You Can Be Pro-Choice Politically and Be A Pro-Life Advocate In Your Community

Pro Choice Pro Life
To say that in the religious community abortion rights is a hot button issue would be an understatement. We have seen opponents and proponents of a woman’s right to choose engage in heated debate for years. It appears that most, if not all, of those who oppose choice, do it on the grounds of their Christian faith. But many of those who support choice are also people of faith. As a Christian and an ordained minister I have wondered if it is possible to be pro-choice politically but advocate life in our communities.

To be clear: when it comes to the politics of a woman’s right to choose, I am pro-choice but when I step away from the politics of the issue I am a pro-life advocate. There are a number of reasons as to why I do not see this as a contradiction. Some religious leaders and people of faith would probably ask the question “how can you call yourself a Christian and be pro-choice?” Well, it’s quite simple.

You see, for many of us who are Christians and support choice it is because we believe that it is unfair to try and make people who are not Christians live their lives based on our beliefs. Just as we cannot force someone to become a Christian, changing laws to force women to do what we believe God requires still will not make them a Christian, it will only make them followers of the law. That person would not be changing their behavior because of their relationship with God. Pro-choice Christians understand that a relationship with God is based on accepting God’s love for us; it cannot be forced on people nor can they be manipulated into it. The Gospel is “good news,” not a scare tactic or a tool used to control people. We are also mindful of those historic examples of when Christianity has been used to perpetuate discrimination and injustice.

Related: Why Abortion Should Not be Politically Decisive for Christians by Craig M. Watts

As a man I am pro-choice because I find it difficult for me to explain why I should have the right to tell a woman what to do with her body. To me, that sounds like misogyny at the highest level and would also suggest that women are not equal to men and therefore should do as they are told.

So what does it mean to be a pro-life advocate in our communities? The answer requires a broader definition of what it means to be pro-life. It means that we go beyond simply advocating for the right of a child to be born but once the child takes his or her first breath we continue to advocate for that child to have the right to a better life. To be a pro-life advocate is to also be an advocate for children to be able to live lives that are unencumbered by poverty, poor education, crime, gun violence and the absence of quality health care, just to name a few.

Let’s take young black males, for example. The leading cause of death for a young black male is homicide. As a pro-life advocate for children I must also advocate for gun control and laws that do not make it so easy for people to get their hands on guns and take a child’s life before they ever get the chance to truly live.

Brave New Films

Millions of babies are born into poverty and families that cannot afford adequate health care. As a result these children can become ill and suffer from a host of issues related to their parent’s lack of access or inability to pay for doctors visits. This is why as a pro-life advocate I was among the millions of Americans who fought for and rejoiced over the passage of health care reform. Jesus said, “I have come that they might have life, and that they might have it more abundantly.” This should cause those of use that are Christians to ask, “What role does God want me to play in making sure that children who are born can live an abundant life?” For me, the answer is that I must do my part to remove barriers that inhibit children from living an abundant life. As a pro-life advocate I must work to improve public schools, address childhood poverty, seek quality health care, create opportunities that enable children to choose hope and a future rather than gangs and despair. Actions like these aide in reducing the rate of abortions.

Related: Is Evangelicalism Headed for a Split? by Tony Campolo

As a minister of the Gospel, I would never council a women to have an abortion. I believe that if I do my part to create communities of opportunity where children can flourish and live up to their potential once born, in some ways her choice will be much easier. If I had to council a woman that had an abortion, I would not judge her nor condemn her, just like God does not condemn me or anyone else; instead I would choose to remind her that there is no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus (Romans 8:1). I would not ostracize her like some in the church would do, rather I would choose to show her the love of Christ, the love of a God who looks beyond our faults and sees our deepest need, the love of a God who loved us while we were yet sinners and gave his life for us even when we were not deserving.

As a pro-life advocate I would do for her what God requires that we do for all people, go to God in prayer and advocate for her healing spiritually and emotionally with the hope that she will live a life not bound by guilt but would embrace the love of a God who still believes she was created with great purpose and unlimited potential.

Rev. Romal J. Tune is the Founder & Executive Director of Faith for Change, a coalition of religious institutions united by a desire to improve academic outcomes for underperforming public school students. He is the author of God’s Graffiti: Inspiring Stories for Teens.

