Christianity,  Politics

If President Obama were honest about abortion…

As thousands of citizens march on the nation’s capital to support life, President Obama issues a statement reaffirming the culture of death. As usual, his remarks are cloaked under the cover of abortion rights euphemisms (e.g., “choices,” “safe, affordable healthcare,” “right to privacy”). It takes the breath away to consider what he is actually saying—that he believes it should be legal for a mother to have her child killed at any time from zero to nine months gestation. Here’s what he says:

Today, as we reflect on the 41st anniversary of the Supreme Court decision in Roe v. Wade, we recommit ourselves to the decision’s guiding principle: that every woman should be able to make her own choices about her body and her health.  We reaffirm our steadfast commitment to protecting a woman’s access to safe, affordable health care and her constitutional right to privacy, including the right to reproductive freedom.  And we resolve to reduce the number of unintended pregnancies, support maternal and child health, and continue to build safe and healthy communities for all our children.  Because this is a country where everyone deserves the same freedom and opportunities to fulfill their dreams.

If we could rewrite the President’s statement without the cover of euphemism, it would look quite different. It would provoke the conscience to a different appraisal of legal abortion-on-demand, and I suggest that it would read something like this (my edits are underlined):

Today, as we celebrate the 41st anniversary of the Supreme Court decision in Roe v. Wade, we recommit ourselves to the decision’s guiding principle: that every woman has the right to have her unborn child killed.  We reaffirm our steadfast commitment to protecting a woman’s access to doctors who kill unborn children for a fee and her constitutional right to be free from the consequences of her fertility.  And we resolve to terminate unintended pregnancies, coerce citizens to purchase abortion-inducing birth control devices, and continue to exclude the unborn from the human community.  Because this is a country where unborn children have no right to expect the same freedom and opportunities to fulfill their dreams.

Since 1973, it has been legal to kill an unborn child at any time from zero to nine months gestation. As a result, the regime of Roe v. Wade has presided over the deaths of over 56 million human beings—that’s the holocaust times nine. Legal abortion-on-demand is without question the greatest human rights crisis of our time. It is immoral to be indifferent about it—much less to be celebrating it as the President does. Today is the day of all days to remember that.


  • James Harold Thomas

    How ironic that today the US National Highway Traffic Safety Administration will announce new regs on car seats to “prevent the deaths of about five children and injuries to 64 others each year” from side-impact crashes.

    And why make new regs to protect children? A former NHTSA administrator under Carter and Clinton says “We have an absolute moral obligation to protect children as well [as adults].”

    Somewhere Screwtape is laughing his head off.

  • Chris Ryan

    “We reaffirm our steadfast commitment to protecting…her constitutional right to be free from the consequences of her fertility.”

    Why is this phrased as “consequences of her fertility”? Much (most?) of the objection to abortion seems to be that an unwanted pregnancy is the just “punishment” for out of wedlock sex. We get mad b/cs abortion is the way teenagers “weasel out” of their punishment for having sex. Its like we expect women today to pay the consequences for Eve’s transgressions. Extra-marital sex & pre-marital sex are clearly sinful, but I don’t think we should be the ones to mete out punishment for it.

    If there was a Biblical case that life begins at conception, I’d 100% back the Right to Life movement, but at best that case is extremely weak. It hinges entirely on Luke 1:15, so at best we might say that life begins *at some time* in the womb. Moreover, based on the OT the preponderance of scripture suggests that life does not begin at conception. That’s just something that Ronald Reagan popularized…and I have yet to see his name mentioned among the Apostles.

    • Denny Burk


      If you are going to express an opinion on this, you have an obligation to understand your opponents’ views better than you demonstrate here. This is just irresponsible.


    • Andrew Orlovsky


      Even if your claim that the bible is unclear about when life begins is correct, that is still a very weak argument for abortion-on-demand. I think it was Mike Adams who said in every other area, if the facts are unclear, we err on the side of life. For example, in hunter safety classes, we always teach young hunters to positively identify their target before shooting and refrain from shooting if there is even the slightest possibilty that the potential target is not game but another hunter. With today’s abortion laws, we are essentially saying “If you hear some rustling in the woods, you have the right to shoot at it, because even though theres a chance it could be a person, theres also a chance it could be a deer.”

