years argue with you that having an abortion is illegal. Myriad court cases would trump my narrative.

    I’ll argue with you right now that you cannot provide a moral or factual justification for believing that an unborn human is, ironically, not human.

  • koq45

    If you think it’s immoral to get an abortion, then don’t get one. Your morality doesn’t determine what other people’s morality is. I feel like you are grasping at straws, like saying, “I don’t think it’s moral,” is enough to determine what others can and can’t do.

  • koq45

    I also don’t need to provide “moral or factual justification.” I am not the one making the claim that abortions are moral/immoral. You are.

  • EntitledPrick

    “I also don’t need to provide moral or factual justification. I am not the one making the claim that abortions are moral/immoral. You are.”

    You’re right, you’ve either straddled the fence on this issue and there’s no point in communicating with you further, or you’ve simply not voiced your opinion on the matter and are now trying to use that as a coping mechanism for the lack of justification for your beliefs.

    “If you think it’s immoral to get an abortion, then don’t get one. Your morality doesn’t determine what other people’s morality is. I feel like you are grasping at straws, like saying, “I don’t think it’s moral,” is enough to determine what others can and can’t do.”

    You really dislike keeping an open mind about things, don’t you? Or do you enjoy being dishonest with yourself? If the morality of one does not determine the morality of the others in a society, I expect to see you calling out protesters of female genital mutilation in other countries. After all, just because WE think it’s morally repugnant to do that to a woman, doesn’t mean an African civilization does, and therefore can proceed, right?

    Unfortunately for you, moral justifications are kind of required for a civilized society. If they were not, a murderer not yet brought to justice did nothing wrong.

  • koq45

    How long did it take for you to come up with that strawman there?

  • EntitledPrick

    You have nothing of substance to say. Have a nice Sunday.

  • Thomas Booth

    Your flat-top looks stupid.

  • Raven Wolf

    This is only the second piece written by a Christian American I’ve been able to find that actually cuts to the heart of the matter and spells it out. Pro-Life should be much more that forcing women to give birth against their wishes.

    Thank you Mr Corey for being a voice of reason in a VERY hostile world.

  • GrandmaMac1

    Amy, This man is wrong on all 10 counts. #1. You cannot support abortion at any age! James is correct.

  • GrandmaMac1

    All life is sacred. No one forces women to get pregnant. Pro-life people are the most generous toward the poor. Just look at your liberal politicians. The rich democrats give hardly anything to charity.

  • GrandmaMac1

    A woman does have a right over her own body. The medical facts show that her unborn baby is NOT her body! A whole new separate human being. She should use her right to say NO and not get pregnant in the first place.

  • koq45

    Yes, we should force all women to go through an experience that could potentially kill her because she was forced to have sex with a man. Sounds legit.

    Why don’t you go worry about your social security that I am paying for you, Grandma? Better yet, concentrate on what type of wood your coffin will be instead. It would benefit you more.

  • GrandmaMac1

    koq. Your argument is exactly the same as the argument FOR slavery. The slave owners claimed that, “If you think it’s immoral to have a slave, don’t get one”. Sorry, but you are wrong on all counts!

  • koq45

    Lol except slavery is a totally different concept than abortion. Try again.

  • GrandmaMac1

    Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness! We are all guaranteed this, no matter how small, helpless, young, old or sick. Abortion was condemned as killing by the medical profession UNTIL it was made a political issue. Roe v Wade was based on a lie. Look it up. Norma McCorvey was used and lied to by the pro-abortion movement. She is now out fighting for the prolife cause.

  • Who would propose such an argument? The important distinction here is that human =/= personhood. Sure, a zygote is human, but it isn’t A human in the sense that it has the same value as a fully born human being. If you don’t think so, consider this:

  • Not really. The difference here is that owning another person is almost universally agreed to be immoral and wrong. In the case of abortion, it is highly subjective. Some might claim that a zygote should be treated as a fully born and developed human, others may consider a heartbeat or brain activity or the quickening or fetal viability, or many other benchmarks. There’s no universal agreement, which is why there is so much conflict over this issue. We’ve set a legal standard of 24 weeks gestation, which is a scientifically defensible benchmark for viability (yes, some fetuses have survived birth prior to this, but not by much, and they are the exceptions; even at 24 weeks with extensive medical care, it’s about a 50/50 proposition at best), and considering that current science also suggests that fetal pain is possible by about 27 weeks, this provides a nice buffer in avoiding that. Besides, only about 1% of all abortions occur even after 20 weeks, and many of these are due to otherwise unforseen maladies.

    It is far less moral to force your personal morals onto other people and essentially turn them into slaves at the mercy of the fetus growing inside of them. As mentioned previously, slavery is fairly universally despised, and granting a fetus more rights than a woman is slavery. It is also far less moral to force a fetus to be born which will only suffer and have no quality of life than to simply terminate it.

  • For starters, let’s just go ahead and ditch the religious opposition to abortion. Not only should it have no affect on our laws because the US is a secular country, but the argument itself is inconsistent and irrational.


  • rob

    Oh, that’s right. Because if it’s a “legitimate rape” the female body has ways of shutting it down. Women are forced to get pregnant sometimes. denying that denies your ability to think outside of the bedroom.

  • GrandmaMac1

    No. It is you, Mr. Atheist, who are imposing YOUR values on a helpless child. You have no idea who will suffer and who will not suffer in this life. You need to stop being so judgemental. Terminate is your fancy word for kill?

  • GrandmaMac1

    Wrong, Limberlip!

  • GrandmaMac1

    I’ve already picked out my casket. So you don’t need to worry about me. You need to worry about you and why you are so determined to see babies killed. And then worry about where your soul will go while you lay in your casket.

  • GrandmaMac1

    No one is “forcing” a child to be born. They are “allowing” a child to finish growing and be born. Just like you were allowed to be born.

  • GrandmaMac1

    Rob, you need to think this through before you take a stand for killing babies. Some day you will regret thinking like this. All life is sacred. You have no idea how many people are the product of rape. No child should have to die for the sin of their father. Where is your sense of justice?

  • No, it is the word used when a pregnancy is ended. Stop playing semantics and focus on the issue. Next, will you chastise me for calling a growing human a fetus?

    Nothing is being imposed when a woman has the option of decides what here personal morals and standards are. If a woman is comfortable with having an abortion, that is for her to decide and live with. However, taking away that choice is imposing YOUR will onto all women, and we already know how well that works (hint: it doesn’t).

    Whether you believe that the fetus will go directly to heaven, or simply cease to exist without ever having been aware of it, I fail to see what the problem is. Sure, I enjoy my brief time that I get to enjoy existence, but had I not been born, I’d not be aware of it. I certainly don’t advocate for abortions, but do respect the rights of others to make their own decisions.

  • And again, if heaven exists, why is this a good thing? Now I have to jump through a bunch of hoops just for the same reward that a zygote that never implants into the uterus gets for free? I now have to burn forever in hell because I had the misfortune of being born with a skeptical mind?

  • If you really and truly believe that all life is sacred, it is safe to assume that you are also against war in all circumstances, death penalty, etc? Or, do you just see unborn life as sacred?

  • rob

    I have thought this through. ITS NOT MY CHOICE OR DECISION. it’s the mothers. I don’t have the necessary equipment for my idea to be relevant. Do I say “Aborshuns fur alllll!”? no. But I don’t have a pony in this race. I do say that it is the last resort, and I’ll support ya anyway you choose, but to say that a possibly medically necessary procedure is wrong always, is wrong. Besides, would you rather these women who make this choice go to a clinic with standards and accountability, or to a back alley hack with a clothes hanger?

  • Spikemare

    But you said no one forces women to get pregnant. Rape is LITERALLY forcing women to get pregnant. It sounds like you need to think about what you’re saying before you think. If you think life is so precious, then why are there children and people still suffering. I am thinking of children when I say Pro-choice. I would never want to bring a child into a bad standard of living. There are people out there with mental conditions so bad, they are TERRIFIED of passing it on to their children. There are people out there with illnesses they will DEFINITELY pass on to their children. Getting pregnant is not hard. Thinking about what type of life you can provide for your offspring before you bring them into this world is. If life is so precious, why shouldn’t women have the ability to decide if bringing them into this world is right. No life is perfect, so there may never be the perfect time. But I don’t see why someone shouldn’t strive for anything less than ideal.

  • GrandmaMac1

    BECAUSE life is precious, we have a right and an obligation to defend the innocent against unjust aggressors. This would be the justification for war. All life, especially the innocent and helpless, is precious. I am against the death penalty. You do, however, have the right to protect your own life.

  • GrandmaMac1

    Rob, Today, instead of dirty back alley abortion facilities, we have dirty front street abortion facilities. They are being closed around the country as health depts. decide that women are being injured and killed in these “legal” places. They are no different than “back alley”. In both cases, a child has been killed and a woman hurt. Sometimes the women die too. But the media usually will not report it. You need to look up the statistics to get the facts. Would you rather have someone kill you with a coat hanger or a knife? They both do the job.

  • GrandmaMac1

    Spikemare, Rape is a horrible crime. Why would you compound it with killing the child? It’s wrong to kill a child for the crime of it’s father. In addition, many women cry rape when it was actually consensual. How do you prove either way? Two wrongs do not make a right. There are thousands of loving couples waiting to adopt a child. I know many of these couples. They have adopted children with disabilities, bi-racial and older children. A friend of mine and her husband adopted a 3 yr old boy who survived an abortion. The abortionist sliced off his legs but he lived. Today he is a healthy 18 yr old who loves wrestling and band. He is part of a family who loves him. He is a blessing.

  • rob

    crap happens. I can go in to get an ingrown toenail fixed and die from complications. Does that excuse the accidents that happen? No, but a lot of the ones being close are because they are being legislated out of existence. They aren’t “filthy,” they don’t meet a ridiculously high standard set by people who can’t take a woman’s right away legally, so they go around it with red tape to jump through.

  • GrandmaMac1

    No Rob, They are filthy! Have you ever been inside an abortion facility? I have. I have seen the exposed electrical wires, the broken, rusted plumbing, the blood drippings on the floors, the rat droppings. The city board of health depts. do not close down medical facilities without a reason. Until recently, these clinics have had no health inspections, because it was considered politically incorrect to make them comply with health standards of other medical facilities. They are beyond filthy! They are only asked to have the health standards of other medical buildings. They do not want to spend the money because they are all in it for the profit. Profit at the expense of women’s health and safety. Many do not even use licensed medical professionals. Many are hit with illegal drug violations. These facts are easy to validate. Some women are not given any anesthetic unless they can come up with a hefty additional fee. Trust me, I know this for a fact.

  • Kendall Raine

    Abortion is statistically safer than pregnancy is.

  • Kendall Raine

    It’s not about a child “dying for the sins of the father,” abortion isn’t a punishment. It’s about the rape victim’s mental health and physical welfare. Where is YOUR sense of justice, punishing the woman with a forced birth for being raped?

  • Kendall Raine

    “trust me I know this for a fact” Oh really? Mind citing your sources?

  • Kendall Raine

    The abortion issue is absolutely about the human rights of the mother. It’s her rights to bodily autonomy that are at stake.
    This comment just shows you don’t give a crap about the women who’s rights you want to curtail.

  • Kendall Raine

    No, they’re FORCING the woman to endure the emotional and physical pain of carrying a pregnancy to term against her will. Simple as that. Word it any way you like, the fact is you’re forcing women to give birth.

  • GrandmaMac1

    Kendall, Abortion IS punishment for the person who is being killed! It is also something that the mother will live with the rest of her life…on top of the terror of being raped. An abortion is never safe for the mother, mentally or physically. Women who have been through an abortion have far more cases of drug and alcohol addictions, depression and anxiety. There is nothing healthy about knowing that you chose to end your child’s life. That is a decision you carry with you for the rest of your life.

  • Kendall Raine

    It’s INSIDE her body, and if she doesn’t want it there, then it’s violating her right to bodily autonomy and she has every right to get rid of it. Just like if a burglar is in your house and you don’t want him there, you have a right to remove him, by lethal force if necessary. And before you say “but the woman chose to have sex,” well even if you invited a man into your house, but then they started causing you problems, stealing stuff, and refusing to leave, again, you have every right to remove them from your home, and again, if necessary, to use lethal force to do so if they won’t leave and continue to pose a threat to you.

  • GrandmaMac1

    And don’t forget about the increase in the rate of breast cancer and sterility for women who have had abortions.

  • Kendall Raine

    Slavery involved the forced labor of sentient beings. Kind of like you’re trying to force sentient beings (women) to go INTO labor against their will.

  • Marna McAlexander

    Seems to me it is no more hypocritical to oppose abortion and support the death penalty, than the reverse.

  • EntitledPrick

    Provide a supporting argument for your claim, rather than feeble ad hominem statements.

    If the only thing at stake is a woman’s right to bodily autonomy, you assume an unborn fetus should not be granted personhood. Provide factual or moral evidence for this claim.

  • GrandmaMac1

    slavery is where one individual tries to “own” another individual. During times of slavery the same arguments that you use to justify abortion were used to justify slavery. The mother does NOT own her child any more that a slave owner owns his slave. Both movements say that “if you don’t want a slave/abortion you don’t have to have one but don’t impose your morality on me.” The Supreme Court legalized slavery just as it legalized abortion. HOWEVER, legal does not equal “right”. It took years of hard work to overturn Dred Scott. It is taking years of hard work to overturn Roe v Wade. Both legal – both immoral.

  • GrandmaMac1

    The baby is NOT the property of the mother any more than the slave is the property of the slave owner. Both the baby and the slave are individual human beings with rights given by God and ensured by our constitution.

  • EntitledPrick

    You’re so arrogant as to assign “value” to humans? Provide evidence. Provide criteria. What makes a human valuable enough to be guaranteed life?

    Your analogy falls short in many ways, and is in no sense a checkmate. You can hear a small child’s pleas for help, you can see physical discomfort on their face. Much easier to worry about saving that which has a voice you can hear than that which doesn’t – hunger is still an issue in many African civilizations. And if that’s the criteria by which the decision is made that the child is more human, replace viable embryo with unconscious/comatose patient and change the setting to a hospital.

  • GrandmaMac1

    If a woman is comfortable with ending the life of her troublesome two year old, is that for her to decide and live with? If a law tells men that they cannot have the choice to rape women because it is immoral, is the judge imposing his will on men? If I want to steal a new dress from my favorite store because I am comfortable with it and can live with what I did, does this make it OK?

  • GrandmaMac1

    No, Kendall, a child is nothing like a burglar. A burglar is in your house to do you harm. A child did not ask to be in your womb. You and the man you had sex with put him in their. He is innocent, unlike the burglar. There is no legitimate reason today for an abortion to save the mother’s life. Ask any OBGYN. They may need to deliver the baby early but they do all they can to save both the mother and the baby. Your arguments are from the dark ages and hold no water.

  • GrandmaMac1

    Carol Everett owned two abortion clinics and was the director of four. She eventually became pro-life and now speaks about her experiences.

    Like nearly all abortion clinics, Everett’s clinics had “recovery rooms” where women could stay after their abortions until the anesthesia wore off or they felt well enough to leave. Everett says there were two main reactions among women right after their abortions:

    …[T]here are two reactions in the recovery room. The first one is: I’ve killed my baby. And even then, it amazed me that that was the first time they called it a baby and the first time they called it murder. But, you know, as bad as that sounds, that’s probably the healthiest reaction. That woman is probably going to have the ability to walk out of there and deal with it, and perhaps be healed and go on.

    These women may have been going through their abortion procedures in a state of denial. Afterwards, they could no longer sustain that denial and were forced to face the truth about what they had done. Everett believes that by facing reality instead of repressing it, these women may be on the path to healing.

    But she goes on to talk about the second group of women:

    But the second reaction is: I am hungry, you kept me in here for four hours and you told me I’d only be here for two; let me out of here. Now that woman is doing what I did. She’s running from her abortion. She’s not dealing with it; she’s choosing to deny it, and she’s the woman that we read all the statistics about, post-abortion syndrome. They say now it’s an average of five years before people actually deal with the fact that, yes, they did kill their baby. And yes, they do have to deal with that. You know, I go back to my own personal healing, which just started a year ago. I was making deals with God. I didn’t want to talk about my own abortion. Then when I finally did deal with it, I cried nonstop for five months because, you see, I killed my baby, and I’m still not through that. And how difficult it is for all these women because, you see, I believe that every woman, even if she’s not physically harmed, is harmed by abortion.

    The five year statistic seems to be anecdotal, but Everett knows, from bitter personal experience, that repressing the trauma of abortion only leads to more heartache later. Women who have abortions have a higher risk of suicide (6 – 7 times higher in adults and 10 times higher in teens) as well as higher rates of depression, sleep disorders, and psychiatric hospitalizations. Pro-life groups need to reach out to these women with compassion, regardless of how they are coping (or not coping) with their abortions.

  • Are you interested in overturning Roe v Wade, or do you actually want to address the reasons why abortions happen? It sounds like you want to legally abolish it– but just like the abolition of slavery, legal abolition didn’t end it. It continued to thrive, and so will abortion so long as the pro-birth movement focuses on legal abolition.