Print Friendly

About the Author

Romal J. Tune

Romal J. TuneRev. Romal J. Tune is the Founder and Executive administrator of two touchstone entities that exemplify this mission; The national non-profit Faith for Change, which solicits community involvement with high-needs schools to keep kids in school and promote lasting academic achievement, and FFC Consulting, which engages and connects principals, companies, and organizations with the faith-based community at large. He is the author ofGod’s Graffiti: Inspiring Stories for Teens.View all posts by Romal J. Tune →

  • 22044

    Although the last paragraph of this post is good, the rest of the post falls short.
    Many non-believers are pro-life as well as Christians. So there are compelling reasons beyond having faith in God why being pro-life is the best position.
    I am a man as well. But I am not disqualified from having a pro-life view. One of the pro-life adovacacy groups who has me on their list-serve is largely run by women.
    I also used to think legalized abortion was OK. Then I began to examine pro-life arguments. But the best evidence I found was being friends with a woman who was born before Roe v Wade. She told me that she would have been aborted if Roe v Wade decision had been made before she was born.
    As far as talking about young black children, they are aborted at a substantially greater rate than children of other races. Although everyone wants to eliminate the homicides of children, I can’t take that advocacy seriously when many of them are unjustly murdered inside the womb, and no concern is expressed about that.

  • Jonathan Starkey

    Good article. Sharing on FB.

  • Andrew

    Another fact this article really could have benefited from: making abortions illegal does nothing to reduce the number of abortions that are performed. Ask any Demographer, County by County, the numbers fluctuate very little. The only observable effect banning abortions does have is making them more dangerous in the areas they are illegal.

    This has been by response to why I am pro-choice Christian. Making them illegal simply makes them more dangerous, and places further stigma on what are already very scared and panicking girls and women

    • 22044

      Uhhh…abortion isn’t illegal anywhere in the United States.

      • Andrew never states that is is…

        • 22044

          He’s making some claims based on supposed demographics that suggests that abortion is illegal in some places.

          • It IS illegal in some places (there’s life outside the USA), and indeed has been in the USA in the past. We have these data.

          • 22044

            Sure, Ireland comes to mind for example. Do you know where I can view it?

          • Andrew

            you’re right, I implied only U.S., but that was a typo. Where I said “county by county”, it should have been country. I learned this from Dr. Dudley Poston, an extremely prolific demographer from Texas A&M. You can look up his work to view the statistics.

    • Indeed. This goes back to the point that one cannot legislate matters of the heart. As Christians, if we want behavior to change, our best method is to appeal to the soul. Laws cannot do this (which is why business are integrated racially, but churches remain mostly segregated) and I believe they shouldn’t try.

      • 22044

        You are correct that laws can’t change hearts, but pro-life legislation is intended to protect innocent lives. As Christians we can’t pursue only legislation, but it has a good purpose.

    • Frank

      That’s total BS. Simply look at how many apart ions we performed before it was legal and then afterwards. Making abortion harder to get WILL save many, many unborn children’s lives!

  • Frank

    Sounds like a pro-life view with no integrity behind it. Meanwhile while you are comfortable with your disingenuous position, over 21,000 innocent unborn children are killed each week most for reasons of convenience. But at least you found a way to sleep at night right?

    • So what are you doing then, Frank? What steps are you taking to save those children? Because trolling websites does nothing, so unless you’ve got something else up your sleeve, you’re doing less than Rev. Tune. But at least your hypocritical self-righteousness lets you sleep at night, right?

      • Frank

        When you are ready to stop making assumptions because you have no real counter argument then I might answer. If I were you I would worry less about what I am doing and worry more about your apparent support of the killing of over 21,000 innocent lives each week. You won’t have to answer for what I am doing or not doing, you will have to answer for yourself.

        • And you will have to answer for yourself, Frank, not for me or for Rev. Tune. It’s handy to remember that these truths are universal, and not just applicable to the people you dislike. If I am not allowed to question your actions, by extension you are not allowed to question Rev. Tune, who still seems to be doing more than you are.

          • Frank

            I am well aware of that.

          • Show me by your actions, not by your words.

          • Frank

            I don’t have to show you anything. My words and actions will continue to work against those that support the killing of over 21,000 innocent unborn children each week mostly for reasons of convenience and comfort.

