The Shiny Red Button (How Republicans Use Abortion To Manipulate Christians)

The Shiny Red Button (How Republicans Use Abortion To Manipulate Christians) January 28, 2019
Image: Pixabay

 

*NOTE: I share this guest post from my friend Eric Johnson as a former Republican who has since abandoned all faith in politics and politicians. Both Democrats and Republicans use these same tactics to manipulate their base. This is not an attack on Republicans. It’s a wake up call for American Christians to abandon politics and pledge allegiance to the Lamb.

*

Let’s look at the role of Republicans in the History of abortion, shall we?

Planned Parenthood started receiving funding in 1970 when Republican POTUS Richard M. Nixon signed into law the Family Planning Services and Population Research Act, which had the support of both Democrats and Republicans.

In 1973 was the landmark case Roe v. Wade. There were 9 Supreme Court justices who ruled on that case: 5 Democrats and 4 Republicans.

It was passed by a 7-2 ruling.

Both a Republican and a Democrat opposed.

That means 3 out of 4 justices voted in favor of Roe. vs Wade.

In 1992 there was the Supreme Court case of Planned Parenthood vs. Casey.

Out of 9 justices there was only one Democrat on the bench. They had an opportunity to over turn R v. W, but they didn’t.

Instead they ruled reinforcing abortion being protected by the 14th Amendment.

In the 46 years since Roe vs. Wade Republicans have had control of the Senate:

– 1981 to 1987
– 1995 to 2001
– 2003 to 2007
– 2015 to 2019

So far that’s a total of 20 years out of the 46 since R v. W became law.

Likewise in the 46 years since Roe v. Wade became law Republicans have controlled the House:

– 1995 to 2007
– 2011 to 2019

Again, out of 46 years since Roe v. Wade was decided Republicans have controlled the House for 20 of those years.

From 1995 to 2007 Republicans controlled both the House and Senate.

From 2001 until 2007, and then again 2017 to 2019 Republicans controlled the House, Senate and the Presidency.

Also from 2001 to 2007 on the Supreme Court nine out of the 11 justices who served during that time were Republican.

In other words: The greatest chance for Republicans to end legalized abortion was between 2001 and 2007 when they controlled the House, the Senate, the Presidency, and the Supreme Court.

Not once did they de-fund Planned Parenthood, pass legislation to outlaw abortion, or overturn Roe v. Wade.

They could have, but didn’t.

They had ample opportunity.

From 2017 until the present Republicans have once again controlled the House, Senate, Presidency, and SCOTUS.

Ask yourself this: After 46 years…

Why is abortion still legal?
Why is Planned Parenthood still funded?
Why hasn’t Roe vs. Wade been overturned yet?

People are quick to blame Democrats for abortion in the U.S. while turning a blind eye to the MASSIVE amount of blood on Republicans hands.

They are quick to demonize those of the opposing political party while giving their own party a free pass when they share in responsibility.

So, with all of this laid out here I’m going to share with you a cold, hard fact that maybe hard for most to swallow:

If you have voted Republican anytime since 1970 the odds are you have voted for someone who has voted in favor of a bill that funded Planned Parenthood. #Truth

-Thanks to my friend Eric Johnson

If you want to read more about this topic, I cover it in my book “Jesus Untangled: Crucifying Our Politics To Pledge Allegiance to The Lamb“, available now on Kindle, Audiobook and Print.

**

Keith Giles was formerly a licensed and ordained minister who walked away from organized church 11 years ago, to start a home fellowship that gave away 100% of the offering to the poor in the community. Today, He and his wife live in Meridian, Idaho, awaiting their next adventure.

His new book “Jesus Unbound: Liberating the Word of God from the Bible”, is available now on Amazon and features a Foreword by author Brian Zahnd.

He is also the author of the Amazon best-seller, “Jesus Untangled: Crucifying Our Politics To Pledge Allegiance To The Lamb” with a Foreword by Greg Boyd.

Keith also co-hosts the Heretic Happy Hour Podcast on iTunes and Podbean. 

BONUS: Want to unlock exclusive content including blog articles, short stories, music, podcasts, videos and more? Visit my Patreon page.


Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!


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

    This is BS because they could ONLY have overturned Roe v Wade by using the nuclear option, which was never a considered option by the GOP. It was never an option until Chuckie and Reid made it an option. They NEVER could get a majority voted needed to overturn it without Dem votes, which they would NEVER give. THATS why I call BS on this.

  • Not once did they de-fund Planned Parenthood, pass legislation to outlaw abortion, or overturn Roe v. Wade.

    They could have, but didn’t.

    They had ample opportunity.

    Surely this isn’t surprising. Of what political value to the Republicans is the abortion issue if it’s been eliminated? Republicans like to be Chicken Little, shouting that the sky is falling, to get the votes. If the sky weren’t falling, they don’t have that argument.

  • Do you want to know how to actually reduce abortions? Because it sure doesn’t look like it.

    Overturning Roe will just make abortions illegal. It only addresses the symptom. Look at countries where abortions are illegal or look at the US before Roe–the rates of abortion were higher.

    You want to address the cause: unwanted pregnancy. You’ll have the odd experience of actually working with pro-choice advocates.

    Valerie Tarico outlines a simple approach that, with a little time, could reduce the US abortion rate by 90%:
    https://valerietarico.com/2015/09/11/if-the-anti-abortion-frenzy-were-actually-about-abortion-what-a-serious-anti-abortion-movement-would-actually-look-like/

  • TrevorN

    1. The nuclear option was always an option if the majority party felt a strong enough need to use it. The Democrats went there for judicial nominations, the Republicans went there for the Supreme Court.
    2. They never even tried to overturn it. They don’t want to overturn it; they want to retain the option of overturning it in perpetuity, because it’s been proven to be, and continues to be, a powerful incentive.
    3. All your nevers, all four of them, are merely your opinion and not fact. Which means
    4. All the bullshit in this thread is found in your comment, not in the post.

