BreakPoint: Christian Abortion Supporters

Preaching A Gospel of Death

Can you claim to be “born-again” when you won’t allow others to be born in the first place? Here’s how abortion strikes at the heart of the Christian faith.

Catholics and evangelicals are often told how obsessed we are with so-called “culture war” issues like marriage, religious freedom, and abortion. If we’d only stop being so political and focus on proclaiming Christ, say some, we’d win a lot more converts.

But this isn’t how a Christian worldview works. The Scriptural premise, that God made human beings in His image, naturally leads us, as it has Christians throughout history, to protect and cherish those who bear that image. Ignoring evils perpetrated against bearers of the divine image denies what we know to be true about God. In other words, a distorted view of human beings always goes hand-in-hand with a distorted view of God.

Take, for example, a new book by self-proclaimed “born-again” Christian, Willie Parker titled, “Life’s Work: A Moral Argument for Choice.” As Russell Moore, president of the Southern Baptist Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission describes, the book is a would-be manifesto on the morality and even godliness of abortion.

Parker, an OBGYN, has performed countless abortions. He describes working a circuit of Planned Parenthood clinics in the South, performing abortions “over and over, like the athlete who goes to the gym after practice to shoot three-pointers.”

And as the recipient of Planned Parenthood’s Margaret Sanger award, it’s clear Parker has made the fight to keep abortion legal a major life goal. But unlike most pro-choice activists, this OBGYN tries to root his case for killing the unborn in his Christian faith.

Citing writers like C. S. Lewis (who would definitely take exception), Parker argues that abortion is consistent with Christian love. He even claims that Jesus Himself would have been an abortion supporter. In a 2015 New York Times piece, Parker recasts Christ’s beloved parable of the Good Samaritan as an endorsement of the so-called “right to choose”:

“It is the deepest level of love,” he writes, “that you can have for another person, that you can have compassion for their suffering and you can act to relieve it. That, simply put, is why I provide abortion care.”

Not surprisingly, Parker radically dehumanizes the unborn to reach his conclusion that killing them is an act of love. To call a fetus a “baby,” he argues, is to “anthropomorphize” the entity in the womb. Even liberal women do this, he complains, when they come in for ultrasounds and hear their babies’ heartbeats. He can’t understand what he calls the “fetishization of motherhood and children.” Little wonder for someone who compares killing the unborn to practicing basketball.

But he also finds it necessary to depersonalize God along with His unborn image-bearers. Parker chides believers for viewing the Almighty as a personal Being Who judges the living and the dead, calling this a “tendency to anthropomorphize God.” And the idea of conception or birth as “a miracle,” he writes, “does an injustice to God.” He prefers, instead, to view life as a “process.”

As Russell Moore points out, Parker’s willingness to strip the unborn of their identity has led him to strip God of His identity. Let me be clear: there’s nothing biblical—and therefore nothing Christian—about Parker’s views about either God or man. And so, there’s nothing Christian about his views of or participation in the killing of innocent unborn life.

And Parker’s Judas routine just makes matters worse. Only his thirty pieces of silver takes the form of fawning endorsements from Cecile Richards and Gloria Steinem, both of whom are more than happy to gloat, “See, you can be a Christian and support abortion.”

But moral issues like abortion are inseparable from the core beliefs of Christian worldview, like the imago Dei. To embrace abortion requires rejecting what God has revealed about both Himself and about humanity.

Parker and other self-proclaimed Christian abortion supporters may claim they’re doing “life’s work.” But what they preach is no good news at all. It’s a gospel of death.

 

Further Reading and Information

Christian Abortion Supporters: Preaching A Gospel of Death

The Apostle Paul warned the followers of Christ not to give place to those who oppose the truth, like the commentary’s example of those who embrace a culture of death. Instead, we are to be aligned with the life-giving gospel of Christ. 

 

 

Resources

Who Would Jesus Abort? Confessions of a “Christian” Abortion Doctor
  • Russell Moore | RussellMoore.com | April 10, 2017
Why I Provide Abortions
  • Willie J. Parker | New York Times | November 18, 2015

Comment Policy: Commenters are welcome to argue all points of view, but they are asked to do it civilly and respectfully. Comments that call names, insult other people or groups, use profanity or obscenity, repeat the same points over and over, or make personal remarks about other commenters will be deleted. After multiple infractions, commenters may be banned.

  • gladys1071

    I am a Christian, and I do support a woman’s right to choose, whether or not to continue a pregnancy. Their is no way i will value a fertiized egge/blastocyst/embryo/zygote more than the mother.

    • NCOriolesFan

      Get on you knees at the Cross and confess your demonic support of baby killing and hypocrisy to your creator. How did you get in here in the first place. HUMANS ARE NOT CHOICES. WE ARE A GOD CREATED HUMAN BEINGS.

      • Gina Dalfonzo

        gladys1071 “got in here” because we approved her comment. People on all sides of every issue are allowed to comment on BreakPoint, as long as they do it civilly. Please bear that in mind. You’re welcome to argue against her view, but we ask that you do it respectfully.

        • NCOriolesFan

          I can’t argue baby killing civily. It is the sickest issue of all time. The MOST inhumane treatment of pre-born humanity ever.

          • Gina Dalfonzo

            You’re going to have to try, if you want to continue commenting here. I agree that abortion is a great evil. But it is no badge of honor to lash out at others while debating this or any other evil. Among other things, it doesn’t do anything to make them rethink their point of view; it only pushes them away.

      • gladys1071

        He that is “without sin” throw the first stone.

        • MichiganBirdLady

          gladys1071:

          Most assuredly, killing a baby either pre or post birth, IS a sin.

          • gladys1071

            You consider a 5 week embryo the size of an appleseed a baby? it most assuredly is NOT a baby.

            I full term fetus at 8-9 months is a baby.

          • MichiganBirdLady

            gladys1071:

            Just like those Americans from another era who claimed to be Christian (like you) that once deemed Black slaves as non-human, you again clearly reveal two things.

            First, your thoughts are incompatible with the mind of God. His word explains He, “hast covered me in my mother’s womb…for I am fearfully and wonderfully made…” Psalm 139:13-14.

            Second, you assume to have the right to judge the humanity and value of fellow human beings. You use their size and state of development against them to suit your agenda to kill them. Thus, you consider yourself equal to God.

            In John 12:46, the Word tells us: “I am come a light into the world, that whosoever believeth on me should not abide in darkness.”

            Gladys, get out of the deceptive darkness that’s led you to look down on the preborn child. You’re no better than anyone else, and that includes the baby in the womb at any life stage. They have the same right to live their God given life as you.