          • No, sir, they won’t. Because trolling here is doing nothing. Your words and actions will continue to shout Hellfire and Brimstone at the people who were already on board with you, and change nothing. You are not working against anything except your own guilt at doing nothing. As I said before, at least your hypocritical self-righteousness helps you sleep at night.

          • Frank

            I understand the need to shift the blame to anyone else but yourself for your pro-choice support. Sadly the truth is out there for all to see. Maybe one day your own eyes will be opened and you will stop your support of the killing of over 21,000 innocent unborn children mostly for reasons of convenience and comfort. I have hope!

          • And the fact that you continue telling people who are pro-life that they are personally responsible for the genocide of the unborn is one more reason that I call you a troll who does nothing. Maybe one day your heart will be softened and you’ll get out of your computer chair and do something for those children. I have hope!

          • Frank

            I hope you see the hypocrisy of attacking me by calling me a troll and telling me that my comment posts have no power and will do nothing as you troll me and make a comment post yourself.

      • bluecenterlight


    • I think we should also do A LOT, LOT, LOT more to make it easier for moms-to-be to choose life.

  • 1972

    if he is in favor of gun laws that help make it harder for lives to be taken by guns, why is he not in favor of laws to make it hard to abort children. Not being able to tell someone they can own a gun is only an extension of not being able to tell someone what they can do with their body. Both are issues of the heart, but good laws, while never eliminating wrong things, can help curb them.

  • I. E.

    Nice article. I did a similar blog on my FB page recently. I think “pro-life” and “pro-choice” are misguided. I agree that pro-life ought to be from womb to tomb. But I also agree that women (everyone) ought to have a choice. Forcing them to choice life defeats the purpose. God doesn’t ever force us to choose him or choose life. Why should we force anyone to choose life then? “Today I invoke heaven and earth as a witness against you that I have set life and death, blessing and curse, before you. Therefore choose life so that you and your descendants may live! ” Deut 30:19. Notice God wants us to choose life but NEVER forces us to. He leaves the choice to us. Why? Ponder it. So, In conclusion, I believe as Christians we should be pro-life (from womb to tomb) and pro-choice (let people have the ability to choose). There will be less abortions if the root causes (some are mentioned in this article ) are addressed with LOVE.

  • fantasticrice

    I don’t understand how the author went from

    “it is because we believe that it is unfair to try and make people who are not Christians live their lives based on our beliefs. Just as we cannot force someone to become a Christian, changing laws … still will not make them a Christian … That person would not be changing their behavior because of their relationship with God. Pro-choice Christians understand that a relationship with God is based on accepting God’s love for us; it cannot be forced on people nor can they be manipulated into it. The Gospel is “good news,” not a scare tactic or a tool used to control people. We are also mindful of those historic examples of when Christianity has been used to perpetuate discrimination and injustice”,

    which is absolutely correct with regard to wielding the threat of government force toward bringing Kingdom rule to society, to

    “I must also advocate for gun control and laws that do not make it so easy for people to get their hands on guns” and “I was among the millions of Americans who fought for and rejoiced over the passage of health care reform”,

    which are both the exact opposite approach to addressing the brokenness of society—that we can righteously wield the coercive power of government to bring about what we believe is best. All I can say is that I still haven’t found the part in the Gospel that says we should force others to do what is righteous rather than rely on its transformative power in individual lives. As the author correctly noted, these attempts have continually backfired and ultimately resulted in discrimination and injustice.

    • dmb

      I understand how the author went from one to the other. We can look at the example of other countries around us. Countries that have implemented universal health care policies have exceptionally better health outcomes than those that have not. In the same way, countries with strict gun regulation have much decreased gun violence and deaths attributed to firearms. So the author’s promotion of health care and gun regulation is warranted, and this type of government influence could be a positive step for the United States.

      On the other hand, if we look at countries where abortion is illegal, the rate of abortion has no significant decrease and women are much more likely to suffer ill effects from unsafe abortion. So in the case of abortion, government regulation is not effective and we must look to other ways to bring down the abortion rate in this country. As the author and many commentators here have said, we should look to ways to make choosing life an easier option in this country. Let’s look to the Netherlands, for example, which has some of the lowest rates of abortion in the world. Obviously our demographics are somewhat different, but surely we can learn some lessons from their society. Or are we as Americans too proud to realize that we are doing things wrong and need to approach things in fundamentally and radically different ways?