      Also, have you heard of the Didache. It is an early Christian document that likely dates to only a generation after the Bible was written. It clearly states that abortion is the murder of an unborn child. In fact, many early Christian documents form the 1st-2nd centuries make the same claim. While I am not Catholic, I do believe we can look to the early Church Fathers for clarification on some issues where the Bible appears unclear. Luther and Calvin felt the same way, often quoting Augustine and others in their work.

  • Ian Shaw

    James, I liked the C.S. Lewis reference.

    Chris, you can try and claim a pseudo intellectual/Biblical position, but eventually I pray your eyes are opened. Science in itself (which I don’t like to mention), clearly states that life begins at conception. Upon conception, something new exists, that did not prior to conception. Upon conception, new DNA is formed.

    If oddball organisms were found on a planets surface, it would be proclaimed that life was found on this planet. Shame that exponentially more comoplex beings are not given the same distinction and protection here.

    You have any children Chris?

    • Roy Fuller

      I think Chris raises a very valid point, in that the biblical evidence that a fertilized egg is a human person is weak. Pointing to verses which hold that God knew us in the womb, knitted us together in the womb are not sufficient answers to the question of whether a fertilized egg is a human being. Of course a fertilized egg is human life – what else would it be? I can at least respect Ian’s claim that at conception, something new is formed, that being a DNA sequence. As I have suggested in other places on this blog, a fertilized human egg does not have a functioning brain, and without a functioning brain, with a minimal level of brain activity, we can say that what we have is human life, a developing human, but not yet a person, since brain activity is how we define human life. Thus, when a human has a brain injury, and suffers brain death, (which is not a persistent vegetative state), we consider that human to have died, they are no longer a person, even as their body may be kept alive. If this is how we define life at the “end” is it not also relevant at the beginning?

      • David Powell

        “Brain activity is how we define human life.”

        1. Brain activity begins very early.
        2. I have no idea where you got the notion that “brain activity is how we define human life.” If this is an accepted definition, it is in serious need of a philosophical beatdown. The Bible says that God breathed the breath of life into Adam and that he became a living being. It has nothing to do with a brain (and certainly nothing to do with viability in the environs of the world). It is the miraculous fact that God has brought about new life and created a new, eternal being with an eternal soul. From the very moment that works begins, there is life. At this point, I’d just point you to the philosophical paradox of the Ship of Theseus. If you refuse the obvious conclusion that life (and thus “personhood”) begins at conception (with God’s formation of the soul), there is no point along the way to which you can point and say what was once not a person is now a person.

        • Roy Fuller

          Brain activity does begin early, with the earliest electrical activity being at 5-6 weeks following fertilization. Neuroscientists maintain that this level of electrical activity is not the type which underlies normal human consciousness. Most of the brain is physically present by the period between 12-16 weeks, with synaptic activity really manifesting itself in earnest by 28 weeks.

          To restate my point more accurately, the lack of electrical brain activity is how we medically have defied death, at least for the past 30+ years. Every state accepts the “Uniform Brain Death Act, which simply established that the “irreversible cessation of all functioning of the brain, including the brain stem” is death.” So, at the end of life, we determine death by the lack of electrical brain activity. If we apply that standard to the question of when human life/personhood begins, I would argue that a fertilized cell, which does not include a brain, and thus has no electrical brain.activity, is not yet a person. Your suggestion that human life has nothing to do with the brain is a theological claim, but from a medical and legal perspective, is not accurate. If I base my understanding of personhood upon the concept of a functioning, though still developing, fetal brain, there would seem to be at least one point in time when it is possible to say, “what was once not a person is now a person.” A fertilized egg has the DNA, the potential, and given the right circumstances, the possibility of developing into a person, but it has not yet attained the essential elements of personhood, IMO. I have conceded that this is not nearly as neat an answer to the question of when personhood begins as the moment of conception argument, but many find it a more compelling claim which takes into account what we know about fetal development, brain science, etc.

