Barack Obama: The Most Anti-life Candidate Ever

Today’s Wall Street Journal has an Op-Ed calling Senator Obama the most “antilife presidential candidate ever.” When you look at the reasons given for this notorious distinction, it’s hard to disagree. Here’s an excerpt.

‘According to Barack Obama, Gianna Jessen shouldn’t exist.

‘Miss Jessen is an exquisite example of what antiabortion advocates call a “survivor.” Well into her third trimester of pregnancy, Gianna’s biological mother was injected with a saline solution intended to induce a chemical abortion at a Los Angeles County abortion center. Eighteen hours later, and precious minutes before the abortionist’s arrival, Gianna emerged. Premature and with severe injuries that resulted in cerebral palsy. But alive.

‘Had the abortionist been present at her birth, Gianna would have been killed, perhaps by suffocation. As it was, a startled nurse called an ambulance, and Gianna was rushed to a nearby hospital, where, weighing just two pounds, she was placed in an incubator, then, months later, in foster care.

‘Gianna survived then, and thrives now, because, as she told me recently with a laugh, “I guess I don’t die easy.” Which is what the abortionist might have thought as he signed his victim’s birth certificate. Gianna’s medical records state that she was “born during saline abortion.”

‘As an Illinois state senator, Barack Obama twice opposed legislation to define as “persons” babies who survive late-term abortions. Babies like Gianna. Mr. Obama said in a speech on the Illinois Senate floor that he could not accept that babies wholly emerged from their mother’s wombs are “persons,” and thus deserving of equal protection under the Constitution’s 14th Amendment.

‘A federal version on the same legislation passed the Senate unanimously and with the support of all but 15 members of the House. Gianna was present when President Bush signed the Born Alive Infants Protection Act in 2002.

‘When I asked Gianna to reflect on Mr. Obama’s candidacy, she paused, then said, “I really hope the American people will have their eyes wide open and choose to be discerning. . . . He is extreme, extreme, extreme.”

Read the rest here: “The Audacity of Death” – by Daniel Allott (Wall Street Journal)

By the way, here’s a current picture of abortion survivor Gianna Jessen, who is now 31 years old.

She has a website that you can see here: Also, here’s Gianna in her own words:


  • Cara Von Tress

    What an incredibly moving story…and a powerful ambassador for Christ! Thanks for sharing this, Denny.

  • Joshua

    What a great testimony.

    I often say this, because I have tried. Really tried, to see a pro-choice point of view. And I just can’t bring myself to terms with it. I just can’t justify it. That sounds like a odd statement, but I am a odd person who tries to see other sides of the story in order to understand why I believe what I believe.

  • Joshua

    Hmm, I don’t think what I said was very clear.

    What I mean is, that if you are pro-choice, I feel you are basically anti-life. I have tried to understand the pro-choice point of view, but I cannot accept that. If we shouldn’t be killing Iraqi’s, then why should we be killing American’s?

  • Cate

    I am a Christian who believes in the sovereignty of God who is able to take all things and work them together for good. However, I do wonder how you all who are so passionate about life address the issue of miscarriage. According to the American Pregnancy Association, “Miscarriage is the most common type of pregnancy loss, according to the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG). Studies reveal that anywhere from 10-25% of all clinically recognized pregnancies will end in miscarriage” ( On this website, I also noticed that another word for miscarriage is “spontaneous abortion.” Yes, this is the semantics of language; however, how can we bang the pro-life drum when it seems that life isn’t always valued, even when human interference has nothing to do with it? Please read carefully – I don’t mean to say that God doesn’t value life because I believe he does; but how do we explain the pro-life stance and use stories like Gianna Jessen in light of the statistics of miscarriage? How do we explain all of the children who didn’t get a chance of life, not because their mom decided to abort them but because of nature, children whose parents were eager to nurture and love them?

    What do we say? How do the two arguments line up?

  • Paul


    allow me to share with you why I take a political pro-choice stance. I believe that I take a very pragmatic view of the situation, but I am sure that someone is going to jump right up and call me a murderer. Anyway, allow me to explain…

    1) lack of faith: by the time you do the breakdowns, for all of the claims of a vague “belief in God,” only 75-100 Million people in this country are active believers in Christ. While this doesn’t seem important to the argument now, it will.