          • gladys1071

            Right to live that requires gestation inside another person’s body. Are you advocating for a woman to be obligated to gestate a pregnancy against her will? I have no desire to kill the unborn, I believe in a womans right to not have to gestate a pregnancy. My issue is with the woman’s right, does that make sense to you?

            You also judge the value of fellow human beings too , everyone does that. You value your family members more than strangers that is making a value judgement. I am sure you would lay down your life for a loved on, but not for the homeless bum down the street.

            I never said i was better, I am making a value judgment, that a woman’s right to NOT be pregnant should come first. I also believe the decision or not to carry to term a pregnancy SHOULD BE the woman’s choice period, not yours or mine or any politician for that matter.

          • Gina Dalfonzo

            Are you arguing that the homeless bum down the street does not deserve to have someone lay down their life for him, just because he has no loved ones willing to take care of him?

          • gladys1071

            I am just stating that we all make value judgments, whether we are aware that we do or not. What I am stating is that everyone places value on some more than others, like a person will value their child more than the homeless bum and would lay down their life for their child not the homeless bum, that is making a value judgement.

          • Gina Dalfonzo

            And are you saying that’s right? I believe you said you were a Christian (forgive me if I’m mistaken; there are a LOT of commenters in here and I don’t always keep track of them very well). Do you think that’s how Christ would treat people, or how He would have us treat each other? “I know you and value you, so you get to live; I don’t know you or care about you, so just go die”?

          • gladys1071

            not valuing someone as much does not translate-want to kill them, that is absurd. It just means that you don’t care if the homeless person dies, and you won’t cry for them like you would your child, that is all, no wishing ill will or nothing. Actually if you did not care that i died, i would understand, i am a stranger. You cannot car for everyone equally that is impossible.

          • Gina Dalfonzo

            No, we can’t. But even as we acknowledge our limitations in that respect, we should also acknowledge that God, the creator of human life, has no such limitations. And we should try to see through His eyes as much as we possibly can.

          • gladys1071

            Yes, but we are only human and we can only do so much. So now you understand where I am coming from. I value the pregnant woman more than the unborn. Pro-lifers keep saying that you have to value both the same, I say you CANNOT, the rights of one will supersede over the other, that is just the way it is.

            I believe a woman’s right to refuse to gestate should come first.

          • Gina Dalfonzo

            I understand where you are coming from, but I disagree with you. As limited as we are, we have to try to value all human lives — the mother and the child — as best we can. And more often than you might realize, I think, loving one means loving the other as well.

          • gladys1071

            Yes, but it not loving to force a woman to gestate against her will. If a woman desires to end a pregnancy that is her right and she should not be shamed or castigated for doing so.

          • Gina Dalfonzo

            First of all, I don’t think anyone here is arguing for shame or castigation. Second, with all due respect, you have a little bit of a broken record thing going on here. 🙂 The best I can advise you to do is to try to think outside the box once in a while, rather than simply clinging to a set of worn-out formulas.

          • gladys1071

            I have thought this issue through thoroughly. The reason i keep asking the question is nobody will answer it. Pro-lifers want to change the laws to stop a woman from getting an abortion, i have an issue with that. To me a woman’s right to her body is not a worn out formula, it is a very basic right.

            I have no issue with pro-lifers having their convictions, I have an issue when you try to change the laws to force others to comply to your view.

          • Gina Dalfonzo

            You’re having trouble getting answers because, as I pointed out earlier, the question is invalid.

            Let’s go back to my example. You brushed it off by saying that one can always pay for someone to care for a family member. But that is not true. Suppose the mother I mentioned can’t afford it, as many can’t. Suppose she must take on all the child’s care by herself, as there is no one else to help. Is that an obligation that she is “forced” to undertake, and should she be allowed to destroy the child to free herself from it?

          • gladys1071

            Hypothetically speaking, if she can’t pay, she can give up the child up for adoption , or give it up to social services.

            Gestation is different because that cannot be transferred to another person to gestate, so no it is not the same.

          • Gina Dalfonzo

            Those things are all true, but you seem to be completely leaving out things like love, compassion, empathy, and self-sacrifice.

          • gladys1071

            self-sacrifice is still a choice that should be chosen, it cannot be imposed upon by others or by law.

          • MichiganBirdLady

            Gladys:

            Self-sacrifice is the very heart of Christianity. We must put the needs of the weak and the young ahead of our own.

            So, perhaps Christ shouldn’t have laid down His life–using your line of reasoning–because His life was more valuable than yours?

            Think carefully before responding.

          • gladys1071

            Jesus laid down his life , you are correct, and yes his life was more valuable than mine. He chose to lay down his life for us. We all deserve death.

          • MichiganBirdLady

            Gladys:

            Choose life, a biblical command, is why He died, so we wouldn’t ourselves or force others (like our innocent children) to die, either.

            God hates abortion or any other form of MURDER.

          • gladys1071

            Also you cannot impose Christian morality to everyone via passing laws in this nation to outlaw abortion, we live in a pluralistic society.

          • MichiganBirdLady

            Gladys:

            Laws against rape and murder are imposed upon non-Christians. You despise those freedom squashing laws as well?

            What don’t you understand about moral law? Or is it just stopping baby murder that upsets you?

          • gladys1071

            when it comes to taking care of a child outside the womb, their are always other options, their is family, paid care, and ultimately if the mother cannot take care of the child, social services will take it.

            I don’t consider taking care of child outside the womb, the same as gestating it in your body.

          • Ann Morgan

            Point here, Gladys. IMHO, NOBODY ought be forced to provide any fetus or child, with ANYTHING against their will.

            The main difference here is, there is only one person who can provide a fetus with what it needs for it’s ‘very life’. There are numerous people who can provide a born child with what it needs. However, this does not create a ‘right’ for the born child to get free goodies. While the odds are much greater that if there are several million people -rather than only one – who can give a born child what it needs for their ‘very life’, SOMEONE will be willing to do so, it doesn’t magically create a right for the child. If, for some reason, nobody in the world is willing to care for a born child, it is SOL. There is no right for a child to enslave or rob adults.

          • gladys1071

            You are assuming that a woman that becomes pregnant can be obligated to be selfless, it is a choice to be selfless and cannot be imposed.

          • Gina Dalfonzo

            To some extent, selflessness is required of all citizens in a republic. Without it, we would tear each other and our country apart.

          • gladys1071

            You cannot legislate people to be self-less , passing laws does not make anyone less self-ish. And passing laws to impose our view of morality accomplishes nothing, all you have to do is study Prohibition laws to see how that ended up. Outlawing abortion will NOT make for children or pregnancies to be wanted or cherished.

          • MichiganBirdLady

            Nor will advocating for abortion make people respect those same children!