          Your claims about Adam do not seem relevant to the argument, since Scripture is clear that Adam can into existence in a unique way, by direct act of God, whereas all humans born since Adam and Eve (save Jesus) came into existence through the processes of human reproduction.

          • Brett Cody

            “Brain activity does begin early, with the earliest electrical activity being at 5-6 weeks following fertilization”

            Please explain how the fertilized egg knows to begin brain activity. Will it ever not begin brain activity? Could it be that the baby conceived is growing? That is exactly what is happening. I submit the only way a “fertilized egg” (your terms) in the womb will ever NOT begin brain activity is when an outside force stops “it” (your terms) from doing so. Abortion is the act of applying outside force on a pre-born baby so that it will cease all brain activity. The Bible clearly calls this murder.

            • Roy Fuller

              The fetus develops continuously from the moment the egg is fertilized. At some point, there is primitive brain (electrical) activity. We agree (I think).

              Your claim about the bible clearly referring to abortion as murder is what is under discussion on this thread. Exodus 21:22–25 seems clear that developing life in the womb is not as valued, because when two men fight and injure a pregnant women, who then miscarries, the penalty for the loss is a monetary fine (same as for loss of property). Whereas if there had been a murder, the penalty would be “a life for a life.” And there is also the test of an unfaithful wife, in Numbers 5, which suggests that an induced miscarriage would result for the guilty woman. So no, I don’t the the Bible clearly calls abortion murder.

              • Brett Cody

                Miscarriage and abortion are two different things. I am defining an abortion as the willful killing of a pre-born baby (not fetus). You are side-stepping the responsibility for protecting human life by calling it un-human based on brain activity. (weak argument) The Bible is very clear about the value of human life and the consequences for willfully taking human life.
                Note: You fail to mention the Nativity account in Luke which clearly refers to both Jesus Christ and John the Baptist with the term ‘child’ while they are in the womb. Notice that the ones to be born are in fact called what they will also be called outside the womb.
                Luke 1:35-36
                35And the angel answered her, “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; therefore the child to be born will be called holy—the Son of God. 36And behold, your relative Elizabeth in her old age has also conceived a son, and this is the sixth month with her who was called barren.
                Thou shalt not kill is not confusing, nor is the account from Luke. I do not think this is ambiguous or unclear. All human life is human life from the moment of conception and should not be murdered. Abortion is the taking of human life.

                • Roy Fuller

                  Abortion and miscarriage are certainly two different things, and that is why I mentioned two passages: Exodus 21 which speaks to a miscarriage, and Numbers 5 which references an induced miscarriage, which could also be understood as an abortion. If your best argument is Luke 1, where Jesus are John are called child while in the womb, then you have proven the point that some of us have made, in that the scripture is less than clear on this issue. I have no problem referring to a developing fetus as a child, because at some point in the development, that is a true statement. We disagree over when that is. I would be interested in your take on the Numbers 5 passage?

                  • Brett Cody

                    how could Elizabeth conceive a son if what she conceives is not a human? We are not talking about the same thing. You are calling non-human what the scripture CLEARLY calls human. To take the life of a human is murder. Human life begins at conception, not brain activity.

              • Brian Braddock

                Mr. Fuller, The text in Exodus 21:22-25 includes the phrase “…hit a pregnant woman, so that her children come out, but there is no harm.”

                It seems more reasonable to interpret that the “no harm” phrase refers to the child and not the woman. I say that for two reasons.First, if a man hits a woman so hard that she goes into early labor, there will most certainly always be harm to the woman. Second, causing a woman to go into labor early through a violent act need not always result in the death of the child. Thus, the “but there is no harm” clause is included for those cases.

                I conclude, that it is nonsensical to suggest that a woman that is battered will not be harmed. Furthermore it is unusual, to say the least, for the Bible to describe the “death” of a baby with the phrase “there is no harm”, considering the high value that God places on “replenishing the earth.”

                Beside all of the above- the abortions that are taking place are taking place without any regard to whether they are considered to be alive or not.
                Your arguments may be a simple academic exercise for you, but they are bearing the most evil of fruits.