      Yes, you make a good point that the Gospel should bring transformative power in individuals, and we cannot force righteousness in people. However, we live within a society that is governed by laws, we have the opportunity to influence these laws, and the Bible does not teach that we should reject civic involvement. When a majority of Americans recently voted for a platform that said “yes, every human being should have access to health care in this country” I fail to see that as a sign of “the coercive power of government.” No we should not put our faith in the government, but we can be engaged with it.

      We (being made in the image of God) have also been given the gift of rationality, so we can attempt to understand what laws will be effective or ineffective in encouraging an abundant life for our citizens (we know for example that making abortion illegal is not effective). The author makes an excellent point that reducing gun crime, increasing health care access, and decreasing poverty (which is a huge indicator for abortion) can help people live better lives. No, these things will not bring people personal salvation, nor could we ever solve every society problem, but we can make an informed attempt at doing so.

      • Frank

        The harder abolition are to get the less that will occur. That’s just common sense and the numbers back it up.

        • dmb

          No, actually the numbers do not back it up. In countries where abortion is illegal, the rate of abortion is actually higher than in countries where it is legal. In the USA, the states that have laws restricting abortion (waiting periods, for example) do not see a significant drop in abortion. What they do see though is a rise in women seeking second trimester abortion (obstacles to abortion lead to women not being to obtain an abortion as early as they’d like). I know it would seem common sense that restriction leads to less abortion, but this is not fact. Please do research. God hopefully gifted you with some intellect.

          • 22044

            That’s a lie that unfortunately will stay on the internet as long as people keep repeating it. There are better factors that correlate to abortion rates being high or low.

          • Frank

            Actually they do. I keep trying to post a link but it does not go through. I’ll post the facts without the link but a quick search will provide the backup.

            Parental involvement laws, bans on taxpayer-funded abortions, informed consent laws and partial-birth abortion bans reduce the number of abortions performed within the jurisdiction of such laws, according to a new study by a post-doctoral fellow at the Harvard-MIT Data Center.

            “Those states that adopted pro-life legislation during the 1990s experienced larger reductions in abortion rates and ratios than those states that did not adopt such legislation,” the study said, according to LifeNews

            The study, published by the Heritage Foundation, said pro-life legislation passed by state legislatures led to the decline in the number of abortions by 17.4 percent during the 1990s.

            Laws prohibiting taxpayer-funded abortions with the use of Medicaid dollars reduced the abortion rate by about 30 percent, the study showed. States that passed Right to Know laws informing women of the consequences of an abortion saw the abortion rate drop by 22 percent.

  • 21st C. Episcopalian


  • This is why whenever someone debates about abortion, I feel so caught in the middle. It’s not about a woman’s right to her body, but to her child that happens to be still in the womb really, which is a different living & growing human entity than her. So, I don’t support abortion b/c you don’t give the chance for the fetus to live. But, I know that I can’t force the woman to choose 1 way or the other when her mind is set (i.e., in a way I “support” her right to make a moral choice—not the right over her body although she frames it that way—– just as God doesn’t violate our free will).

    Pro-life legislation is fine, but in the church I often see a BLIND over-reliance on the law as the ULTIMATE solution, just like the gay marriage debate. My head hurts too whenever I see the pro-life groups in campuses set up demonstrations and put up photos of Holocaust victims next to photos mutilated fetuses, then they exchange insults with the pro-choice groups. At the end of the day, this is an issue of the heart and whenever the heart is concerned, Jesus is the ultimate solution, let’s not lose sight of that. Tony Campolo recently cited a study that women are more likely to choose abortion due to economic reasons, so here pro-life legislation doesn’t really fix other significant aspects of the problem. I think perhaps churches and government should do A LOT MORE to make it also easier for the mother to choose life, not just give laws that make it harder to abort the baby.

  • Robby

    You don’t really state why you think that abortion is not in line with God’s law, but if it’s because you think that there is no cause to believe that a fetus is not a human being, separate from the mother, then there is every reason in the world to ban it. We ban murder and punish murder, after all. I absolutely support a woman’s right to choose what she can do with her own body–but that’s really beside the point. The real question is whether or not there is a philosophical basis for declaring that a fetus is not a human being, and it is the lack of response to this question that causes me to be pro-life politically. I think it has nothing to do with faith; it’s a moral obligation of a society to its children.