    Your focus on legal abolition is short sighted and not very pro-life, only pro-birth. Furthermore, you’ve been here ranting about abortion, but I’m not hearing you talk about anything else that proves one believes that all life is sacred. Are you against our daily killing of people in the middle east, or not?

  • GrandmaMac1

    Ben, I am “ranting” about abortion because that is what people here are talking about. The people in the Prolife movement are the same people who work at St. Vincent de Paul, Homeless shelters and mission trips to help the less fortunate. They are the ones adopting hard to place children, read to the blind and visit the sick an imprisoned. I am against all killing. I do believe in defending myself and other innocent people. We have laws against robbery and arson and murder, yet these things still happen. Just because they happen does not mean we should legalize them. I am also against radical islamic Muslims killing people in the middle east. I am against beheadings and crucifixions. I believe in freedom of religion.

  • GrandmaMac1

    It is almost 1 am and I am going to bed.

  • Legally yes, biblically no. I guess the difference is the foundation of our belief.

  • GrandmaMac1

    So, Ben, if slavery was legally abolished but still happened, do you then make it legal again? No. Same with abortion or any of violent action. You make it illegal and work to keep it from ever happening. Laws are not perfect but they teach society what is right and wrong.

  • You said “I am against all killing” and in the next sentence, you state that there are some circumstances where you justify killing because it seems right to you. Your position is inconsistent and places you in no position to judge others.

    However, if you believe in killing in self defense, I’m assuming you believe abortion should be legal in cases where your life is in danger because of the pregnancy, because that’s the same thing as self defense.

  • If you meant what you just said– that any violent action should be illegal, we agree. That would prohibit guns, self defense, all of it. If not, you don’t even agree with what you yourself are saying.

  • GrandmaMac1

    Ben, Self defense is legitimate and moral. If someone were coming at you with a knife or gun and kept stabbing or shooting at you, you have a right, to defend yourself. If they were trying to kill your child you actually have an obligation to save that child’s life. I agree with what I’m saying and some of what you say. I think you are too hung up on political “labels” to make a rational judgement about certain topics. Not sure if you are a religious person. I am a Roman Catholic. My Church teaches that self defense is moral. A just war to save innocent lives is moral. In rare cases, Capital Punishment is moral. Many things in our society are illegal yet they still occur. That is no reason to make them legal. There are no perfect solutions on this earth. But, as humans, we need to strive for what is fair and just. Bad things still happen. Our second amendment states that we can own guns. I stand by that, as sometimes it is necessary for self defense….even against an aggressor government. Think Nazi Germany.

  • I’m not the one assigning value to humans, that’s what pro-lifers are doing. They claim that a zygote is just as valuable as a fully born person, yet when confronted with a scenario such as this, they demonstrate their hypocrisy by clearly choosing to save the fully born child.

    First, this isn’t an analogy, it is a hypothetical scenario – something frequently used when discussing moral issues. The purpose of the hypothetical situation is to demonstrate that pro-lifers do not own their claim that a fetus is as valuable as a fully born child and should discard such a position. And, since you mentioned pain, why is it that pro-lifers must misrepresent when a fetus can experience pain in order to restrict abortion rights? They did this in Texas, using junk science which conflates response to stimuli with pain detection to restrict abortions after 20 weeks. Most science suggests pain isn’t possible until around 27 weeks. Why do they have to lie if their position is so sound?

  • See, now you’re being intellectually dishonest. You’re comparing a fully born child to a fetus. It is about as universally acceptable as you can get that killing a fully born child is wrong.

    Your mistake is conflating things which are overwhelmingly morally unacceptable with the subjective determination as to when a human being begins to exist. Your analogies are false for this reason. You want to turn women into slaves at the mercy of the fetus growing inside of them because of your personal moral stance on the issue. And again, let’s consider the consequences of your moral imposition: women will have unsafe abortions, causing harm and possibly death; women and doctors will be prosecuted for murder and sent to prison (as if our prisons aren’t full enough already), possibly taking a mother away from her other children; in addition, if we ban abortion completely, you’d be forcing women to possibly risk their health or life by continuing a pregnancy (which could also cause the fetus to perish) and forcing women to carry unviable pregnancies to term or give birth to fetuses which would suffer greatly and/or have no quality of life.

    Is that your “moral highground”?

  • Watch out, pro-lifers have anecdotes. Why don’t you tell me next about some former atheists who converted to Christianity as proof that Christianity is true? You really think that a person advocating for a cause wouldn’t hyperbolize or exaggerate in order to advance their case? Besides, people engage in many behaviors which increase their risks for adverse conditions. It isn’t our job to go around telling people how to behave because of how they might be affected by their behavior later. Sure, we can educate people and try to prevent them from doing things, and I’m all for educating women on prevention and other options. But, if a woman is fully informed and still makes that choice, she’s the only one who has to live with it.

  • BDA4

    Really? On all 10 counts? So, you opposed abortion, but you are cool with the death penalty. And killing in war? It seems you only believe in that particular Commandment when it suits your needs.

  • GrandmaMac1

    Dear BDA4, I am not cool with death penalty or killing in war. I agree with death penalty in very rare cases. I only believe in war where innocent life is being taken. Then we have an obligation to defend it. You sound very angry, sir. Find someone else to argue with.

  • Exactly. She’s okay with killing in those situations, just not situations where an innocent woman is raped. Apparently, that’s the moral high-ground here.

  • Guy Norred

    I re-read the OP to make sure I wasn’t missing something, but while it might allow for a very slim possibility that there MIGHT be circumstances in which abortion MIGHT be a morally legitimate option, the overall stance of this, and anything I have ever read of his work, is heavily pro-life. This post, as I see it, has two essential points.

    One, that the stance on capitol punishment and war of many in the pro-life movement seems at least inconsistent with this stance, and if you stepped back a second, from what you yourself have said here, it seems that, while Ben’s view of the teachings of Christ on this subject are more extreme than yours, they aren’t as far apart as your tone would imply.

    Two, in my opinion more importantly, that if the purpose of the pro-life movement is indeed to reduce the number of abortions taking place, that focusing on making it less likely that a woman would feel compelled to have one would be a much more efficient way to do so, as well as much more morally consistent, than simply making it illegal.

  • GrandmaMac1

    Guy, You are right. This is why Prolife people have started and supported all these wonder Women’s Care Centers all over the country. They provide all kinds of help for Moms before and after their babies are born. And they are free of charge – unlike Planned Parenthood and abortion facilities. And…it is working. So many women who have been helped are now volunteering at these centers. Plus, Catholic, Lutheran and other Churches provide help for Moms in need. Ben and I are very much in line. Most Prolife people I know are very much against Capital Punishment. I think Ben likes to put people in neat little boxes and you can’t do that. I appreciate your input.

  • Lizy

    How about I’m pro-life because I oppose killing any human that isn’t trying to kill me. I always remember my Grandfather who was in WW2 and after the war was just as loving and kind to Germans as any other human being. His policy on people was that you should love and be kind to any person that isn’t actively shooting at you and even then they’re still humans not monsters so you will speak of them as such.
    I’m generally with you on most of these but #3 and 7 is a stretch into Heaven only knows where and #1 is honestly irrelevant, maybe a better thing would be that our conduct in war should actively try to avoid unneeded war, cruelty or collateral damage and respecting the humanity of every person by only killing to protect one’s life or the lives of others.
    #5 is one of the reasons I’m in healthcare and working toward becoming a midwife. Healthcare to preserve life and physical or mental health is a right not a privilege including for immigrants and the poor from when life first starts within the fallopian tube till 100+ years old.

  • Jenn Hoff

    This was a good read. Thank you :)

  • Jenn Hoff

    Debunked, over and over and over again. More lies to scare women.

  • GenericLizard

    I truly appreciate your thought process on this subject. While I don’t align myself with any organized religion, I enjoy reading about the ideologies of the true thinkers within most belief systems. Your ideas on pro-life are insightful and give me hope for Christianity. Thank you for sharing.

  • GrandmaMac1

    Jenn, You know nothing about women being scared. You need to listen to facts and quit listening to people who are profiting at the risk of women’s health and babies’ lives.

  • GrandmaMac1

    Wrong! Wake up!

  • Jenn Hoff

    lol, and you’re some kind of expert? I doubt that. Having worked in a clinic setting and not being a drone who actually reads and does research, I’m quite comfortable. Thanks though. The link between breast cancer and abortion has been thoroughly researched and debunked. The only ones who still tout it are the uninformed fear mongers. So, yeah. I’m good.

  • GrandmaMac1

    Jean, the link has NOT been debunked. You are prejudiced because you actually made money off the killing of these babies. You are post-abortive. Many people in the medical field have left this grisly business and joined the effort to help women and their babies. You can do that too. I will pray for you and ask that you do the same for me.

  • Guy Norred

    A large part of the point of this is that it is a much more complex issue. Certainly help for mothers and children before and after birth is important, but help before conception itself should also be a part of the strategy. And I am not just referring to access to birth control, but helping people have reason to look forward to the future.

  • GrandmaMac1

    Yes, Guy, This is why there are so many generous doctors, nurses and other medical professionals who donate their time to care for at risk and pregnant mothers. They not only dedicate their time and resources, but educate and help women find jobs and hope for the future. Self esteem is very important.

  • Jupiter2

    I wish pro life would extend to non-human lives. Animals are tortured every day for food, beauty products, and the entertainment and pet industries. I would think they should care about the environment so that these babies they insist be born have a nice healthy place to live with a variety of species to SHARE it with. I shall assume that is what “God” intended…

  • Jupiter2

    Trickle down economics are not working obviously, it’s time to stop trying. The only reason we don’t is because the ones who have become sinfully rich from these policies now own the government.

  • John McAndrew

    Good conversation starter, thank you. I don’t entirely agree with your point #10 – sometimes the mother’s life is in danger, and the family, not a legislature that doesn’t know them, ought to make the call as to which to save, the mother or the fetus – but I can certainly agree that there are times when I would argue that aborting is the wrong choice. Not my call, however, unless it’s my/my partner’s pregnancy.

    Glad that you added care of the Earth in a subsequent addendum.

    Ultimately, being pro-life in the sense you suggest seems like updating the language of the call to be one’s brother’s keeper.

  • Vaios Papastergiou

    This article was obviously written by a liberal. Well then, I guess I am pro-birth, not pro life according to you. One, just try and take my guns- “Shall not be infringed” pal. Two, sorry but the influx of immigrants is going to capsize this country and sink it. You want in America?, go through the process to be a citizen, end of story. I have no problems with that, but if you want to come here, spit on this nation, mooch off of working Americans’ tax money and do nothing then get the f*** out. We don’t want you here. As far as health care, it is none of the government’s business and the government shouldn’t be able to force people to buy something or be turned away from their family doctor. Socialized medicine is a move straight out of the Nazi play book. So you can take this garbage article and shove it!

  • Yup, you’re right sir– you’re just pro-birth.

  • jake

    So,you hate socialized medicine. Does that include medicare for retired people and the V>A. system?Obamacare utilizes the market place. Hardly socialism.
    You oppose immigration reform. Does that include the place where your ancestors came from or just Latinos?
    So you think the answer to gun violence is to turn the country into a gigantic armed camp? One nut job waving a gun,does not constitute a well regulated militia,and neither do those Facist wackos at Bundy Ranch.
    Nazi implies National SOCIALIST. A RIGHT WING philosophy.

  • UrIgnorantandNarrowMinded

    I had an abortion when I was 18 (Over 25 years ago). Best decision I ever made! I don’t feel bad for not dooming a child to a life of being unwanted. I was unwanted and wish my mother had aborted me and my sisters. She screwed us all up because she didn’t want us and made sure we knew it. I have family members that are raising a violent, destructive, tormented child because her “mother” didn’t have the decency to abort her or the other 3 children she doesn’t have custody of. That kid deserves better but instead they chose “LIFE” for her – a shitty, difficult life. It’s not her fault she had fetal alcohol syndrome and has been abused and abandoned. She certainly is paying the price though. Thanks, GOd!

  • GrandmaMac1

    Has your family ever heard of adoption? Thousands of loving couples are waiting to take babies, older kids, kids with all kinds of problems. Many of our friends have adopted “hard to place” children. Some must go to orphanages in foreign countries because there are not enough children in America to adopt. They adopt precious children with all kinds of disabilities. Killing a child before it is born is NOT better than giving it a chance at life. Many people were born under terrible conditions but went on to make a successful life for themselves. You can do the same. Thank God for your life and make something of yourself. Quit blaming your problems on the past. Life is what you make of it. Get over it. Millions of people have done this. You have much potential but you have to make things happen.

  • UrIgnorantandNarrowMinded

    Yeah, to them, adoption is
    worse than abortion.

    Hmm, funny that you
    projected that I don’t have a successful life or that I’m unhappy in general.
    Wow, that’s really presumptuous of you.
    I am employed full time, have a home, a car, a motorcycle, no debt and
    have been in a long term monogamous, exceedingly happy and wonderful relationship
    with someone who treats me like gold. I’m
    happy and have a decent life IN SPITE of what I was given. (Not to mention no long lasting health effects from the dangerous and filthy procedure I had!)

    I don’t believe in your version of “God” – not my book, so I’ll pass on thanking an imaginary character.

    Speaking of fiction – you’re like Jon Snow – you know nothing – especially about me.

    By the way, do you have any idea how difficult and expensive it is to
    adopt in this country anymore?

  • Adopting in this county can cost as little as $Zero dollars. Domestic adoptions are quite affordable.

  • GrandmaMac1

    All you told me about your life is that you wish your mother aborted you. If you have a good life, why would you say that? You are an example of how a person can take a bad start in life and make something wonderful. You have a lot to be thankful for. All abortions are dangerous and filthy,,,,legal or illegal. Women are dying and being hurt. This is why these places are being shut down all over the country. For the abortionist, it’s all about MONEY. They don’t care about women’s health. And they sure don’t care about the baby’s health. I do know how expensive and difficult it is to adopt. Our government has done nothing to encouraage adoption and help adoptive parents. But to give your baby a life costs the birth mother no money. I don’t know who Jon Snow is but I’m glad you have a good life. I wish you well.

  • GrandmaMac1

    Ben, you are right!

  • Noah

    There’s over 100,000 children in the US waiting to be adopted. Facts…

  • Noah

    Sounds like you’ve just seen one bad one.

  • GrandmaMac1

    How many post-abortive women have you helped? An abortion will leave the rape victim with serious mental health problems, addictions, guilt. Abortion is dangerous to her mental health and her physical health. Abortion can leave a woman with serious fertility and other medical problems and increases her risk of breast cancer. Where is YOUR sense of justice, young man? Until you’ve walked in her shoes, you have no idea. Study the issue before you spout off.

  • GrandmaMac1

    That is not true. You should be working toward legislation to make adoption easier and less costly. Your “facts” are not real.

  • Noah
  • GrandmaMac1

    Noah, There are thousands of couples in the US waiting to adopt a Baby. Your cases are of older children. When a woman gives a baby up for adoption, there is already a family waiting for them. Many of the older children you mention where “wanted” when they were born. If they were “unwanted”, at that time, they would have been adopted. You can’t make the case for abortion by pointing to older children in foster care. Also, some birth parents refused to allow their older children to be adopted. They, alone, are responsible for that.

  • Noah

    I’m not making ANY case for abortion. Nothing implies that I am.

    You said it wasn’t true there are over 100,000 kids waiting to be adopted, and now acknowledge it. And dismiss them as being worthy of adopted because they’re older.

    If someone is pro-life, these children should be included. No?

  • GrandmaMac1

    You are arguing with me for nothing. Of course these children are worthy of adoption! Many good and generous people have adopted older children. We have friends who, after their 4 birth children grew up, adopted 5 older children with disabilities. They are also active in the Prolife movement. My point to you is that there are no newborn children who go unwanted today. Thousands of loving couples are waiting for a newborn. All pregnant Moms who do not want to keep their baby should know this. You and I are in agreement that these older children need families too. But their mothers did not give them up for adoption when they were newborn.

  • Noah

    Perhaps you should have said baby instead of child:

    “Some must go to orphanages in foreign countries because there are not enough children in America to adopt.”

    That is wrong. As I pointed out, there are thousands of kids waiting to be adopted, many of whom never will.

    If we as Christians are actually pro-life and consistent, there wouldn’t be any kids who would never be adopted or waiting so long.

  • GrandmaMac1

    Noah, You need to find someone else to argue with. I don’t see what your point is. I think we both agree that Christians shuld be Prolife and consistent. I,also, know couples who could not get a child in America to adopt. They went to Russia, China and other coutries to adopt. You need to find out what the requirements are to adopt in America. Some couples might be considered too old, etc. If you already have children, that is also a factor. I am finished with you.

  • Noah

    Well thank you for being done with me. I’m under the assumption that you are not agreeing with Ben’s take.

    My point is that if Christians had enough zeal to adopt as they do against abortion, then it would be consistent.

    It’s very easy to crusade with a keyboard. I think non-Christians would listen more if we cared a lot more about those who have been born.

    I do agree adopting is often too burdensome.

