Obama’s Abortion Extremism

Michael Gerson hits another homerun with his column in today’s Washington Post. He argues that Senator Barack Obama’s record on abortion is anything but moderate. Obama is a radical pro-choicer. Gerson writes:

‘Obama’s record on abortion is extreme. He opposed the ban on partial-birth abortion — a practice a fellow Democrat, the late Daniel Patrick Moynihan, once called “too close to infanticide.” Obama strongly criticized the Supreme Court decision upholding the partial-birth ban. In the Illinois state Senate, he opposed a bill similar to the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act, which prevents the killing of infants mistakenly left alive by abortion. And now Obama has oddly claimed that he would not want his daughters to be “punished with a baby” because of a crisis pregnancy — hardly a welcoming attitude toward new life.’

Of course Gerson is right. Obama stands ideologically on the side of the culture of death. I’m thankful that there’s someone at the Washington Post who is willing to point this out.

“Obama’s Abortion Extremism” – by Michael Gerson (Washington Post)


  • Brett

    Of course Gerson is right, he agrees with you, Denny. Obama wants all pregnant women to kill their babies, and he is overwhelmed with joy and gets a kick when they do it. Lets just keep voting for Republicans so we can be more moral and still go to hell. Good strategy!

  • LKCB

    Terrible distortion. Republicans at the ready. They must really be scared of this guy. I want to see this fight come Nov.


  • Joshua

    So, has anyone actually interviewed Obama and asked him point blank about these kind of things? I.E. “Do you understand banning this means you kill infants after they are born?”

    I keep seeing articles like this, but I haven’t found Obama actually being questioned on this.

    And I think what Brett is getting too, is he might be tired that Denny, like Gerson, consider Obama “a man with blood on his hands” for his ban of this, and they wish you not to vote for Obama for this. Its a subject they believe heavily for, and Obama believes heavily against it.

  • Darius

    Joshua, you are right. Denny believes heavily against it, and Obama believes heavily for it (“it” being abortion on demand). But only one of them is morally right.

  • Hoey

    Joshua, I understand Brett’s general thrust. I’m just confused by “Lets just keep voting for Republicans so we can be more moral and still go to hell”.

  • Brett


    I believe Lucas (correct me if I’m wrong) was saying “huh” to LKCB. Can you make any sense of what he said? I can’t.

    Also, I believe evangelicals have the wrong emphases when they promote presidential candidates because we are placing our hope in places it should never be placed. We can make arguments from things like abortion and homosexuality, but being more of a moral country does not mean we will be more godly or there will be more Christians as a result. Also, we’ve had a big “Christian” republican in office for 7 years now and our country is as immoral as it ever was. So that’s why I said what I did.

  • Darius

    I don’t know any evangelicals who think like you’re describing, Brett. I for one don’t believe outlawing abortion will make people more moral, but it will stop millions of evil murders. Government is not in the business of changing hearts, but actions. God can change their hearts.

  • Barry

    Denny (et al.),
    You might have seen this, or maybe not. Either way it makes a good point about our “contradictory compassions.”

    “The inconsistencies of liberal and conservative compassion do not define the nature of good and evil.

    That there are liberals who talk compassion for the weak and oppressed, but support the butchery of the weakest persons (the unborn even to the point of birth) does not make abortion less evil.

    That there are conservatives who talk compassion for unborn persons, but feel little interest or compassion for their own neighbors, let alone the sorrows of the countless poor, does not make inattentive heartlessness less evil.

    That liberals justify their support for butchery in the name of freedom, and conservatives justify their indifference to the miseries of poverty in the name of freedom, does not conceal the selective nature of the freedoms they want. The one says, Keep your hands off my body. The other says, Keep your hands off my wallet.

    Will there ever arise a leader who can articulate a dream for overcoming this divide? There is such a Leader. But he will never be elected. His kingdom is “not of this world.” Therefore, it is both infinitely relevant and intolerably repulsive to the world. When he promotes his Way he gets crucified.