  • Dennis Lange

    This article is terribly wrong. For example, the author says that the Republicans held both houses of Congress and the presidency and didn’t make abortion legal. That’s ignorant. Abortion was made legal by what the supreme court said about the CONSTITUTION in Roe vs. Wade. Therefore, it will take a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT to end legalized abortion. It takes 2/3 of the House and 2/3 of the Senate and a pro-life president to sign it in order to send such an amendment to the states to ratify. Why have the Republicans never had the needed majority? Because too many people vote for Murdercrats. It is Murdercrat politicians and their voters who support and continue abortion murder and all of them are guilty of those 2500 murders per day by the principle of aiding and abetting, accessories to murder, murderers themselves by the law of God (II John 9-11). Proof of Murdercrats being responsible for abortion can be seen in New York. When Murdercrat voters voted in Murdercrat politicians instead of Republicans in their Senate, the obstacle to a state statute to murder the unborn up to birth was removed and they voted for murder and cheered and applauded when it passed.

  • Robert Conner

    You mean rationality? Evidence-based policy? Are you MAD!?!?

    http://new.exchristian.net/2019/01/the-second-cyrus-and-his-court-eunuchs.html

  • Robert Conner
  • Sorry–I’ll try to keep my unhinged exuberance under control in the future.

  • You can’t extract the righteous dollar bills from the Faithful of God’s Own Party without legal abortion as the Boogeyman that’s devouring US society. It has become the catchall since the Right figured out segregation was costing them votes.

  • davekzy1@yahoo.com

    Abortion is a made up issue. Here’s exactly how it became an issue 30 some years ago.

    Paul Weyrich, the late religious conservative political activist, co-founder of the Heritage Foundation, and Godfather of The “Christian” Right, literally shopped issues trying to galvanize a conservative “Christian” movement:

    This hypothetical “moral majority” needed a catalyst—a standard around which to rally.

    For nearly two decades, Weyrich, by his own account, had been trying out different issues, hoping one might pique evangelical interest: pornography, prayer in schools, the proposed Equal Rights Amendment to the Constitution, even abortion.

    “I was trying to get these people interested in those issues and I utterly failed,” Weyrich recalled at a conference in 1990.

    The 1978 Senate races demonstrated to Weyrich and others that abortion might motivate conservatives where it hadn’t in the past. He saw his opening and he never looked back.

    Abortion is a made up issue designed to coalesce a right-wing political movement.

    It isn’t even mentioned in the Bible.

    Prior to the efforts of con-man Paul Weyrich, a 1968 a symposium sponsored by the Christian Medical Society and Christianity Today, the flagship magazine of evangelicalism, refused to characterize abortion as sinful, citing ‘individual health, family welfare, and social responsibility’ as justifications for ending a pregnancy.

  • Phillip Marsh

    Numbers 5:11-31 …. abortion spell and potion

  • davekzy1@yahoo.com

    Where did Jesus talk about abortion?

  • It seems you have allowed the Republicans to feed you their propaganda. Open your mind and look at abortion from all points of view. There are circumstances that make abortion a necessity.
    In your first paragraph you say “Republicans failed to make abortion legal” Did you misspeak or are you contradicting yourself?

  • Phillip Marsh

    Matthew 5:16-18
    16In the same way, let your light shine before men, that they may see your good deeds and glorify your Father in heaven. 17Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them, but to fulfill them. 18For I tell you truly, until heaven and earth pass away, not a single jot, not a stroke of a pen, will disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.…

  • lagibby

    That article is so sensible (and familiar, actually) that it is amazing that anyone who truly cares about babies, mothers and our society would be opposed.
    Yeah. I know. Am I new here? Sigh.

  • davekzy1@yahoo.com

    Many people think that a human being is created at the time of conception but this belief is not supported by the bible.

    The fact that a living sperm penetrates a living ovum resulting in the formation of a living fetus does not mean that the fetus is a living human being.

    According to the bible, a fetus is not a living person with a soul until after drawing its first breath.

    After God formed man in Genesis 2:7, He “breathed into his nostrils the breath of life and it was then that the man became a living being”.

    Although the man was fully formed by God in all respects, he was not a living being until after taking his first breath.

    In Job 33:4, it states: “The spirit of God has made me, and the breath of the Almighty gives me life.”

    According to the bible, destroying a living fetus does not equate to killing a living human being even though the fetus has the potential of becoming a human being.

    One can not kill something that has not been born and taken a breath.

    This means that a stillborn would not be considered a human being either.

    There is nothing in the bible to indicate that a fetus is considered to be anything other than living tissue and, according to scripture, it does not become a living being until after it has taken a breath.

    Source: “The bible tells us when a fetus becomes a living being,” by Dr. Joe Schwartz

    Many cite the scripture Jeremiah 1:5, “Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born I set you apart; I appointed you as a prophet to the nations.”

    God is omnipotent. He has known all of us since before creation. This scripture is irrelevant as it pertains to when a fetus becomes a living being. The same reasoning applies to Psalm 139:13-14.

    Before extremists turned the issue of reproductive choice into a political football, views on this matter were weren’t nearly so drastic.

    For some history, read “The ‘biblical view’ that’s younger than the Happy Meal” Then check out, The Not-So-Lofty Origins of the Evangelical Pro-Life Movement. and How I Lost Faith in the “Pro-Life” Movement.

    Those who say, “If you’re a Christian, you have to be against abortion, and therefore you must vote republican,” are simply reciting talking points from false teachers.

    In the end, if abortion was such a grievous sin Jesus would have Said so.

  • John

    I totally agree with the manipulation and failure of the republicans to effect national level change on this issue, and have pointed out this very thing to conservative one-issue voters. Still, in the voting booth – what other option is there? Certainly not the left. So republican voters still have hope in the rhetoric because there is no other voting choice for them.

  • billwald

    More to the point, two men are fighting and a pregnant woman is watching the fight has a miscarriage because one if the fighter (somehow) struck her, it is a civil crime against property and the husband of the woman sets the cash penalty he shall pay the husband.

    Forgot the citation. see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/613_commandments

  • billwald
  • Ken Allen

    There are some exegetical problems with your thesis that
    without the first breath of air, there is no human life, as you say is demonstrated in
    Scripture. Your first argument using Genesis 2:7 is week since according to The Moody Bible Commentary, God’s
    breathing into Adam’s nostrils denotes the imparting of a soul which allows man
    to have a spiritual relationship with God and not the breathing in of air.