    2) lack of education: I would be far more willing to be politically pro-life if there would be more emphasis put on sex education. Sure, tell me that what we need is faith, tell me what we need is abstinence only education, even tell me that abstinence only education actually works. Fine. But I would counter that the kids that abstinence only education “works” on were the kids that weren’t going to have sex yet anyway.

    The kids that you MUST reach are the kids that aren’t going to heed that abstininece only message. You need to hit them with the facts about sex, the emotional roller coaster that it puts people through, real STD statistics, and yes, that dreaded knowledge about how to use a condom.

    If you don’t reach them, you don’t reduce the teen pregnancy rate. Reach them, and the teen pregnancy goes down, and with it, so does the abortion rate.

    3) criminalization never works: how did the mafia get it’s toehold in American society? alcohol prohibition. How are today’s gangs able to make money? drug prohibition. If people want a service desperately enough, they’ll get it, legal or not. At least right now, it’s regulated. Take the regulations out of the game, and now any jerk with a blowtorch and a coat hanger can perform one. Anyone that thinks that 30+ years of legalized abortions will be stopped overnight is sorely mistaken.

    4) Overturning Roe v. Wade will do little to effect the abortion rate anyway: Remember, all an overturn does is return the right to criminalize abortion back to the states. So, all of the blue states will still have legalized abortions, the purple states (Ohio, Florida and others) will still have legalized abortions, and I’d bank that many more red states than you’d want to admit would actually keep legalized abortions as well.

    5) Remember South Dakota: for all of the talk that the Republicans talk about criminalizing abortion, when South Dakota had a referendum on the ballot to criminalize abortion in 2004, the RNC freaked, didn’t talk about it, didn’t pour any money into the state to pump the referendum. Said referendum was crushed by 30-some-odd percent. Those of you who think your pro-life votes are all that pro-life, save for Rick Santorum and a very small handful of other candidates, you’re sorely and sadly mistaken.

    So, the short version is this: we live in a fallen country that won’t stand for criminalized abortion, and until this country is willing to address the issues that make abortion such a pressing issue in the first place, I won’t go out of my way to vote for a pro-life candidate, unless they represent some of my other interests as well.

  • Truth Unites... and Divides

    “I encourage Christians to support John McCain any way they can. This is because the alternative is unthinkable: an inexperienced, pro-abortion, tax and spend, internationalist, racially confused (think of his church affiliation) extreme liberal who does not understand Islamic fascism or how to deal with it. His race has absolutely nothing to do with it.”

    From: Hillary is Out: God Saves us from Obama

  • Stacey

    Gianna has a book that is extremely powerful, if you get a chance to read it. Its called “Gianna” and I wholeheartedly recommend it.

    Its a scary time to be alive, but we shouldn’t be surprised that America is as fallen as it is, and how wrong and immoral society becomes daily. Jesus warned us, and we are a society of sinners. Why should we be surprised when sinners sin?

  • Paul

    “I encourage Christians to support John McCain any way they can.”

    I’ll support him by doing my part to keep him away from the stress and hardships of being president. Doesn’t mean I’ll vote for Obama, but this is one Christian that wouldn’t come within a mile of voting for McCain.

    “inexperienced”: like a one term governor from Texas?

    “pro-abortion”: can’t argue this one.

    “tax and spend”: which is entirely better than the spend and hoist it on the grandkids style of government first applied by Reagan, and then by GWB. At least taxing and spending = paying as you go.

    “internationalist”: and? We’ve got a good ol’ boy in office right now who can’t speak, has little respect overseas and has no idea about how the rest of the world works. And tried to molest Angela Merkel (look it up). Only in America would we poo-poo the idea of someone being a global citizen.

    “racially confused (think of his church affiliation)” How does his church affiliation make him “racially confused?” At least he’s at a Christian church that he actually attended fairly regularly. That’s better than we can say about a lot of our candidates these days. See my comments elsewhere on how white folks have funny ways of dealing with race issues.

    “extreme liberal”: No. Center-left. An extreme liberal wouldn’t have confirmed Roberts or Alito or Gonzalez (the latter being simply a bad vote, not a liberal or conservative one).

    “who does not understand Islamic fascism or how to deal with it.”: uhh, he’s certainly better off than McCain, who can’t tell the difference between Sunni, Shia or Wahabbist.

    “His race has absolutely nothing to do with it.”: except when it does. This guy has issues with where he goes to church, calls him racially confused, and probably thinks worse than that.

    and from elsewhere in that same article:

    “Neither party ran a strong, wise, trustworthy candidate for President. This indicates national decay, more so than economic woes.”