            Not in the least.

          • MichiganBirdLady

            I believe a baby’s right to not be beheaded should come first.

          • gladys1071

            I will give you an example, My husband values me more than he would value a 5 week embryo. He says that my wishes my bodily autonomy come first. If I did not want to remain pregnant he would not try to obligate me to do so. He values me more than a 5 week embryo.

            Value is subjective we all have a hierarchy of values, does not mean we hate others, we just cherish and value some more than others, nothing wrong with that.

          • MichiganBirdLady

            Gladys:

            Does your idea of “a woman’s right” include crushing a baby’s skull? And ripping her limbs off her body? And injecting a heart stopping drug into her? And burning her alive slowly with saline solution? And suctioning her into a tube? And slicing her head off her torso? And stabbing her in the base of the skull with scissors ✂️ and then opening them?

            And then after you’ve answered all my questions, IF you dare, then tell me again of your love for Jesus Christ…

            You know, the Son of God who gestated for nine or so months in his mother’s womb. I can’t wait to hear you explain how worthless He was, at least compared to His mother, especially during His first trimester.

          • gladys1071

            First of all i stated that i supported abortion only in the 1st trimester. Do you know the size of a 5-6 week embryo? (the size of an appleseed) Their is no ripping, cutting of anything, abortions at that stage are done by abortion pill which causes a miscarriage, no crushing, no cutting, no saline solution.

            Inform yourself of how early pregnancy abortions are done and how developed the embryo is. You have been brainwashed by pro-life propaganda and you are describing later term abortions, not an abortion at 5-6 weeks (when most abortions occur).

            So please read what i said carefully what i posted. I DON’T support later term abortions only early pregnancy ones.

          • MichiganBirdLady

            Gladys:

            You’re the one misinformed.

            First trimester abortions often involve suction aspiration, which sucks the baby violently into a little tube. And the abortion drugs suffocate the child (which you oddly keep calling an apple seed in your disrespectful attempt to dehumanize her). And D&C abortion cuts the small one apart and scrapes her from the womb. These are done even in the first trimester, depending on the situation.

            Please study up on this and look closely at first trimester abortion techniques and pictures. I know the facts here, so again, good try, but you can’t shut down the truth, Gladys.

            And again, like a schoolyard bully targeting the smallest and weakest, please stop disregarding the first trimester CHILD. They have the same eternal soul and infinite worth as you, Gladys.

          • gladys1071

            still does not change the fact that a fertilzed egg and embryo requires a host to live. No woman should be forced to be incubator and host against her will.

            Unless you believe in chaining up or imprisoning all pregnant woman, the woman has the final say on whether remaining pregnant.

            Stop being so hysterical about this.

          • gladys1071

            No I have no issue with a woman taking an abortion pill and causing herself a miscarriage.

    • MichiganBirdLady

      gladys1071:

      Weren’t you once an unborn child? How can you claim to follow Christ when you applaud ripping living, conscious humans–made in God’s image–to shreds?

      And of course, so too was Jesus a small child in his mother’s womb, as you once were.

      You pervert the whole meaning of Christianity when you dehumanize the preborn child and support their slaughter. You oppose God who clearly loves the child as well as the mother…equally.

      • gladys1071

        i don’t applaud abortion. I believe in the woman comes first. I don’t believe a 5 week embryo the size of an appleseed have the same rights and value as the pregnant woman. I never said i like abortion or think it is a fun thing to do. My main reason for wanting to keep it legal is that a woman has a right to not be pregnant, she has a right to her body and should not be FORCED to gestate an unwanted pregnancy. It is basic human decency to not treat women as incubators and that she still retains her rights even after pregnancy. I have no ill will towards the embryo/zygote/fetus, I just believe woman COMES FIRST.

        • Sarah

          Gladys, I have numerous Christian friends who share your viewpoint on this issue. And the concern for the mother is, of course, rightly compassionate. That is one of the reasons why pregnancy support centers around the country, supported by pro-lifers and/or Christians, are so important. The work they do is amazing and wonderful in that they honor the mother and help her through all the difficulties….Something I’d like you to think about though, is the claim that the Bible does not condemn abortion. In the Old Testament, where civil laws are discussed, there is a penalty for taking the life of an unborn child, by accident or on purpose, just as there is for murdering or accidentally killing any other person. Throughout scripture, one of the primary Christian directives is to care for the most vulnerable in society ( widows, orphans, etc.). Who is more vulnerable than an unborn child?

          • gladys1071

            If you read that passage from exodus the penalty for the death of the unborn was for the person to pay a ” monetary fine” . If the mother would have died then the penalty was death. It is obvious to me that the unborn was valued LESS than the mother. Read it again that is what it says.

            No neither does the old or new testament say anything about the unborn having MORE VALUE than already born children or more value than the mother.

            When Jesus talked about widows and orphans, he talked about children already born, was not referring to the unborn.

            This life begins at conception ideology and that abortion is murder is a most recent phenonemen in the church, only in the last 40 years or so has such been taught.

            All thru the Old Testament it is clear that life started at BIRTH. In the Old testament newborns were not counted in the census until they were a month old.

            Just so you know in the Jewish faith, the mother is VALUED more than the unborn and is given consideration more so than the fetus, in the Jewish faith life starts at birth.

  • Zarm

    This is vomitous. One wonders if he also would have written, during the era of slavery, that one of the most loving things a Christian could do would be to ease a neighbor’s workload by providing him a reliable workforce (providing that we don’t make the mistake of ‘anthropomorphizing’ the slaves).

    • gladys1071

      actually where does is say in the bible that slavery is wrong? Paul admonished masters to treat their slaves with kindness and as brothers in Christ. Their is no prohibition of slavery in the Old or New Testament, so the consensus on slavery being wrong is a human moral construct of modern times. I mean if we are going to be biblical about everything than we should accept that the bible does NOT condemn slavery, and nor does it condemn abortion either.

      Just saying, I am not advocating for slavery, just saying that it is not prohibited in the bible.

      • NCOriolesFan

        The Bible never said slavery is wrong. Slavery was used throughout the Bible times and still is today although now it is a crime.

      • Zarm

        The Bible offered guidelines for people who found themselves in the existent position of slavery (and offered guidelines for the position of ‘slave’ in the OT that was a different thing than the subhuman treatment as property that we think of when we use the word.) It also commends slaves to seek their freedom if they can gain it (1 Corinthians 7:21), and its clear statements on the worth of all humans, the way we were to treat others, etc. clearly precluded the very idea of defining a person as property as practiced in black slavery.

        In a similar manner, very clear prohibitions against murder and recognition of life in the womb preclude the very notion of abortion.