                • Roy Fuller

                  Brian, you offer a common interpretation of this passage, one that is popular with those who oppose abortion. One question: So, if the woman is struck, and she give birth to a live child, why is there a fine? You suggest the “no harm” phrase refers to the child – so why is there a fine, if indeed a healthy child was born? The passage makes more sense, and has been traditionally interpreted, to refer to the woman. The fine in this case, is for the loss of property (the loss of the unborn), whereas if there is a loss of life, the ordinary penalty is “a life for a life.” The miscarriage is treated as a property loss, whereas the loss of the woman’s life would be treated as murder/manslaughter.

                  I would be interested in your interpretation of Numbers 5 – the test of an unfaithful wife.

                  • Brian Braddock

                    Brian, you offer a common interpretation of this passage, one that is popular with those who oppose abortion. One question: So, if the woman is struck, and she give birth to a live child, why is there a fine? You suggest the “no harm” phrase refers to the child – so why is there a fine, if indeed a healthy child was born?

                    Thanks Roy,

                    I know not whether my interpretation is common nor whether yours is traditional. Neither of those subjective assessments seem to add value to the discussion.

                    Nonetheless, as I stated before, it is nonsensical to assume that a woman can be struck with such force as to force her in to premature labor and not “be harmed.” The fine then, is retribution/restitution for the harm done to her: “”eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.” As to whether a fine can suffice for retribution: When Jesus, in Matthew 5:5-7, corrected the Pharisees, Sadducees, Lawyers, et al, false interpretation of the Law He revealed that the “eye for an eye” principle set maximum limits on what retribution could be made. They were not absolute minimums nor required punishments- except in the case of murder. Thus, a fine could be imposed to pay for the healing of a wound instead of simply injuring the person in the same way. In verse 22 the “no harm” clause refers to pre-mature but otherwise healthy birth. The fine is for the woman only in retribution and restitution for her healing.

                    However, since there is already a fine to pay for the woman’s harm, the “if there is harm” in verse 23, refers to the afflictions sustained by the child due to premature birth- up to but not limited to death. Death, by the way , presupposes life!

                    Finally- consider your statement that the loss of the child can be categorized as “loss of property.” Since the passage does not specify at what stage of gestation the event occurred, we must assume that this law applies up the 40th week. IF that be the case, your interpretation forces you to take the position that even at 40 weeks an unborn child is of no more value than an animal or an inanimate object. So, at what point did Jesus become a person in the womb of Mary? Was He not a person until after His birth? Did not John the Baptist respond to His person when Mary entered the house of Elizabeth? Thanks!

                    I do not see the relevance of Numbers 5:11-29 to this case?

                    • Roy Fuller

                      Brian, I return to the purpose of my posts here, namely to respond to the claim that the bible is clear with regard to the question about when human life/personhood begins. I have indicated that I do not believe the bible as clear on this question as is often claimed. Passages such as Exodus 21:22-25 and others, do not answer the question of whether a fertilized egg is a human being and thus to be accorded the full rights of a human being. Our discussion reflects the range of opinion on one passage.

                      With regard to your suggestion on the implications of my position if a developing fetus is merely property – that is not my position, but I believe your statement does reflect how the Hebrew scriptures approaches the question. I can seek to understand what the biblical perspective is, even as I would not hold to many positions advocated by that text (and of course, I don’t know any Christians who adhere to all the ethical/moral demands advocated in the Hebrew scriptures, nor should they.) The traditional Jewish interpretation of the Hebrew scriptures was that a child was not accorded full rights until after birth. Even as there are numerous rejections of abortion found among the church fathers, the church has had numerous stances on the question. Tradition does not dictate what our position should be, but does inform how past generations have understood an issue. For further information on the history of the church, see ensoulment.

                      I refer to Numbers 5:11-29 because it is passage which appears to sanction an induced miscarriage in order to determine the guilt (or not) of an adulterous woman. Since the discussion has been the question of what scripture states regarding life in the womb – I think this passage is relevant, especially since the claim is often made that abortion is not found in scripture.

                      I do thank you for a respective discussion, something which is often lacking in dialogue on this issue.