  • GrandmaMac1

    Noah, This is all about you not liking Christians, isn’t it? You have a problem with Christianity and not adoption. Non-Christians can also be against abortion. Christians are the ones who really care about those born AND unborn. It’s the Catholic Church that built the first hospitals and schools in this country and still do today. It’s the Catholics who run adoption homes, Catholic Charities, soup kitchens, St. Vincent de Paul, homes for unwed mothers, etc. etc. So don’t try to tell me that Christians don’t care about those already born. I just bought Christmas gifts to put under our parish “Giving tree”. We do these things all year long.

    I am sending you some info on adoption. Take the chip off your shoulder and quit being a Christian basher.

    It’s all about the red tape.
    We have a couple of friends who have adopted, and we had begun the process when I found out I was pregnant with my son.

    The couple who adopted their daughter here in the US waited 7 years to get her. They waded through so much paperwork, and faced so many disappointments. They would be told they were at the top of the list then months would go by with nothing. They later agreed to adopt a pair of siblings (a newborn and a toddler) and had met them more than once and already had initial court appearances. Suddenly, the mother changed her mind and cancelled the adoption. That was so devastating. They went with a private adoption the second time, but that still took almost 3 years and ten years to pay off the loan they took out for the expenses.

    The couple we know who adopted internationally had a much easier time. They still had all the same legal issues – background check, credit check, references, etc. – but they were able to process them much more smoothly and quickly. They were able to get their daughter in less than a year.

    Also, many people look to international adoption when they have certain issues that exclude them from domestic adoption or make it more difficult. Some state still favor married couples over singles, for example. Health issues can also be a concern and things like that.

    I think for most people who adopt, they just want a baby, and a lot of times, American bureaucracy makes it unnecessarily difficult. I know from our experience how crazy it was, and we weren’t all the way into the process yet. We met with a lawyer who did private adoption, met with a social worker for government adoption, and went to a seminar for international adoption. The government adoption was so much more involved and difficult, and the wait was so much longer. The social worker told us that we were great candidates and that our wait should only be about 4 years. ONLY! She said though that if we wanted a second baby, the wait would be considerably longer. I think our system is just very discouraging for most people, so I think that’s why many people turn to international adoption.

    BarbieM 88 months ago

    Answer from lostmymarbles

    12 people found this helpful

    It is super hard to adopt children here
    There reallly are not many babies or young children for adoption in the US. The average wait is like 6 or 7 years now (minimum, very often much longer). Depending on what agency you use. It seems like the Catholic adoption agency moves faster, but if you are not of Catholic Church (protestant), your chances are much much less for getting a baby. (I mean no disrespect, but that was our case and also everyone else we know who applied). The orphanages are full of babies and young children in other countires, and while it is also hard and people have to go through a lot to be able to adopt from other countries, it still is faster. It really is easier to get a foreign born child than one born in the US. Also, in the US, most women are not giving up their babies for adoption. Very few babies are given up for adoption in the US, while in other countries, they are almost like “throw away” humans. Especially in many countries that only allow one child per family. A lot of those countries, males are wanted, so baby girls are litterally throw away humans. If they are lucky, they will be found before they die and put in an orphanage and get adopted. Also, here in the US, babies and young children who are in agencies, are well fed, clothed, etc. In many of the third world countries, those babies and children are dieing from starvation, disease, neglect. So a lot people adopt them, to rescue them from those conditions. As for the stars (movie stars, singers, etc), it looks good in the press when they save a child from those kind of conditions.

    There are older children for adoption here in the US, but most people want a baby or toddler. So, unfortunetly, the older children stay in foster system until they are of age. Sadly, they are our unwanted children. Some do get adopted. But not very many.

    Our son was 4 when we got him, and after a year of home visits and such by the state (the state we were in, it is normal for it to take a year of home visits [the welfare worker stops by monthly to check on how the child and parents are getting along and see if it is going to work]) we were allowed to adopt him. He was considered “a high risk” child. Meaning, he had been removed from his home for abuse, neglect, etc. and would most likely have psychological problems the rest of his life, added to also having a low IQ (69), and had resoning diffeciancies. But we loved him and he was and is our son. No matter what. Extra patience and time had to be taken for things, but you do that when you love someone.

    Most people are not up for that and want a “normal” baby or toddler (young child), since there are very very few of those in the US, they go to other countries to get them.


  • Noah

    Like I just said, I agree it can be difficult. I’m Christian, if you missed that. I do have a problem with Christianity.

    Those who care so much about abortion, often are not consistent in caring at all, or as much, about those who are alive.

    Where is all the concern towards everyone who is dying unnecessarily in the US? Inner city violence? Poverty, education imbalances, sexism, etc.

    If those who campaign as pro-life had anynear some of the zeal as they do for the other issues, things would be much better.

    What I often see with ‘pro-life’ folks is simply us vs. them. You can’t say you are pro-life and then turn a blind eye to the injustices of the world.

    I don’t know the percentage, but many don’t care about what doesn’t affect them. Except abortion.

    Kudos to those who do care as much.

  • GrandmaMac1

    I have explained over and over what Prolife people do for others, born and unborn. Now it’s time for you to tell me what pro-abortion people do for others. Once they get their money from the abortion, they never want to hear from that woman again. They do NOT help with adoptions or education, health care, shelter or any other needs of the mother. Only the prolife people do that. You know all this but you just enjoy arguing with people. Go out and find someone else to argue with. You have a closed mind and do not listen to what people try to tell you. I hope you grow up, learn responsibility and have some children to care for. Then you will understand what I’ve been trying to say. Abortion is about PROFIT. No one does it for free. It’s all about money at the expense of young women and their children. If you really cared about women you would open your home and your wallet to help these women instead of trolling around on the Internet. I now am making dinner for my family and am, again, finished with you. This time for real.

  • Noah

    I’m focused on trying to strengthen Christians who say they are prolife, but may only be so in regards to abortion.

    I’m against abortion. I actively support organizations that support women and poverty.

    If I marry I plan on adopting. As a single man, I don’t think it appropriate to house women with me. I have housed homeless before as well as those who needed a place to stay.

    I don’t think it’s hard to admit that some pro-life people just aren’t consistent. It makes Jesus more apparent to people.

  • GrandmaMac1

    You sound like a very good young man. Many people of different beliefs are not consistent. So we don’t need to single out one. You might want to send your message to the people who profit from killing babies. I am just going on my over 40 years of Prolife experience. So many good and loving people of all faiths and backgrounds. I wish you could know them. I will keep you in my prayers. I love your name.

  • Noah

    Thank you. I know many wonderful prolife people as well, more than a few who pass my stringent/consistency test. :)

  • GrandmaMac1

    Good night, Noah. I wish you well in all you do. Take care and keep safe and God bless!

  • D’artagnan

    Missing, is what should be number 1, is you can’t be Pro-life and pro contraception, one negates the other. Most Christians are anti-abortion, but go with the culture on contraception, which has actually lead to an increase in abortion.

  • kellythinks

    “From 18 weeks gestation (twin boys), to babies who were due to be born any day, I have seen life close up. And, all I can say for me, is that I know this is life, that it is precious, and that this must be an element of a pro-life ethos.
    While there will always be debate on this issue, and I’m not fishing for any here, for children who are able to survive outside of the womb independently, it should be an easy call to be opposed to elective abortions in these cases, and to side on the side of life.”

    If you are pro-life you should side on the side of life at all times for all people at all ages and stages! I suppose you don’t realize this, but the earliest possible viability for a child outside the womb is 21 weeks, but averages around 24! If this is your solid stance, someone else could be photographing the remains of twin little boys at 18 weeks gestation, that have been aborted and thrown in the dumpster behind the clinic. What makes those little ones you held in your hands less worthy of life and love than the ones two days before their due date. Just because they can’t live outside the womb yet? I’m sure you can admit that their life was just as precious as the older babies. Surely i dont think you would support their execution after seeing the sting of death on these precious little bodies. By your standards these lovely little ones you were trying to honor and serve, are being butchered every single day. Stand up for ALL life. That is pro-life. From conception to natural death!

  • kellythinks

    So you’re saying killing is ok in certain situations then?

  • Ron

    Wrong on pretty much all points. Who is this author? And what is he smoking?

  • Alexsi1

    THANK YOU! I have noticed so many pro-life women bashing welfare as well. They do not want a woman to abort an unwanted child but are against the resources that could help the woman and her child.

  • GrandmaMac1

    The prolife women I’ve known have always been very generous to women with their time and resources.

  • Herm

    What point is inspiration and motivation if it is dead, gone and forgotten in a mere maximum of only 120 years allowed each of mankind? What value is there to any nation’s economy or even government administration that cannot cover the education, health and welfare of the entire nation? What child earns anything graced to her/him by the parents they were by choice created in the image of? Would not our Father in Heaven be considered in charge of all the wealth and did not He choose to redistributed His wealth by giving the life of His most beloved Son that ALL might choose to live healthier? What have I earned that was not already made available by my creator God? Woe be to those who horde their talents in the ground that were in good faith loaned to them by our Father that the entire world of His creation might prosper. So very sorry for those so deluded to believe they earned anything. Taxes … nothing could be of a higher tax to pay than the life of our Father’s most beloved Son in a divine effort to breathe life back into mankind’s cup who had abused it to death; to replace the life of cognizant opportunity He first breathed into them. The quickest get rich endeavor in the capitalistic state of the USA today is manipulating money, usually through stock, bond and currency exchanges, and then hiding the profits to keep from being over taxed. What exactly was earned and produced for the nation that made such wealth possible? Jesus was liberal in ALL He did and taught. Jesus was progressive because He gave that we might continually learn and grow renewed for an eternity. Jesus was not conservative as He did not teach that there would ever be a final ending we could rest our laurels on without any further growth necessary. Jesus was not frugal by example or teaching for He told us that our Father would provide all that we needed to grow in love eternally. Jesus certainly did not advocate going back to the good old days when everything was oh just so perfect because they had not been, well maybe before mankind, I wasn’t there and Jesus hasn’t talked much about then. I am not advocating any form of government but that of my Lord God nor any form of distribution but that of love. It is so very sad to see the hording wealthy coveting what belongs to their servants that is purely on loan from God, a quality life to have enough to give back. I know where I store my wealth gains interest to overflowing for an eternity. It is plenty for me.

  • Herm

    Where does anyone get “life is precious” as a justification to aggressively impose their will to defend the innocent they do not know against the responsible who do know? I fought along side other sons and daughters that had their precious lives aborted early for what they were told would preserve this precious nation from the unjust aggressors, those commie gooks … it was a political propagandist lie manipulating innocent heart strings. I grieve every precious life I can no longer relate with including my enemy. Tell our Father in Heaven He need not have allowed the most precious life of His only begotten Son to be aborted so early because we judge better than He and have it figured out to solve this problem by legislation. Jesus legislated in simple summation to do to others what we would have them do to us and touted disciples of His ignore it. I would not legislate what you choose for you and yours and I would not have you legislate what I choose for me and mine. If I invade what is yours I would expect you to defend. If you invade what is mine I will defend. Life is precious and is lost all the time from unhealthy, ignorant and uninformed choices that legislation will not cure. Too many choose to spend huge amounts of money to legislate and even more to hinder honest and open education with truly empty slogans like, “life is precious”.

  • GrandmaMac1

    You really need to get out your checkbook and make a donation to one of your liberal politician friends,

  • Herm

    GrandmaMac1, this is a Christian blog. You can call me names if you wish but please when doing so use the teachings of Jesus to move ahead on what you believe is right. I’m sure you are sincere or you wouldn’t be wasting your valuable time usurping the words and authority of Jesus as written. I warn you although that I will not accept the words of clerics as God’s will. I love that you care so much so as to get involved but I have seen too many innocent lives destroyed on the biased human opinion projected through riot fever as righteous. Every one of those in the crowd screaming crucify Him were sincere people who cared enough to get involved with what they were so sure they were in the right that they chose to influence the murder of Jesus the Christ in God’s name. I will accept that the Holy Spirit is leading your objections only if the fruits match the teachings of Jesus. Most here desire to claim a discipleship (enrolled student) of Jesus the Messiah so I would suggest we will help each other most if we use the lessons He gives us. There is nothing wrong or obnoxious with seeming to be Republican, Democrat, conservative, liberal, progressive, of any ancestry, members of any or no religion or even to have socialistic tendencies in the Democratic Republic of the USA. Please, do more than argue by using hollow heartstring propaganda like all life is sacred or precious. Jesus the Son of Man/Son of God’s life was considered precious too, especially on this blog, but our Father in Heaven even encouraged Jesus to continue. My stand is that if Jesus’ Father can allow the abortion of Jesus’ life in favor of mankind then a mother and father should at the very minimum, with a government licensed doctor’s council and assistance, abort the unborn life of their child in favor of mankind. I cannot find one thing in the Bible beyond “you shall not murder” in the Decalogue that establishes abortion a transgression against the will of God. I have read the Vatican arguments in their opposite opinion and they are not at all in accord with the Bible as written nor with the Holy Spirit in my heart and mind. Death of any kind is ugly and should be grieved for that gives life value with love and not legislation based on sacred and precious.

  • GrandmaMac1

    All life IS sacred and precious! Abortion is the killing of an innocent human being. You and I are worlds apart. Have a good day!

  • jlfonz1

    You cannot be pro-life and a democrat unless you never leave your home or ever talk about it. The instant you tell a democrat friend that you are pro-life you will be unfriended on Facebook and never invited to anything again…because they are tolerant of opposing viewpoints (and yes that last part is sarcasm…well deserved by democrats)

  • Seth Murray

    Right in several ways. Dangerously wrong in others.

    Yes, being “pro-life” should be a fundamental orientation that affects many of our beliefs and choices, and not just abortion, but roughly 2/3rds of your other points are so grossly oversimplified as to be easily dismissed or countered. For example:

    1. With respect to the military and war: I am 100% absolutely and without qualification against violence of any kind. The problem is that sometimes it is necessary BECAUSE I VALUE LIFE. Specifically, it is sometimes necessary to employ violence against an aggressor to protect innocent people. Radical pacifism devalues innocent human life by refusing to take necessary steps to protect it from aggression. It does not make proper distinctions between innocence, guilt, culpability, etc.

    2. With respect to the death penalty: I am 100% absolutely and without qualification against killing people… but see the above. It is conceivable that, in many first world situations, it is possible to so isolate a person that he can be no threat to others. However, that is not the case everywhere, and in places where the safety of innocents cannot be had, it may be necessary to kill an aggressor to force him to stop.

    3. With respect to gun rights: I won’t beat you on it other than to say that you seem very confused here. I don’t know anyone who is (1) rational, and (2) is arguing for the unlimited right to possess and deploy “military grade” weapons (e.g., bombs, chemical agents, etc.). The right to have weapons sufficient to protect one’s self and family from violent aggression is another matter. The reality is that such protection of home and family necessitates armaments (and training) superior to those typically used by the aggressors. Common sense can take it from there.

    5. With respect to health care: Your argument is a misrepresentation and implies that someone who can’t afford or doesn’t want to pay for someone else’s health care is somehow against that person having health care. That simply isn’t true, and is a misrepresentation. I wish that everyone had health care, but I do not believe in extorting and stealing from some people so as to provide it to others.

    8. With respect to oppression: Why not just say, “don’t oppress anyone?” The reality is that every law and tax for which you vote is an attempt to control — to oppress — someone else, to force them to pay up and/or act the way you wish. I agree that we shouldn’t oppress people. I merely extend that to all human beings — not some select group.

    9. With respect to the living wage: You are simply wrong here. Not every job is intended to be, nor can it be, a living wage job. Not every person has the skills or time to produce sufficient value to warrant a living wage. Of course, this all begs the question of what, precisely, a living wage is. In any event, the attempt to impose some kind of living wage requirement upon all employment is (1) an attempt to control others, and (2) grossly misguided and highly destructive. You need to take some basic economics classes here. Good intentions alone can lead to very bad places if they aren’t tempered by genuine expertise and insight in the areas in question.

    On the others points, I pretty much agree with you.

  • AmandaRoddy

    There are Democrats for life, as well as many conservatives like Amy Grant who support rights to choose. If anyone unfriends me because I didn fill a mold I dont need them anyhow.

  • AmandaRoddy

    But the minute a fetus is diagnosed with a birth defect it suddenly has life. I read a story about a couple who woudlnt terminate a fetus with a birth defect and suddenly pro-chocoi whining about it suffering and they should temrinate. If it isnt a person how would it be suffering>

  • AmandaRoddy

    WoUldn’t pro-choice be as obligated? You cant turn your back when she CHOOSES to have a baby.

  • AmandaRoddy

    And what if the girl was 12 like my neighbor? Not forced kind of rape but coercion by men older than her. I am pro-life myself but forcing a 12 yr old to give birth is risking her and th baby

  • Spikemare

    That’s what I said in my comment. I don’t mind paying those taxes to support programs that help people have the child. But I want to her WANT that baby. Not just have the baby out of obligation or because there was no other option. No child deserves to be born into a home that doesn’t want them.

  • AmandaRoddy

    SO a 12 yr old should be forced into birth whether by consent or not? 12 yr olds are incapable of making such decisions. I guess unless you have been there none of us women would know how we would feel.

  • AmandaRoddy

    THis pro-life person disagrees. Yea some women may file false reports which makes it tough on the real victims..The truth is none of know how we would react until it happened to us or someone we know. .In some states, rapists can even sue for visitation rights. Whether a woman decides to have a rape baby depends on various factors.Saying all women must not abort rape babies is twisted.