    • 22044

      I think that’s well stated.

  • bluecenterlight

    “We are not pro life simply because we are warding off death. We are pro life to the extent that we are for others, all others; to the extent that no human flesh is a stranger to us; to the extent that we can touch the hand of another in love; to the extent that for us there are no “others”.
    Brennan Manning

    • Frank

      We won’t find this until the new heaven and the new earth come. In the meantime we must do our best to stop the wanton killing, including legislation.

      • bluecenterlight

        Hope in politicians is a sad hope my friend, good luck with that.

        • Frank

          It’s not where my hope lies but it doesn’t mean we don’t try.

  • flankus7

    to be consistent you would have to say that you don’t think it is right to outlaw murder of adults, because that would be imposing a Christian morality on a non-believer. Ridiculous right? but that is essentially the position of the author to of this article. isn’t it?

    • 22044

      Yes, when properly analyzed, the argument proffered by the post is weasel-like and cowardly.

    • Exactly, employing reductio ad absurdum. Has GOD Himself or only some of His confessors gone mad?

  • Perplexedbyyourlogic

    I never tell young black males not to shoot each other because I’m neither young nor black. Who am I to assume I know what’s best for them. To do so smacks of racism at the highest level. I must not presume to know what is best for them by denying them access to guns. I don’t know what dangers they face, perhaps they truly need these weapons to defend themselves.
    End Sarcasm.
    I agree that followers of Jesus should focus more on helping prevent abortions outside of making it illegal. And that we should spend far more resources assisting young mothers who choose to not abort. So we agree on some things but some of the logic presented here is terribly flawed.

  • susan

    I am pro life and pro choice. I am pro choice because I believe women have the right to do what they wish with their own bodies. I would keep abortions legal for the safety of women. Why go backwards and cause women to have back alley abortions again? A woman who is going to have an abortion does not know the damage that it will do to her psychology or her emotions or how long the grief will be there. I had an abortion at sixteen. Twelve years later I regret my choice and I struggle every day with the fact that I killed my child. It is something I have a hard time forgiving myself. I tell my story whenever I can and relive that pain in the hope that another woman will choose lifr instead of death for the blessing she has been given. I find it hardfor people to trully understand what it is like if they have not been there. I have no place to go to grieve the loss of my child. My family is incomplete and will not be complete until we are all in heaven if that is Gods will for my family. Life is so precious a gift that it is not to be taken by any human. God gave is free will. We do as we see fit sometimes no matter what the consequences are.

    • See my Biblical, logical, and moral rebuttal above. It is persuasive enough to bring any Godly Christian to repentance.

  • ” . . . for many of us who are Christians and support choice it is because we believe that IT IS UNFAIR TO TRY AND MAKE PEOPLE WHO ARE NOT CHRISTIANS LIVE THEIR LIVES BASED ON OUR BELIEFS.”

    Reduction ad absurdum – “It is unfair to try and make people who are not Christians to refrain from stealing, murdering, raping, coveting, obeying parents, lying, etc. We can be personally opposed to these behaviors within the rectangle, glass-stained hallowed halls of our churches but we’ll politically advocate for everyone’s legal right to engage in these behaviors within non-theocratic secular society with immunity from arrest, prosecution, monetary fine and/or incarceration.”


    “Look. We want you to confess your sins, repent, believe and obey Jesus while you’re with us in the church sanctuary for a couple hours on Sunday and an hour during the week but don’t worry, at all other times we’re going to politically advocate for your ability to commit crimes of all sorts with legal impunity. We don’t want you to have to be told what you can and can’t do with your life and body, and we don’t want you punished for doing them. Just play along and listen to us say the polar opposite on Sunday morning and during mid-week Bible study. Wink, wink. OK? Now come to Jesus.”

    Has God gone mad or only some of His confessors?

    “As a man I am pro-choice because I find it difficult for me to explain why I should have the right to tell a woman what to do with her body.”

    Let me help and disabuse you: Men and women tell women all the time they may not LEGALLY travel in a car or an airplane during take-off and landing without a seat belt; they may not ingest illegal, mind-altering drugs; in most states they may NOT attempt suicide with impunity; while obviously pregnant they may NOT drink copious amounts of alcohol in a bar – the bartender has an obligation to cut them off after a couple drinks. Women may NOT drive drunk – they got drunk by “doing something to their body. They may not jaywalk, “surf” trains or ride atop buses. Nor may they go SCUBA diving and expose their bodies to excess nitrogen and pressures as great as four or more atmospheres without proper training and supervision unless or until they are certified.”