    Uhh, the Republicans ran Ron Paul, a solid true right wing, pro-life candidate who was trounced because he was correctly anti-interventionalist. Every Republican that voted for anyone other than Ron Paul and dares call themselves right wing or conservative is a hypocrite.

    They also ran Mike Huckabee, the candidate who was everything GWB claimed to be and then wasn’t. He was trounced because he has an ounce of compassion in his blood, something that most republicans seemingly won’t stand for.

    The Democrats ran Chris Dodd, a guy with a boatload of experience, who truly was a center-left (as opposed to the divisive Hillary or Obama, whose problems are legion).

    All three were genuinely competent candidates who would have moved this country away from where it is today, and in good ways, as well. And all three were non-starters from the git-go. More proof that the average American is a total and complete moron.

    Luckily for this guy, between the redneck racists, the toothless nitwits who think that he MUST be a muslim, regardless of how many times he proves otherwise (you know, the same morons that went out killing SIKHS — not muslims — after 9/11…), the fiscal conservatives and the social conservatives, Obama doesn’t stand a snowball’s chance in Houston of winning the election.

    That said, TUAD, quit quoting half-informed ninnies and Ann Coulter and start quoting people who can make compelling arguments. It’s not that hard.

  • mike


    I agree that it is important to have sex education, I don’t see why this should be the mandated job of the United State Gov’t. Teaching the dreaded use of the condom should be reserved for those who are about to use them, which should be married couples, not teenagers in High-school by the Gov’t which teaches we are nothing but mammals. How to use a condom + you’re just an animal = disaster. How about teaching kids that they have a moral responsibility?

    Nextly, criminalization does work, there are those who will go outside of the law and risk health and punishment to procure that which is illegal, but lets face it, not everyone was drinkin’ illegal houch in the prohibition. By the same logic, lets just legalize drugs and murder. Who cares if millions are dying from both, the law won’t stop them, lets just let the populace fend for itself, and rob the Gov’t of any grounds to punish those who break laws.

    Also overturning RvW is not the sole desire of pro-lifers, it is a monumental block to the end of state-sponsored genocide. No one here has the idea that suddenly everyone will agree with us when the law is overturned, and of course states will still decide, but right now we can’t even fight for that!

    Lastly, other than a general self-centeredness, and sinfulness, what is the prompt for an abortion that will draw your vote? Honestly, if you don’t have to option of an abortion, most will not consider it. The first generation will risk it maybe, but the second won’t and the third won’t even think about it except in History class in senior high, just like you and I did about slavery.

    Are there those who whould put the law aside to procure human slaves today…. yes. And they are viewed by even the most hard-headed liberals to be sick. I long for the generation that views a state-sponsored murder of an unborn (or just born) child to be just as sick and unthinkable.

  • Paul


    you’re actually responding to me, and not Joshua.

    I am working hard to not make personal attacks here, but man do the uninformed parts of that post make it hard to not call you all sorts of names.

    Instead, I’ll keep it short.

    First paragraph: you prove my point. Sure, the Christians among us have no need for such sex ed. training. Those who will not be reached by the gospel, however, are in a completely different boat. If you can’t see that, I don’t know what to say. If you can’t bring yourself to address it, that’s even worse.

    Second paragraph: send me your e-mail address sometime so I can correct all of your misinformation regarding drug and alcohol prohibition. It’s hard to take you seriously after reading something like that.

    Third paragraph: thanks for missing my point. Sure, an overturn of RvW will give power back to the states, but what good will that REALLY do if people in Indiana can run to Illinois, Michigan or Ohio? The only place where a guaranteed de facto abortion ban is guaranteed is in the deep south, possibly save for Louisiana.

    Fourth paragraph, first half: excuse me? You can judge me when Republicans start running candidates that are at all liberal. I work in public radio, and republican after republican champions cutting funding for public broadcasting. Why would I possibly vote for a candidate that could have the ability to crush my family’s stability? Especially when the reason that you claim for voting Republican is far from certain. And I notice that you didn’t come near the comments about the S. Dakota referrendum. Nice dodge.

    Fourth paragraph, second half: do some research into the “underground railroad” styled systems that women were utilizing in the 60’s and early 70’s. There are few things I’ve ever seen in my life that are more desperate than a woman that is pregnant and doesn’t want the baby. Of course, with proper sex ed training in the first place, this might not be an issue.