    Yet, short of his perfection, let us pray that leaders will arise who labor with heart and hand, through Jesus Christ, to be wisely compassionate and to overcome every contradiction of the compassionate heart.”


  • Barry

    Yes, it was from Piper’s blog today, but there are so many Piper-haters here that I decided not to cite the source.

  • jeremy z

    Here is what I think:

    A child living in a single parent home is 5 times more likely to be poor than a child living in a two parent household. I am sorry but we live in a world that has a lot of single parent families. This is the world in which we live in. I do not expect the government, congress, and the President to bully around the non-nuclear family and make direct mandates for those who are not in a perfect nuclear family. I do not think it is fair for the American government to regulate what happens in our bedrooms.

    If you were fat, would you like the government to regulate your diet and eating schedule? If you were born into one of the most poorest areas of the US and did not have access to birth control and knew that it did not even exist, should you be punished for not having safe sex?

    I do not believe that the government should bully people into relationships that we think are right for them or punishing those who do not meet our “sexual purity standard”.

    What does it mean to have a free country?

  • Daniel Davis

    jeremy z, the world you describe doesn’t sound so free for the developing child in the womb…

    would you rather be poor and alive…or dead?

    you effectively called having to carry a pregnancy to term “punishment” if the mother doesn’t have the opportunity to have an abortion. i can’t fathom how someone could make such a connection…

    the situation is completely different from obesity because abortion…ends life…

    would not Christian “sexual purity standards” not be best for the world? the US? faithful marriages, husband/wife marriages, children born into 2 parent homes, reserving sex for marriage? in my opinion, sure beats adulterous affairs, homosexual unions, single parent families, rampant STD, etc. sadly, Christians often times do not live up to the standards we confess…doesn’t mean they shouldn’t be standards since they are Biblical.

  • jeremy z

    would you rather be poor and alive…or dead?

    That is not what I am arguing. I am arguing that some white congress man should not tell some poor black 16 year old girl that she should not kill her baby.

    This is her life, let her make her own choices.

    Statistic have shown that obesity does lead to death. Not immediately, but over time. Think about it.

    Yes we are Christians and we have great moral expectations. However if one is not a believer this does not mean we bully until they meet our moral standards.

    The devil is the king of this Earthly Kingdom. He has dictatorship. We are called to be a mere light to those who disagree with us.

    Trust me I would love it if we could somehow make America all believers in Christ and that America would want deep moral convictions. However this is not the world we live in.

    I say it is the job of the church to voice pure morality. I think trusting our church and not our government to fix the abortion fix is more of a viable option. I think too many of us trust that our government can take care of it all. When in reality it is a false hope that leads down dead end roads. So how about the church make a stand?

  • Darius

    Jeremy, should some white congress man also not tell some poor black man that he can’t kill you? (I ask this in all seriousness)

    After all, why do you have any more of a right to life than a baby 8 months along in his mother’s womb? Or let’s take a less drastic example, if we must. Based on your logic, why can’t that mother kill her baby AFTER it’s born if she only realizes what a burden it’s going to be once she gets home from the hospital?

  • Darius

    Jeremy, you seem a prime candidate to read Francis Beckwith’s new book, “Defending Life: A Moral and Legal Case Against Abortion Choice.” He doesn’t bother with religious arguments, just purely philosophical ones. You really should read it… PLEASE read it.

  • Daniel Davis

    your argument: “let her make her own choices” when the result is aborting a developing child. can’t help but wonder what the choice of the child would be…the child who is in a situation because of the choices of the mother/father. they have already made choices – i don’t not think this is one they should have.

    obesity leads to death over time. thinking…the death of whom? it would be the death of one who has made repetitive choices to overeat. such choices only indirectly affect the lives of others. abortion, on the other hand, is a direct ending of the life of an unborn child without choice.

    just because one is not a believer does not mean they are exempt from God’s moral standards.

    satan has been defeated. i care not for his hold on this world. as light in the world, i’d rather expose sin for what it is and strive to limit its effects upon people. abortion is a plague, not only to unborn children, but to mothers and fathers and to our society.

    believe me, i do not expect the actions of government to change hearts, but the actions of the government does change actions of people. the Church should proclaim the Gospel far and wide, but it is not beyond the role of the Church to influence politics and expect/advocate moral legislation to limit and even end such an immoral action – especially when this particular action results in the deaths of countless unborn babies mostly for the mere convenience of people who have made immature decisions.