    But the bigger issue is that a baby growing inside a pregnant woman’s uterus has its own body. Women’s bodies do not have two heads, two hearts, two stomachs, two vaginas, four arms, four legs, etc. A woman’s body consists ONLY of one head, one heart, one stomach, one vagina, two arms and two legs. The other head, heart, arms, and legs, etc., belong to a genetically distinct homo sapien formed by God in the Imago Dei and belongs FIRST to God. Women, just like men, are subordinate to God and may NOT harm themselves or another says God.

    Another reductio ad absurdum: Christians are, or at least SHOULD BE, BIG on justice, fairness, equity, and opposed to discrimination, bias, prejudice and -isms of all sorts. God’s Kingdom of God ethic applies equally to all just as in a just society the laws apply equally to all regardless of race, color, creed, gender, socio-economic status, age, marital status, etc.

    To discriminate AGAINST all men (some of whom contributed 50% of a babies genetic makeup), and against non-pregnant women, and against pregnant women contemplating harm to someone else besides herself, while DISCRIMINATING IN FAVOR OF ONLY PREGNANT WOMEN who wish to do her own son or daughter and possibly herself great harm, is the quintessence of injustice, inequality, unfairness, bias, prejudice and GESTATIONAL DISCRIMINATION. It is exponentially ludicrous.

    “Hi. My name is Kathy. I know I may not kill you, Jill nor your 24-week old son being nurtured in your uterus which God created for no other purpose other than to nurture babies for the first 9-months of their lives; nor can I kill you Tommy; but I can kill my own daughter Jessica who is only 12 weeks old and looks just like the attached photo. She has her own brain, heart that is pumping blood, stomach, uterus, vagina and pairs of legs and arms. Still, I can kill her with impunity. But none of you can!”

    And society’s hypocrisy reeks and leaks all over the news:

    It is irrational, immoral and patently unjust to prosecute and convict Scott Peterson (and lesser well known men who have killed similarly) of DOUBLE HOMICIDE for killing his wife Laci AND unborn son, Connor, half of whose DNA was Scott’s, and whose responsibility for being cared and provided for had he been born would have fallen EQUALLY to both Laci and Scott.

    Science has confirmed what God says: a new homo sapien life begins at conception. A woman’s pre-natal human baby has been declared by Science to be a human being both because of its unique DNA and the life processes it undergoes from the moment of conception, and through the process of elimination which determines definitively that s/he is NOT an ape, chimpanzee, dolphin, elephant or gnat.

    Finally, it must be stated with great emphasis and passion that the moment an otherwise just society makes the decision to bequeath only to pregnant women the sacred power, authority and responsibility to determine WHO is LIFE and WHO is not LIFE worth protecting, predicated almost exclusively on whether or not that LIFE is WANTED by his/her biological mother (and not his/her father or the rest of society), that society has become idolatrous, ludicrous, immoral, sinful and insane. It’s an offshoot of Schrodinger’s Cat which was meant ONLY as a thought exercise. A homo sapien can NOT simultaneously be in two states at once: both an alive human being and an alive non-human being.

    A pregnant woman says on Tuesday, “I WANT to keep my baby, give her birth and be her mother;” society judges that baby as a human being who must be fully protected from the Scott Petersons of the world. No one may harm her with impunity.

    Same pregnant woman says on Friday, “I change my mind. I do NOT WANT to keep my baby, give her birth and be her mother.” Society is now supposed to declare that this baby is NOT a human being; NOT a life worthy of protecting against the Scott Peterson’s of this world and flippant pregnant mothers according to the Word of God and our 14th Amendment?


    A pregnant woman’s “WANT” is not sacrosanct and it does NOT bestow her with supernatural powers such as the POWER to hold and wield the Keys to Life and Death, which ONLY GOD is worthy to hold and wield as the sole Author, Sustainer, and Taker of life.

  • Marci

    I can see your point in this and agree with you 100% in the statement

    “If I had to council a woman that had an
    abortion, I would not judge her nor condemn her, just like God does not
    condemn me or anyone else; instead I would choose to remind her that
    there is no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus (Romans 8:1).
    I would not ostracize her like some in the church would do, rather I
    would choose to show her the love of Christ, the love of a God who looks
    beyond our faults and sees our deepest need, the love of a God who
    loved us while we were yet sinners and gave his life for us even when we
    were not deserving.”