    Fifth paragraph: I too hope that one day, the thought of an abortion is seen as sick and barbaric. But just as ending slavery didn’t happen overnight (remember, slavery was cut off from certain territories, then the slave trade was ended — they couldn’t be imported anymore, then slaves born after a certain date had to be freed after some date), an attempt to end abortion overnight is a pipe dream as well. Even your boy SC Justice Alito would tell you that. Maybe it’s time you listen.

  • D.J. Williams


    How do we argue against murdering children when some of them die due to illness? This was especially common before modern medicine.

    Honestly, if we’re going to say that miscarriages undermine the pro-life argument, you’d have to concede that childhood lukemia undermines an argument against murdering children. I’ve heard this argument from several athiests and it’s absolutely nonsensical.

  • Brian (Another)


    I disagree with you. I would offer up that
    1) Yes, there are many Christians whose actions do not live up to their proclamations. For me, my vote should match my profession (in this case I agree with Denny). I know it sounds extreme.
    2) I understand your point here. But I would say that is akin to saying I can’t be against murder unless we educate everyone on proper gun safety. Then saying but don’t use a gun. And then handing them out on the square in town. I agree that many of the kids we want to reach will be dismissive, however, it would seem they ignore one, they ignore another. The ones you would want to reach are those teetering. Scare tactics (what many call teaching about STD’s) and then handing them a condom seems at odds. But that’s just me.
    3) I would say that most pro-lifers don’t think it would stop overnight. Again, I understand your analogy, but it still sounds like, well, people are going to do it anyway, let’s just legalize it. Which leads to…..
    4) Perhaps I’m far more naïve than others, but I wholeheartedly believe the abortion rate would decrease. I also hold that no, the back alley abortions wouldn’t be a huge black market. There was an article I was struggling to find that had statistics on this (prior to R v. W) but I dare not cite it since I can’t find it. Maybe in the future. Or maybe someone has it. It sounds like you do have resources on this, they might be helpful. It seems the destigmatization (sic) of unintended pregnancies (which has happened, I think, in today’s society) would impact that greatly.
    5) I’m not as intimately familiar with the politics and exactly what happened in Montana as you are, so all I can offer about this is to offer the conjecture that perhaps a freak-out could have been due to the established R v. W?
    6) I also want to add something you have said in the past (kind of related to 2). I agree that folks should take their theology to heart. For our church, it’s a well-established shelter for young moms (with unintended pregnancies). We are able to help by moving furniture, rides, donations, etc. I agree with you in that I hope others help out ground level as much as they soap box (and, I would say, probably many to most do…..again, though, perhaps I’m being naïve). Along with this is a strong Gospel message. That is the root, the core of the problem, as I think you might agree.

    I suppose this discussion, to me seems like a mixed message to kids. I.e. my values are abstinence before marriage and abortion is legalized murder. I fall politically that way as well.

    And no, Paul, I would hope no one considers you a baby killer. I don’t. I would say I think you are confused. And I think you would (vehemently?) disagree with me on this (and probably offer the same in the other direction). I think we just disagree.

  • Truth Unites... and Divides

    #10 Paul,

    Actually, there are a number of people who don’t regard Professor Douglas Groothuis as a “half-informed ninny” as you put it, and who also think that he makes compelling arguments on a frequent basis.

  • Scott

    I hope that someone will respond more sufficiently to Cate’s question, as I think it requires some thought.

    The fact that God allows miscarriages to happen all the time, though not an impossible problem, nevertheless creates a problem for the pro-life position that wants to value the unborn child as much as a 2 year old. It is not an unsolvable problem, I think.

    The trouble with D.J.’s analogy is that it takes something that everyone would agree on (we shouldn’t murder children), and applies it to the matter of dispute (Is a fetus a child?). Why not instead take this opportunity to make a case for your position, rather than simply restating the fundamental assumptions of your position? I see no benefit in labeling the other side–which has actually raised an interesting and provocative question–as “nonsensical,” particularly when your response does not actually answer the question, but rather dismisses it out of hand.


  • Ray Van Neste

    Thomas Sowell summed it up for me in his column today when he wrote:
    “Not since 1972 have we been presented with two such painfully inadequate candidates”

    I would not debate the issue of 1972 or some other date, but the fact of “two such painfully inadequate candidates” is, to me, clear. Sowell, goes on to say McCain is better than Obama, but it is lamentable for us to have these two options.