    Your second verse in Job 33:4 also is not necessarily as you
    read it. The verb ‏תְּחַיֵּנִי‎ (tekhayyeni) is the Piel imperfect of
    the verb “to live.” It can mean “gives me life,” but it can also mean “quickens
    me, enlivens me” (NET Bible). The same verb is translated as “inspires me” in
    the Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible
    Commentary.

    ­­Even if the rendering of these verses inarguably meant breath of air, as you have
    argued, Ralph Northam’s version of legal abortion crosses the “breath” threshold.

  • davekzy1@yahoo.com

    In one simple quote, Sister Joan Chittister, O.S.B. sums up the hypocrisy of many in the ‘pro-life’ movement:
    “I do not believe that just because you’re opposed to abortion, that that makes you pro-life. In fact, I think in many cases, your morality is deeply lacking if all you want is a child born but not a child fed, not a child educated, not a child housed. And why would I think that you don’t? Because you don’t want any tax money to go there. That’s not pro-life. That’s pro-birth. We need a much broader conversation on what the morality of pro-life is.”

    This quote applies well to many Republican lawmakers who continue to introduce/pass restrictive
    misogynist laws against woman’s reproductive rights. At the same time, the GOP works to shut down women’s health clinics, with a special vengeance towards Planned Parenthood (#StandWithPP). You don’t hear of these Right Wing anti-choice extremists adopting children from unplanned pregnancies or putting funds into sex education. But you do see Republican lawmakers cut access to birth control, which prevents abortions. You do see the GOP’s 54 attempts to repeal the Affordable Care Act and their $24 Billion Government Shutdown both to destroy universal health reform which protects the needs of millions of American children. And you do see Republican lawmakers cut government programs like school lunches for children and block government financial aid to families who are homeless and/or in need. No, the goals of these so-called anti-choice/’pro-life’ hypocrites are not about fetuses or children once born, their agenda is about controlling women’s bodies and women’s futures. How great to hear Sister Joan Chittiste
    , a Benedictine nun, define the pro-life/anti-choice GOP double talk so well. An outspoken advocate for women, Sister Joan Chittister is a lecturer and author of 50 books. Holding a Ph.D. from Penn State University, she is also a research associate in a division of Cambridge University. Other subjects of her writing include women in the church and society, human rights, peace and justice, religious life and spirituality. She has appeared in the media on numerous shows including Meet the Press, 60 Minutes, Bill Moyers, BBC, NPR, and Oprah Winfrey. You can visit Joan Chittister’s website at Joan Chittister.org.

  • Ken Allen

    All that you have provided is a political argument that has
    invaded an issue of morality. I believe that true separation of church and state is when the issue of law is what involves the state, but what concerns morality is what involves the Church.

    All of the political rhetoric does not deal with the life of
    an innocent image bearer and that is the issue; not women’s reproductive rights, or the argument of when life begins, or is the unborn baby human life or something else. The issue is a human baby that has been stripped of their identity as being a special creation of God. If folks want to continue in this vein and
    make abortion a state issue, fine, but know this. Christ said to give Caesar what is his but give to God what is His (cf Mark 12:17). Politics belong to Caesar but human life belongs to God.

  • davekzy1@yahoo.com

    Sorry but scripture says otherwise.

  • Ken Allen

    Do you have any support and demonstration for “sorry but scripture says otherwise?”

  • davekzy1@yahoo.com

    We have completed the circle back to what the bible says.

    Good dxay.

  • AntithiChrist

    Do you have a vagina in your pants?

    Have you, personally, ever become pregnant?

    No?

    Then sit down and keep your theocratic fascism in your pants, along with your not-a-vagina.

    If you want to focus on “pro-life” issues, there are a bunch of tent concentration camps near our southern border illegally housing migrant children separated from their asylum seeking parents, for no other reason than cruelty. The cruelty is the main point of this separation policy. These children are being raped, malnourished, and minimally cared for, many will never see their parents again.

    These are humans that have parents and need them back.

    Rail about that, “pro-lifer.”

  • lagibby

    Don’t you dare keep your “unhinged exuberance” under control. 😉

  • bayhuntr

    You speak of a weak argument, I would say using a particular translation of many ancient books put together by men who knew nothing of science, it is a weak argument. It’s a perfectly fine argument for you to follow, but it is a weak argument to force with government troops on other people.

  • bayhuntr

    The concept that morality is for, apparently, your church to deal with, is what makes your church a danger to a free society.
    As the author states, your extremism, when it comes to abortion, was a political creation that wasn’t there until the politics needed it.
    Religion has always perverted morality for political reasons, I will follow the Golden rule, it is far superior to any church and much more immune to emotional brainwashing.

  • bayhuntr

    Murder murder murder murder murder. The premise of the article is that we can reduce “murder” by 90% if it wasn’t for people like you. Your self righteousness says, unless you stop abortions because you tell us to, you don’t care if it kills 10 times as many babies.
    Donald Trump and his ilk know for a fact they could never be elected if it wasn’t for the abortion issue, the more abortions the more you vote for them, another way that you yourself perpetuate abortion. Or as you say murder murder murder murder murder.

  • My Name is Muerte

    Why on earth would republicans want abortion to be legal when they can keep using the issue to milk votes from the “lambs”?

    This issue is a cash cow for republicans. It’s sad that the gullible are being so obviously manipulated but are so thoroughly unaware of that fact.

  • My Name is Muerte

    They really don’t care what the Bible says. None of them have read it anyway.

  • Patrick O’Malley

    Christians let 24,000 people die every day, worldwide, from starvation.

    That isn’t “pro-life”. Catholics alone could literally cure hunger for 10 cents per Catholic per day, but they don’t. Add all Christians, and it’s 5 cents per day.

    That is not a typo.

    Christians have figured out that it’s cheaper to criticize people who have abortions than it is to keep live people alive.

    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. There are 2 Billion total Christians.

    Christians think God is an idiot.

  • Patrick O’Malley

    Exactly.

    Christians let 24,000 people die every day, worldwide, from starvation.

    That isn’t “pro-life”. Catholics alone could literally cure hunger for 10 cents per Catholic per day, but they don’t. Add all Christians, and it’s 5 cents per day.

    That is not a typo.

    Christians have figured out that it’s cheaper to criticize people who have abortions than it is to keep live people alive.

    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. There are 2 Billion total Christians.

    Christians think God is an idiot.