  • scott

    jeremy, i can hardly believe that you wrote this statement:

    “I am arguing that some white congress man should not tell some poor black 16 year old girl that she should not kill her baby.

    This is her life, let her make her own choices.”

    what you’ve essentially said here is “if some black kid chooses to kill someone, that is their freedom to choose so, we shouldn’t tell them to do otherwise.”

    not even a pro-abortion activist would use such language!

    now, if you replace the words “kill her baby” with “dispose of her fetus”, it sounds much more reasonable. but i hope this serves to illustrate how truly contradictory the pro-abortion view is, in light of the sense of right and wrong we have in this country. and you don’t have to be religious to realize it.

  • Todd Pruitt


    Do you truly believe that our bodies belong to us? Do you truly believe a 16 year old, or 30 year old has a “right” to kill their unborn child?

    Your moral reasoning is truly frightening. And to think, you are a teacher in the church.

  • Todd Pruitt

    I am amazed at the number of people who, in an effort to not be confused with a Republican (they’re going to hell after all) will actually turn a blind eye to the masacre of millions.

    I suppose they have taken up Naomi Wolf’s reasoning that while an unborn child is indeed a human life it is simply a “lesser life.”

    I would like to know who else qualifies as “lesser lives.”

    By the way. Jeremy – This is not about the gov. regulating what happens in the bedroom. I am amazed that you actually think that. It is about protecting the most vulnerable lives. A person’s right to not be killed trumps a another person’s right to privacy.

  • Bryan L

    So do you think then that people who have abortions should be convicted of murder and sent to life in prison or even given the death penalty?


  • Darius

    Bryan, let me ask you a question before anyone answers yours. Do you believe that a mother who kills her 1 week old (outside of the womb) child should be convicted of murder? If so, why?

  • Bryan L

    Dude, I just asked a question. Whats with saying ‘no let me ask you a question first’?!!

    If you wanted to ask the question and were interested in it then you should have brought it up first.


  • Todd Pruitt


    Your question seems to imply a fundamental moral error – that unborn children do not deserve the same protection as you. I believe the law should afford unborn children the same protection as it affords you. I does not now. But it should.

    If the law did protect the unborn from being poisoned, ripped apart, or burnt to death with saline solution then, yes, imprisonment should be the penalty for those who violate the laws protecting life.

  • Bryan L

    But the question is Todd whether you believe that a woman who has an abortion should be convicted of murder and should be sent to life in prison or even receive the death penalty.

    It should be a simple question for you to answer. Is it not?


  • Todd Pruitt


    What part of my answer did you not understand?

    Abortion should be illegal because the lives of unborn children are as precious as yours or mine. Therefore, the penalties should be as severe for killing a person in womb as they are for killing you or me. A culture with a proper moral compass would recognize that.

  • Todd Pruitt


    I don’t mean to sound rude but the parameters of your question are silly.

    Are you under the impression that the only legal penalties in our society for taking life are life in prison or the death penalty?

    I am going to try this one more time. The penalties for taking an unborn life should be the same as the penalties for taking any life. There are various penalties for taking life depending on the circumstances. The Bible affords some of these same distinctions.

    Abortion should be illegal because it is the taking of a defenseless human life. Therefore, if abortion were illegal then those who break that law should be held accountable by society.

    I don’t know how I can be any more clear.