  • GrandmaMac1

    Amanda, Shame on you! Why would you subject a 12 year old to a dangerous abortion? In addition, she would carry this in her heart the rest of her life. There are 2 lives at risk here. It’s important that both are kept safe and healthy. Killing a baby will not be a solution for a pregnant girl. She is dealing with enough as it is. Think about this.

  • AmandaRoddy

    It happened to my neighbor.As I say I am pro life leaning, but forcing a 12 yr old to birth is unthinkable. They are a child I read a story about a pregnant 11 yr old in Chile . The pregnancy was clearly endangering her, but she couldn’t get an abortion.,No one that age should ever have babies regardless.

  • AmandaRoddy

    I lean to pro-life and yes you can be for the death penalty.When a person commits 12 murders they are no longer human. They do not deserve to be spared. Look at al the lives they have ruined.

  • AmandaRoddy

    There is a reason some pro-life support the death penalty. IMO when you kill 12 people you are no longer human. We are indeed defending life when we punishments for these monsters who destroy other lives. And I could easily write a piece saying 10 THings You Cannot Support as Pro-Choice.

  • AmandaRoddy

    Which is why we need access to health care and birth control and sex education.

  • Spikemare

    Exactly. I’m in support of those as well. We need sex education that doesn’t just try to say abstinence is the way to go. We need to explain what it is, how how it effects you. How pregnancy works. All that stuff. I mean, right now we’re having fights with birth controll because people think conception happens during sex…when it actually happens days later. Better healthcare for all means generally more healthy babies.

  • GrandmaMac1

    There are babies and there are babies. It’s demeaning to call a baby a “rape baby”. None of us know or have any control of how we were conceived. For all you know, you could have been a so called “rape baby”. You cannot call yourself Pro-life if you feel that some babies are not wanted and can have their lives ended. You can’t have it both ways.

  • GrandmaMac1

    Amanda, No one at any age should be subjected to a dangerous abortion. This 11 year old did have her baby. At that young age, the baby is usually taken early by C-Section. You don’t compound a bad situation by adding another bad thing on top of it. These girls need help not more problems. In some countries women have babies at a much younger age. Abortions are not risk free and they are very final. You can never bring that life back.

  • Falken

    To be quite honest – this may veer off topic but it has a point – there is a possibility of finding out that being gay is genetic. How many of those pro-lifers will turn pro-choice if they find out their child might be gay?

  • Falken

    Actually, that’s not entirely true to be honest. A friend of mine had gotten pregnant. She was with a guy – we warned her since he did have a daughter a year older than her – who was abusive. The abuse only lessened when contraceptives were out of the equation. While I’m not for abortion personally – if you’re grown enough to have sex, you’re grown enough to deal with all the repercussions – I wasn’t against her getting one. Absolutely no woman should keep a child if the sole reason is to “make sure [she] is tied to [him] for good”. A child should be loved, they should be a product of love.

  • GrandmaMac1

    I agree. It would be better for her and the baby if she allowed the baby to be adopted by a loving family. I have many friends who have adopted children. Killing the child is never a solution to a problem pregnancy. We have 5 grandchildren who would not be here today if their grandmothers had aborted their parents. When a child dies it affects many more people who would have come after them.

  • GrandmaMac1

    Ben, The baby is innocent always! I am not for killing unless it’s a clear case of self defense or a just war to save innocent lives.

  • Falken

    That may be a solution for you, but it is not for everyone. And yes, I’m aware that anything I suggest is tantamount to supporting “child killing” because it doesn’t fit into the narrative, but honestly people need to break from the narrative. You can’t push abstinence only education then be shocked at teen pregnancy and a rising amount of STIs due to people not knowing about safe sex. You can’t push “abortions are evil” when for some people it really is the only way. Adoption is not perfect, according to some of the people I’ve talked to who have lived that. Some feel unwanted because their parents gave them up, some feel they would have been better aborted because life was harder for them than need be, and while there are a few who are perfectly happy with the parents they have now, I guess I just haven’t run into enough of them. This is besides the fact that, honestly, I get upset with heterosexuals because marriage is seen as a reward for people who can end up accidentally parents, while we want to get married and adopt many of those kids but are seen as unfit to be married and unfit to be parents. So, honestly, abortion may not be for you, but you have no right to force others to forgo it, not until the various other injustices that make it a necessary evil – poverty, a kind of crappy adoption system, a lack of education on safe sex – can be taken care of and more can be done so those kids can get to parents who desperately want children, gay and straight.

  • Herm

    Oh, how I love your maternal heart that truly highlights as an image the love of God. The facts are, although, that the baby is only innocent in its ignorance, because it relatively knows nothing. Bigotry is innocent in its ignorance only because Jesus says it can be forgiven because it knows not what it does. Babies all seem cute to its specie because that is the natural instinctive mechanism within their community of nurture necessary to the survival of their specie. The baby’s innocents is insufficient reason to sacrifice a more knowledgeable servant to its birth, the mother. Triage is best performed by all informed and responsible parties and not obstructed or delayed on the outside feelings of another based on the love of one innocent over the love of the other experienced. It is that most difficult choice of who lives and who doesn’t that if not made within a certain time frame then time itself makes the decision and most often incorrectly, especially when both die only because of indecision.

    I exhaustively considered my choices as a father prior to becoming the responsible, compassionate and least emotional party to the birth of our children. In our first birth I did not honor my wife’s sincere plead to let her die because the longevity of pain was too much for her to continue, we relaxed the pain and induced the successful birth of our daughter. As the least emotionally biased I could use our medically professional team to make the final decision of whether my wife lived or our daughter if it came binarily down to that. I knew already that if the odds of one or the other surviving were even I would choose in favor of my wife whom I knew and loved rather than our daughter who I loved but did not know. No life with the knowledge of good and evil is innocent. Life with the knowledge of good (constructive for all) and evil (destructive for all) that is influencing mankind in promoting the love of all of mankind and He who mankind is in the image of, especially because they are not ignorantly innocent, is much more preferable to the health of all of mankind than gambling on a life we love but do not know.

    Love your love!

  • GrandmaMac1

    Congratulations for being more “full of it” than anyone else I’ve talked to! And I have talked to a lot of people. You have no idea what is really going on. You would choose you wife’s life over your baby’s life because your wife can do things for you and the baby is totally helpless. How selfish! The fact that a baby does not know what is going on does not excuse killing this baby. Many adults do not know what is going on. You are a poor excuse for a father! All life is sacred. Including your wife’s life and her baby’s life. There is no reason to kill one to preserve the other. You are making bad arguments for killing a baby.

  • GrandmaMac1

    Life here on earth is unfair many times. My husband of 50 years has stage 4 cancer. It seems unfair and unjust that some people never get cancer and others do. He is a very good husband, father and grandfather.
    Life on earth is short. Eternity is forever…forever! We can’t have everything we want here on earth. But that’s the way it is.
    One thing I am sure of is that all life, given by God, is sacred and should be respected. ALL life. Don’t get so wrapped up in this world that you neglect your eternal life. I hope you know that I will keep you in my prayers.

  • Falken

    Don’t get so wrapped up in your eternal life you neglect the people on this world.

  • GrandmaMac1

    I love my people in this world. I have worked for babies and their mothers for over 40 years now and it has been very rewarding. Don’t you get so wrapped up in this world that you neglect eternity (which lasts forever) Forever is a very, very long time. Praise God for what you have and offer up what you don’t have. I have done this many times and it really helps.

  • Falken

    People forget those who hurt in this world and die. No, not the unborn who have yet to live, but the born who die on a regular basis. No, not adults who’ve merely made “wrong choices”, but I mean children. They’re kicked out to the streets, go hungry, or sometimes die from starvation or treatable diseases. For once, I wish someone wouldn’t hand wave away problems we have with the innocents who are born and alive this moment to focus on forcing people to give birth regardless of their own personal decision. I wish people would stop focusing on how much they’ll be rewarded for the company line and focus on being human, since it seems often times humanity is the first thing missing in Christianity. Perhaps not for everyone, but often times for those towing the party line against abortion – just a single hot button issue. Everyone wants everything to be black and white, but even abortion isn’t black and white. And truth be told, until you’re in the same economic tier, racial tier, age group, and various other factors of people who choose them, it doesn’t feel fair to demonize them for their decisions, or make something that sometimes is already a hard choice even harder for the sake of politically driven, pseudo-religious proselytizing. Maybe it’s just me, but doesn’t seem fair for me to tell another person old enough to have sex what to do with their body.

  • GrandmaMac1

    Mr, you have no idea what economic tier I am in. So stop being so judgemental. Unborn children ARE alive for your information. If they are not alive, why do you have to kill them? You seem to think you can lump respect for life issues into various groups. Respect for life is for everyone, from the unborn until we die. You seem to be ignorant of the fact that it is the Prolife people who are the ones who adopt hard to place children, read to the blind, feed the poor and give free medical care to those who suffer. Have you heard of Mother Teresa? There are thousand more just like her who have dedicated their lives to helping others regardless of their age. Knock off your phoney piety and look at the real world. You are hard to take.

  • Herm

    “There is no reason to kill one to preserve the other.”

    You been graced with not having to make the choice but it is the choice we are most responsible to. If you ever face the reality of triage physically, mentally and spiritually you then will know. Until then you are not in a position to make judgments regarding another’s responsibility to their informed choice that you can’t possibly understand. Only an omnipresent God knows better than the parents and their medical doctor consultant.

    I know from a fully experienced fatherhood having reared three responsible children into adulthood. I know and have had to practice triage in combat all in the name of my nation. I know the responsibility to triage as a first responder here at home. I seem to know more than you judging by how you are speaking as if there is never a choice to attempt to preserve one life over another. I’m happy for you that you’ve been spare the consequences from you or yours having to make that choice.

    God is there to help those of us most responsible to those life and death choices to be as pro life as possible. And so you also know a bit more of where my pain comes from I knew a girl in high school who died by coat hanger abortion. If I could have I would have done all possible that both she and her baby would have survived her choice presumably made out of ignorance, immaturity and shame. I will remain a supporter of medical offices and councilors available to privately help girls to make better decisions than she did. I will abide by any decision based on facts which also include emotions. You have spoken solely from the facts derived only from your emotions. Your emotions must be considered but are secondary to those of the parents and the objective advice of their doctor.

    Let’s make healthy gun control, education, healthcare and food available for all the children we have first before we stick our noses into the lives of potential parent’s contraception and quality of life, please.

    I might be selfish because I choose to be as healthy as I can to be of the most support possible for all of mankind. I am not self-centered by believing my health is any more important than any other’s health. I grieve more lives than you could possibly know and continue try be prepared to save the lives and their quality of life for as many of mankind that I can.

    You are apparently one of those adult you talk about who does not know what is going on, ignorance is bliss. Would you legislate to make legal abortion illegal based on “There is no reason to kill one to preserve the other”? What penalty will you support for coat hanger abortions?

  • GrandmaMac1

    Mr, You are one arrogant human. You have no idea what my life has been. I have lived on this earth for 71 years, have been through 7 pregnancies, lost 3 babies, raised 4 to adulthood and am Grandmother to 12 precious grandchildren.
    YOU are the one making a judgement that one life is not as important as another life. I pity your wife, if you still have one.
    From reading your priorities, it is obvious that you are nothing but another liberal spouting off on things you know nothing about.
    God has told us “thou shall not kill”… this is not something that I made up. These so called “medical doctors” who do abortions are in this for the money only. They do not care about these mothers or their children. I have worked in the Prolife movement for 40 years and have seen these people and know who they really are.
    You in your ignorance, have no idea what choices I and mine have had to make over the years. Time for you to listen and learn from others and not spout off on things you know nothing about. Women today die all the time from “legal” abortions. The media does not like to talk about it because they have compromised their values for all these years. I have several friends who have survived being aborted and you should talk to one of them. They are real, live people who have walked the walk and lived the life!

  • GrandmaMac1

    “Since he was arrested for allegedly prescribing abortion-inducing drugs to women who are not pregnant, eight additional women have come out with tales of abuse against Dr. Nareshkumar Gandalal “Naresh” Patel.

    Two women have come forward publicly, saying the abortionist has a disregard for his patients’ suffering – and even performed an abortion without administering anesthesia.

    A 39-year-old woman sought an abortion because she was suffering complications, including an enlarged heart. “The thought of passing away and leaving a baby behind was more than I could bear,” she told KFOR-TV.

    So, she scheduled a visit to Dr. Patel’s Outpatient Services for Woman abortion facility in the Oklahoma City suburb of Warr Acres. They told her to bring $1,100.

    When she arrived, payment in hand, for her appointment, the nightmare began.

    “I went back, and they quickly did this ultrasound and he immediately said, ‘You’re two weeks further along than what you’re telling me,’” she said. “They said, ‘Well, that’s going to be another $500,’” she said.

    “A nurse came into the room and strapped my wrists down to the table,” she said. They also strapped down her ankles and “held my forehead down to the table.”

    Then, she says, Dr. Patel began performing an abortion on her without numbing her body in any way.

    “I’d never known anything like it in my life,” she said. “It was like torture.”

    She believes God watched over her during the agonizing process. “I had to have had something bigger than me protecting me in that room that day,” she said, “because physically and emotionally, I never would’ve had the strength to go through something like that.”

    But she may not have been the only woman to undergo agony at the hands of Dr. Naresh Patel. A younger woman came forward publicly, as well.

    “Around Christmas time last year I found out I was pregnant,” she said. “And of course, being a teenager, you’re scared.”

    She says Patel preyed on that fear. Like the woman two decades her senior, she too says Patel changed the date on the ultrasound by several weeks.

    “He pressed down really, really hard” during the ultrasound. “And I said, ‘That hurts a little bit,’” she said. “And he didn’t say anything.”

    She said he maintained a “poker face” throughout the procedure, sending the message, “I’m here to do one job.”

    The young woman, who also did not wish to be identified publicly, is expecting another child at this time.

    These are two of eight women have come forward to complain about Patel’s actions, according to the Oklahoma Attorney General’s office.

    The AG’s office and other state affiliates conducted an undercover operation of Patel’s office after an allegation that he performed an “abortion” on a woman who was not pregnant. Attorney General Scott Pruitt says that Patel charged women for prescribing abortifacient drugs to them even though they were not expecting. Officers seized computers and medical records from Dr. Patel’s office on Thursday.

    A recent survey found that nearly half of all abortionists fear being exposed by undercover investigations.

    Officials charged Patel with three counts of obtaining money under a false pretense. If convicted, he could be sentenced to three years in jail and a $15,000 fine.

    The 39-year-old hopes Patel serves the full three years behind bars.

    “He deserves it,” she said.

    Former patients may file a complaint with the Oklahoma Board of Medical Licensure.”


    Oklahoma Board of Medical Licensure and Supervision

    Main Number: (405) 962-1400
    Fax: (405) 962-1440
    Phone outside 405 area code: 1-800-381-4519

  • Falken

    I don’t have phoney piety, but you should stop this phoney self-righteous act. So many pro-lifers do this whole bit of “you’re horrible if you bring facts I don’t like into the conversation”. Fact is, I stayed quiet when you cited downright lies about abortions leading to cancer and inability to have children. It’s people like you who disseminate such vile misinformation then pretend to be wounded when you’re called out that make this topic a pointless debate. Get off your high horse, go into a viewpoint other than this single solitary “abortion is evil, no exceptions” tripe that is quite frankly tired and played out.

  • GrandmaMac1

    Abortion is a big risk factor for breast cancer and infertility. These are medical facts that can be verified. If you don’t want to believe it, this is your problem. Obviously, there is no discussing facts with you. You, for some reason, hate Prolife people. I am finished trying to talk to you.

  • Do you not see how you continue to talk out both sides of your mouth? You quote “thou shall not kill” as if you actually believe it, but you don’t. You believe it for unborn babies, but not for people who have already been born. That’s inconsistent and hypocritical.

  • GrandmaMac1

    Ben, You are the one who is hypocritical. You do not believe in the sanctity of all life, only older life. I believe in life for everyone. You must not be reading my posts. I think your mind is bolted shut. We don’t agree on abortion and that is ok. Please take me off this thread, as it’s starting to get old repeating myself.

  • Herm

    Ben is much more correct relative to factual and real life than this your singular zealous obsession, which is focused only on the unborn baby. I am ignorant because I have not been inside all the decision making processes that our people, of our mankind, have to go through every day. You apparently are more ignorant and more narrow in your focus than I because you castigate “These so called “medical doctors” and “The media” who in your words “does not like to talk about it” as though in the hundreds of licensed clinics/practitioners and thousands of reporters not one cares for the truth like you are so certain of.

    I seem to know of many more successful abortions as well as more successful counseling sessions to prevent abortions than do you.

    When you said, “God has told us “thou shall not kill”… this is not something that I made up”, I lost all faith that I might learn something from you and that anything you state as fact is true. That one statement clearly says you have been caught making something up before. You’ve been caught here as well.

    You clearly do not understand having to weigh all available options before making a life or death choice. You clearly do not understand triage.