  • AntithiChrist

    Always nice to see someone trying to use a biblical argument to explain “what god really means.”

    It is kind of ludicrous however, using a scriptural source as your primary citing, because just like the person who is using the same Bible to make the exact opposite argument, these generally vague scriptural references must be interpreted somehow, in order to apply them to current circumstances.

    As we all know, there is literally not one Christian alive who completely agrees with even one other Christian’s interpretation of a bible, unless we are talking about a cultish sect or something like that.

    Another approach might be to ditch the entire “magical-moment-of-ensoulment” paradigm and its endless scripturally interpreted arguments, recognize a clump of potentially life-altering cells for what it is: a clump of cells. Then either decide to keep or discard the clump and move on with your life.

  • davekzy1@yahoo.com

    Really However scripture is very clear.

  • Dennis Lange

    No, there are no circumstances that make murder necessary. My word should have been the opposite – “illegal”.

  • Dennis Lange

    I shake my head at reasoning like yours. The premise is that we can reduce murder by 90% if there weren’t people campaigning against it? What a joke! You must be an abortion murder advocate because your reasoning is warped like theirs as they try to justify murder. Your second sentence makes no sense either. It’s just you putting your ideas out as if they’re mine. And, because you want to justify murder or justify voting against Republicans, you make the claim that Trump and others aren’t honest about abortion as they run for, and hold office. Yes, everybody has to be bad so you can excuse yourself.

  • AntithiChrist

    Absolutely. Every bit as clear as each and every other self-contradictory claim made in this hot mess of a book.

    Couldn’t be clearer.

  • Excellent! I realized that about ten years ago. We have reduced abortions by persuasion. Let’s keep it up. Making abortions illegal will drive it to organized crime as it did with drugs.

  • Roberta Lavin

    Thank you for posting this article. I just had this conversation yesterday and so when I came across this post it was very helpful

  • Adam “Giauz” Birkholtz

    How can someone be murdered before the 9 months needed to even make that someone?

  • Adam “Giauz” Birkholtz

    Well, Jesus God has nothing to do with making babies.

  • Adam “Giauz” Birkholtz

    Less people getting pregnant on accident due to better sex education and better access to contraception that works best for them is what dropped abortion- programs conservatives are thoroughly against.

  • Dennis Lange

    Simple. Science says a new human being comes into existence at conception and murder is the unjustified killing of a human being.

  • Maybe, but probably not. I haven’t seen any studies done of it. Seem to me that young people have simply decided not to have abortions. A few years ago it was common on TV to choose to have unwanted children. Besides, we have had sex ed for 70 years. Why did it suddenly succeed? And we’ve had contraceptives for longer and they’re not expensive.

  • Adam “Giauz” Birkholtz

    Where are all the extra children? The birth rates for young people have decreased as well. Sex ed and access to sometimes very expensive contraception has steadily improved, but the stats on sex ed and abortion rates as well as youth pregnancies (and those ending in maternal deaths) are still pretty horrible in red states.

    https://www.patheos.com/blogs/lovejoyfeminism/2017/01/thank-the-aca-not-restrictions-for-abortion-decline.html

    The above examines the steady decline in teen birth rates and abortions since the ACA mandated that insurance companies had to subsidize birth control.

  • Adam “Giauz” Birkholtz

    Science does not and cannot say anything on your ideological conception claim. Let’s put that claim to the test. Birth the “baby” one week after conception. Does it live autonomously or does it decompose at room temp unlike a fully built baby?

  • Dennis Lange

    Oh, but science DOES say a new human being comes into existence at conception. Taking that unborn human being out of the environment in which it does live and continue to develop and putting it into a situation where it cannot live doesn’t mean it isn’t a human being just as taking you out of your environment by putting concrete shoes on you and dumping you into the Hudson doesn’t mean that you aren’t a human being. I have about 50 more quotes like the following: Dr. Jerome LeJeune, who was a pediatrician and professor of genetics in Paris, testified before a Congressional subcommittee, saying, “after fertilization has taken place a new human being has come into being” and that this “is no longer a matter of taste or opinion,” and “not a metaphysical contention, it is plain experimental evidence…. Each individual has a very neat beginning, at conception.”

  • Ken Allen

    A couple problems here. First of all, your statement that “religion has always perverted morality for political reasons” is a logical fallacy of generalization. That in itself renders your argument illogical. Second: morality requires a recognition of an objective, transcendent truth. An objective, transcendent truth can only be established by an objective, transcendent being and the only being that can fit this requirement is the God of the Bible. The Golden rule is an example of this kind of truth, when it is allowed to be applied to all persons and not just one side of an argument.

    However, the Golden rule is often turned into a subjective tool when it is applied according to one’s bias. The purpose of rules or laws that are based on objective, transcendent truths is to alter the behavior of the ones who are under the authority of that law that was adopted or created by the law giver. Unfortunately what often happens is that these rules are misapplied and made to suit the purpose of one person disregarding the welfare and views of the other person. This happens on both sides of the theological fence and I don’t claim that Christians have now or in the past used God’s edicts objectively. We have all failed in this arena. Isn’t it time to follow Christ as we are intended to do?

  • Ken Allen

    Since the Christian teaching is that Jesus is God, I can make the statement that Jesus is involved in the creation of human life in the present (cf Jeremiah 1:4-5; Job 10:8-12, 31:15; Psalm 139:13-16; Isaiah 44:2,5,24;).

  • Ken Allen

    Interesting that according to the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act, it is illegal under Federal law to molest or destroy an egg from one of these birds. Why is that, unless the government realizes that the mass of cells in the egg are an eagle? If the Federal government can deduce that the embryo in an eagle egg shell is indeed an eagle, why can’t the same government realize that the embryo in a human being is a human being? A human being that should at least be guaranteed the rights and protection of the Federal government as is provided to eagle eggs.

  • Ken Allen

    You have just entered the mindset of the authors and perpetrators of the racial injustices against people of color and the Jewish holocaust. These tragic periods of human depravity were at the behest of those who viewed walking, talking men and women as nothing more than the “clumps of cells” that you have discarded.

  • Adam “Giauz” Birkholtz

    You are comparing people to egg shells.

  • Adam “Giauz” Birkholtz

    Since I am not Jesus God either, I’ll just speak for him too and tell you that he told me he has nothing to do with creating humans. It’s the Biblical thing to do.