    I am extremely pro life, and have been in the position of the counselor of a young girl who chose abortion. God showed me His grace and compassion in ways that were unearthly…only coming from Christ the Father. He let me understand in a very miniscule way his deep compassion for His children. In His sorrow and mourning of that child, he loved that mother just as much. They were both His children.

    Where I very much disagree with you is in your view of abortion being an issue of a woman’s body. I am the mother of 4 living children and 6 who never were able to be born. Those children lived within me, but I did not own them. They were not a piece of my body. They were a human being created by God for His plan and purpose. My taking of their life would equal me taking the life of a baby laying in a bassinet, which in this country regardless of whether you are a Christian or not would be illegal. A life is a life. This is not and will never be a women’s rights issue, this is a human rights issue.

    Women still have a right to choose. They may choose not to be sexually active. They may choose to be sexually active and use protection (which I do know is not 100% effective). They may choose to give birth to a child and bless a couple who desperately longs for a child through adoption, or she may choose to become a mother to the human being that God has fearfully and wonderfully created within her. The choice belongs to her. The only choice taken off the table legally is the one taken off the table for any women, the one to end the life of another human being because they are not part of her plan.

  • I believe anti-abortion laws would be Godly laws as would laws against homosexuality.

  • Several members of Congress on Thursday (4/11/13) afternoon took to the floor of the House of representatives to expose the HORRORS abortion practitioner Kermit Gosnell has committed and to decry the lack of media attention to them.

    Congressman Marlin Stutzman, an Indiana Republican, was one of the members who spoke on the House floor this afternoon to call attention to the horrific crimes Gosnell engaged in at his Philadelphia, Pennsylvania abortion clinic.


    One of the myriad problems with the euphemistic ProChoice (Filicide) argument is that women’s bodies do NOT come with 2 heads, 2 hearts, 4 legs and 4 arms.

    This means there are TWO bodies; two distinct homo sapiens formed in the Imago Dei, with one living ~ 0.93% of his/her life inside the uterus of the other, and the other 99.07% outside the womb, just like other lesser animals that receive intra-uterine and intra-egg protections that God’s homo sapiens do not currently but which did for millennia, and which theologically, morally, ethically and biologically SHOULD again.

    In fact, since Science has already declared unequivocally that a new human life BEGINS @ fertilization, it would only take the courage of Congress & POTUS to write and sign, respectively, a new law that re-defines natural human life as beginning and a new 14th amendment protected “person” as forming, when Science says it does: at fertilization to cause Roe to collapse and babies to be saved once again. Or, bypassing POTUS and the Judiciary altogether for either 2/3 majorities of both chambers of Congress PLUS 38 States (75%), or bypassing Congress, POTUS and the Judiciary altogether for any 38 States (75%) during a Constitutional Congress to ratify the same as a Constitutional Amendment.

    lifenews dot com/2013/04/11/ congressman-gosnell-an-abortion-predator-who-must-be-exposed/

  • chris

    The question of abortion boils down to the moral status of the unborn child — whether it is ‘living’ in the womb or not. If it is not ‘living’, then abortion is not immoral and therefore a matter of preference. If it IS ‘living’, then abortion is murder and therefore immoral.

    You can be pro-choice and ‘choose’ to keep the child. You are still pro-choice.
    If you are pro-life, in which case you assert that the unborn child is a living human being, and you therefore have a moral obligation to keep the child.

    You cannot be pro-choice politically and pro-life personally. That is no different than saying, “I would never personally murder someone, but everyone should have the choice to murder if they so desire.”

    The question of the rights of the mother is a red herring. Abortion is either murder, or it isn’t.
    If it isn’t murder, then mothers are free to choose whether or not they have an abortion because there is no moral issue. If it is murder, well, no one has the right to murder.

Read previous post:
MLK memorial DC Jarrod McKenna
Do You Hear the People Sing? M.L. King & Les Misérables’ case for a Socialism of Grace

BY: JARROD MCKENNA -- Many know of Dr. Rev. Martin Luther King’s “Letter from a Birmingham Jail”. Fewer know of...