  • Paul

    TUAD in #14:

    Maybe so. This time out, he made no compelling arguments and made himself out to be quite the ninny.

    And this is the time that someone linked to him.

    If he’s not such a half-informed ninny, please, post some articles in which he makes a well stated case for or agaisnt something, because it certainly wasn’t the post you linked to.

  • quixote


    Did you really just say, “unless they represent some of my other interests as well”? “MY other *interests*?” You consider abortion and the right to life to be “interests”?? Maybe you misspoke, but that statement came across as incredibly selfish and callous.

    I won’t even bother attempting to dismantle your other itemized notions, but I sure wish I could remember the recent article that offered stats to prove that there are less pregnancies and teen sex…the report just came out last week if you want to hunt for it. But, golly, it seems W’s “Abstinence-ALSO” plan is working.

  • Adam Omelianchuk

    “Actually, there are a number of people who don’t regard Professor Douglas Groothuis as a “half-informed ninny” as you put it, and who also think that he makes compelling arguments on a frequent basis.”

    Except when he argues for egalitarian gender roles, right? Truth unites…and divides!

  • quixote

    I’m not a Calvinist, so I don’t embrace the terminology of God “allowing” miscarriages or abortion. But to try to answer the heartfelt question…

    One act is something that just “happened.” (Miscarriage, which yes is medically referred to as a spontaneous abortion but it’s a cold-hearted OB that uses that term in patient care.) The other act is something that is done on purpose. While both acts cause grievous pain and sorrow, IMO motive and intent and personal involvement play the deciding factor as to which act is morally and ethically wrong…and thus should not be legal.

  • quixote

    I know I don’t have time, but one thing more to Paul…

    Christian or not, murder is wrong. It’s wrong in according to nearly every religion and moral code (Muslims have their own idea of divinely-sanctioned murder). The bottom line is, not all people agree that abortion is murder. IF you did, you’d not be pro-choice.

  • Paul


    want me to vote pro-life? Quit running candidates who want to cut off their nose to spite their faces.

    Ask the biggest contingent of your party, the fiscal conservatives (no, it’s not evangelicals, feel free to look up the breakdowns of the big tent party) why they vote Republican. The quote that might as well be a bumper sticker at this point is…

    “I Vote with my Wallet.”

    Well, big surprise, Quixote, so do I. And if Republican candidate after Republican candidate is going to work to cut CPB funding, arts and culture funding, and likeminded funding, then I cannot vote for them. Not unless some pro-life church is going to promise to support my family when my job is the one on the line. Call me callous because I vote for the people that will ensure a roof over my family’s head. I’ll call you callous for not providing a climate where a pro-life evangelical lefty has any chance of winning the presidency.

    And I have no problems with Abstinence-ALSO plans. Show me a high school anywhere in the country where federal funds are being used to teach abstinence-ALSO, which, by its own definition, should include teaching about methods of birth control. If you can show me THAT, I will eat my words.

  • quixote


    I don’t want you to vote pro-life. I want you to BE pro-life.

    I don’t vote with my wallet. I vote with my heart.

    God is your Provider. He will put a roof over your family’s head no matter who is President.

  • quixote


    Birth Control and Abortion are two different things. Fine: teach birth control (although this is really a parent’s job, not the government’s), but don’t legalize abortion.

    Teach gun safety, but don’t make it okay to shoot people.

  • Truth Unites... and Divides

    Paul: “This time out, he [Groothuis] made no compelling arguments and made himself out to be quite the ninny.

    If he’s not such a half-informed ninny, please, post some articles in which he makes a well stated case for or against something, because it certainly wasn’t the post you linked to.”

    I’ll provide a link to the publications page at Intervarsity Press instead:

    Click here

  • Truth Unites... and Divides

    Paul: “This time out, he [Groothuis] made no compelling arguments and made himself out to be quite the ninny.

    If he’s not such a half-informed ninny, please, post some articles in which he makes a well stated case for or against something, because it certainly wasn’t the post you linked to.”

    I’ll provide a link to the publications page at Intervarsity Press instead:

    Click here

  • Truth Unites.. and Divides

    Paul: “This time out, he [Groothuis] made no compelling arguments and made himself out to be quite the ninny.

    If he’s not such a half-informed ninny, please, post some articles in which he makes a well stated case for or against something, because it certainly wasn’t the post you linked to.”