  • Darius

    Bryan, I already did ask that question (though it was worded slightly differently to Jeremy) above. What I was getting at in asking you a question was attempting to show your own assumptions behind the question. I’ll answer your question, and then you answer mine. Yes, a woman or man who kills their own child should be sent to prison. The death penalty might be a bit harsh, but not because a child’s life is any less valuable. However, this misses the point. A penalty, if sufficiently harsh, DETERS people from committing the crime. Thus, you don’t see shoplifting in Singapore, since you get caned or worse for that offense. So make abortion a significant crime like it should be, and the only people who will do it are the ones who deserve a harsh penalty. A woman who is financially strapped will put the baby up for adoption or seek aid from a church or charity. A woman who wants to continue living a debaucherous lifestyle without the burden of a child will think twice about abortion and likely consider adoption (at the very least).

    Your question assumes or implies that everyone (even the most sympathetic cases, like rape) currently having an abortion would still have one if abortion were criminalized.

    Let’s apply this question to slavery (circa 1860). Do you think that someone who enslaves another should be sent to prison for an extended period of time? Does your answer change if you know that a slave owner really enjoys the life of luxury that slave owning allows, and that his decision to own slaves was made purely to aid him in his pursuit of that happiness? Or worse, does your answer change if you know that he will have severe financial hardship if he loses his slaves? Imagine that he has a wife and 5 children who will possibly get sick or starve because they suddenly lose their livelihood. Would you blame that slave owner for keeping his slaves? What’s more, would you have the government imprison him for 20 years?

  • Bryan L

    It’s not silly and you are dodging the question Todd or trying to be ambiguous in your answer. Answer it or say it’s not that simple.

    You call abortion a masacre and use some pretty fiery rhetoric in reference to abortion, so then back it up and just say flat out that you think people who have abortions should get a life sentence or even the death penalty.

    If you’re not willing to say that then it seems like it would be a good idea to back off the rhetoric and emotional appeals and admit that you see a difference between killing a pre-viable fetus (or even embryo) and the killing of a 1 year old child.

    That’s all I’m saying.


  • Bryan L

    “Todd, I don’t think he expected us to so easily and absolutely answer his question.”

    Darius, have you thought about getting the emails of people on this blog who you like to talk to? I’m just saying because you seem to like to communicate with them like it’s personal correspondence. It might be better to take it off the blog and get each others phone numbers or something.

    Just a thought.


  • Todd Pruitt


    Perhaps I am dense but you are not making any sense to me.

    The parameters of your question are silly.

    I have answered your question three times in the best way I know how. I have not questioned your motives in asking the question so please do not challenge my sincerity. I am not trying to dodge your question but I am not going to repeat my answer for a fourth time.

  • Darius

    Again, I am NOT saying there is a difference between killing a one year old and a 10 week old fetus. Morally, it is the same thing. For a great defense of this position, read the book I recommended above. I just got it and have begun to read it, but everything I’ve read about it says it is now the premier anti-abortion book for best giving a rational, philosophical argument against abortion.

  • Bryan L

    Todd just copy and paste it. That’s all you have to do.

    If women with the help of doctors (and let’s not forget scientist who are using embryos for research) are massacring babies by the millions then let’s call it what it is. Say they deserve life in prison or the death penalty. Heck if you believe that it was worse than the holocaust then it follows that some pretty drastic measures should be taken to stop it and also punish those who have already taken part in them just as we would punish former Nazi’s who took part in the concentration camps.

    If it’s not merely rhetoric but what you truly feel then say it and act on it!! Otherwise this is just a bunch of worthless blog rhetoric.


  • Darius

    Bryan, two things. One, you haven’t answered my question, now that I have answered yours. In case you just forgot it, here it is: Do you believe that a mother who kills her 1 week old (outside of the womb) child should be convicted of murder? If so, why?

    Two, are you suggesting that Todd and I should take the law into our own hands if we truly believe that abortion is murder? This seems to surprise you that people actually honestly believe that abortion is AS MUCH a murder as a guy who intentionally kills a innocent 35 year old man.

