A Dialogue on What it Means to be Pro-Life

Dialogue On Pro Life

SHANE CLAIBORNE: One of the most important issues of our day is the need for a consistent pro-life ethic. Catholics and evangelicals and all sorts of folks have begun to resonate with this idea—not just in the sense it is talked about in abortion debates.

Jesus talks about life a lot. Life to the fullest (John 10:10). The narrow way that leads to life (Matthew 7:14). He is the way, the truth, the life (John 14:6). His message and his life are an interruption of death. He constantly interrupts whatever is destroying the life and dignity of other people—and invites us to do the same. As a young Christian, I was confused about the inconsistency with which we address issues of life. No group or party seemed to be seamless. Some folks were against abortion and euthanasia, but were pro–death penalty and pro-military. I found myself at odds with some of the positions that had come to characterize traditional evangelicalism, but I sure didn’t fit into a progressive or liberal camp either.

As Red Letter Christians, we need to be pro-life from the womb to the tomb. Abortion and euthanasia, the death penalty and war, poverty and health care—all of these are issues of life and death. And they are issues Jesus cares about because they affect real people.

The death penalty has been a huge deal in the news this past year, with some high profile cases like Troy Davis in Atlanta. I think we are at a crossroads on this issue, and it is possible that we could see it come to an end in our lifetime. We are one of very few nations in the world that still kills its own people. What is even more wicked is how we make theatrics of death as we execute. Though lethal injection is the most common form, there are still states in the US that allow government sanctioned executions to happen by hanging, firing squad, gas chamber, and electrocution.

When former presidential candidate Rick Perry celebrated his 234 executions as Texas governor during the September 7, 2011 GOP presidential debate, the audience, who were mainly members of the Christian coalition, roared in applause. As a Christian, I found that deeply disturbing.

Jesus was confronted with this issue in John 8, when crowds were preparing to stone a woman for adultery. But when they questioned him about it, the first thing he did was peculiar—he bent down and wrote in the dirt. We asked the kids in our neighborhood what they thought he was writing, and one of them said, “If this doesn’t work, run, woman!”

We don’t know what he wrote, but we do know what happened next. He addressed all the men who were ready to kill: “If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at her.” And of course, Jesus has already taught that if we call our neighbor a fool, we are murderers. If we look at someone with lust in our eyes, we are adulterers (Matthew 5:22, 28). I can hear the stones start to drop as the men walked away, and soon the only one who was left with any right to throw a stone was Jesus. And he has no inclination to do so. We can see that the closer we are to God, the less we want to throw stones at other people.

As our musician friend Derek Webb says, “Murdering to show that killing is wrong is like trying to teach holiness through fornication.”

TONY CAMPOLO: It’s not enough to only save the lives of “the born” as we try to do in our endeavors to abolish the death penalty. We must also do all we can to protect the unborn. We have to raise serious questions about abortion, which has become all too common in our society. When we talk about being pro-life, we have to be, as Ron Sider says in his book Completely Pro-Life, consistently pro-life. You said it well: we have to be pro-life from the womb to the tomb.

Related: Has Roe Been Good for Women? by Kristen Day of Democrats for Life

In a personal conversation I had with Barney Frank, a former Democratic congressman known for his liberal leanings, he made the challenging statement that the problem with evangelicals is that they think that life begins at conception and ends at birth. He was basically saying that we’re willing to protect life from the moment of conception until the moment of birth, but once that baby is born, we don’t want to do what is needed to take care of the baby. As evangelicals, with our pro-life politics, we seldom want to put the necessary money into health services, day care, and education.

The late Cardinal Bernardin of Chicago talked about the seamless robe. If you are going to talk about being pro-life, he said, it has to be a seamless statement of life that reaches all the way from abortion to war to caring for the poor. When I served on the platform committee of the Democratic Party for the 2008 Presidential election, my evangelical friends asked how I could possibly do such a thing. I answered them by saying that I thought there needed to be a pro-life voice when the party platform was developed. While I wasn’t able to get a plank in the platform document that called for the abolition of abortion, I was able to support efforts that would cut the number of abortions performed each year.

According to the Guttmacher Institute, 73 percent of all abortions performed in America are economically driven. Many women have abortions because they lack the economic means to take care of a baby. Consider a woman who works at Wal-Mart for minimum wage, has no hospital coverage, and is pregnant out of wedlock. She knows she can’t support a child. She’s having a hard time supporting herself, so she has an abortion. She’s one of those people whom we call “the working poor,” and she lives in a society that tells her, “We’re not going to provide for you if you have your baby. We’re not going to cover your hospital bills, and we’re not going to cover the cost of daycare so you can work. We’re not going to provide any prenatal care for you, and we’re not going to raise the minimum salary so that you can earn enough to support yourself as well as your child.” Society is telling her that it absolves itself of all responsibility once her baby is born.