      • Robert Pierce

        Let me be the first or 100th to point out that the law treats life as a legal definition. If that is the case why is it illegal to destroy Bald Eagle eggs. Are they not just tissue and no eagle exist until the egg is hatch? Quoted from the endangered Species Act, “is illegal to kill, destroy or harm any endangered or threatened wildlife species or … This includes whole birds, any bird part, eggs or nest.” How can this be? How can an eagle’s egg be life and a human egg not?

        • James Stanton

          Robert, I’d imagine many of those who support abortion might very well be horrified at the thought of the destruction of Bald Eagle eggs.

          I doubt they would say say that human life is not facing extinction, by comparison, since that would imply that abortion is indeed the taking of a human life.

      • Esther O'Reilly

        Roy, I hate to break it to you and Chris but the whole “when life begins” ship has sailed at this point. Look around—how many of your fellow pro-choicers are banking their arguments on the question of whether it’s a baby or not? That’s because the science is so overwhelmingly, embarrassingly on the side of life that most pro-choicers know better than to even try that line.

        • Roy Fuller

          Esther, I think that very few elements of this debate are as clear as you suggest. For evidence which counters your claim, I would suggest you look at the history of “personhood” amendment bills, which have been tried in several states, and which have failed. Why did they fail? Probably several reasons, including when the public was asked to equate fertilized eggs with persons, and to grant fertilized eggs all the rights of human personhood, they rejected the argument. I am well aware that this is not currently one of the primary arguments for abortion, for most of the debate is framed around questions pertaining to “rights” – of the woman who is pregnant, and the developing life inside her. My responses have been focused on the question of the beginning of life/personhood, and whether or not the Scripture clearly addresses that question. The question is not, as you suggest, whether “it’s a baby or not,” but rather, when does a developing fetus possess the minimal elements associated with human personhood?

          Robert, counter to your final question, I never said that a fertilized human egg is not human life – in fact I have clearly said that it could be nothing else. I have argued that a fertilized human egg is not a person, thought it has to potential to be, and under the right circumstances, will develop into such. My larger point on this thread is that it is not helpful to simply refer to a fertilized egg as life, and assume that such a claim answers all the questions about when life begins, as well as policy debates regarding abortion.

    • Chris Ryan

      Hey, Ian, I’ll never turn away anyone’s prayers for me, so thanks for yours. As far as this goes, I don’t pretend to have any sort of intellectual opinion. My theology is based exclusively & expressly on what the Bible says. So I’d no more look at a sonogram as evidence of life than I’d use fossils to refute Creationism. Looking at outside sources of philosophy, like C. S Lewis or the Didache or what have you, makes as much sense to me as consulting with Gloria Steinem and the NY Times on whether or not homosexuality is sinful. I will always & only base my faith on what the Bible says. Nothing else matters. And, finally, I hope none of us look at one another as opponents. We’re all brothers & sisters in Christ struggling against flesh to reach salvation. God bless you.

  • Ian Shaw

    While I don’t have the exact Scriptural knowledge that lays it out exactly, this I do know. God chose to create me. God sent his Son to die for my life. What does that mean for what I should do with my life and the lives of others? I think the answer is pretty clear.

  • Ian Shaw

    Just for giggles,
    In 1981 (April 23-24), a Senate Judiciary Subcommittee held hearings on the question of when human life begins. Appearing to speak on behalf of the scientific community was a group of internationally known geneticists and biologists who had the same story to tell – namely, that human life begins at conception – and they told their story with a complete absence of opposing testimony (Subcommittee on Separation of Powers to Senate Judiciary Committee S-158, Report, 97th Congress, 1st Session, 1981).

    *** Dr. Micheline M. Mathews-Roth, Harvard Medical School, gave confirming testimony, supported by references from over 20 embryology and other medical textbooks that human life began at conception.

    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.

    *** “Father of Modern Genetics” Dr. Jerome Lejeune told the lawmakers:

    To accept the fact that after fertilization has taken place a new human has come into being is no longer a matter of taste or opinion … it is plain experimental evidence. Each individual has a very neat beginning, at conception.

    *** Dr. McCarthy de Mere, medical doctor and law professor, University of Tennessee, testified:

    The exact moment of the beginning of personhood and of the human body is at the moment of conception.