    In your riot fever rage to save the unborn baby you choose to choose for others based on your extremely limited perspective. When I was counseling we would have picked up on your loss of three unborn (?) children as the trigger for such an overwrought vitriolic emotional outburst. I feel greatly for your loss but I feel even more for all the children tomorrow who will not have an objective Family Planning Counseling office that they can go to and find bonefide options only because of the bigoted lobbying from your like.

    Abortion and contraception is not spoken of at all in the Bible but it is self appointed decreed a sin by the Vatican and you. What is clearly spoken of in the Bible and that all of us can choose to abide by is, in everything, do to others what you would have others do to you. You are forcing your will on others and expressing a foul when others reciprocate back at you. To abide by the “golden rule” you as an adult must make the most responsible informed choices possible for you and yours and you must allow the same for others who are not otherwise affecting you. You are being more destructive by your stance because you would choose not to allow those who know a situation better than you to make the choices they are far better informed about than you.

    “Licensed” clinics and ‘licensed” practitioners know more about this subject than you and I and have all the numbers to present to the state to maintain their license. The sterility and competence of each clinic is always the oversight responsibility of the state. Since “Roe V Wade” we actually have numbers we didn’t have during the days of the invisible garage abortions. The numbers say that in the hundreds of legalized, moderated and monitored abortion clinics real facts today are working to liberate women from the shame of caring to term children from rape, incest and especially in situations where the overwhelming medically established odds say the mother’s life is at risk of death.

    I am very much pro life, very much pro choice and mostly pro humanity for each and every unique heart, soul and mind.

    Oh, how I wish you could apply such fervor to solving economies like ours that starve children, too often to death, when food is readily available but their family can’t afford to purchase it. I wish you could apply such fervor to solving why so many of our unarmed children are shot to death. I wish you could apply such fervor to our over crowding jails that all our eventually each imperfect children look forward to. I wish you could apply such fervor to reversing our nations enthusiastic trading of 18 to 24 year old lives abroad to save the women and children (alive and/or unborn) at home because if that is what we are bearing and raising our children to do for us we are truly inhumane.

    Ah, but alas, you are presently totally entrenched in producing more living resources to throw at more joblessness, less education, unaffordable healthcare, starvation by hoarding, our enemies and our prisons. Because of blinded action out of ignorance like yours many more will hurt and die because they were not allowed to legally make the choices they were best informed and suited for.

    I pray for your family and especially your husband in this his time of need, may you each make the best of choices available to you. amen

  • GrandmaMac1

    My husband and I do not need your sarcasm, so skip the phoney stuff. You are beyond helping and I am finished with talking to you. You need to take your arrogance and find a platform to preach. By the way, there is no such a thing as a successful abortion! How stupid for you to even state this. When you are ready to open your mind to the truth, I will talk again, but for now, we have nothing to say to each other.

  • Herm

    There was never any sarcastic intent relative to your husband and you. Your discernment of phony is lacking sufficient truth and fact. You don’t have a clue what I am talking about relative to triage. If you did you would understand a successful abortion as being a medical procedure that allowed the recipient to lead a healthy and productive life that otherwise they would not have been able to.

    I have much to relate to you even knowing the odds are that you will not listen. Ignorance is impossible to overcome until we sufficiently repent to realize how little we know. Then we have to search out all recognized authorities by education and experience to eventually learn the truth. Most of the names you have attempted to demean me and my educated experience by to strengthen your argument are the tell of just how little you know beyond the pain in your heart.

    If you were doing no damage to me and mine I would have nothing to say to you.

    I do love you and wish nothing but the best for you and yours.

  • GrandmaMac1

    Please leave me alone. A medical procedure that is done to end the life of an innocent human being is not “successful”. I want nothing more to do with you. Take your educated experience and stuff it!

  • Maggie Sullivan

    Amazing column…the writer talks about being “pro-life” and still supports the vicious and brutal murder of millions of babies in the womb….amazing!!!

  • Not even accurate– I’ve never been pro-abortion, where I disagree is with the short sightedness that legal abolition actually accomplishes anything, which it doesn’t.

    And, you have to take yourself off the thread, not something I can do.

  • GrandmaMac1

    So you are Pro-life for everyone except innocent unborn children who can’t stand up for themselves. Big Guy you are!!!

  • Herm

    Why is it that I read Ben as saying clearly that he is pro-life inclusively for ALL with no exception and you don’t? He just stated his opinion is that he did not believe that secular legislation can end abortion. Please stay and I will try my hardest to hear you beyond your sympathy for “innocent unborn children” of which I am certain most all of us here actually support. Love you!!!

  • Nope. Are your purposely distorting what I believe?

  • Noah

    I’m not sure why you’re saying he’s pro-abortion. He’s against it, except in very rare instances. For instance, if the life of the mother is in very clear danger.

    What’s your take on that? Whose life would you choose?

    I’d argue there is a justice issue for the mother as has been forced against her will to become pregnant. Destroying the seed of the perpetrator. (But, it’s amazing when a rape victim has the child, much less raise it)

  • KRN

    This is a terrible, ill thought out article. 10.You need to oppose abortion at any stage. 9. Some jobs are simply not meant to earn a living…they are essentially training jobs to prepare young people to enter the real workforce. To enforce a living wage on such things is to force businesses to hire fewer, more qualified employees, which would force those who were young, less qualified or disabled into unemployed poverty. It would also drive up prices and limit access to products and services by the poor. 8. True, however, programs that truly help the poor are those that train them and pull them out of poverty and into independence, fostering a sense of responsibility and pride. Programs that simply hand out money create dependence and have limited sustainability as they do not train people to live without it. You end up with greater numbers of people simply living off the system until it’s gone. 7. You name an extreme, unusual case. For the most part, the inequality is more likely due to women accepting less than men or being more hesitant in negotiations. Also, no 2 employees have the same education and experience, so it is almost impossible to judge if there is an unjust discrepancy (and I am a working woman.) 6. We are not required to indiscriminately let all in. Immigration needs to be reformed and immigrants valued for their contributions, but for the good of the entire nation, it cannot be a free for all. To allow unrestricted immigration, allows for entry of criminals and terrorists and disease. Neither the current policies or the President’s proposals are solutions. 5. We already had laws to treat life-threatening illness or injury regardless as well as programs to cover the poor. This Healthcare law simply forces people to pay for coverage whether they can afford it or not or pay a fine. It also demands more coverage than most people need and is not sustainable or friendly to the poor. If you are going to have nationwide healthcare, it should be for illnesses or injuries that would cause a hardship, not for routine or elective care. And if you are morally opposed to abortion or birth control, you should have an option to not get insurance that covers it. And seniors should not need to pay for coverage for family planning or maternity services. 4. Kudos, you are actually correct on this point. 3. Not true…the right to bear arms was given to us as a protection of liberty. Our forefathers faced a tyrannical, oppressive government and were able to fight back. Hopefully, America will never get to that point, but not having access to arms creates slaves…think Hitler. 2. Mostly true. We should normally oppose the death penalty. The exception would be extreme cases where the imprisonment would bring danger to others or to the nation. For instance, if Osama bin Laden were only captured, we would have been in great danger from terrorists attempting to free him. 1. Not so…we should oppose unjust war or war for greed. A just war to protect ourselves or others or to fight for some greater good is justified and noble,

  • Herm

    Pretty dictatorial statement of politics there. This is a terrible, ill thought out comment, sorry. Too many of your and FOX News’ views inserted as if they stand alone as clearly true that in fact are not. Maybe if you presented one argument at a time(?).

  • Falken

    Might not be worth it to bother. Read how many turn anything remotely close to “women have a choice in carrying a baby or not” into “brutal and vicious murder of innocent babies in the womb”. It’s all or nothing with them, which is sad since creating absolutes, making a situation black or white is what causes the divide. Worse yet, the false logic, misinformation, and rather brutal “no abortions ever” line means even people who oppose the idea but don’t agree with legislation forbidding it are cast as villains.

  • Rochelle Odom

    Benjamin L. Corey is , clearly, NOT a devout Catholic–or biblical Christian of ANY kind–but, an, obvious, radical leftist and Obama-bot. And, frankly, I could care less if he feels disrespected or ” dehumanized ” by those terms!

  • Rochelle,

    I love you.

  • a_dad66

    GrandmaMac1 said: ” I think […] likes to put people in neat little boxes and you can’t do that.”

    So now who’s putting people into neat little boxes, granny? Hypocrisy much? That’s one of your problems– unwillingness to acknowledge somebody might legitimately have a differing point of view. Bringing rabid, blind political potshots into the equation is just icing on the hypocrisy cake.

  • KRN

    Truth is black & white. It is perfectly fine for women to have a choice in carrying a baby so long as it does not end the life of another human being that is already in existence (in other words, prior to conception) Regarding the rape question, which I am sure would come next, that is only about 1% and it is a second violence, which does not heal the first one. http://www.lifenews.com/2011/12/28/rape-exception-why-do-we-kill-babies-instead-of-rapists/ . And it is violence. Most babies killed in abortion can already feel pain…see methods here. http://www.lifenews.com/2013/01/02/abortion-methods-and-abortion-procedures-used-to-kill-unborn-babies/ . and babies are perceptively human in the womb a lot earlier than many realize which is why most women who’ve been shown an ultrasound reject abortion.

  • Falken

    So in short, it’s not perfectly fine for women to have a choice. Once knocked up, stay knocked up regardless of your personal feelings. Got it. Thanks for playing.

  • KRN

    Herm, I think what you are saying is that you disagree with my politics. My views are thought out and common sense and analyze the effects of actions which may seem good on the immediate surface, but have other problems. My arguments are numbered according to the numbers in the article, so if you can follow the article, you should be able to follow my comments. I guess the Fox news comparison is liberal-speak for automatically dismissing conservative views. I rarely look at Fox news, but aside from a conservative tilt, I do not think that their views are that similar. I know I have found articles in the past that I definitely disagree with. If you want to have a discussion, you need to be specific. If you just want to dismiss views, why waste space…just hit the thumbs down if you don’t like.

  • KRN

    We have a choice to make moral, proactive decisions. We are not animals. If you don’t want the responsibility of the consequences, don’t play the game.

  • Falken

    Yet it sounds like you want people not to make the choices you don’t like. We do have choices and free will. No one ordained anyone on this earth with the power to take either away, especially when the choice, the consequences, and the whole of the situation are not our burden to bare.

  • KRN

    You are correct, but we need to legally protect people from the choices of others. Otherwise, there would be total anarchy. The baby is an innocent, separate person and should not be punished by the choices of others, including it’s mother. Also, for Christians, there is a duty to advise others of sin…the consequences are too great for a loving person to allow others to continue in ignorance.

  • Noah

    Rochelle Odom is , clearly, NOT a devout Catholic–or biblical Christian of ANY kind–but, an, obvious, radical leftist and Obama-bot. And, frankly, I could care less if he feels disrespected or ” dehumanized ” by those terms

    (except I generally do care when the words I speak might hurt people)

  • Herm

    10. Your dictate without any corroboration. Give us something to work with, please.

    9. “it would lift 58% of the working poor out of poverty” … because they are of the poor they cannot afford their same services because their pay for their only available hard work for over five years is below our standard for poverty. Poverty means insufficient income to provide the minimum necessary to survive. An investment of seven cents more paid by the consumer on a fast food hamburger, fries and drink pays the difference of the $2.75/hr increase.

    8. Bullshit, old propaganda, if you can’t afford healthcare, nutritious food, a shelter to rest in, adequate clothing to go to training, and a job that follows training which either advances to lift you out of poverty or offers sufficient time during the work week to interview for better jobs that will you will still end up unemployable and a burden on the society. Since the Clinton era there have been NO welfare handouts creating generations of couch potatoes. Food stamps used to be the best return on our tax dollar but has been drastically cut in favor of farm subsidies for only the wealthy farmer (some even members of the same congress which gave them a raise at the cost of the food stamp recipient).

    7. Most men do not negotiate their pay any more or better than women and they still get paid 73 to 77 cents on the dollar of men nationwide, less in Texas. The numbers are based on the criteria of productivity first followed by longevity and then education and the judgments do hold up under scrutiny but not under your conjecture.

    6. You are right that the current policies are not nearly a solution. The President’s proposals are workable beginnings which far better than the congress’ which are zero sum. We have let the problem fester for too long and now we have perfectly productive families being split apart from our lack of attention. The borders of our nation have never been as highly protected as they are under this administration and at a very high cost to our tax dollar. It used to be that we would never send a child back to the slightest chance they would become pawns for gangs as members, couriers or prostitutes but we as the USA just did.

    5. You simply do not understand the cost saving principles of nationwide insurance where the lucky healthy cover the excess for the unlucky sick. This really is a God sent when the tables turn and we find ourselves as the unlucky sick recently laid off and our healthcare was no longer. You, also, don’t understand the cost savings to our nationwide economy by preventive (routine and elective) healthcare and then “hardship” healthcare. We who have routine healthcare foot the bill for every emergency call of those who can’t pay for hardship healthcare. It is a bit too capitalistic in my concerns for all that for profit insurance companies are still costing us much more under “Obamacare” for us having to pay for million dollar a year and rising salaries for the executives.

    4. Philippians 2:3 … and truly you are!

    3. I have had access to guns all my life, I have guns locked away, I am trained how to use them, I am a combat vet, and I don’t for a second think that all of us not active in the military rallied together could standup to our present day military or even trigger happy police departments gone rogue. If it was not for the cannons the French supplied our revolutionists we could not have stood up to the English army either. Ben, only advocated very common sense regulations. The leadership of the NRA lobby lie, intimidate and manipulate to protect the continued profits for gun manufacturers. As a side note nearly any once well trained soldier will tell you that all that is needed to begin is a 22LR revolver to parlay up to a 155 mm howitzer. All the armament we can afford as private citizens to stockpile still can only be used one at a time and we have to constantly train to use them well. As it is documented idiots, insane, felons, and very immature with inadequate judgment children have too easy access to much greater killing power than a 22LR revolver … our knowledgeable fault and not theirs. If I had the power to do so I would legislate to make certain that every child possible was trained in the use of and the potential damage from presently accessible firearms.

    2. Too close in agreement to address your observations.

    1. As a combat vet in Vietnam I can loudly testify there is nothing noble about war. That is propaganda to manipulate our late teens to early 30s to die for someone else’s agenda and to give their spouses, siblings, friends, and parents something to believe in other than it was simply a waste. Vietnam (50k+ lives) and Iraq (4k+ lives) were founded on pure lie that as we can clearly see upon reflection served no greater good. I am potentially err but at this time as a nation I would have hit Afghanistan with everything we had to stop or delay any further aggression on our nation for no more than 90 days (considered a TDY) and pulled out with the promise that we would be monitoring and be back if our clear enemy recovered their base of operations. That I know and am trying to grow from would be more King David than Jesus our Christ. Myself, I would prefer to plant the seed at the risk of dying that there are no 70 virgins waiting because that too is only propagandist manipulation to hide that all that waits for those killing in the name of God is death. The dead know nothing. My God is big enough and capable enough to fight for Himself and His.

    I hope this addressed your grievances with more reason than the unfounded statements of facts I perceive you offered. I welcome any researchable facts that you might offer to support your opinions. Love you!

  • Falken

    Right, so who’s going to protect the mother? All this talk of the fetus’ rights, but no one works for the mothers. No they’re evil people for thinking of the person right in front of them who has thoughts, feelings, their own rights because somehow it seems better to think about the person who may be disregarded by those same people who only care and want to save them while they’re in the womb. If you really, I mean really give even a flip about abortion not being an issue anymore work at the source, go to the root of the problem. Educate people on sex, don’t just push abstinence only and hope for the best. Teach them, get them to learn how to have it responsibly. Then maybe, just maybe when fewer are in a position to want an abortion fewer will have one.

  • seashell

    Ahem. Life news is not neutral on the question of ultrasounds. From PolitiFact:

    University of British Columbia: In a study published in 2009, researchers gave questionnaires to 350 women who came to two abortion clinics, asking if they wanted to view an ultrasound. Nearly 73 percent got the ultrasound and 86 percent of them described it as a positive experience. But none changed their minds about having an abortion.

    University of Texas at Austin: Researchers there and from the University of Alabama at Birmingham gave surveys to 318 women who sought abortions at clinics in six Texas cities in 2012; 72 percent looked at their ultrasound. Before their consultation and ultrasound, 92 percent of those women said they were sure of their decision, or that abortion was a better choice for them. Afterward, the percentage was unchanged. [emphasis are mine]

    So no, most women don’t change their minds after seeing an ultrasound. In fact, some said it made them feel better about their choice. Imagine that.

  • seashell

    I think you’re missing her point, Falken. It’s not about preventing abortions, it’s about preventing the act that brings about the need for an abortion. In other words, if you don’t want a baby, don’t have sex. By the way, that only covers the woman. Men are still free to be sexually active.

    This is what gave up the hidden code: We have a choice to make moral, proactive decisions. We are not animals. If you don’t want the responsibility of the consequences, don’t play the game.

  • Falken

    That’s……a weird point so I can see how I missed it. Actually, that sort of made my head hurt just a tiny bit.

  • seashell

    Sorry, wanted to give you a heads up, not a headache :-) Remember how during the Bush years, sex ed in schools promoted abstinence instead of birth control? It’s meant for all unmarried women with the same underlying thinking, same dismal results, especially in red states.