  • Darius

    Here, for one last time, and I think Todd will affirm this as well: I believe that abortion (purposely ending the life of an unborn baby) is murder. It is due the SAME penalty as ending a fully grown human. If that penalty is found to be life in prison, then so be it. But like Todd said above, not all murder or killing deserves death, at least according to our legal system. So I wouldn’t stipulate that abortion deserves the death penalty (though perhaps certain circumstances exist where it does).

  • Bryan L

    Darius I’m saying all y’all are about is rhetoric and that you don’t truly believe what you say and back it up with action.

    Heck if you saw someone about to kill a child would you stand by and do nothing? When you equate abortion with massacring children and you know the places where they are killing children and you do nothing about it then you’re just a bunch of talk.

    I can’t stand (hate might not be inappropriate) people who stand outside abortion clinics and shout at the women going inside calling them murders and much more people that kill abortion doctors or who would kidnap women who might have an abortion until the can bring the child to term), but at least they live their convictions and aren’t a bunch of talk.

    I’ll be honest. I think I am a practical pro-choicer. Philosophically and theologically I think abortion is wrong and evil but I don’t care enough to do anything about it (beyond maybe voting or speaking against it on the internet) so I might as well be pro-choice. I have a feeling that there are a lot of other practical pro-choicers on this blog who say/think they’re pro-life.

    Think about it.


  • Darius

    “That’s also corny.”

    That’s what I was warning him about, he’s needs to email me if he wants to talk to me. Apparently, this thread is a one-to-one communication line only, no party lines here, folks. 🙂

  • Darius

    As an aside, Denny’s article that he posted in comment 37 is a good read. It indicates that the penalty for abortion could be mitigated with consideration to the motives of the abortionist/mother. That should modify my comment above… the development of the baby plus the motives of the “murderer” should be taken into consideration. Discernment of that sort happens all the time in our legal system, and I don’t see it out of line here. Taking an abortion pill, while ethically the same thing as killing a 30 year old adult, shouldn’t carry with it the same penalty just as manslaughter doesn’t carry with it the same penalty as premeditated murder.

  • Darius

    I think Todd thinks I’m too corny. See, there I go again, talking about someone like he’s not listening. Dang you Bryan, you tricked me by doing it yourself.

  • Bryan L

    “I think Todd thinks I’m too corny. See, there I go again, talking about someone like he’s not listening. Dang you Bryan, you tricked me by doing it yourself.”

    Thanks Darius for pointing out my inconsistency. I’ll rephrase:

    “Well then exchange the emails or phone numbers Darius. Is it that hard? Todd and Darius, do you y’all not want to talk to each other outside of this blog?”

    Maybe you can IM each other.


  • Darius

    Actually, I wasn’t appealing to emotion. I was taking you to your logical end if you ever become pro-life. You have said as much in your own comments. I do live my convictions… my convictions that God says not to murder, but to promote life. I go and help the local crisis pregnancy center, I’ve donated money to them, I’ve written letters to the editor defending them from slander, I vote pro-life EVERY TIME, and I know that God will tell me (at least on this issue) “Well Done, Good and Faithful Servant.” Of that I am certain (though I can always do more, though not to the immoral lengths that you suggest). How would my killing an abortionist or mother who was about to abort her child help the pro-life cause or honor God AT ALL? Seriously, your line of thinking really REALLY scares me.

  • Trent G.

    Am I reading this right? Is the same person who said, “Philosophically and theologically I think abortion is wrong and evil but I don’t care enough to do anything about it” really lecturing people on their “apathy and love of comfort”?

    “I haven’t heard your argument before”

    I can’t really tell what argument there is, other than, “you should all not care about wrong and evil things just like me or you should be out there breaking the law to show how committed you are” If that constitutes an argument, I suppose you’re right.