        The Bible doesn’t prohibit running somewhere over with your car, either- it’s not an exhaustive legal catalog. But that doesn’t mean that it is ‘not prohibited’ or a modern invention- it just means that the broad principles laid down in the Bible blanket-prohibit any number of unmentioned crimes. We were given the principles that would make any such category of trespass wrong rather than a technical list of individual offenses that people would doubtless just have sought loopholes in.

        So yes, all of those things *are* definitely prohibited, by underpinning principles rather than specific mention.

  • Robert Cremer

    If Mr. Parker had titled the book based on the contents it would have been, ““Life’s Work: A Moral Argument for Murdering Pre-Born Babies”. I bet his book would sit nicely on the shelf next to Hitler’s, “Mein Kampf”. Hopefully Mr. Parker will take off the blinders Satan gave him and see the reality of what he is doing and has done.

  • NCOriolesFan

    Abortion has done nothing but demonize the developing baby human. I was brought to tears Parker would dare equal the Crucifixion of Jesus and aborting developing baby humans as “love”.

  • Nancy Carpenter

    I always hear that a child in the womb is not a life, especially when a few weeks along. And one reason used to support this statement is that it could not live outside the womb on its own. Well, neither could a full term baby – the infant still needs the parents to be able to survive. Abortion, at any stage, does truly end a life.

    • gladys1071

      It is not the issue of it not being a life. The issue is whose rights come first? I think pro-lifers forget the pregnant woman and the fact that SHE is the one that has to gestate for 9 months and go through childbirth, what about her rights, her life?. I just don’t believe as a Christian that we can FORCE a woman to STAY pregnant against her will. I would never tell someone that they HAVE to stay pregnant and gestate and go though 9 months of bodily changes, health changes and childbirth AGAINST THEIR will, that is abhorrent, uncompassionate. Carrying to term a pregnancy should be a choice, and we should respect women’s right to her choice.

      I want to clarify that my position is that abortion should stay legal up to 12 weeks, and I support restrictions after that.

      • Gina Dalfonzo

        Okay, so here’s a question: If the woman comes first, why do you support any restrictions at all?

        • gladys1071

          Because after 12 weeks, the fetus is more developed and by 12 weeks, it gives the woman plenty of time to decide whether or not to keep the pregnancy or not.

          I am not an absolutes pro-choicer, and though i do believe the woman has a right to terminate an unwanted pregnancy, i do believe it should be done at the 1st trimester. At 2nd trimester I think that if the fetus is more developed and can feel or have more brain development then he/she gains more rights, and their should be more restrictions, and should be done for maybe health reasons or birth defects.

          I am not callous to the unborn, I am trying to be fair to both, but yes, I do believe the pregnant woman should come first and I value her more than the unborn.

        • gladys1071

          Let me ask you do you think it is compassionate and loving to force a woman to gestate a pregnancy for 9 months against her will? I mean yes it is a life, but Woman has to act as a host for 9 months and go thru major medical trauma of childbirth and endure who knows what kinds of medical complications. Person doing the gestating should be the one the decide if they want to go through all that don’t you think?

          The life inside her has to be gestated and cannot live outside the womb, so that life has to be provided for by another. Does a woman now lose her rights to her body because of pregnancy? is she now just an incubator?

          Do you believe in forcing people to do things that they don’t want to do like? did Jesus do that? did he force his followers to follow him?

          • NCOriolesFan

            You must think it is very compassionate to kill baby females too.

          • gladys1071

            an embryo at 5-6 weeks is NOT a baby. The size of a 5 week embryo is the size of an appleseed ( it cannot live outside the womb), it has no brain, no lungs, does not matter if it is a female or male, do you consider a 5 week embryo more important than the pregnant woman? Is the pregnant woman invisible to you?

          • MichiganBirdLady

            The baby DOES matter.

          • MichiganBirdLady

            Babies can survive at 23 weeks…and technology is approaching helping even younger children.

        • gladys1071

          you never answered my question, do you believe that a woman loses her rights to her body because she becomes pregnant? Do you believe in forcing a woman to gestate and go thru childbirth against her will? ( please don’t lecture about sex, and about choosing to have sex), Just answer the question as is? To me that is the heart of the matter of why I am pro-choice, forcing someone to gestate against her will is oppressive and akin to slavery in my opiniono

          • Gina Dalfonzo

            I don’t accept the premise of the question, gladys1071. Several times now, you’ve used the word “forced.” I don’t think that word is a good fit in this situation.

            You acknowledged in another comment that a human life exists in the womb during a pregnancy. Yes, this life is utterly dependent on the woman who is carrying it, and yes, this can often be very hard on her. But does it then follow that she is being forced to carry it? Her body is following a natural process that began when she chose to engage in an activity that she knew could begin that process. (Rape is another matter, but without getting into that in detail, we should note that pregnancies begun by rape make up a very small percentage of pregnancies.)

            It often happens in life that one person is responsible for the life and well-being of another — for instance, when a person must care an ailing family member. The language of “forcing” is no help in these scenarios — on the contrary, it can be harmful. Ask yourself this, for instance: If a mother has a toddler with a terrible disease that renders the child helpless and utterly dependent for a time, should she be forced to take care of the child? The language doesn’t work in that scenario, and that’s why I submit that it doesn’t work in yours, either.

            Additionally, as I recall, you’ve based most of your arguments about the status of the child on size and developmental stage, but you’ve failed to demonstrate that either affects the worth of the child’s life. You’ve only assumed that it does. But assuming is not enough.

          • gladys1071

            i figured just as much that you would not answer my question, my question is a legitimate question that you do not want to answer?

            Yes if a woman is denied an abortion, by default she is being FORCED to gestate an unwanted pregnancy

            Your analogy of taking care of a family member does not compare to gestation and being a host. One can pay to have someone take care of a family member, gestation of a pregnancy CANNOT be transferred.

            The issue of worth is debatable, the issue of the worth of the mother is NOT. No, I don’ t consider a 1st trimester embryo MORE valuable than the mother, if I have to choose, i choose the mother.

            Again the question is does a woman lose the rights to her body as soon as she becomes pregnant? does her body now belong to the embryo/zygote, can she refuse to gestate a pregnancy in here uterus? is her uterus her own to control or not?

            Just because pregnancy is a natural process does not make it welcome or wanted, just like cancer is a natural process, yet we cut out cancer or treat it don’t we?

          • Gina Dalfonzo

            Are you honestly saying you cannot see the difference between a tumor and a human life?

          • gladys1071

            That is not what i said. I was responding to what you said about pregnancy being a natural process, i said so is cancer and so death. Something being natural does not mean it is wanted or welcomed that was all i was stating.