  • Kendall Raine

    All of those claims have been proven to be debunked myths time and time again. The majority of women who get abortions do NOT regret it, and abortion does NOT cause fertility issues or breast cancer as there’s no real evidence to support it.
    How many rape victims have you helped? How many homeless children have you adopted?

  • Kendall Raine

    Nope, sorry, but that’s correct. You’re far more likely to die from childbirth than you are from an abortion. Look it up.

  • Kendall Raine

    Consent to sex is not consent to pregnancy any more than getting in a car is consent to dying in a car crash. And it doesn’t matter if they’re “innocent” or not, they’re insentient beings, their “innocence” is as irrelevant as the “innocence” of my potted plant.
    Oh really, so when the egg implants itself into the tubes instead of into the uterus threatening to kill the woman if she doesn’t abort, that’s still not a good enough reason?
    I guess you’re not so “pro-life” when it comes to women.

  • Kendall Raine

    Yeah, sort of like how women were once “owned” as property and never had a say in their reproductive health. Again, kind of like what you’re trying to accomplish.

    I don’t remember black people ever using my body or its resources against my will from within my body so your comparison is a bit silly. Black people are also clearly sentient beings and comparing them to embryos is also silly.

  • Kendall Raine

    Because insentient embryos aren’t people.
    And even if they were, other people are not obligated to allow the use of their own bodies to sustain someone else’s.

  • Kendall Raine

    You realize your claims have been debunked many times, that most women don’t regret their abortions, and many women actually regret being parents, right?
    You realize that both rape and forced childbirth are both forcing a woman to do something with her body against her will?

  • jerrycstanaway

    True, but we should oppose abortion primarily because it is wrong to lethally discriminate against unborn people.

  • jerrycstanaway

    There is a difference between abortion and the death penalty. Abortion is murdering an innocent little baby. The death penalty is killing someone charged with a crime. I oppose both, for any reason under any circumstances, but that doesn’t mean I can’t see any difference between the two things.

  • Trish Martin

    This is one of the most poorly-written, inflammatory, misleading, unsubstantiated articles I have ever read. You cannot make blanket rules for others and misuse scripture in support of it, either. Socialism is an evil because it requires the government to require of us what we can and should do as individuals. Advocating socialism under the guise of giving guidance to fellow Christians is shameful.

  • I agree 100%.

  • Gross hypocrisy. I’m sorry I bothered to read this. You are neither pro-life or even marginally anti abortion if you are A ok will killing the smaller pre born children.

  • Guy Norred

    Just where did you read he was?

  • Falken

    Don’t. Poke. The crazy.

  • Guy Norred

    I know–moment of weakness. Forgive me please.

  • Read the first line in the first paragraph….again

  • Guy Norred

    Against my better judgement, I will respond. I assume you do not mean the first line of the first paragraph of the entire post because after reading it many times, I haven’t the vaguest clue how you could read anything you imply into it. What I do assume you are talking about is the first list item. Here he does make a distinction between those before and after the age of viability. He has drawn a line but I see nothing to imply that he suggests all bets are off before that line, just that after that point is reached, he can see no possible ambiguity in a pro-life stance. Certainly the implication is then that there is possibility for ambiguity in his mind before, but I cannot call it even exaggeration to say that this ambiguity is not at least marginally opposed. All of this said, I am sorry that this point has blinded you to the great point of the post–that the term pro-life has at very least lost its meaning when it focuses strictly on this one point in our lifetimes.

  • Ok. I re -read the article & he doesnt quite say he’s ok with “open season” on the younger pre-born children. That’s how I initially read him. I agree with the points he makes & his 10 items, but still don’t agree that he can consider himself pro life if he’s ok with aborting “some”.
    P.s. you & falken here could take it a step further if you are pro life & perhaps curb your snarky attitude towards me. It’s sad.

  • Hi Elizabeth- happy to clarify: I’ve never, in my entire life, been okay with aborting the younger pre-born. I am an Anabaptist and reject violence in all forms, as much as that gets me in trouble at times. Where I break from the bulk of others is that I don’t believe overturning the law will change anything- I want to address the actual reasons why abortions occur, and actually work to mitigate those reasons which drive it.

  • Thanks for clarifying that! I got your article from a counselor at our crisis pregnancy center & now it makes more sense why she recommended it to us.

  • Naomi

    I think he expressed his position intelligently and honestly. If you see ‘gross hypocrisy’ it is possible you are only reflecting the gross hypocrite inside yourself, if you fail to consider aaaaall the other valid points supporting his position…instead of attacking the entire premise based on a narrow prospective, and ‘picking and choosing’ one detail to isolate, in defense of your own ignorance, ask yourself if you can truly call yourself pro-life, or pro-birth. Clearly, according to the author, THERE IS A DIFFERENCE. The thesis objective is to simply support this position. If you didn’t figure that out, maybe you should learn to read the entire article before commenting.

  • MJ Cordero

    ‘We are not animals.’ In other words, abortion is inhumane and barbaric, and intelligent human beings should be better than that. But it’s so much easier to twist words into something else isn’t it?

  • MJ Cordero

    Which totally makes his point moot. You can’t call yourself pro-life and still justify abortion.

  • MJ Cordero

    Benjamin, Benjamin! Self defense is not equal to abortion. And guns are beneficial for self defense. You are taking separate issues that have nothing to do with pro-life and lumping them together. All the while proving your own hypocrisy by attempting to justify abortion in most circumstances prior to viability. Either you’re pro-life or you’re not. Expanding the definition to include a wide variety of political issues in an attempt to discredit pro-lifers and a hard-line stance against abortion is reaching.

  • Nerdsamwich

    For that matter, you’ve got five whole minutes. Just take the hostages to a safe location. Or disarm the shooter, cuff his hands behind his back, and have him halfway to the police station. A lot can happen in five minutes.

  • Mike Pollie

    i would add using birth control to this list since using birth control is antilife

  • Mike Pollie

    i like this response and agree entirely


    Well, that would definitely fit the Duggar molester clan.

  • Nick G

    Your #10 and #7 are of course completely contradictory: you cannot support denying women bodily autonomy and be in favour of gender equality.

  • Nerdsamwich

    How do you figure? Would you agree with the adage, “can’t feed ’em, don’t breed ’em”? If so, how would you suggest that those who can’t afford children go about not breeding them? If not, then I assume you support generous aid to low-income parents. Even so, pregnancy is dangerous. There are dozens of ways that an otherwise healthy woman can be killed by a pregnancy. And what about women who aren’t healthy? Women with cancer, or HIV, or even high blood pressure for whom a pregnancy is basically a death sentence, if not for her, then for the baby. Yet again, there are those who have or are carriers of genetic disorders. Would you force a woman to conceive a child she knew would have cystic fibrosis? That doesn’t sound very pro-life to me.

  • Nerdsamwich

    And there, folks, is KRN’s real motivation for opposing abortion: to punish women for having sex.

  • Nerdsamwich

    So you would rather kill these people instead of learning how to heal their minds of the sickness that made them do what they did? Instead of learning how to identify them before they kill? You would waste such an opportunity, such a vital resource, on revenge? Doesn’t sound very pro-life to me.

  • Nerdsamwich

    If the mother’s life is in danger, that’s not an elective abortion. Mr. Corey only said that he categorically opposes elective abortions after the age of viability.

  • Nerdsamwich

    He didn’t say he wants to deny women the option, he just doesn’t think it comports with a radically life-affirming philosophy to exercise it.

  • jon

    noah, you sound like stalin’s bedfellow.

  • Noah

    Dude. Look at what it was a reply to. I copied and pasted. Good grief! Lol

  • Junior Garcia

    What does “noah” even stand for? You wish you were even half the man Stalin was. At least Stalin is remembered for what who he did and what he stood for. What about you? Your pretty much extra space in this world. What about me? I’m probably the same, however I don’t compare myself to anybody.

  • Noah

    Who are you talking to? You replied to jon, but asked me what my name stands for.

    It’s a name. Thousands of years old.

  • Leah Keese

    Well you cannot have it both ways. You cannot limit access to positive programs that increase education, training, minimum wage, healthcare, AND BIRTH CONTROL but then say that every woman has to carry to term.

    You know every time this question comes up I ask something – and I have NEVER gotten an answer. So if you have some kind of viable solution it would be great. It looks like you rally against abortion regardless of the circumstances (my interpretation of what I was reading – feel free to correct me if I am wrong). My questions center on 2 things. The first is the mother. If you are opposed to indigent health care, how do you propose to pay for pre natal, birth, and post natal care for the mothers? Does that include psychological counseling for children that have been raped and forced to give birth?

    The second is about the child. If the child is sick, and or the mother does not want the child, who is to pay for and care for him or her? Our foster and adoption system is already beyond overtaxed and broken. Who will clothe and feed this child? What happens when they become school age? Who is going to to pay for their clothing, food, shelter? You are advocating cutting federal funding – so what about the children those programs support?

    Would love an answer, though I do not expect one.

  • Leah Keese

    So rape victims… what category do they fall into if they have an abortion? What about a 10 year old raped by her father that gets an abortion? I guess they are then inhumane and barbaric?

  • Leah Keese

    What his point was, that you all seem to be missing, is that being pro-LIFE is not just about unborn babies, its about ALL life.

  • Junior Garcia

    I hate DISQUS!!!!

  • Noah

    ? Haven’t come across that, on my end.

  • American Dox

    What a lunatic. Logic eludes this author. 10 Things you can’t do and still call yourself a liberal: 1-think; 2-use logic; 3-tolerate the opinions of others; 4-have any moral opposition to anything other than morality itself; 5-write a coherent essay; 6-count to ten; 7-fail to conflate disagreement with your own political opinions with evil from the pits of hell; 8-use effective rhetoric; 9-try to understand anything deeper than the latest trending meme; 10-change your mind.

  • Kendall Raine

    A c-section is much more invasive of a surgery than abortion, abortion doesn’t require that you get cut open. To suggest that an 11 year old girl is better off being cut open than she is getting an abortion is ridiculous. Are you really this stupid

  • Kendall Raine

    You do know that abortion is statistically safer than pregnancy, right? Safe and legal abortions have a very low rate of complications, pregnancies have a much higher rate of complications. Especially for a 12 year old where childbirth can easily kill them. Shame on you for wanting to punish rape victims, children included, with forced birth.

  • Kendall Raine

    Abortion is very safe, much safer than pregnancy. Just look up the statistics and compare them. And what, FORCING a rape victim to give birth is NOT a punishment? You know what it is? ENSLAVEMENT.
    You have no right to decide for a woman what is “best” for her, what you’re advocating is essentially raping her a SECOND time by taking away her bodily autonomy and right to make her OWN choices, JUST LIKE THE RAPIST DID.
    For that, you are scum.

  • Kendall Raine

    Any circumstance? Even when the woman is bleeding to death?

  • Noah

    Still completely confused by your posts…

  • Junior Garcia

    Nevermind my post.

  • Apex Gaming

    I don’t feel like going through every one of your ridiculous lies and disproving them today, so I will just pick one I can easily respond to with a video.

    7. https://youtu.be/1oqyrflOQFc?t=1m29s

  • Herm

    thank you for your input

  • Apex Gaming

    Didn’t watch the video did you? Not going to argue your point against the truth? Just like to spout off your ignorant liberal rants but don’t know what to do when confronted with facts and logic? I guess that makes you like every other low information liberal on the internet. Let me know when you learn to debate logically and with facts, rather than basing all of your arguments on feelings and lies.

  • Herm

    I watched it in its entirety. She’s convincing but also biased in her fact presentation. You are the loudest ranting here. Thank you for caring so much.

  • Apex Gaming

    Yeah, those pesky facts can be so biased.

  • Yogini

    Then you are pro choice! Obviously you do not support the government coming in and making abortions illegal because that would mean the government requiring us to what we can and should do as individuals.

  • Junior Garcia

    I forgot what I first wrote to you.

  • anzyfab

    You neglected to mention that a common vaccine, mandated for school children by our government insists that we ignore the fact that one of it’s “added” ingredients “MRC-5” is derived from the tissue of aborted male fetus lungs. So if you allow your child to be vaccinated AT ALL with ANY vaccines you are supporting abortion PERIOD. The CDC has a list of ingredients added to vaccines listed on their website please read it for yourself.

  • sweetp09

    Benjamin, I just now came across this blog post, and agree with nearly everything in it, and most heartily with the spirit of it. I also read your bio, back story and core beliefs, and though we differ on a few areas of dogma, our values are totally in sync. As a Catholic, I find it interesting how much we have in common, especially our love and reverence for Jesus Christ. Thank you for putting yourself “out there” with your beliefs. It takes great courage, because people can be very harsh in their comments. Personally, I look forward to reading more of your posts and learning more about your beliefs. Also, your dissertation topic sounds fascinating; will your paper be posted online somewhere? I would love to read it.

  • sweetp09

    This document outlining the Church’s stance on this matter might be of interest to you. http://www.immunize.org/concerns/vaticandocument.htm

  • CC

    He doesn’t have to explicitly say it; it is inferred from the fact that he calls himself “pro-life”, meaning he wants abortion abolished. He cannot want abortion abolished and want gender equality at the same time.

  • Nerdsamwich

    Did you not notice the title of the article? He’s explicitly taking the term back from the perverts who’ve appropriated it.

  • Dq

    And you are qualified to push your inane rules on others, how?

  • Adam

    As a devout Catholic I am saddened with this entire blog post full of misdirection and false dichotomies. So many errors it should be thrown out all together. Truly a shame to take this article seriously. A great red-herring to the abomination of abortion and the hell it brings on this earth.

  • Adam

    Bodily Autonomy = Don’t have sex if you don’t want a kid. It’s not like it’s a burden on just the woman, the man want’s to have sex too.

    Bodily Autonomy is forfeit when it violates another person’s Bodily Autonomy, namely the child’s life.

  • Kevin Koehler

    yet captialism is godly? Jesus was a socialist. He provided healhcare. He threw out the bankers in the church. He gave food to the needy. If you are saying that socialism of any kind is evil, then I hope you will meet jesus in heII because that is where he will be.

  • Grady Noland

    Quite simply, I disagree on many accounts. Not worth any going to any one in particular. Many of these have economic, state-vs.-federal government, government-vs.-non-profit, and other implications that make them impossible to equate to a “pro-life” position. We should be compassionate, and we should help those living in bad situations as well as try to prevent abortions. But this post is too all-or-nothing in its approach.

  • Grady Noland

    This is much more than a stretch. It’s ludicrous. Jesus never espoused any economic system but worked within the system in which he lived. He fed the poor, but not with government funding–so I’m not sure what your point is there. He through out money-changers in the temple, but again that has nothing to do with a system of government or economics; he did so because they made a mockery of the worship of God. The healthcare Jesus provided was also nothing like this forced participation at a higher rate that is being touted about today; He simply healed! There is no comparison to socialism or capitalism in your argument.

  • Grady Noland

    Thoughtful response, although I may not agree with every point–#2 for example. (And I am not trying to argue. You have your reasons to believe as you do, and I respect that. You have more grounding than this author also.) The death penalty if administered fairly, evenly, and consistently is a great deterrent. Nothing in the Bible says that governments cannot impose such punishment for cause, which is most logically tied to murder. We must remember that the Bible doesn’t say not to kill but not to murder, if interpreted correctly.

    Thanks for spending the time to address each issue with such great detail.

  • jb

    This logic back 150 years would have allowed slavery and meant no civil war. Right or wrong (Wrong… no way I am for slavery but example shows how lacking the basis for the column is) at the time it was determined that a black slave was not a person (later partial person in some situations) and had no rights. If this slave was not a person it was personal property. If you really believe your logic is sound then you MUST (your word) allow another to choose to have a slave. You don’t have to have one but you have no right to tell the owner of this property what they can and can’t do with it. It was not against the law to have slaves at the time. I am pretty sure you think, as I do that slavery was immoral and those who could help and protect the innocent slave should do everything in their power to get the slave recognized as a person and given all the rights of others.. regardless of color or any other situation.

    You talk about exceptions when you think abortion is OK. So who decides? The woman? It is her body. Why should some doctor tell her what she can and can’t do with her body? What day does it become killing a baby? Who determines what is harmful to the mother’s health? What conditions must exist to give the woman the choice of abortion due to health?

    You also talk about dehumanizing… and pull a quote out of context from the Bible to I guess prove your point? If you would have read the context of Paul’s writing you would have seen this preceding and defining that statement…

    Life Worthy of the Gospel

    27 Whatever happens, conduct yourselves in a manner worthy of the gospel of Christ. Then, whether I come and see you or only hear about you in my absence, I will know that you stand firm in the one Spirit,[e] striving together as one for the faith of the gospel 28 without
    being frightened in any way by those who oppose you. This is a sign to
    them that they will be destroyed, but that you will be saved—and that by
    God. 29 For it has been granted to you on behalf of Christ not only to believe in him, but also to suffer for him, 30 since you are going through the same struggle you saw I had, and now hear that I still have.