    *** Dr. Alfred Bongiovanni, professor of Pediatrics and Obstetrics, University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine, concluded:

    I am no more prepared to say that these early stages represent an incomplete human being than I would be to say that the child prior to the dramatic effects of puberty … is not a human being. … I have learned from my earliest medical education that human life begins at the time of conception.

    ***Dr. Richard V. Jaynes:

    To say that the beginning of human life cannot be determined scientifically is utterly ridiculous.

    ***Dr. Landrum Shettles, sometimes called the “Father of In Vitro Fertilization,” notes:

    Conception confers life and makes that life one of a kind.

    And on the Supreme Court ruling Roe v. Wade,

    To deny a truth [about when life begins] should not be made a basis for legalizing abortion.

    *** Professor Eugene Diamond stated:

    … either the justices were fed a backwoods biology or they were pretending ignorance about a scientific certainty.

    ***Gordon, Hymie, M.D., FRCP, chairman of medical genetics, Mayo Clinic, Rochester:

    By all criteria of modern molecular biology,life is present from the moment of conception. … Science has a very simple conception of man; as soon as he has been conceived, a man is a man.

    *** C. Christopher Hook, M.D. Oncologist, Mayo Clinic, Director of Ethics Education, Mayo Graduate School of Medicine:

    When fertilization is complete, a unique genetic human entity exists.

    The official Senate report reached this conclusion:

    Physicians, biologists, and other scientists agree that conception marks the beginning of the life of a human being – a being that is alive and is a member of the human species. There is overwhelming agreement on this point in countless medical, biological, and scientific writings.

  • Curt Day

    When us pro-lifers want to challenge pro-choice apologists and advocates about what it means to be honest about abortion, the Romans 2 dictates that we be honest about what it means to be patriotic and pro-war, anti-safety net, pro poverty wages, against universal healthcare and apathetic about the environment. These are our quirks that sometimes drown out what we are trying to say about abortion to those who are pro-choice. And the more we correct these quirks, the more those who are pro-choice will hear about why abortion is wrong.

    • Nate Schlomann

      Curt, your simple but deadly error is in thinking that these things should happen via the threat of violence from the government. THAT is the ultimate anti-Christ policy, and one you need to get educated on and repent of.

      • James Stanton

        Nate, I don’t live in fear that Christ is going to judge me for supporting a public policy of the government taxing me and you to fund a program that might provide food assistance or healthcare to people who can’t afford it. I don’t worry about that in the slightest and there’s plenty of actual failings in my life for which I’ve asked forgiveness. I think your perspective needs adjustment.

        • Nate Schlomann

          Of course I’m pretty sure we’ve had this conversation before, but you continue to make violence and coercion sound so palatable. But that is what is behind your philosophy, and for shame. Rand Paul 2016

  • Ian Shaw

    James, Curt may have a point.

    I find it all too often that a group that champions protecting life within the womb tends to be very pro-military/pro-war (kill the terrorists, etc). The other issues a side, I tend to think that the NT gives us plenty of examples of not only Chirst but the Apostles as well and their reaction to being improsoned and physically assaulted. Now I’m sure this isn’t a popular opinoin, as many peoiple take a look/viewpint of “look what they did to us on 9/11/we’ll get them before they get us”. That is true many heinous things were done to individuals on that day. That being said, from a Biblical view, nothing that anti-americans/terrorists could ever do to this country or it’s citizens, will ever be worse than the sins we (you and I) have commited before a righteous and holy God.

    • James Stanton

      I’d go a bit farther and say that positions on many of those other issues have turned people away from supporting the pro-life cause. It may be a no-brainer for many of us to support and elevate the cause of opposing abortion above all else but we must realize that in today’s polarized political climate this unfairly yokes us to other controversial positions.