  • Adam “Giauz” Birkholtz

    If the fetus is a human being at conception of course it can live in the proper human environment (not inside a real person). If they decompose in the human environment at room temp, obviously more work needed done before any human is built.

  • Dennis Lange

    Sorry, but that’s just your mistaken opinion and I’ve already shown how faulty your thinking is. And, you’re anti-science. All that so you can keep on justifying murder.

  • AntithiChrist

    Wrong. These tragic periods of human depravity were at the behest of leaders promoting a scapegoating, “us-vs-them” paradigm, and followers willing to believe it.

    Conflating abortion with ancient and current pogroms, jihads, holy wars, holocausts, genocides, murders, rapes, etc, is moronic at best, doesn’t at all square with reality, maybe even intentionally dishonest, and btw, completely misses my point, so try to focus. Let’s break it down for you one more time.

    1- All-powerful Jesus/God/Your Favorite Deity sits on hands during unspeakable human atrocities against on another, throughout history.

    2- OP advises Christians to don’t be caught slacking off as Christians should Jesus show up, if ever.

    I’m guessing your mind isn’t wired for abstract thought, such as identifying irony in real time, or realizing when you’re making a false equivalency, so I won’t get all judgy if you still are unable to understand.

  • Adam “Giauz” Birkholtz

    How does keeping a potential victim as close to a murderer as possible help the potential victim? Is the “baby” able to survive the bodily destruction of the mother?

  • Dennis Lange

    That’s doesn’t make sense and is irrelevant. Science says that a new human being comes into existence at conception. Thus, abortion is murder and no amount of talking will change that. If you’re so immoral that you choose to keep supporting the slaughter of 2500 unborn babies EVERY DAY by voting for Murdercrats, I can’t help you. You’ll just spend eternity in the lake of fire. Another quote as I end my part in this:
    Before the Senate Judiciary Committee in 1981, Dr. Micheline Matthews-Roth of Harvard Medical School testified that a human life begins at conception and supported her testimony by references to more than twenty embryology and medical textbooks. She said, “It is incorrect to say that biological data cannot be decisive…. It is scientifically correct to say that an individual human life begins at conception.”

  • Adam “Giauz” Birkholtz

    Someone who believes in a magic lava world accuses another of being anti-science. That irony burns.

  • Dennis Lange

    Someone above was comparing an eagle EMBRYO to the human EMBRYO inside a woman. Please get arguments straight.
    Yes, I do believe in Hell because I believe in God and that the Bible is His word because of the abundant evidence for both. But that’s not anti-science since the two realms don’t overlap. Scientists try to ignore God. He’s not part of their study.

  • Adam “Giauz” Birkholtz

    You compare a person to an egg shell.

    Get God to present this evidence.

  • Bungarra

    Reading this paper and the comments plus another paper on abortion with an even greater range of comments in the last few days has coincided with the murder of 50 humans at worship in Christchurch, New Zealand. The killer claimed that killing Muslims was an act to protect White Supremacy.

    As the post atrocity analysis continues several things are becoming clear. He was encouraged by others who also feel the same way. Like wise there are politicians in Australia who covertly or carelessly encourage his fascist thinking. Also check out the story of a senator being ‘egged’.

    Now reading the comments in both papers, I am struck by the sheer ‘hatred’ in some of them against people with contrary views. For a forum that suggests that it is Christian based, where does “Love your Neighbors” fit the world view of such contaminators. What these comments are doing is encouraging those who will KILL to make their point.

    I am old enough and were is places where the damage from WW2 was still visible, plus am able to remember the stories of those White Russians who were driven by Stalin into China, as well as the reports from what had happened in Germany etc. Do we want this again?

  • Ken Allen

    I am not addressing anything other than your statement that
    a baby in the mother’s womb is no more than a “clump of cells.” You seem to
    have lost your focus, but it is understandable since the mirror that I gave you
    to look in is pretty unnerving. Unfortunately, your denial of the reality that
    denying the unborn baby its humanness is exactly what the white man did to
    people of color in America’s past and is what the justification was for the
    holocaust and the attempted eradication of the Jews.

    More to crux of the foolishness of the statement that the
    baby in a mother’s womb is a “clump cells” and that the mother can “discard the
    clump and move on with” her “life.” I have counseled women who have been given
    the clump lie and they were not capable of simply moving on with their life.
    You have no idea what you are suggesting with such a blithe statement.

    Dr. Maureen L. Condic, Assistant Professor of Neurobiology
    and Anatomy at the University of Utah, says that “Embryos are not merely
    collections of human cells, but living creatures with all the properties that
    define any organism as distinct from a group of cells; embryos are capable of
    growing, maturing, maintaining a physiologic balance between various organ
    systems, adapting to changing circumstances, and repairing injury. Mere groups
    of human cells do nothing like this under any circumstances” (https://www.lifesitenews.com/resources/abortion/pro-life-101-the-ultimate-guide-to-why-abortion-is-wrong-and-how-to-fight-for-life/part-2-the-human-embryo-is-just-a-clump-of-cells#_edn4).

  • lmanningok

    You insult me when you give a POTENTIAL human being, a zygote/embryo/fetus, the same value as me, a fully developed human being who, unlike the fetus, enjoys the BIBLICAL breath of life. I was the human being whose body provided life to that potential human being. until it was born and joined humanity. Ask any farmer why she doesn’t charge the same for a dozen eggs as a dozen chickens. Or a calf the same as a cow. Face it: It’s your religious belief (probably Christian, probably Catholic) that’s guiding you, not science. As much as you of the religious right would like it to be, America is NOT a theocracy. Stop trying to destroy our beloved Enlightenment freedoms. They protect you as well as me.

  • Pofarmer

    Dr. Condic is a nitwit who had her preconceived notions before she got the Dr.

  • Pofarmer

    Uh huh. Who do you square this with the simple fact that Numbers 5 basically specifies abortion in the case of an unfaithful spouse?

  • Pofarmer

    What other option is there? How about grow a brain and adopt policies that work?

  • Chris Griffin

    Most of the post and the comments agreeing are totally unchristian and in fact depraved. Abortion is the sickest, most depraved act ever committed by society. Abortion has killed more human beings that all the unnatural causes of death in all of history combined. Abortion is the savage torture and murder of a defenseless, innocent human being. You will pay the price for supporting abortion.