    I’ll provide a link to the publications page at Intervarsity Press instead:
    Click here

  • Paul

    quixote in #23,

    I AM pro-life. That does extend well beyond the voting booth. I will talk to people to try to sway them towards a more compassionate end than the table at an abortion clinic. I will support crisis pregnancy centers. I have driven pregnant women at homes for women giving their children up for adoption around to do their errands. I will not vote for someone whose platform includes not paying for my job.

    In #24:

    we agree. Teach birth control as one part of a much larger sex ed program and hopefully the abortion rates will go down, especially if it’s taught that abortion is not a satisfactory method of birth control, and many women end up infertile as a result of having one.

  • mike


    I thank you for you restraint, I’m sorry I addressed it to the incorrect person, the unfortunate consequence of submiting before a second proofreading.

    Firstly, my reasoning on sex ed, includes sexual education and consequences, but not by the state. It is not the state’s responsibility nor should it be, to teach our children about sex. This is true with Christians or athiests. Sexual education should not be taught in the school yard, nor as some amimalistic mechanism in the school room. If it must be taught in schools, it should also include the moral responsibility of the individual, true to life consequences (not just STD’s but also the increased divorce rate, the unwanted pregancies and the like). Our society should not be suffering from a surplus of state-educated animals, sexually super charged from amoral entertainment, amoral education, atheistic worldviews and activities. It should suffer if the parents are not doing their job and educating children about the truths of sex and sexuality. When it comes to the explinations of bodily functions and such, or disorders here is where the state enters the scene. With information… education. And unless you can figure out how to segregate the atheistic children from the ‘Christian’ ones to figure out how to educate them, leaving to the state will not solve anything. The state comes from an entirely different worldview, they cannot educate in sexuality except as a mechanism no differnet than a sneeze, and why would I want to support the education in an athiestic worldview, particualarly in an area that is as explosive as sexual conduct. I would much rather trust it to the parents, who have a much more vested intrest in that child’s future.
    Nextly, criminalization…. If there is not a law against a particualar act, be it statewide or national, how can we expect prosecution? Your solution seems to be a general education, that will make people not abortions and then the rate will fall, but lets face it abortion is murder, particularly the type we’ve just read about on Denny’s post. Why should this murder not be outlawed? Why am I, as well as others, who call for the overturn of Roe (the first step in making this illegal), questioned when MADD program is not, nor the SADD, nor DARE? Drunk driving is illegal, and the kills a fewer percentage of those who are subject to it. A drunk driver might ‘get away with it’ several times, might survive the wreak, might servive the removal of his liver maybe, but how many infants survive the abortion? This is centainly pointed considering, that the woman mentioned above, should have been killed. And plenty of us have tried illegal drugs, and the bulk of us survive if we don’t continue to make it a life style, but how many abortions does it take to kill an infant? Ignoring abortion, or even putting it on the back burner will not solve the problem. Must we also pay attention to other issues… yes, of course, but just as Denny has previously mentioned, abortion must take precidence. It would seem to be the final straw. When people can legally pick comfort over life.

    Next, I understood your point about Roe, I know that giving the states the right to vote over the issue would not solve anything immediatly, and that the only place we would see a ban would be in the Bible belt. But Again, I don’t suffer from the delusion that one day Roe is done, the next abortion is gone.

    Next, I compared aboriton to slavery on purpose. Just as slavery took a state sponsored, idividualistic overturning before it had the hopes of going national, so must abortion be dealt with in the states first. (I’m ignoring the war here because the Civil war was first for states rights then for slavery).

    And finnally, I want to apologize. I think my first comment made it seem as if I were calling you selfish and sinful for being prochoice. I intented to address your comment …
    …until this country is willing to addressthe issues that make abortion such a pressing issue in the first place, I won’t go out of my way to vote for a pro-life candidate…

    I was instead trying to say that self-centeredness and sinful is the reason becomes an issue because these motovate the desire to be rid of a child in the first place. I sincerly apologize for I see how it could be read in such a way.

    If you care to talk further, I probably won’t make it back here today.

  • mike

    Paul, BTW

    I fully agree with you in 28,
    In #24:

    we agree. Teach birth control as one part of a much larger sex ed program and hopefully the abortion rates will go down, especially if it’s taught that abortion is not a satisfactory method of birth control, and many women end up infertile as a result of having one.