    Imitating Christ’s Humility2 Therefore
    if you have any encouragement from being united with Christ, if any
    comfort from his love, if any common sharing in the Spirit, if any tenderness and compassion, 2 then make my joy complete by being like-minded, having the same love, being one in spirit and of one mind. 3 Do nothing out of selfish ambition or vain conceit. Rather, in humility value others above yourselves, 4 not looking to your own interests but each of you to the interests of the others.

    Yet you dehumanize the life of the unborn, and destroy its ability to actually enjoy the freedom your list highlights. That makes no sense. Why wait if it is a life. it is at its most vulnerable. God says he knows us before the womb. Does God know a clump of cells and doesn’t care about it until it can breath on its own? what about those later in life who can’t survive without assistance? OK to kill them too?

    Here is the hardest truth about your position… If it is not a Life, why be personally opposed to abortion?

    Moral decision one should make for themselves? OK, what it 3 women want to marry the same man at the same time? Law enforced one partner… Forcing child support with threat of jail? What if the non-payer believes it is morally wrong to pay it? Law forces him to pay it. Or the man who got the woman pregnant… no rights to keep his child even though he thinks abortion is immoral… law says he is not the dad unless the woman decides to not abort. We make moral judgements all the time… child porn, drugs, fraud… etc.. so that argument is inconsistent at best.

    A baker must bake a cake for a same sex marriage that they believe is immoral…. you have no issue with that. It doesn’t make a difference if you think same sex marriage is moral or not…. Government has stepped in to protect the moral judgement a group not of same sex attracted individuals who want to marry, but a group who is not impacted but thinks it is for the good of society their moral view is protected. That is fine but then you can’t say “They should be able to choose…. ” how is a clump of cells in a woman any different than cells in a bowl? Your logic says they aren’t… Those with nothing in the oven still insist the cake be made for them….hmmm

  • Paul

    Reading the list there is something that is hinted at but not said and that is if someone is truly going to be Pro Life they need to promote life, and not promote policies where any normal sane person would choose death over life. Such as having access to pain control, it is truly sad that we live in a country that would prefer that people be in so much pain that death looks to be a better option than life because there are people that are more worried that people will get high, than the suffering caused by not being able to access pain relief.

    I can see why those people have died from opiate overdoses, it is far easier and less messy way to go and also less painful than many of the other ways that a person can end their life in hell. Living life in chronic pain is hell, and all of the hells that are listed in Dante’s Inferno are mild to what it is like to live with chronic pain. Sisyphus pushing the bolder to the top of a mountain is a good analogy of what people in chronic pain go though in their everyday life. After all that is what we go though just to get going each day.

  • Paul

    Things to keep in mind people in this world today, here in our own country live a worse life than many slaves of the past. Do not forget that slaves were given heathcare, a place to live and have children, food to eat. We live in sad times when the county heathcare is better than what many of us working people can afford with a college degree and decades of experience and skills. I’m not talking poverty wages either, as at even 4 times the poverty income a person can’t afford good heathcare.

    How is it that life could be better when I know for a fact that based on my own experience that our level of care is going down enough that I have seen that if I were born today that I would have died before I would have reached the age of 5 if I had Kaiser and many other providers that exist today. Also I have seen that Mexico despite all the problems there has better care for workers than many in the USA can possibly get for the same money. Also Mexico does have heathcare for workers that just does not exist in this country. I’m saying that as a white guy that has lived in the USA for over 5 decades. The Pharmacists there are more skilled in Mexico than many of the doctors that I have seen here in the USA. They know the dosages, what to use to treat and for how long. More than doctors here that have to go look it up.

    Also many doctors here do not follow CDC guidelines when it comes to treatment of infections such as cultures, but do use the CDC guidelines to deny care to people when it is to their advantage to do so.

  • Paul

    Even though I’m not Catholic I do agree completely with the article that you referenced. Thank you for sharing, and to look at what is being done not just from the standpoint of the moral issue on abortion, it does go against another moral issue and that is taking lives to save lives.

  • Paul

    You need not be extra space in this world. Each of us has within us the choice to make a name for ourselves without comparing ourselves to anyone. It is quite often a difficult journey to take, but it is always better to be known widely for the good that we have done for the world, but quite often most people are only known for the bad things that people have done. I have to say if people are remembered more for the evil that they have done than the good that they have done. What does this say about us as a species?

  • Ellen

    I would like to add to #4 that using dehumanizing language towards people would also include teasing and taunting people or peers. It’s not acceptable on any level, but when people are relentless never stop, that can be damaging to the people being bullied. I realize that it might have been implied in #4, but whenever people do this, they think that it does not apply.

  • Brandon Roberts

    #10: i don’t.
    #9: this is one i’m kinda torn on on one hand i do support a living wage and agree we should help the poor on the other it also does make things more expensive and ceos are dicks who would probaly replace at least some jobs with machines (or at least a good chunk are)
    #8: i do agree again but i have a feeling yours and mine ideas on oppression may differ.
    #7: oh my god! the actual wage gap is 1.69% not 73% the 73% is an earnings gap. now that being said if women or anyone is being paid less based on sex race or sexual orientation of course we should fix the problem and i do agree in equality of oppurtunity (meaning everyone gets a fair shot)
    #6: i do support reasonable immigration policies we have to make sure we keep the bad ones from coming in good hardworking folks however i fully welcome with open arms.
    #5: again i support this.
    #4: i’m special needs and the r word doesn’t bother me at all. also sometimes you have to put yourself others. i agree we should help people and you shouldn’t go out of your way to be a dick.
    #3: i don’t.
    #2: i support the death penalty for some people (serial killers’ severe child abusers etc.) however i also see the other sides argument so i am willing to admit it’s a tough issue.
    #1: sometimes war is a neccesary evil don’t get me wrong it does terrible things to the survivors and the way our goverment treats veterans is terrible

  • Justin Jeremy Zirbel Klapste

    First First off I want to say that: this is coming from someone who can not bear children, and secondly is extremely pro choice.
    I am I am truly in love with this, I was expecting to be cringing because of the hypocrisy and all around hate that I have seen come from supposedly pro lifers, but
    You addressed virtually every problem that I have had with the pro life argument and for that I must say well done. Thank you.

    The only on this list I’m torn between is the first one, not because I support Abortion, and definitely not passed the age of viability, but because to make abortion Illegal, and to remove regulation is dangerous and often harmful to the women who do not wish to become mothers.

  • itsizzi

    Don’t even know how I found my way to this page, but I can’t tell you how incredibly refreshing it is to read this. I’m not a follower of your religious beliefs and think the best way to address abortion is to prevent pregnancy in the first place through education and universal access to birth control …but you have articulated every problem I have with that “pro-life” moniker. One cannot claim any kind of moral high ground on the sanctity of life and not actively oppose war, poverty, guns, the death penalty. And it’s worth remembering that “life” on this planet is more than just human. Thank you for your insightful commentary.

  • Meade Jones Hanna

    Thank you for a thoughtful pro-life “seamless garment of life” argument that you post here. TODAY is the day of the pro-life march here in DC, under the Trump and Pence administration. I grieve at the LACK of thought they will put into the future of abortion (I do believe in the legality of the medical procedure) AND I hope and pray that everyone on this blog can represent the new conversation of an issue that is age-old. Even Catholic theology (I am not Catholic) has loads of nuanced reflections on the topic of birth. (see Father Joe Naengle in the DC Assissi Community). Today I grieve for the MOTHER who faces this choice in Texas and Indiana. If it becomes illegal in this country to offer this medical procedure, will there be more abortions? There were over 100,000 self induced abortions in Texas in 2016. Planned Parenthood logs 650,000 abortions legally done. Do we criminalize the mom in the face of the growing number of self induced abortions? Will we have a restoration of TANF or AFDC to make a child a viable economic option? (Democrat Bill Clinton destroyed 20 years ago) Will we at least give the mother child care, education, and a job? In the face of those unlikely events, will private organizations and churches or even public localities step up to support new moms in the same way? Who is REALLY pro-life?

  • Tekneek

    If the pro-life movement came in this package, they would very likely win the day.

  • Tekneek

    Is it because you are unwilling to live a truly pro-life life? If life is really what it is about, you should be advocating policies that improve life in all stages, not just the beginning of a life. That is, if you really want to be morally consistent. If the pro-life movement embraced this list and advocated for this as an entire policy package, they might very likely win in every state. Or you can wage war on choice and end up losing a long drawn out war that hurts more people than this would. Up to you.

  • Tekneek

    You could’ve saved time and simply said you don’t want to be bothered with accepting a truly pro-life philosophy. It is that contradiction that will make sure you lose this anti-abortion war you pretend to care so much about and will hurt many people along the way. If you really wanted to win, this is a winning package.

  • Bones

    Conservative’s don’t give a rats about anyone but their own ideology.

    They’ve fought against every human and civil right attained.

  • Cyndy Riordan

    It’s his blog.

  • Dq

    The author was a Guest Contributor, so no it is not his blog.

  • ImaMe

    Your post isn’t strictly for religious people. I am not religious and advocate for all this. Pro life people aren’t pro life but more pro control, especially politicians.

  • Val–Standing

    While I do agree with some–not ALL–of your ‘prolife requirements’,
    I will say that one cannot, with any rationally, speak for the rights of voiceless minorities while advocating the worst discrimination imaginable against the youngest, most defenseless humans that exist–the unborn.
    The “progressive” betrayal on this issue exposes one of the largest hypocrisies and blind spots in human history.
    I also advocate for voiceless animals–and I CAN consistently do so.
    Those who try to advocate against the mistreatment of animals, but see nothing wrong with KILLING unborn humans (which, like all other humans, are ALSO ‘animals’), because they are “inconvenient” are a bad joke that does the animal welfare movement far more harm than good.
    I just wanted to get a bit of parity to this article.

  • Ambaa

    Well said! I agree. I will say that even among me and my pro-choice friends I have never heard anyone advocate for abortion after viability.

  • Veri Tas 102

    For me it comes down to sentience. Animals are sentient beings, embryos are not, and foetuses only gain some measure of sentience at gestational age of about week 26 or later.

    At Week 31 – gestational age: 30 weeks old – thalamic brain connections, which mediate sensory input, form.

    The thalamus plays an important role in regulating states of sleep and wakefulness. Thalamic nuclei have strong reciprocal connections with the cerebral cortex, forming thalamo-cortico-thalamic circuits that are believed to be involved with consciousness. The thalamus plays a major role in regulating arousal, the level of awareness, and activity. Damage to the thalamus can lead to permanent coma.

    We routinely switch off the life support systems in adults who have been in coma for a certain amount of time and who are not expected to recover.

    A foetus without the fully formed connections between the brain’s thalamus and the neocortex are the equivalent of a completely unconscious (comatose) person.

  • Veri Tas 102

    These rules are derived from simple logic!

  • Val–Standing

    “foetuses only gain some measure of sentience at gestational age of about week 26 or later.”

    First, I greatly challenge that statement.
    I am not sure where you get your information from, but there is plenty of evidence that unborn babies can feel pain before that time.

    These are some observations from the studies of a well-qualified pediatrician, Dr. Kawaljeet Anand, that pertain to both newborn and unborn pain.


    It is also a fact that BOTH very premature infants, and unborn babies who undergo surgery in utero receive pain treatment.


    “Thalamic brain connections, which mediate sensory input, form.”

    You may find this article of interest.


    I think it can be correctly stated that “pain awareness” and “sentience” abilities come gradually, not like a light switch, and no one can say, with certainly, what abilities another has or doesn’t have.

    Heck, there is currently scientific debate as to whether fish–or even insects–feel pain.

    IF they can, I don’t think that we can rule out that even embryos may have some type of awareness to pain.

    I will also add that no unconscious person is “sentient”, and non-sentient coma patients are generally left alive–at least in theory–if there is any chance for sentience in the future.

    Certainly, the unborn would certainly fall into that category.

    I will just give you one more link, because I think that you will actually find it interesting, as I did, whether you are ‘vegan’ or not (I am “mostly” vegan).


  • Veri Tas 102

    “The science shows that based on gestational age, the fetus is not capable of feeling pain until the third trimester,” said Kate Connors, a spokesperson for the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. The third trimester begins at about 27 weeks of pregnancy.

    “What we can say about the fetal nervous system is that based on the best science we have” on the neurons that carry pain signals is that the “system isn’t developed until the third trimester of pregnancy,” Davis told Live Science.

    There are several developmental stages for the foetal nervous system to become complete:

    1. The receptors in the skin that sense an injury must be developed. Research has shown that this happens between 7.5 and 15 weeks of pregnancy,

    2 – The neurons in the spinal cord that transmit that signal up to the brain must be developed. Researchers who looked at fetal tissues reported that this happens at around 19 weeks,

    3 – The neurons that extend from the spinal cord into the brain need to reach all the way to the area of the brain where pain is perceived. This does not occur until between 23 and 24 weeks,

    4. In addition, the nerves’ existence isn’t enough to produce the experience of pain or consciousness or emotions. The above anatomical structures must also be functional. It’s not until around 30 weeks that there is evidence of brain activity that suggests the fetus is “awake.”


  • Val–Standing

    It is obvious that you either choose not to read, or you choose to totally ignore, the link to Dr. Kawaljeet Anand, a pain researcher who holds tenured chairs in pediatrics, anesthesiology, pharmacology, and neurobiology at the University of Arkansas.

    I will add that Dr. Anand’s expertise in this area is made even more credible by the fact that he does NOT identify himself as “pro-life”.

    In a federal court, he stated that “It is my opinion that the human fetus possesses the ability to experience pain from 20 weeks of gestation, if not earlier, and the pain perceived by a fetus is possibly more intense than that perceived by term newborns or older children.”

    AGAIN, here is the link to his long paper.

    You also choose to ignore or not read the article on why preemies born BEFORE the third trimester are treated for pain, or why unborn babies are anesthetized in second trimester for fetal surgery if pain is not possible.

    “Infants born as early as 23 or 24 weeks now commonly survive long term in neonatal intensive care units. Neonatologists confirm that they react negatively to painful stimuli — for example, by grimacing, withdrawing, and whimpering. When they must receive surgical procedures, they are given drugs to prevent pain. Yet, the JAMA authors assert that there is no credible evidence of fetal pain until 29 weeks — which is five or six weeks later. If these babies feel pain in the incubator, then they also feel pain in the womb.”


    Here, again, was the first link that I posted on this subject.


    Excerpt from above article–
    “The Puente twins were born at 26 weeks and 5 days of gestation.

    For the Puentes, there is no doubt that their twins felt pain at birth.

    At birth, they didn’t have the strength to cry or squirm or even grimace, Melissa said. But she soon came to recognize signs of discomfort in their facial muscles, especially in the eyelids. When they were at ease, she said, “their eyelids are smooth and facial muscles are relaxed.”

    Finally, you choose to either not read, or to ignore the link that I gave to the “Consciousness without a cerebral cortex” article, with its examples of how it may indeed be possible to have a type of sentience even without a functioning cerebral cortex.


    “A broad range of evidence regarding the functional organization of the vertebrate brain – spanning from comparative neurology to experimental psychology and neurophysiology to clinical data – is reviewed for its bearing on conceptions of the neural organization of consciousness. A novel principle relating target selection, action selection, and motivation to one another, as a means to optimize integration for action in real time, is introduced. With its help, the principal macrosystems of the vertebrate brain can be seen to form a centralized functional design in which an upper brain stem system organized for conscious function performs a penultimate step in action control. This upper brain stem system retained a key role throughout the evolutionary process by which an expanding forebrain – culminating in the cerebral cortex of mammals – came to serve as a medium for the elaboration of conscious contents. This highly conserved upper brainstem system, which extends from the roof of the midbrain to the basal diencephalon, integrates the massively parallel and distributed information capacity of the cerebral hemispheres into the limited-capacity, sequential mode of operation required for coherent behavior. It maintains special connective relations with cortical territories implicated in attentional and conscious functions, but is not rendered nonfunctional in the absence of cortical input. This helps explain the purposive, goal-directed behavior exhibited by mammals after experimental decortication, as well as the evidence that children born without a cortex are conscious. Taken together these circumstances suggest that brainstem mechanisms are integral to the constitution of the conscious state, and that an adequate account of neural mechanisms of conscious function cannot be confined to the thalamocortical complex alone.”

    Basically, the entire article that you linked was based on a 2005 JAMA study that was HEAVILY FLAWED.
    How heavily flawed?

    The JAMA article was produced by pro-abortion activists.
    There was no new laboratory research reported in the article — it was merely a commentary on a selection of existing medical literature.

    “JAMA’s editor says she was “unaware” that the authors of the report include an abortion practitioner and a former staffer for a leading abortion advocacy group.

    The lead author of the study is Susan J. Lee, a University of California at San Francisco medical student who once worked for NARAL, an abortion advocacy group that recently came under fire for falsely accusing Supreme Court nominee John Roberts of backing abortion-related violence.

    Meanwhile, another author, UCSF obstetrician-gynecologist Eleanor Drey, is the medical director of the abortion center at San Francisco General Hospital.

    JAMA editor-in-chief Catherine DeAngelis told Knight Ridder News she was unaware that the two authors are intimately involved in the abortion movement. She acknowledged that revelation could hurt the credibility of the publication.”


    A similar review published in September 1999 in the British Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology (the leading ob-gyn journal in the UK) concluded: “Given the anatomical evidence, it is possible that the fetus can feel pain from 20 weeks and is caused distress by interventions from as early as 15 or 16 weeks.”