  • San_Ban

    What’s “depraved” about agreeing that women should have legal access to medical care to safely terminate an unwanted or untenable pregnancy?

    Abortion is not torture — embryos and pre-viable fetuses can’t feel pain. In abortions post-22 weeks a feticide is administered, so, again, no pain. Know what is potentially painful for a fetus? Vaginal birth. Are you advocating for pain relief to fetuses before vaginal delivery?

    Abortion is not murder. And you’re lying if you claim to believe it is.

    Let’s imagine a scenario where your fondest wish is granted and all abortion is criminalized. What sentence do you suggest for a woman who seeks an abortion? What sentence for the woman who obtains an abortion? What about the mother or boyfriend or bff who helps her pay for it? The brother who drives her to the clinic and makes hot tea for her while she recovers? The doctor who prescribes or performs the abortion? The medical and other support staff of the clinic or hospital?

    What is your solution for the upheaval and chaos that will arise once you’ve managed to imprison (or execute?) the one in three or one in four US women who have abortions, their families and friends who aided them, all the physicians, nurses, PAs, pharmacists, midwives, doulas, support staff who facilitated, prescribed, or performed the abortion?

    What about spontaneous abortions (or “late periods” where a blastocyst or embryo is flushed from the body) where the girl or woman may have done something (like go diving, take necessary medication, or work a double shift) that may have endangered the life of the conceptus? What charge should she be prosecuted for and what sentence do you suggest? Should doctors be prosecuted for providing to fertile girls and women medical treatment that could interfere with either fertilization, implantation, or undetected pregnancy? What charges should they face, and what sentences imposed?

    These are important questions, because, if you claim that abortion is murder, you’d be interested in prosecuting and punishing the murderers.

  • San_Ban

    Bullshit. There are fewer unintended pregnancies now than there were when the abortion rate (AND the birth rate) were higher. The ONLY things that have ever been shown to have an effect on the rates of unintended pregnancy, abortion, and birth are comprehensive sex ed and access to effective contraception and other reproductive care, including safe, legal abortions. https://denverite.com/2017/12/01/half-many-teenagers-getting-pregnant-since-colorado-made-long-term/

  • San_Ban

    What murder?

  • San_Ban

    “If the Federal government can deduce that the embryo in an eagle egg shell is indeed an eagle…” There’s no such deduction necessary to protect eagle eggs AND eagles from wanton destruction that endangers the species. Eagles, their nests, and their eggs are protected by conservation laws. (Notice that their nests aren’t called eagles, and neither are their eggs.)

  • Ken Allen

    It is indeed necessary to deduce that inside and eagle egg,
    is an eagle. Otherwise there is no need to add the protection of the eagle egg
    to the same laws protecting the adult eagle stated within the same law. The government knows, through
    deduction that what is inside the egg is indeed and eagle; not a dove, not a
    vulture, and not a sparrow. It is an eagle and the eagle is what is protected
    by Federal law. That protection is extended to the egg because of its content.
    The nest is protected because it is where the egg rests under protection of the
    adult eagle. The importance of the egg is that it contains and eagle.

    At no time does the Federal government attempt to
    designate when the eagle embryo is an eagle or not an eagle, as it does with human
    embryos. The assumption is that the contents of the egg is an eagle deserving
    of the same protection of Federal law as is the adult eagle.

  • San_Ban

    Rubbish. It’s only necessary to KNOW that an eagle’s nest and an eagles egg likely contain POTENTIAL eagles of the next generation. The fertilised egg is not an eagle. The nest is not an eagle. The nest AND the egg are protected because protecting them is necessary for protecting the future of the species.

  • Ken Allen

    That’s curious: “likely contain potential eagles?” Demonstrate for me when an eagle egg has contained/produced anything other than an eagle. Also, The argument is centered on the position of the Federal government deciding that the contents of an eagle egg require the same protection as an adult eagle. If the same protection is offered within the same law of Federal protection for Bald and Golden eagles then the government, by its actions, has determined that inside the egg there is an eagle.

    If I destroy an eagle’s egg, I don’t think that I can argue with the judge, that it is only a potential eagle, therefore, we really don’t know what is inside the egg. The punishment for destroying the eagle egg is the same for destroying an adult eagle. The government has determined that the contents of the egg is an eagle, not me.

  • Dennis Lange

    The murder of the unborn in abortions.

  • Dennis Lange

    The eagle egg and the eagle are the same species, just at different stages. The same is true of the zygote, the embryo, the fetus, the newborn, the toddler, the child, the teen, the young adult, the mature adult, the senior. They’re all human beings. Science says so. Why do you work so hard against the truth?

  • San_Ban

    They’re all the same species. Thanks for stating the obvious. That doesn’t mean an eagle embryo is an eagle, nor is a human embryo a man or a woman or a toddler, or a human being or a person.

  • San_Ban

    Abortion is not murder. And you’re lying if you claim to believe it is.

    Let’s imagine a scenario where your fondest wish is granted and all abortion is criminalized. What sentence do you suggest for a woman who seeks an abortion? What sentence for the woman who obtains an abortion? What about the mother or boyfriend or bff who helps her pay for it? The brother who drives her to the clinic and makes hot tea for her while she recovers? The doctor who prescribes or performs the abortion? The medical and other support staff of the clinic or hospital?

    What is your solution for the upheaval and chaos that will arise once you’ve managed to imprison (or execute?) the one in three or one in four US women who have abortions, their families and friends who aided them, all the physicians, nurses, PAs, pharmacists, midwives, doulas, support staff who facilitated, prescribed, or performed the abortion?

    What about spontaneous abortions (or “late periods” where a blastocyst or embryo is flushed from the body) where the girl or woman may have done something (like go diving, take necessary medication, or work a double shift) that may have endangered the life of the conceptus? What charge should she be prosecuted for and what sentence do you suggest? Should doctors be prosecuted for providing to fertile girls and women medical treatment that could interfere with either fertilization, implantation, or undetected pregnancy? What charges should they face, and what sentences imposed?

    These are important questions, because, if you claim that abortion is murder, you’d be interested in prosecuting and punishing the murderers.