    That is the only way I might be able to support a state sex-ed program.
    Do you have a blog other than your myspace? I’ve come to really respect your opinion as very well educated (even if I, being far less educated I promise, disagree here and again).

  • Truth Unites.. and Divides

    #20 Adam O: “Except when he argues for egalitarian gender roles, right? Truth unites…and divides!”

    Not quite Adam. Although I deeply, substantively, sincerely, and respectfully disagree with Doug Groothuis, his wife Rebecca, and you on role distinctions between men and women in the home and in the church, I would not call him, Rebecca, nor you “half-informed ninnies.”

    Badly mistaken on the biblical doctrine of complementarians – yes. But not “half-informed ninnies” in a general, global sense.

  • Paul


    I tried having a blog for a while, but the problem is that it was searchable back to me. And as a guy who leads a band that plays gigs for lots of uber-conservatives for lots of money, I don’t need someone googling my name whilst innocently looking for sound clips and instead finding me screaming about Ann Coulter, the lack of teaching about fine arts and culture in the schools or anything else that gets me fired up.

    So, no blog for me. Sorry. If I can ever pull off a completely anonymous blog, then right on.

  • Paul

    TUAD in #27…

    seems like a really interesting writer.

    That just makes the blog post that you linked to that much more odd.

    Oh well.

  • D.J. Williams

    Scott said…
    “The trouble with D.J.’s analogy is that it takes something that everyone would agree on (we shouldn’t murder children), and applies it to the matter of dispute (Is a fetus a child?).”

    I’m not sure I see your point, Scott. What do miscarriages have to do with whether or not a fetus is a human person? Since when does relative ‘survivability’ dictate personhood? I’m no statistician, but I would wager that in the middle ages the death rate in children before the age of 18 probably wasn’t too far from the miscarriage rate today. Since these kids often died from medical conditions (much more often than, say, a 30 year old), does that make them less of a person than an adult? Less worthy of protection?

    I’m not trying to be glibly dismissive (and I mean that in all sincerity) but I really do see as nonsensical the idea that because a category of people dies of natural causes more frequently than another that their life is somehow of less value – that they are less of a person.

  • Joshua

    I appreciate your reply. I must say that honestly thats why I read here, to hear other opinions, or just really to just give me some information.

    Unlike some Christians (and one who lives in the Bible Belt, this is going to be a odd statement as well), I agree about sex ed. It seems like some people see Sex Ed as porn that kids get to see at school. When I was in High School, I know the kids treated it like that, as well as the parents. The key I think is, it needs to be done by the parents. Parents need to quit giving their responsiblities to the government. Not to start another discussion, but thats called Socialism.

    Also, unlike others, I don’t believe that we will really ever overturn Roe v Wade. Should we not work toward it? Yes we should. However, we should also learn to work within the problems we have. Educate our children, staying away from sex, or at least whatever form of birth control.

    But, I am still pro-life, pro-adoption.

  • CH

    For all you “pro-choicers” consider that not even Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood, believed in abortion. For all of her eugenic and racist rhetoric, she still found abortion to be a brutal and barbaric practice.

  • Darius

    Does anyone else find it inconsistent that people can be pro-choice on murdering a baby but if those same people said they were pro-choice if a mother wanted to kill her ten year old son, they would be considered crazy and de facto pro-murder? There is NO SUCH THING as pro-choice. You’re either pro-abortion or you’re pro-life. Some might think they are pro-choice and in many ways they may be, but if applied to any other type of murder, they would still be morally reprehensible at best, and legally guilty of being an accomplice to murder at worst.

    And DJ, you are correct. It’s morally disgusting to say that one group of people is worth less because they die more frequently.

  • Darius

    And Scott, not everyone agrees that we shouldn’t murder children. Peter Singer, a renowned philosopher and bioethics professor at Princeton, believes it is logically and morally justifiable to kill young children (up to the age of 10 or so, I think). And what is funny, he is just as logically and morally consistent as you are.

  • Jo

    …many women end up infertile as a result of having one.

    That is a lie. Modern abortions are one of the safest procedures. Carrying a child to term is far risker than having an abortion.

  • Darius

    Actually, Jo, you are somewhat incorrect. A huge percentage of women in Russia and Eastern Europe are infertile because they’ve had multiple abortions. Perhaps those abortions aren’t as “modern” as those in this country, but they are also not the “coat hanger” variety.

    Also, safe for whom?

Comment here. Please use FIRST and LAST name.