    • Esther O'Reilly

      I think Jesus’ words can reasonably be interpreted not to apply to literal self defense when being assaulted, or worse, when friends and loved ones are assaulted. The passage about “turning the other cheek” is clearly referring to the quiet endurance of some personal slight or insult without returning an insult in kind. And Jesus stopped Peter for the specific reason that Jesus had to submit to his sacrificial death to save mankind. His words saying “he who lives by the sword dies by the sword” are proverbial wisdom counseling against un-thinking bloodshed. They’re also quite applicable to gangsters, mobsters and such whose entire world revolves around violence. (The film Road to Perdition comes to mind.) However, Jesus elsewhere counsels his disciples to invest in a sword. The apostle Paul also says that the government does not wield the sword in vain (a reference to the death penalty). And at no point does the Bible take an anti-war stance, except to prophesy that once the conquering King has taken heaven and earth back for himself, there will be no more need for wars.

      I don’t think all our nation’s recent wars have been prudent, profitable or justified, but at the same time I’m not a pacifist either, and I refuse to engage in the kind of moral equivalence that places the killing of a heinous terrorist on par with the murder of an unborn child in the womb.

    • Daryl Little


      You (they) may be correct in some instances, but I don’t think it’s a good argument. Sure, some support capital punishment and just-ward out of a desire for revenge, but I would argue that the biblical stance on both of those things, that is the biblical mandate for capital punishment (Gen. 9:6) and by extension, just war, is a specifically pro-life stance.

      I support capital punishment and war (when necessary) because human life is so valuable that the unlawful or wanton taking of it requires a punishment far greater than for any other crime.

      On the other hand, the pro-safety net, pro-universal health care, pro-enviro etc are, at a best, simply competing political ideologies which differ on how to approach a problem and at worse, a political attempt to use some people’s misfortune to grab power and money. What those things are not, are biblical mandates for the government or the church.
      At the end of the day people can smoke-screen all they want, but to put health care accessibility or minimum wage laws on the level of baby-killing isn’t simply irresponsible, it’s immorality of the highest order.

      If everyone in the world becomes a Democrat (because, let’s face it, that’s what those lists amount to, a Democratic party platform) are we seriously to believe that they will stop being pro-infanticide? If that were true, the Democratic party would be the most pro-life group of people on the planet…and they’re the exact opposite of that.

      All that is is a red herring to try and avoid having to deal with the reality that even those who support abortion (or “choice” as they prefer to call it) know that they are supporting murder. My kids do the same thing every day “…Ryan did you…?” “Yeah but Dad did you see Matthew do…?” It’s just lame.

  • Paul Reed

    Obama gives no thought to the unborn child. At the very least he could acknowledge that is policy is leading death. On the other hand, a lot of pro-lifers refuse to acknowledge that in order to protect life, we must insist that women give up some of their reproductive freedom and bodily control. In order to protect another person’s life (the baby), we must insist the woman gestate the baby. Often in our society, men are called upon to defend their country with their bodies. If both sides can admit what the other side is seeking, perhaps some sort of compromise could be reached. For example, veterans and draftees get life-long benefits from the state for the use of their bodies. Could women who have to give their body in order so a child can live, also get these type of benefits?

  • Ian Shaw


    I can appreciate your opinion. My thought is however, what does it do for Chirstian witness if we supopoort an army that in a nutshell has imperialistic tendancies? Bin Laden wasn’t killed, he was murdered. Our President order the execution, hit, whatever you want to call it, and a SEAL team carried out the order. The operation was not to capture him and put him on trial.

    In the eyes of a holy God, murder is murder, isn’t it?

    • Esther O'Reilly

      Yes, but I think we define “murder” differently. In my book, assassinating a military enemy who poses a threat to the lives of American citizens doesn’t qualify. As for our army’s imperialistic tendencies, I don’t think that’s our problem. Our problem is that we’ve blundered into the morass of Middle Eastern conflict WITHOUT a clear plan of action. We’re obsessed with nation-building, and we keep placing our hopes in “new democracy” only to have them repeatedly dashed by human evil and human nature. Of course, I’m not proposing we take over and establish American military law in those areas either. I propose the exact opposite—we wash our hands of the whole mess, pull our soldiers out and concentrate on creating smart domestic policies that will do a lot more to keep our citizens safe than staggering around blindly in the Middle East. But you might notice all this is the language of prudence. Just war in abstract principle, I have no problem with.

  • Frank Franklin

    The people who support legal abortion can never be honest. If they were they would have to get on their knees and beg for forgiveness.

Comment here. Please use FIRST and LAST name.