  • San_Ban

    Are you really so ignorant that you believe EVERY eagle’s egg produces an eagle? The government need only recognise that protecting eagle’s nests and eagle’s eggs are necessary for the preservation of the species in order to extend conservation protections to them. For other species, such conservation protections include their habitats.

    Arguing that your violation of a law that protects the eggs and nests of a species by claiming the nest and eggs only contain potential members of the species won’t save you from a fine, because the law doesn’t say you can destroy the species’ potential. Protecting the future of the species is the entire point of conservation law.

  • Ken Allen

    “Are you really so ignorant that you believe EVERY eagle’segg produces an eagle?” I was responding to this: “likely contain potential eagles” which can suggest that an eagle egg may or may not contain another specie of bird. The wording was not clear on your intended meaning.

    I see nothing that says anything about “potential” in the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act. As far as I can see, the idea of potentiality is your addition and is not mentioned in the Protection Act, which means that the government believes that there is indeed an eagle inside the eagle egg, and not a potential eagle. If potential eagles were the concern, the Federal Act would delineate that consideration. Since there is no stated concern for potential, the assumption is left that only an actual eagle can be the object of protection in the case of the eagle egg.

  • Ken Allen

    “Abortion is not murder. And you’re lying if you claim to believe it is.” What one believes cannot be an act of lying if one is convinced of the truth in this belief. Your statement is illogical. Just because you don’t agree with this belief, does not mean that one who disagrees with you is lying in their belief any more than I can call you a liar if you believe in something contradictory to my belief.

  • Dennis Lange

    I’m chuckling as I read your reply. Since science says the unborn are human beings, abortion is murder. You’re second sentence made no sense. The penalties for murder would range from the death penalty for the abortionist and others who aided and abetted to lesser penalties for some women who were manipulated or pressured or forced to get an abortion. I started chuckling when you talked about the chaos of those huge numbers of people that you mentioned who would be executed or thrown into prison. I’m having trouble typing because I’m literally laughing too hard. The truth of the matter is that people would see the penalties, see some who pay the penalty, and the numbers of people breaking the law would become very small.
    Then, you mentioned acts of nature, and they’re acts of nature, not murders.

  • San_Ban

    ” science says the unborn are human beings…”
    “Science” says no such thing. Yes, human zygotes, embryos, and fetuses are human. Thanks for stating the obvious. That doesn’t mean they’re human beings. Science doesn’t define that, as humanness is a social construct.

    “You’re second sentence made no sense. ” Neither does this one. Did you mean “Your second sentence…”? It’s not my fault you’re functionally illiterate.

    What evidence do you have that women who seek abortions (or perform their own abortions) are being “manipulated or pressured or forced to get an abortion”? Are you assuming that because you don’t believe women are capable of making their own decisions about their own bodies?

    “The truth of the matter is that people would see the penalties, see some who pay the penalty, and the numbers of people breaking the law would become very small. ” That’s not “the truth” — far from it! In fact, in places where abortions are criminalised, the evidence shows there are MORE abortions, not fewer. The main difference is that those abortions are generally unsafe, especially for poor and other already disadvantaged girls and women. What you’re chuckling over is the potential for vast numbers of injured and dead girls and women.

    As for your hypocritical dismissal of the demise of countless millions of those you claim to believe are “human beings” as “acts of nature.” That’s the naturalistic fallacy.

    Would you be so cavalier about the death of millions of infants from “natural causes” or would you be demanding investigations into how they died? Would you be demanding prosecutions of people whose actions (or negligence) may have contributed to their deaths? Would you be demanding government action to research and combat the biggest killers of these infants, whether it be disease or medical or parenting practices? Would you contribute to charities to raise awareness or research cures? That’s what I would do, (and do now) but then I actually care about the lives of human beings.

  • San_Ban

    I’m dismissing your insistence on claiming you know what “the government believes” about eagle’s nests and eagle’s eggs, because it’s so ridiculous.

    However, now you’re claiming for ME viewpoints I have NOT expressed, so I will address that. “There is recognition of a potential eagle in an eagle, according to your version of the Protection Act, but no consideration of the potential human in the womb of the pregnant mother.” Of course there is a potential human being in every human pregnancy! What a preposterous thing it would be to claim otherwise! In fact, every person born with ovaries are born with millions of potential human beings inside her.

    “There is still a contradictory treatment of what is non-human over what is human, ” That’s because homo sapien sapien is not an endangered species. I know this may come as a shock to you.

    “…if indeed humanness is sacred or of more value in comparison to what is non-human.” I have never expressed such an opinion. However, I freely admit I may be speciesist in my greater emotional response to the deaths of people over other animals. I freely admit I donate and act more for causes that contribute to the lives and thriving of people than for those that support the wellbeing or survival of other animals. That includes my support of access to healthcare, including comprehensive reproductive care, like medical care for contraceptives and abortions and attended births, because these contribute to the wellbeing of the individual girls and women, and to their existing and potential families..

  • Ken Allen

    “I’m dismissing your insistence on claiming you know what “the government believes” about eagle’s nests and eagle’s eggs, because it’s so ridiculous.” Of course you dismiss it, you can’t support your argument and I can support mine. Besides, you are the one who insists the idea of potential eagle is what the government had in mind when the Protection Act was crafted. But that language doesn’t fit the context of the 1940’s world view.

    “That’s because homo sapien sapien is not an endangered species.” This is what is disturbing about your version of the worth of humanity. Humans have an intrinsic worth and value that supersedes the created worth of the animal kingdom. Created worth being what mankind declares as opposed to what is intrinsic.Human value and worth supersedes the state of survival of what is non-human.

    When you consider the unborn as nothing, you indeed have expressed the opinion worse than considering an unborn baby as worth less than what is non-human. My original argument concerning the position of the Federal Government knowing that an eagle’s egg contains an eagle stands. That position is in line with the world view of the 1940’s and there is no reason to argue otherwise since the idea that the unborn human was a human being worthy of sacred treatment and the eagle egg contains an eagle that is worthy of protection.

  • Chris Griffin

    Undenieably, the abortive woman is killing her innocent, helpless baby who has never done any harm. The unborn are living human beings. That is called murder, albeit legal murder in the USA. Can you not see the cruelty of ripping unborn babies heads off? have you ever seen the pictures and videos of aborted babies? Is it not depraved?