  • Bryan L


    My main point in all of this is that the rhetoric that is often used in this debate is just for emotional effect and so should be avoided since it doesn’t really advance the discussion. It’s convenient until we begin pursuing its implications. To call abortion a massacre and point to the 50 million children (or whatever the figure is) who have been murdered and will continue being murdered, but then not really treat it like it is a massacre or holocaust means that you don’t really believe it is on the same level.

    I mean if you did then you would pick the lesser of two evils and do something about it, or at least something a bit more drastic (maybe not killing abortion doctors). You would see it as justified in the same way people have just war theories to justify invading a country or going to war.

    But as it is you see it as going too far to even shout at a woman who is about to have an abortion and call her a murder to possibly prevent her from killing her child. If you saw a woman about to kill her 3 year old and you knew you might stop her by shouting at her and calling her a murderer do you think you might do that?

    Again if we are going to equate the abortion of pre-viable fetuses and embryos with the killing of children or adults then it just seems to follow that we should act the same way about them otherwise we don’t really believe they are the same thing or on the same level. If we would be willing to do whatever to prevent someone from killing a 3 year old and even more if they were going to go into an elementary school and massacre all the children and we see abortion on the same level then why aren’t we willing to go to further extremes to prevent it?

    I don’t want to put anyone down here or insult them nor go back and forth like children on the play ground, I just want us to consider what rhetoric we use when we have discussions and ask ourselves if it is appropriate and whether we really believe what we’re saying or if it’s instead just to score points.

    Bryan L

  • Bryan L

    Trent, you’re welcome to answer my questions or respond to the points I made to Darius or Todd.

    I don’t know if you realize it but I never said I thought abortion was the same as killing children (I just said I thought it was wrong). If I really did then I would do more about it. I think it is wrong but obviously I think it is less evil than killing children. Unfortunately the vocal pro-lifers here seem to be unwilling to admit they’re in the same boat as me. They want to say it is just like killing children but because they aren’t doing anything about it either that means they are apathetic and love their comfort more than the lives of innocent children, or they don’t think unborn, pre-viable fetuses and embryos are on the same level as children and adults.

    Do you believe abortion is the same as killing a child and a massacre worse than the holocaust? And if so what are you doing to stop it besides debating people on blogs? Are you doing as much as you would if someone were about to go into an elementary school and kill all the children?


  • Darius

    Bryan, since you haven’t clearly answered my question, I will answer it for you according to your comments above. Feel free to correct me. Basically, you think it is wrong for a mother to kill her 1 week old child (perhaps a prematurely born baby that is only 35 weeks from conception) and she should be punished as a criminal. You don’t think it is necessarily wrong (or “as wrong”) to kill a baby that is still in utero but, say, 40 weeks along. Or at least, you don’t believe that the person who kills that baby should be punished. My question is: are you able to give a RATIONAL reason why the first option should be illegal and the second option should not be? Please note: the baby in the womb is actually OLDER than the baby that has been born.

  • Bryan L

    Sorry for not answering. I didn’t think you cared anymore since you didn’t keep pressing it. My bad.

    I don’t think it is the same thing for a woman to kill her 3 year old (or 1 week) child and to abort her pre-viable fetus or embryo. 40 weeks is a baby that is term (and therefor viable). My daughter was born at like 33 weeks (and therefor viable). I think it is different once you are talking about a viable fetus (your 35 and 40 week examples) and that is more like killing a a child although circumstances could change that (like if the mother’s life were in danger).

    I guess I do see different levels of wrongness in terms of how old the child in the womb is, and I do think there is some grey area when you go from 1st to 2nd trimester and 2nd to 3rd trimester.

    Now notice that I haven’t at all said that I think abortion is ok. I have just said that I don’t see the 2 scenarios as being on the same level.