To be pro-life is not only to be committed to protecting the unborn but also to protecting the child after birth. Being pro-life goes much further than criminalizing abortions.

Brave New Films

When I’m asked if the zygote becomes a human being at the moment of conception, I say, “I don’t know, and since I don’t know exactly when the unborn becomes human, I have chosen to be pro-life.” If I err, I’d rather err on the side of life, lest I support murdering an unborn child. The Roman Catholics have consistency. They say essentially, “We don’t know when the ‘ensoulment’ begins, so we’re not only against abortion, we’re also against contraception.”

SHANE CLAIBORNE: When I was speaking out in Michigan, one of the guys who came up to talk to me afterward said he had always been pro-life and he still was passionately pro-life. But he said, “I began to realize I was pro-life but I wasn’t proactive. I wasn’t really doing anything other than protesting.”

Then he went on to share with me that he had started a counseling service for young women and an open adoption agency to help find homes for new babies who need families.

TONY CAMPOLO: Both Jerry Falwell and Mother Teresa didn’t just say they were pro-life, but each took care of troubled pregnant women who didn’t want abortions. Mother Teresa would say to such women that if they were pregnant and thinking of getting rid of the child, they shouldn’t do it. She pleaded for them to give those babies to her, and she would see that they were cared for and nurtured.

Jerry Falwell, on the religious Right, did exactly the same thing. Not only did he preach against abortion but he provided women with problem pregnancies with housing, financial assistance including medical expenses, and loving support, even arranging adoptions for those who chose not to keep their babies. Dr. Falwell’s commitment to care gave integrity to his pro-life preaching.

Also by Tony and Shane: How Are We Political?

It’s easy to say you are pro-life, but if you are not doing anything to help take care of pregnant women in need, you are really saying, “You got pregnant. Having the baby is your responsibility.”

SHANE CLAIBORNE: When I was in India, there were two street kids I got really close to. They must have been about seven and ten years old, and totally on the streets, orphans. So I called my mom and said, “Do you think we could find anybody to take these kids in?” She did a little research and found one of her friends who said she would actually love to do it. So after going through the ranks in India, I ended up talking to the person right under Mother Teresa, and she said, “Actually, I will go and talk to Mother Teresa for you.” She came back and said, “It’s been our definitive position and continues to be Mother’s conviction that we shouldn’t have kids come from India to the US until you change your abortion laws because that’s a more urgent issue right now.”

When I was in India, I learned that folks there did not call Mother Teresa “Mother Teresa”; they just called her “Mother.” The reason was that she was a mother. Over and over I met kids she had raised. She earned that title, and her credibility as a champion for life, not because she went around picketing abortion clinics with signs saying “Abortion is Murder.” She was a champion for life because she accompanied women and kids in tough situations—integrity you can’t argue with.

Our ideologies come with responsibility. In my neighborhood, to be against abortion means we have to figure out what to do when a fourteen-year-old girl gets pregnant. If we are really pro-life, we had better have some foster kids and teen moms living with us to prove it. I don’t want to just be an anti-abortion or anti-death person. I want to be pro-life. For far too long, we Christians have been known more by what we are against than by what we are for. I am ready for a Christianity that is consistently committed to life and all about interrupting death everywhere it raises its ugly face. We are Resurrection people. When Jesus rose from the dead he declared essentially, “Death, thou art dead.” I am ready to see Christians make that same declaration. Death, thou art dead.

This article is excerpted from Red Letter Revolution: What If Jesus Really Meant What He Said (Thomas Nelson, Inc.).

Shane Claiborne is a prominent author, speaker, activist, and founding member of the Simple Way.  He is one of the compilers of Common Prayer, a new resource to unite people in prayer and action. Shane is also helping develop a network called Friends Without Borders which creates opportunities for folks to come together and work together for justice from around the world.

Tony Campolo is the Founder and President of EAPE and Professor Emeritus of Sociology at Eastern University. Look for Tony in your area and follow him on Facebook and Twitter.