          • Gina Dalfonzo

            When something natural is not wanted or welcomed, that implies something bad and malignant. The process that creates a human being is of a far different nature.

          • gladys1071

            not necessarily, pregnancy can still be unwelcome and unwanted, so a woman should have the right to choose whether or not to gestate a pregnancy, it should be HER decision, not yours or mine or any politician.

            I never said pregnancy was bad, but it is still subjective on the person’s circumstances whether it is something someone might want to endure or not.

          • gladys1071

            Just because the life is dependent, does not translate to the woman having an obligation to gestate it. I mean if i Need a bone marrow transplant and you are the only match, you have no obligation to give it to me, the right to refuse to donate your body overrides my right to life. Their is not right to life that obligates another person provide via their body, blood, organs, gestation.

          • Gina Dalfonzo

            But the situations are not quite parallel. Suppose the alternative were either (1) you give a person a bone marrow transplant, or (2) you actively kill that person. With abortion, there is no middle way. It’s not just a question of “I choose not to give bone marrow”; the woman must allow the act of destroying a human life.

          • gladys1071

            I am aware of that, but their is not other way to stop the gestation. Gestation cannot be transferred to another person to do. Woman is basically forced to do the gestation unless the gestation is terminated. The death of the embryo is unfortunate, because it cannot survive outside the womb (at least before viability) I am aware their is no middle way, but the woman’s right to refuse to have her body used as a host remains, pregnancy should NOT be the exception, if it applies to bone marrow, blood donation, (all of those you cannot be forced to do), it SHOULD apply to pregnancy too.

            Are you aware that the abortion pill just expels the embryo out of the uterus, no direct killing, it dies because it needs a host.

          • Gina Dalfonzo

            Taking an action that you know will destroy the life, on purpose to destroy the life, is still an act of killing.

          • gladys1071

            The action being taken is to abort a pregnancy. Woman seeking an abortion is seeking to NOT be pregnant. Yes it dies as a RESULT of it being REMOVED from the uterus. As i stated it is unfortunate that it dies, but that is the way it is. AGAIN the purpose of abortion is TERMINATE GESTATION. I doubt that a woman goes to have an abortion saying “I want to kill the life inside of me”, no she is thinking “i need to terminate this pregnancy.

            The result of removal of a pregnancy whether it be vacuum or abortion pill is death, i know, but that is because their is NOT ALTERNATIVE to gestation.

          • Gina Dalfonzo

            I’m sorry, but terminating the pregnancy means killing the fetus. There is no way around that. You can’t just say “I want this child out of me now, but I hope it goes on to have a good life somewhere” (not unless you carry to term and give the child up for adoption). Terminating = death.

          • gladys1071

            i am aware of that, as i stated, it is unfortunate, but their is no other way if the woman does NOT want to gestate. A woman has that right despite the results. Unless of course you want to deny women the right to their bodies and again force them to gestate (even against their will), that is called involuntary servitude for 9 months?

            A woman does not lose the rights to her body , and she still owns her body and has a right to refuse to gestate.

          • gladys1071

            Not you or anybody else have the right to to dictate a woman she has to gestate for 9 months and act as a host for 9 months. It is her body that has to do the gestating, her right to refuse. The morality of the situation is irrelevent, the issue is rights.

          • Gina Dalfonzo

            But who has the right to kill an innocent human being?

          • gladys1071

            Again you are missing my point completely, Who has the right to use somebody’s body as a host against their will? Nobody has that right . You are completely ignoring the pregnant woman, the person doing the gestating, what about her rights? is she now an incubator with no rights?

          • Gina Dalfonzo

            Now it’s you refusing to answer questions. 🙂

            I am not ignoring the woman. But you seem determined to pit mother against child, rather than strive for the ultimate good of both. A society that insists on doing this is a society gone deeply, dangerously wrong.

          • gladys1071

            Ultimate good sounds good, but does not resolve the issue of the woman refusing to gestate? You are ignoring the reality of gestation for 9 months and the rights are conflicting. The woman still owns her body and retains the rights to her body or do you deny that? So what do you tell a woman that refuses to gestate for 9 months? Are you for forcing her against her will?

          • gladys1071

            You consider it unreasonable and dangerous if a woman refuses to be pregnant for 9 months, is excercising her right to bodily autonomy dangerous?

            Whether you like it or not the rights are conflicting, otherwise we would not be having this discussion.

          • gladys1071

            Do you understand the concept of bodily rights? or are you ignoring them? do you understand what gestation means? you do understand the woman is NOT invisible and is alive, thinking, feeling person with rights? Her rights don’t just disappear as soon as she gets pregnant. again Does a woman lose the rights to her body as soon as the sperm fertilizes the egg?

            I already answered you that no, the unborn doe NOT have a right to be gestated inside an unwilling host.

            If you and I cannot live inside another person’s body, why should the unborn have special rights?

        • MichiganBirdLady

          Gina:

          It’s funny how some who support early abortion sometimes draw a line.

          As if a month, a week or a day bestows more worth to a child made by God. It’s illogical and insulting to our Creator.

      • Nancy Carpenter

        One of the blessed things we are endowed with by our Creator is free will. One has the choice to engage in sex or not. ( I am speaking of pre-marital sex) Who forces one to do this? And if a child is conceived, how is that against her will? It is her body, but why is she being irresponsible with it? I would never say abortion is a right, it is only a choice. Being a believer I’m sure you know the verse ‘ Don’t you know that your body is the temple of the Most High…..’ and ‘ choose the good that you may live’.
        Anyone who doesn’t want to endure a pregnancy ( or be forced to?) should not engage in the activity that could produce one. No?
        Stay well

        • gladys1071

          how about married women that don’t want to have children, should the abstain from sexual activity? You are giving a simplistic answer , when life is more complicated than just NOT having sex. What about birth control failure? what about married couple that has many children already and their birth control fails?

          You assume that all people that get pregnant are ALL irresponsible and that is not the case, many people get pregnant even with careful birth control use or after being sterilized and such sterilization not failing.

          The bottom line is do you believe in forcing a woman to gestate a pregnancy against her will? If somebody gets pregnant (married woman) because of birth control failure, you think she should be FORCED to be pregnant for 9 months and endure childbirth even AGAINST HER WILL?

          • MichiganBirdLady

            Gladys: Yes.

            Why? Murder of an innocent human being is NEVER justified.

            And I’m an educated, articulate, strong willed, independent woman who loves to debate.

            But even I know my arms are too short to box with God. We’re living in His world and we must submit to Him…or perish.

          • MichiganBirdLady

            Gladys: Do you believe in beheading a baby against her will?

          • Zarm

            Should the child be forced to endure dismemberment or poisoning against her (or his) will?