    The reason why I see it that way is merely because I think that is the natural way we see this (maybe that is begging the question). I think this is shown in the fact that even those who equate abortion and murdering children will not go to the same extremes in preventing the two. If this is how we naturally treat the issue even when we consciously have decided that we will equate the two then it seems that for some reason we naturally think they are not on the same level (and not just us but other cultures as well) and thus we should not treat them the same or use rhetoric that suggests that they are. And we should definitely not punish women in the same manner for aborting her pre-viable fetus or embryo the way we would if a woman killed her child, when we don’t even truly equate the two scenarios in our actions.

    Sorry if my answer is not that clear.

    Bryan L

  • Morgan

    I’m just curious…where are the men in each of these scenerios? You talk about a woman murdering her unborn child, vs. murdering her one-year old child…these children have fathers, too. We’ve got a much bigger cultural problem here than women feeling “inconvenienced” by unwanted pregnancies.

    We are not only cultivating a culture of death, but of abandonment of those who are living with these “choices,” many of whom suffer severe physcial and psychological trauma afterward. This is so much more than blog debate fodder. Say each of these women in the next year decides to keep her unwanted baby. Is all well and good? Did the problem go away? I don’t know, will keeping the baby ensure that both parents will help rear this child in a stable home? It’s a stretch. More likely, your noble single mom will end up unable to support herself and her baby, and you will condemn her for being a burden on society.

    I think Christians need to really focus our energy on education and on adoption. Obviously, yelling at women going into clinics isn’t working. What if we counseled, instead, then provided homes for the lives that are saved? Your home. My home. At least provide triage for the wound until our issues of male responsibility garner more attention.

  • D.J. Williams

    I must say, I find it a bit odd and ironic that people would accuse others of not living out their convictions and being “all talk” on a blog – a medium where by definition you know nothing about the other person except for their expressed written thoughts.

    “I don’t want to put anyone down here or insult them nor go back and forth like children on the play ground”

    As one who just picked up this thread this morning, I can unfortunately say that ship sailed a long time ago – on both sides.

  • Bryan L

    “thus if you were pro-life and applied your own principles to yourself, you would kill abortionists.”

    Sorry but that does not follow. You can be prolife and not think abortion is as evil as murdering a child or an adult. That is the point I’m trying to make. Some pro-lifers want to use the rhetoric but they really don’t believe it or else their actions would be different.

    The reality is this is the type of pro-lifer I am. I don’t think women should just have abortions because of convenience issues, but I don’t think that when they do it is on the same level as infanticide or the holocaust. If I did then I would be doing a lot more to try and stop it, maybe not kill abortion doctors, but maybe shout at women about to have them or do something to try to prevent abortions from taking place. Murder is not the only option if you are a pacifist.

    If I didn’t do more then I would be apathetic and love my comfort more than the lives of all the innocent little children being murdered everyday.

    It is possible to just be apathetic and indifferent about this issue. Yes. Heck we are about a lot of things that we shouldn’t be. That’s the reason I can go to sleep at night knowing that there are children dying around the world of starvation and war and not do more about it in my day to day life. I can get on here and express moral outrage about it but unless I’m really doing something about it then that’s all for show. It’s disingenuous and a facade.

    “”At any rate, even if I cede that you were “just responding in like manner,” how is that a defensible excuse for a Christian?””

    Sometimes the only way to get across to people is to speak their own language. Sorry but that is the truth. If people want to play hard then so be it. If someone tells me I would be a murderer if I was pro-life then what’s the problem in saying that they are apathetic since their actions don’t follow their beliefs even a little bit (not even going to extremes like people who kill abortion doctors)? If it take a bit of that to finally get to some honesty and clarity then fine. That is what then happened as evidence by my last response to Darius. Do you see any vitriol in my response to Darius or in his initial comments that I was last responding to? No because we moved past it. That’s what I was doing in #65. I was done with the rhetoric and trying to show what my point was.

    It fixed itself. Now if others started going back and forth that is their business but being that you came on the scene kind of late, that’s why I think you’re out of place here and honestly just distracting from the issue by focusing on me.

    All you did was kick up more dust when it had already settled. That seems kind of counter-productive.


Comment here. Please use FIRST and LAST name.