  • Veri Tas 102

    The paper you linked to discusses “premature or full-term neonates” (newly born infants).

    From the authors’ conclusion:
    “Current knowledge suggests that humane considerations should apply as forcefully to the care of neonates and young, nonverbal infants as they do to children and adults in similar painful and stressful situations.”

    It has nothing to do with abortion and consciousness of foetuses prior to gestation age 20 weeks.

    As was outlined above, the neural network has to be connected to the parts of the brain which processes pain and emotions for a foetus to become aware of pain.

    Fetuses cannot feel pain until at least the 24th week of pregnancy.

    Experts ranging from Britain’s Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists to the American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists agree with that timeline. In fact, research from UCSF found that fetuses can’t perceive pain before 29 or 30 weeks of development.

    Dr. Mark Rosen, who pioneered anesthesia in fetal surgery, said fetal pain was unlikely before the third trimester, which begins at about 27 weeks. Pain sensation required neural connections into the cortex. The cortex begins emerging around the 23rd week, is not functionally developed until the 26th or later, and continues developing after birth.


  • Val–Standing

    The articles that I linked, especially the one of Dr. Anand’s study, made it VERY clear that fetal pain was at least POSSIBLE by 20 weeks or sooner.

    I already explained, clearly, why the 2005 fetal pain study was severely compromised.

    Pain relief given to second-trimester preemies, as well as babies enduring fetal surgery, was also documented.

    But, for your own reasons, you CHOOSE not to believe the obvious, or even to acknowledge that conflicting studies in this very important area should the benefit of the doubt to the most vulnerable and voiceless members of humanity.

    You have also given no answer as to why, even BEFORE pain is possible, it is ethical to kill an unborn baby that is in a similar state as a born person who is in a reversible coma.

    I have answered your concerns with honesty and links, and I will leave them for future readers to ponder.

  • Bones

    Yeah, we’ve been over this before….links from lobby groups and Trump campaigners don’t count as evidence.

  • Val–Standing

    I agree 100%.

    That’s why the 2005 fetal pain “study” doesn’t count, and the studies of Dr. Anand (abortion-nuetral) and the doctors who work with very premature babies and who perform fetal surgery DO count, instead!

  • Veri Tas 102

    You don’t seem to understand the facts as outlined above. Consciousness is only possible if the neural network and the processing components are linked and fully functioning – which is not the case at week 20.

  • Val–Standing

    Keep telling yourself that.
    Keep paying attention to fetal pain “studies” that are conducted by those with ‘vested interests’ in keeping late-term “elective” abortions legal.

    Keep ignoring the studies conducted by those who DON’T profit from the abortion-industry.

    Keep ignoring the fact that second trimester preemies are given pain relief.

    Keep ignoring the fact that in second trimester fetal surgeries, the baby is anesthesized.

    Keep ignoring scientific papers stating that “conscious function cannot be confined to the thalamocortical complex alone.”

    NEVER give the unborn the benefit-of-the doubt when fetal pain studies contradict each other.

    Finally, keep ignoring my point about how even the non-sentient unborn are little different–scientifically or morally–from those in comas who are expected to recover.

    Ya, just keep going.
    I know one thing for ABSOLUTE sure.
    I would rather be wrong in extending the unborn TOO many considerations, than be wrong in the way that you may well be.

  • Veri Tas 102

    No-one is talking about “late-term” abortion here. At any rate, only 1.4% are performed at or after 21 weeks’ gestational age in America.

    This systematic review of the scientific literature (i.e. not just a single study) found no evidence of foetal pain or consciousness of the foetus before week 20:

    Fetal Pain: A Systematic Multidisciplinary Review of the Evidence

    You mention vested interests in research outcomes. You are quite right to question the funding and vested interests….
    I’d be very much interested in learning about the sponsorship of the research you believe to have evidence of foetal pain during the first 2 trimesters of gestation.

  • Veri Tas 102

    PS – Apropos vested interests, if you scroll down the systematic review paper you’ll see the name Mark A. Rosen, MD, Department of Anesthesia and Perioperative Care, as the corresponding author, remembering that he was the one who pioneered anesthesia in fetal surgery (not abortions).

    He states that fetal pain was unlikely before the third trimester, despite the fact that he might very well have a vested interest in seeing anaesthesia applied to foetuses during surgery….

    What does that tell you? I believe it tells us how much of a political, not medical, issue foetal pain is. Foetal pain relief prompted by political correctness.

    I am on your side when you say that it’s better to err on the side of caution in medical matters. But I cannot see how a disconnect between nerves and pain/consciousness-processing parts of the brain can cause the foetus to experience distress.

    Like you, I am an emotional and compassionate person – hence the vegan lifestyle, hence my vehement defence of ‘pro choice’.

    In your passionate plea to stop abortions please also spare a thought for the other party in this conflict: The woman.

    I do not believe any woman would make the decision to have an abortion lightly. Such a decision surely is made in anguish and out of desperation, as research by the Guttmacher Institute shows.

    Let me ask you: If it were proven to your satisfaction that the foetus prior to week 21 could feel no pain, had no conscious awareness, would you accept abortion up to, say, week 16?

  • Bones

    Yeah…what does Anand really say…..

    “But Anand tells Belluck that “fetal pain does not have much relevance for abortion, since most abortions are performed before the fetus is capable of experiencing pain.” According to the most recent government data (see Table 8), only 3 percent of U.S. abortions were performed at 18 weeks gestation or later, and only 1 percent were performed at 21 weeks or later. Anand says that since 2005, he has turned down further requests to testify in regard to abortion legislation. That’s not his focus, he says, and the politicization of his work has “gotten completely out of hand.”

    Anand doesn’t seem to like these sweeping bans. He tells Belluck that women and doctors should apply their judgment in the context of each case. “In the very few abortions where fetal pain could possibly occur,” he adds, we should “consider what can be done to avoid inflicting a lot of pain on the fetus.” One option, he notes, is to inject a lethal drug that quietly stops the fetal heart. Many late-term abortionists do precisely that. Another option is anesthesia. It’s easy to prevent fetal pain without forcing women to carry their pregnancies to term.”


    Doesnt like antichoicers taking his work and words out of context.

    Not too neutral it seems.

  • Val–Standing

    So, what, exactly, is your point?

    If you look over my posts, I have already stated that Dr. Anand does not identify as “pro-life”, which, I believe, makes his credibility EXTRA good when he speaks of fetal pain even PROIR to 20 weeks, don’t you think?

    Or, alternatively, would you trust his judgement MORE if was a hardcore pro-lifer??
    Somehow, I seriously doubt the latter.

    His view that it is okay to simply ‘ansethesize’ a pain-capable unborn baby and kill them anyway makes as much sense as arguing that it is okay to anesthisize a BORN pain-capable baby, and then proceed to kill them.

    The fact that I disagree with his moral outlook does NOT change his findings one whit on fetal pain.

    How desperate you must be to use an argue along those lines!

  • Val–Standing

    “No-one is talking about “late-term” abortion here.”

    You do know that Roe vs Wade made abortion-on-demand legal through 24-weeks, right?

    I think you are moving the goal posts from what you posted earlier, and you are STILL quoting from that heavily tainted JAMA fetal-pain “study”, willfully missing my point about what the most compassionate course of action should be when studies conflict on an issue such as this.

    In any case, 24-weeks is POST-viability for many babies these days, and is definately within the time frame of when fetal pain may be possible.

    “At any rate, only 1.4% are performed at or after 21 weeks’ gestational age in America.”

    I actually heard the figure of 1.3%

    According to the Guttmacher Institute, 926,200 abortions were performed in 2014 in areas of the US that report the data.


    Since data from California, Louisiana, Maryland were not included, we can assume that these numbers are even make the US number even higher.

    Of these numbers, 1.3% occurred after 21 weeks.
    That translates into approximately 12,040–excluding California, Louisiana, Maryland–abortions that took place, when the unborn child was either ‘viable’ by modern medical standards, or near-viable.

    I will add that, contrary to myth, most such late-term abortions are NOT done for medical reasons.


    While the 1.3% of 21-week plus abortions may sound “small” compared to the total number of abortions that are performed each year, that approximated number (over 12,040 babies per year) is very large when compared to many other causes of childhood death.

    It is, for instance, many times higher than the 1,300 unfortunate children who fall victim to gun violence each year in the US.


    “You are quite right to question the funding and vested interests….

    I’d be very much interested in learning about the sponsorship of the research you believe to have evidence of foetal pain during the first 2 trimesters of gestation.”.

    I do not know who “sponsored” Dr. Kawaljeet Anand’s research into newborn/fetal pain.

    I do know that he did not undertake his research owing to his concern for the unborn, but, instead, he was concerned about BORN babies who were often not being anesthesized before surgery in the 1980’s.

    In fact, as Bones just pointed out (and as I hinted at earlier), Dr. Anand does not even oppose abortion, which makes his findings all that much MORE credible, and a stark contrast to such studies coming from your side!

    As was explained in my previous link that I sent you–


    Dr. Anand is an endowed chair at the University of Tennessee Health Science Center in Memphis.

    “In the early 1980s Dr. Kawaljeet Anand, then an intern at a British hospital, noticed many of his neonatal patients exhibiting stress and dying after surgery. This sparked research that led to a landmark 1987 piece published in the New England Journal of Medicine that outlined the evidence of neonatal pain, including a litany of stress and hormonal responses, key “surrogate measures” of pain. Neonatal surgery would never be the same after Anand got done with it.

    Anand proved that newborns not only perceived pain, but that they were literally dying from it. In one of his studies, mortality dropped from 25 to 10 percent just through using anesthesia. By the turn of the 21st century, thanks largely to Anand, newborn anesthesia was standard”.

    Then, Anand’s research moved on to premature infants and pre-viable fetuses.

    “He has, in fact, argued that a fetus or premature newborn may actually feel pain more intensely than an older newborn. He asserted in 2007 congressional testimony on fetal pain legislation that “a fetus at 20 to 32 weeks of gestation would experience a much more intense pain than older infants or children or adults” because certain pain mechanisms are in play much earlier, while “fibers which dampen and modulate the experience of pain” are delayed until between 32-34 weeks.”

    If you can find any evidence of conflicting interests in this study from the “British Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology”, the leading ob-gyn journal in the UK, I am all ears.

    It’s conclusions were “Given the anatomical evidence, it is possible that the fetus can feel pain from 20 weeks and is caused distress by interventions from as early as 15 or 16 weeks.”


    Look under “BASIC OBJECTIONS”, number 3

  • Veri Tas 102

    You keep going back to neonatal pain.

    I think our argument is about foetal pain up to gestation age 20/21 weeks…

    The JAMA study was a review of the scientific literature, not a single study… Thus, a collation of a multitude of study outcomes show foetal pain during the first 2 trimesters is not possible.

    Given that I also asked you if you’d object to abortion within the 16-week timeframe outside of which (i.e. “from 20 weeks”) your Dr Anand claims foetuses can experience pain, what would be your answer?

  • Val–Standing

    “The JAMA study was a review of the scientific literature, not a single study”

    If you are still going on about the 2005 JAMA fetal pain study, which I think you are, it was totally tainted by the fact that it was conducted by those with ties to the abortion industry.

    If a similar study were conducted by those with ties to pro-life groups, I honestly think that YOU would totally discount that, as well, ESPECIALLY when other, independent studies DISAGREED with findings!

    Further, if a study on this subject that I had referenced were shown to have strong ties to a pro-life group, I would QUIT REFERENCING IT!

    I totally fail to see your point about pre-natal vs post-natal.

    If a baby has the capacity to feel pain at, say, 22 weeks after conception, that capacity exists whether that baby happens to be inside or outside of his/her mother’s womb.
    Honestly, no “pixie dust magic” occurs in the baby’s brain or nervous system by simply “being born”.

    “Given that I also asked you if you’d object to abortion within the 16-week timeframe outside of which (i.e. “from 20 weeks”) your Dr Anand claims foetuses can experience pain, what would be your answer?”

    I believe that I have stated this two (or is it three?) times, but I will state it once more.

    I see no logical or moral difference between a non-sentient unborn baby and a non-sentient born person in a temporary coma.

    In other words, I think killing is much worse when the victim suffers, but I am AGAINST killing even when the victim DOESN’T suffer.

    Does that answer your question?

  • Bones

    The point is that you are being dishonest…and not for the first time.

  • Val–Standing

    No, actually I wasn’t “dishonest” at all.

    I mentioned that Dr. Anand was not pro-life, and that that fact made his studies about fetal pain MORE convincing, not LESS.

    The only thing “dishonest” was the JAMA 2005 fetal pain study, where many of its author’s had ties to the abortion industry!

    As usual, you LOSE on the facts, so you resort to insulting ME for pointing out these facts.

    Better luck next time (oh, I hope not).

  • Bones

    You are using his work dishonestly.

    That is the point.

    And every medical study which disagrees with you, you cast off as some sort of pro-abortion conspiracy.

    You need to get back to quoting Trump campaigners.

  • Veri Tas 102

    Yes. You’ve answered my question.

    Do you apply yourself with equal passion to ending America’s perpetual war agenda?

    Illegal drone killings on foreign soil?

    How about ending the death penalty?

    And torture, the little darling of American foreign policy?

    And what about the “excess” embryos that are discarded (killed) at IVF clinics?

    Due to hormone imbalances, genetic anomalies, and a number of unknown factors, between 50 percent and 75 percent of embryos fail to implant in the uterus and are passed with the monthly menstrual flow. Are you fighting for more funding into preventing such a high embryo death rate?

  • Val–Standing

    I used Dr. Anand’s work to show the results he obtained from scientific studies regarding fetal/neonatal pain.

    As I made clear from the beginning, his motivation was to promote anesthesia for newborns undergoing surgery, and that he could not be described as ‘pro-life’.

    From what I have read, he is not quite as pro-abortion as you are implying, but that was not and is not the point.

    The 2005 JAMA study were “researchers” affirming their pre-determined agendas.

    Dr. Anand’s research produced results about fetal pain that was NOT agenda driven.

    End of story.

  • Bones

    You dishonestly used his work to push your own agenda.

    Stick to using Trump campaigners.

  • otrotierra

    I’ll never understand why Evangelicals think they can continue to lie, deceive, and bear false witness without consequence. And their deliberate deception is furthermore permanently recorded as part of the digital footprint through Disqus. Evangelicals really aren’t thinking this through.

  • Val–Standing

    I am not and never was a “Trump campaigner”, but you, “sir” are a VERY sore loser!

  • Bones

    You used a Trump campaigner as some sort of evidence on your last rant here.

  • Ann Morgan

    **If a baby has the capacity to feel pain at, say, 22 weeks after conception, that capacity exists whether that baby happens to be inside or outside of his/her mother’s womb.**

    Point here, while it has the capacity to feel pain sometime around 22-25 weeks, there are mechanisms in the uterus that keep it sedated, so it WOULD not feel pain in the uterus, even though it would feel it outside the uterus at the same age. Just like you don’t feel pain when you are sedated for surgery.

    **I see no logical or moral difference between a non-sentient unborn baby and a non-sentient born person in a temporary coma.**
    Two differences. A fetus before 22-25 weeks has NO brain function. A person in a ‘temporary coma’, or even a permanent one, does have brain function. You are displaying your ignorance by not knowing the difference between coma and brain death.
    But let’s pretend for the sake of argument that a person can be ‘temporarily’ brain dead (never mind that this is actually impossible). The elephant in your living room is this: MEMORY. The ‘temporarily’ brain dead person has the memories of a person, a human lifetime still stored in it. The fetus has no such memories of a person. So what you are doing is the equivalent of trying to equate burning down an empty house, with burning down a house where you know full well the owner is chained up in the basement, on the very stupid basis that in both cases, the owner will not come to the door when you knock.
    In order to be truly equivalent, your person who was ‘temporarily brain dead’ would have to have NO MEMORIES. Something more extreme than the way amnesia is shown on TV. They would be a true tabula rasa, the equivalent of a newly functioning infant (or late fetal) mind, and would NEVER get their memories back. They could only form new ones. They would have to learn to speak, and see and go potty again.
    If that in fact WERE the case, I see no overwhelming reason why such a person could not be killed or have the plug pulled while in their ‘temporary’ brain dead state.

  • myintx

    I have… cause “bodily autonomy” – which is a lame excuse to kill a human being, before or after viability

  • Jacob

    Someone didnt read their bible on the death penalty.

  • Patrick O’Malley

    Christian pro-lifers, especially Catholics, aren’t “pro-life”. They’re pro-birth and pro-judging.

    They let 24,000 people die every day from starvation. That isn’t “pro-life”. Catholics alone could literally cure hunger for 10 cents per Catholic per day, but they don’t. Include all Christians, and it becomes 5 cents per Christian per day.

    That is not a typo.

    For comparison, there are only 1,500 abortions a day in the US, so there are 16 live people who die of starvation for each one US abortion.

    For proof, Google

    how many people die of hunger every day
    how much would it cost to cure hunger

    $30 Billion divided by 1 billion Catholics is less than 10 cents/day. Include all Christians, and it becomes 5 cents per Christian per day.