      • Zarm

        We should ‘force’ a woman to stay pregnant (in the same way we ‘force’ a man not to stab people with a knife, or shoot them with a gun), because her rights come first over *killing another human being who has no choice in the matter*? Her right not to be troubled for 9 months outweighs someone else’s right not to be murdered?

        Yes, the issue is ‘whose rights come first.’ The answer is ‘the person who’s about to be unjustly executed for committing no crime without voice or say,’ every time. It is abhorrent and uncompassionate to allow a human being to be murdered.

        • gladys1071

          9 months of pregnancy is more than just being troubled. Gestating a pregnancy is ALOT more than an inconvenience, it is a life changing/life threatening condition, and so is childbirth. Forcing women to go thru childbirth is akin to torture and slavery.

          • Zarm

            I do recognize that pregnancy is a significant and difficult condition. But in comparison to ending a life, it is indeed little more than an inconvenience.

            Again, being murdered is a life changing/life-threatening condition- in fact, it’s a life-ending one. Forcing a fetus to undergo dismemberment, poisoning, or any other method of ending his or her life is akin to torture, slavery, and murder.

            Tell me honestly- if I faced suffering through a painful and difficult condition that I did not plan for a year, or you have someone come in and tear all your limbs off and leave you to die, which of us do you think is facing a greater crisis? If only one of them could be prevented, which one do think it should be?>

            Heck, let’s even take the methodology out of it. Maybe you’ll be murdered painlessly; you won’t even see it coming. You certainly won’t have any say in the matter, and you’ll definitely have your life snuffed out at the whim of someone else. Or, I undergo an ordeal that I hadn’t planned to, that is neither pleasant nor easy, and we both live.

            If you’re saying it would be better to end your life than to put me through that, then I’m flattered by your generosity- but in my book, that’s a no-brainer. There’s nothing that would justify the taking of an innocent life. Nothing at all.

            And no, disallowing the murder of an unborn child is neither slavery not torture. Declaring that an infant in the womb is not a person, but merely property to be disposed of at will, despite science, logic, and morality all pointing to a human life with a right not to be killed? That’s what’s akin to slavery.

            Sometimes, the human right to life- the right to not be arbitrarily murdered- causes us inconvenience; even puts us in a situation we find intolerable. Funnily enough, that doesn’t actually abrogate another person’s right to go on living, whatever it may cost us. Even if letting another innocent human being live causes life-altering, or even rarely life-threatening conditions, the inherent right to live remains.

          • gladys1071

            That is your opinion, and you are entitle to it, but you have no right to make such determination for others. You cannot compell me or force me to gestate for 9 months no matter what you say. I or the woman doing the gestating gets the final say on such matter.

          • gladys1071

            you said:
            Heck, let’s even take the methodology out of it. Maybe you’ll be murdered painlessly; you won’t even see it coming. You certainly won’t have any say in the matter, and you’ll definitely have your life snuffed out at the whim of someone else. Or, I undergo an ordeal that I hadn’t planned to, that is neither pleasant nor easy, and we both live.

            If you’re saying it would be better to end your life than to put me through that, then I’m flattered by your generosity- but in my book, that’s a no-brainer. There’s nothing that would justify the taking of an innocent life. Nothing at all.

            Yes you would have the right to end my life. Right to life does not mean i get to put another person though trauma /life threatening medical condition, (that is selfish) to put another person through labor, childbirth or gestation so that I might live.

            I find it selfish to do so, don’t you?

          • Gina Dalfonzo

            Then I suggest, gladys1071, that your belief system is not Christian, but Nietzschean. Christ supports and upholds the weak and powerless. Nietzsche says, wipe them out if you have the power to do so.

          • gladys1071

            Yes, but neither is demanding others be put thru medical trauma so that you can live is being self-less, don’t you think it is self-ish to ask someone else to sacrifice for you?

          • gladys1071

            Is it Christian to demand others provide for you or that your right to life should impose on another even at their detriment? So you are saying we have right to be burden to others?

          • Gina Dalfonzo

            I am. More than that — I am saying that sometime in our lives, you and I and everyone else that exists has been and/or will be a burden to others. May God grant that they treat us with Christian charity and compassion.

          • gladys1071

            Really, so you don’t think that is selfish , i find that self-ish to say that you have the right to impose yourself on others?

            If other’s want to freely provide for you that is one thing, but to say that they have to is SELFISH.

            it is not Christian or charitable or loving to tell someone they HAVE to sacrifice their health and their body for another. Such things should be taken up willingly.

            You most certainly do NOT have the right to compell that via public policy or law. Forcing by law someone to gestate a pregnancy is NOT CHRISTIAN or loving or charitable, it is called tyrannical and oppressive.

          • gladys1071

            If you believe others that are weaker or powerless have a right to demand others provide for their existence , than you should not object to government social programs such as welfare, foodstamps and healthcare. You should not object to your taxes go to pay for such programs., if it helps the least of these by compulsive taxes, which is the same as compelling gestation for 9 months, both ways you are providing for another one’s existence.

          • James

            Christian charity and Christian compassion are all well and good, but they should not be used as a weapon to suppress the truth. Love rejoices not in iniquity, but rejoices in the truth, remember? You recently chastised me for using forbidden words to describe the lack of chastity amongst women nowadays in our post-modern feminist age. I’ve brought it up in discussions with people and the consensus amongst the serious people is that you don’t mind the words as much as you mind the truth about women’s lewdness and lasciviousness being discussed in public. It’s ok to BE lewd, but not OK to use precise language to describe the lewdness, right? You know, the truth is, Joseph was not willing to marry Mary the mother of Jesus when he assumed she was a fornicator. It was only after the Angel of the Lord appeared to him and let him know that Mary was not a fornicator but was in fact with child by the Holy Spirit that he was willing to marry her. So, why should a man be different nowadays? Why should we not take Joseph as an example of how a man should be, just as Mary is a good example of how women should be?

          • Gina Dalfonzo

            I’m fascinated to hear that the smart people were able to discern our motives and intentions without ever having spoken with us or even seen the conversation in question. They must be very smart people indeed. 🙂

          • Zarm

            No. I find it absolutely horrific to consider otherwise. To suggest that another person die to spare me discomfort or difficulty, even trauma?

            I literally cannot find any words to respond to such an idea in polite company. I find it to be the most repellent and inhuman idea that I’ve ever heard advocated. I find it to be bereft of morality, logic, compassion, or basic decency. And considering that the person who would die has no say in the matter, I find it to be cold-blooded murder.