    An unborn baby is a human being, a “person” just as much as you or me because we all started out just that same way. All 100 million people who have ever lived on the earth started out as unborn babies, it is normal, necessary stage of and condition of every human person and only human persons. What is murder if not killing innocent persons? Torture is intrinsic to the abortion procedure. Tearing the arms and legs off and crushing the skull cannot be other than horribly painful for most abortions.

    You cite medical and legal issues that the justice system will handle just fine. I personally do not have to settle every issue in the world after abortion is banned. There are legal and professional experts to do that.

    The ultimate prohibition of abortion THOU SHALL NOT KILL. Hope you can understand that.

  • San_Ban

    “Undenieably” I deny that. No babies are ever involved in abortions, because all babies are already born. (Unless you’re using the word not to mean infant, but as an endearment. In which case, ewwww! That’s some grade A crotch-sniffing to call the contents of a stranger’s uterus by an endearment.)

    “albeit legal murder” There’s no such thing.

    “Can you not see the cruelty of ripping unborn babies heads off?” I don’t know what you’re talking about. That’s gobbledegook.
    “have you ever seen the pictures and videos of aborted babies (sic)?” No, thanks. I don’t get off on gory medical pictures (nor faked-up fetus porn).

    I know you think that’s what abortion or “most abortion” is, but you’d be very wrong! The vast majority of abortions happen before the conceptus has reached the fetal stage, and it’s usually removed (or expelled) intact, in its sac, and looks like a heavy period. Over 90% are done by the 13th week, and 99% are done by the 20th week. The other 1% (after week 20) are performed by inducing labor or by C-section.

    A zygote, embryo, or fetus is not a person and you don’t really believe it is either. How do I know? It’s been found that between 40 and 70% of fertilized eggs never make it to term. You don’t care about that, though. Is it because you recognise that human reproduction is extremely wasteful and human conceptuses are indeed expendable, and not persons?

    Countless millions of zygotes, blastocysts, and embryos perish, mostly unnoticed, flushed down the toilet or dumped in the trash with tampons and pads. You aren’t mourning them. You aren’t mourning the 20-30% of WANTED embryos and fetuses that perish in spontaneous abortions. You aren’t demanding monitoring of every female between menarche and menopause, investigations of all menstrual fluid for possible human remains, prohibitions on fertile females engaging in activities, or consuming foods/drink/medication that could endanger a blastocyst/zygote/embryo/fetus.

    You’re only ever interested in the conceptus that’s in the body of an unwilling host. Why is that?

  • Ken Allen

    Its not difficult to justify this, since it is God who has the right to begin and end life. The further penalty in Numbers is the apparent prolapsed uterus, according to Dr. Constable’s commentary.

  • Pofarmer

    I don’t know who Dr. Constable is, nor do I particularly care. But it’s long been an established thought that the “falling away of the thigh” or however you want to word it, would include the loss of the fetus if a pregnancy were involved.

  • Ken Allen

    Established thought? That is an odd phrase, but thought is not fact. There are differing opinions among biblical scholars as to what Numbers 5:27 is describing. Perhaps it is a premature birth, but that is assuming that every sexual act results in a pregnancy. In which case the design of the prescription set by God is not necessarily an abortive act. The punishment is designed for the woman. What ever the case may be, if the judgment set by the apodictic law results in a premature birth, the life or death of the unborn rests with
    God. And I have already stated that life’s end or preservation is reserved for the creator of life and that is the Judaeo-Christian God.

  • Pofarmer

    If it’s up to God, then why do the whole bit with the dust from the Temple floor? You need to know a little history of, say, ancient Roman abortion potions to possibly understand what’s going on.

  • Ken Allen

    This is before the existence of the Roman empire and there is no evidence that this particular didactic law listed in Numbers is used beyond this Mosaic era in Israelite history. Many of God’s laws listed in the Pentateuch contain power because of God’s personal action and not the effects of the temporal actions associated with the law. In light of this, the dust on the floor contains no magical or medical power, but following the instructions of the law does enact God’s influence and power because the Priest, woman, and the woman’s husband are following God’s command through obedience.

  • Pofarmer

    Do you convince anyone with this?

  • Silverwolf13

    Actually, the Roe Court had a 6-3 majority of Republican appointees. Republicans Blackmun, Brennan, Burger, Powell, Rehnquist, and Stewart; Democrats Douglas, Marshall, and White.

  • Patrick O’Malley

    Christians let 24,000 people die every day from starvation. That isn’t “pro-life”. Christians could literally cure hunger for 5 cents per Christian per day, but they don’t.

    For comparison, there are only 1,600 US abortions every day.

  • davekzy1@yahoo.com

    However their argument is based in ther cult type religion so I counter with actual scripture.

  • Not to take anything away from your point, which is a good one. But just wondered if nonChristians could also cure hunger with that 10 cents a day? Maybe we should all be giving, and doing, more, not just Christians.

  • “It’s a wake up call for American Christians to abandon politics and pledge allegiance to the Lamb.”

    Indeed it is a needed call, a welcome call, but it will not be heard unless there are miraculous awakenings of the sort Jesus wrought when he invited himself to stay at Zacchaeus’ house. By no more than his commanding presence there, Jesus wrought a miraculous change in Zacks’ heart, which served as his salvation. Of that change Jesus remarked, “[T]he Son of Man came to seek and to save the lost.” Christians who involve themselves in the politics of the state are in the same boat as was Zacchaeus the tax collector when he climbed that Sycamore tree in order to see Jesus.

  • Patrick O’Malley

    This is a standard Christian excuse.

    If Christians believed in God, they would follow Jesus (Matt 19:21-25), and stop hunger.
    Christians are constantly shoving their religion in everyone’s face until it could cost them money.

    Maybe if Christians paid the 5 cents a day to cure starvation, then maybe more people would believe they aren’t frauds. Instead, they complain about abortion, because complaining is free.

  • Lumping all Christians together like that is just lazy stereotyping. There are plenty of people who identify as Christians and donate lots of $$ and time to feed the poor – as well as plenty of atheists. Like Anne Frank, I believe people are basically good at heart.

  • Timothy Weston

    Then Christianity has no relevance. By focusing on “salvation”, it accepts rule from anyone including the unjust.