          • gladys1071

            So you are saying you have the right to impose yourself on someone else to live? You feel you have the right to put someone else thru medical trauma for YOUR life? If it was your life that needed a host or gestation you feel someone should be compelled to provide it to you?

            You say iam inhumane, it goes both ways.

          • Zarm

            I am saying that I think it’s a broken mindset in the first place to consider the survival of another human being as optional. I’m saying that if I was compelled to undergo trauma for a year to preserve someone else’s life, then it’s not even a question society should entertain; it’s a no-brainer. It shouldn’t be any more a question of ‘should it or should it not be okay to kill this other person’ than it is if you pull out a gun and start shooting. In both cases, ending another human life is simply not acceptable. It’s not a choice that that is moral to pose in the first place, because there is only one acceptable option: to not murder.

          • gladys1071

            Well that is your view, and your view is not universally shared. Right to life does NOT mean that it is at all costs, right to life is limited always has been. Your right to life or my right to life, does NOT mean that others are compelled to give it to you via their body if it requires others be put through trauma or other physical medical conditions for YOU OR ME.

            Your view is for compelling your fellow man to involuntary servitude to provide life to another person, their is no such thing.

          • gladys1071

            you obviously are not familiar with the permanent damage/trauma that childbirth can cause: Do you know that many women lose the ability to control their bladder after childbirth? Do you know that pregnancy can cause stroke, heart failure, hypertension, kidney failure, gestational diabetes, Post Partum depression (ever heard of Andrea Yates?)

            Some women have permanent damage to their bodies due to pregnancy and childbirth.

            Do you think women should BE FORCED BY law to gestate for 9 months and possibly suffer the complications above?

            Does that seem right to you to OBLIGATE someone to do so by force of law?

            Is that being charitible and compassionate?

          • Zarm

            But at least in such an instance, you are choosing to die. Abortion isn’t even that; it’s denying the choice of another human being- *taking* their life from them without their consent to spare my own trauma.

            There is no way that a ‘denial of choice’ to face pregnancy can justify a ‘denial of choice’

            to live.

          • gladys1071

            i have a question for you, would you compel a loved one of your’s say a sister, daughter, mother? to gestate a pregnancy, if they told you they were scared of gestating a pregnancy, or if she expressed that she found it horrifying to be used as a host? I mean this person was ADAMANT of not gestating, and told you it was akin to slavery.

            What would you say to her?

          • Ann Morgan

            Pain is not even the actual issue. There are people born with a mutation in their nerves, such that they are not even able to feel pain. It would certainly not be acceptable to kill such a person, despite the fact that they would feel no pain. The focus on pain is to try to evade from the actual issue of brain function, and equate a thinking, feeling person with a mindless embryo.

          • gladys1071

            by the way, an infant is not in the womb, an infant is already born. An embryo or fertilized egg is NOT an infant. Look up the phases of embryo and fetal development. You will find that an embryo the size of a pea is NOT EVEN close to being an infant.

          • Zarm

            And yet, no less a human being- possessed of discrete organs, unique DNA, and as of at least 6 weeks (possibly earlier, but 6 weeks as best our technology level has been able to detect so far) their own brain waves. Whatever terminology you wish to use, undeniably a human being.

          • gladys1071

            Yes, but has no right to compel another HUMAN being, already autonomous human being WITH RIGHTS to gestate for 9 months.

  • Joel Stucki

    Not an abortion supporter. Pro-life all the way.

    I feel the need to make that disclaimer at the outset, because what I’m about to say would otherwise make some people assume that I am pro abortion, which I am not. HOWEVER, I think we need to be super careful about saying “anyone who supports _____ couldn’t be a real Christian.” As Dr. Michael Rydelnik (MBI) is fond of saying, it is possible for Christians to be wrong about something–even something really important–and to still have genuine saving faith. (here’s a tip: we’re probably ALL wrong about something)

    It’s important to have our doctrines and theology straight, and of course to live accordingly. But the number of truly non-negotiable things about Christianity is, I think, much smaller than we sometimes suggest. Is someone saved by their stance on a social or moral issue? No. Are they saved by their eschatological view? No. Are they saved by their position on creation vs. evolution? No. We are saved by the blood of Jesus Christ, and him alone. Those other things are important, but we mustn’t make everything a litmus test for true faith.

    • gladys1071

      I agree, their are many things that we are probably wrong about. I do want to say that though i am pro-choice, i have thought this issue through a lot, i don’t come to my conclusions lightly at all. I just view this differently, than others. When i think about this issue, I think about the woman first, and i it is truly my CONVICTION, that she should be given consideration more so than the unborn. God knows where i stand on this issue and this is truly my conviction and i am sorry if it seems to all of you as being wrong or not Christian. I am human just like everyone else and we all see thru a mirror darkly and if we think we know everything we don’t.

    • MichiganBirdLady

      Joel:
      If we supplanted the topic of abortion here, say, with child rape, would that be what you call a “non-negotiable” issue which reveals a true Christian from a delusional one?

      Do you really think child slaughter is so abstract it doesn’t also immediately reveal something about a person’s soul? And, yes, even their adherence to Christ himself?

      On the surface, it sounds like you’re being reasonable. But if we dare to more closely examine your argument, it appears you’re saying the deliberate shedding of innocent blood is unimportant to the heart of what it means to be a Christian.

      I argue your conclusion contradicts the clear the message of the Bible. Child murder cannot be deconstructed to become anything less that it is: an offense to God. This is what’s known as sin. And the Bible warns sin can cause a Christian to lose his or her soul eternally.

      God hates the hands that shed innocent blood. Proverbs 6:17

      To downplay the moral significance of abortion in God’s eyes is unwise and dangerous to the soul of the confused. Be brave enough to call evil by its name.

      • gladys1071

        So you are saying that if someone has the view that they value the woman more than the unborn, that makes us not a Christian? Are you privy to what God thinks of every Christian out there and their views. Their are Christians that don’t believe in war or death penalty, are they not Christians? Or do Christians that kill people in war not Christians? Or Christians that owned slaves 100 years ago, were they not Christians either?

        • MichiganBirdLady

          gladys1071:

          The Bible speaks clearly on what is pleasing to God and what’s detestable in His sight.

          Killing a child at any age is evil.

          Tell me, where do you GLADYS find God endorses the deliberate shedding of innocent blood? Name the exact passage giving you the right to kill your daughter.

          Prove to me He agrees ripping apart a small female in the womb is good.

          And if a mother’s life is worth MORE than her unborn daughter’s, why does He condemn shedding INNOCENT BLOOD, Gladys?

          Answer me completely on each point, Gladys.

        • MichiganBirdLady

          Gladys:

          Please answer this one question if you can.

          Exactly where in the Bible does God give you the right to kill your unborn child, given that she has innocent blood?

        • MichiganBirdLady

          Gladys:

          You have the physical power to kill your preborn child, yes.

          But you don’t have God’s permission to kill her.

          We’ll face Him at judgment and have to give account for the good and the evil we’ve done.

          This is no mystery since God’s Living Word, the Bible, reveals this to us.

        • MichiganBirdLady

          Gladys:

          Innocent blood, we’re not to shed.

        • MichiganBirdLady

          The Bible speaks for God, Gladys. Have you studied it?

          It’s the Living Word from the mind of our Creator.

        • MichiganBirdLady

          Why won’t you let me respond to Gladys?

          • Gina Dalfonzo

            My apologies. We moderators try to keep up with the comments as best we can, but I’m afraid we can’t be here 24/7.

  • MichiganBirdLady

    Why is Gladys given so many responses? Who’s moderating this ?

  • Nancy Carpenter

    I suppose I am being rather simplistic. In a topsy-turvy world as ours is now a days, simplicity seems, well, simplistic!
    I can’t and won’t force someone to do something against their will. I cannot tell others what to do. I can only, as you, share my convictions. Some choices people make I can respect ; some I can only accept.
    I don’t assume that all people that get pregnant are all irresponsible. Just those who are…..

    Concerning the article about Willie Parker:
    I find it very troubling when he says, “….preform abortions over and over, like the athlete who goes to the gym to shoot baskets.” ” Wanted to get to the point where procedure was automatic…..” He writes, step by step, of what he does in an abortion and in the aftermath. This is someone walking in darkness! I can’t help it, it’s how his words affect me. Saul thought he was doing a great service persecuting believers. Then he was enlightened and understood his error.

    • gladys1071

      good I am glad you don’t think everyone that gets pregnant are irresponsible. Married women have abortions too, so this is not just about pre-marital sex. Birth control does fail and sterilization also fails too. Getting pregnant by mistake does not mean one has to stay pregnant. I find it very disturbing how pro-lifers treat pregnancy different than other type of consequences. Their is such thins as mitigating consequences, and sex should not treated any differerently than other consequences, tired of the double standard.

  • Gina Dalfonzo

    Ann, do you really think of every new human-being coming into the world as a potential world-destroyer? What a sad, awful way to look at life.

    • MichiganBirdLady

      Gina:

      You’re right. Even a lot of abortionists think the terrible thing they do is good.

      How do people lose their inherent sensitivity to the weakest among us? Ask any child if it’s ok to kill an unborn baby, and they always say no.

    • Ann Morgan

      No, that is not what I think, but thanks for proving that forced birthers always resort to the straw man argument.

      What I think is that any given fetus MAY ruin the lives of three generations of a family. As I don’t have magical mindreading powers as you pretend to have, I can’t tell you whether this is the case for any given fetus. I’m not in a position to know, and neither are random strangers hundreds of miles away whose involvement is nothing more than gazing in rapture at pictures of fetuses on their computer. This may be ‘sad’ and ‘awful’. It’s also rational. And when you are willing to hand over a $2 million check per every DS infant born, and ruin your OWN life, then and only then, may you presume to make decisions as to whether a fetus should be gestated. Until then, your position that you ought to be able to ruin the lives of people you don’t know so you can gaze at pictures of fetuses does not impress me.

      • Gina Dalfonzo

        I let this comment through only because it gave me the opportunity to say this: There will be no more name-calling here. NONE. No “forced birthers,” no “child killers,” none of it. Any comment that resorts to name-calling will be deleted from now on, so anyone who’s been doing it, think very carefully before you do it again.

        • Ann Morgan

          Would you care to actually address any of the real issues in my post? Such as the fact that neither you nor I have magic mindreading powers that will enable us to know what the effect of any given fetus on a family will be? Acknowledging this may be ‘sad’ and ‘awful’ to you, but it is also the truth.

          • gladys1071

            In the pro-lifers world, its all rainbows and unicorns. All pregnancies should be brought to term NO MATTER WHAT, no matter the quality of life of all involved, no matter that child will be unwanted, go into foster care or be abused, or neglected. All that matters to them is each woman give birth at all costs.

          • Gina Dalfonzo

            I believe I said no personal remarks, gladys1071, and accusations like that definitely fall under that heading. Do that again and your comment will be deleted.

          • gladys1071

            Is something that i stated untrue. Is it not true that pro-lifers want all pregnancies brought to term?

          • Gina Dalfonzo

            You know exactly what I mean: all that “rainbows and unicorns” stuff. Drop it, and stick to the issues, or your comments will not be welcome here any longer. I’ve had to give others the same warning, and now I’m warning you.

          • Ann Morgan

            How about YOU stick to the issues, rather than trying to distract from them by engaging in tone policing, because you can’t refute what is said? This is about the third time in as many days I’ve seen you engage in tone policing rather than addressing the actual issue brought up.

          • Gina Dalfonzo

            It’s not tone policing, it’s moderating, and I take it seriously. I always have. It’s my job. And if you’ve been paying attention, you’ll know that I’ve been enforcing the rules for both sides. If you can follow those rules, you’re welcome to stay and keep commenting. If you can’t, there are plenty of other places on the Internet where people insult each other all day. If that’s what you want to do, you can find one of them. But this is not going to be one of those places.

  • MichiganBirdLady

    Ann Morgan:

    I read your statement and immediately wondered, why is a child killer commenting on a Christian site?

    You love having the power to dismember the defenseless preborn child, we get this, but you don’t love the Lord who made that child (nor yourself obviously). So please find a more appropriate site.

    At least Gladys belongs here since she cares about discovering the will of God.

    • Gina Dalfonzo

      MichiganBirdLady, it is not up to you to decide who “belongs here.” It is up to the moderators. According to our policy, anyone may comment here who speaks to others respectfully, without insults and personal remarks. On the other hand, comments that violate those rules will be deleted.

      This applies to EVERYONE here, on both sides of the issue. The discussion has frequently been heated and I’ve already had to delete several remarks. I expect a better tone here and I am going to keep pushing for that.

      “Let your speech always be with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer each one.” Colossians 4:6

      • MichiganBirdLady

        Fair enough.

  • gladys1071

    Hi Ann,

    I wanted to share this scripture with you:

    all the first-born males of the people of Israel, from a month old and upward…” (Numbers 3:40)

    I had stated to you how the ancient isrealites did not count newborn babies until a month old. God instructed Moses to count the people, newborns before a month old were not counted. Yet you have pro-lifers that want to give personhood to fertilized eggs.

    • carole smith

      Maybe it was because most babies back then did not survive the first month. If they did, they must be healthy sturdy babies who are then counted in the population.