Print Friendly

About the Author

Shane Claiborne

Shane ClaiborneShane Claiborne is a Red Letter Christian and a founding partner of The Simple Way, a radical faith community in Philadelphia. His most recent book, Executing Grace was released in June.View all posts by Shane Claiborne →

  • I. E.

    Great article Shane and Tony. I totally agree, we need to be pro-life from womb to tomb. I am currently reading Red Letter Revolution, I remember this chapter from the book. It was so well done that it motivated me to do a blog on my FB page. However, I also think that women shouldn’t be FORCED on which decision to make about their babies. Not because its their right, but because it is paramount that they have a choice. God doesn’t force us to choose life nor does he force us to accept him. (He gives us free- will). Ever wonder Why? In the below scripture, he clearly wants us to choose life, but he NEVER forces us. In this situation, this is why I believe women (or anyone) should not be forced either. For this reason, I think the words “pro-life” and “pro-choice” are misguided in the contest we use them. And so, I believe we should be pro-life (from womb to tomb) and pro-choice (have the opportunity to make the choice). I am curious to know what you think.

    “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

    • Frank

      If an unborn child is a human life (I believe it is) are we not forcing the choice of death on it by aborting it? Who speaks for the child? Where is their right of choice? They are completely helpless and have made no choices in being created.

      • I. E.

        Frank, yes an unborn child is indeed a human life. If it is aborted (the wrong choice) that will indeed be forcing the choice of death on it. We are in agreement. My question to you is why do you think God gives us the choice to choose life or death? And why should we take that choice away from a woman? Think hard, then please give me your answer.

        By the way, I am a guy.

        • Frank

          Why would we take the choice away from an innocent child that did nothing to be created? Made no choices? Aside from rape the woman and man always has a choice to engage in activity that produces life or not. I understand that nothing is foolproof but why should an innocent human be denied life because of a “mistake?” Shouldn’t they be the ones we should protect the most?

          God gives those who CAN make a choice the choice. The baby is completely powerless and unable to choose. I hear a lot of talk about protecting the woman’s right to choose but everyone completely ignores the child’s lack of choice.

          • I. E.

            Hey Frank, I thought you would have tried to answer the question: Why does God give us a choice? Anyway, thanks for your attempt. However, you are thinking from a unilateral point of view. It is not about taking away the baby’s choice. My point is we have to be consistent in not taking away anyone’s choice – the baby’s, the mother’s or the father (if he is involved).

            You assume that by giving the mother a choice in the matter, she will always choice to abort the baby. This may be true in many cases, but not in ALL cases. So, the question to ask is what are the root causes for a woman to want to about her baby? (I am not naive to think that some women don’t do it for convenience). That’s not the point. Think bigger. How many women who aborted their babies have you talked with to try to find WHY they made that decision? If you have, you would find out that if those root causes were addressed, many of them would choose to have the baby. So, removing their choice is not the answer. If they are forced to have a baby they don’t want or love, what issues can arise from that situation? Would you be trying to solve one issue only to create a lot more?

            So, if you still want to give it a shot, why do you think God gives us a choice when he can force us to choose life all the time?

          • HR

            By that logic, we ought to be given the choice to kill children, disabled people, or anyone else who is an inconvenience or too expensive to take care of/feed. Why can’t I choose to kill a child with a serious illness? Why does the law say I’m “forced” to continue to take care of it or give it up for adoption? God lets us choose. So why can I murder the unborn but not the born? The choice is still the mother’s in both case. Kill the unborn, it should be illegal and have consequences if killing the unborn is upheld as well. Similarly, what if I abuse my spouse? Should the government be the one to say I can’t do that or can I make this decision myself? Laws exist to protect. Yes, God gave us the rights to choose, but he also gave us the charge to protect the marginalized and weak in our society. Who more than the unborn? By the way, I am a woman.

          • Tom

            What is the premise for the original question regarding God giving us “the choice to choose life or death?”

            Is it Deuteronomy 30:15? “I set before you today life and prosperity, death and destruction.” We are given the choice of life or death – for ourselves.

            However, we are not given the choice of life or death for another, except for Genesis 9:6. “Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed; for in the image of God has God made man.”

          • I. E.

            Tom, the premise of the original question is, there is a reason God gives us all FREE-WILL be it to choose life for yourself or for others. So, why do you think God grants us this choice? (He must know that some will misuse it! ) And why should the choice be taken away from anyone? (Again, please note that I am not advocating taking it away from the unborn child).

        • HR

          I.E. what about the man who made the “choice” to go on a killing spree in a school? We punish him but why punish him and have no retribution for those that “force the choice of death” on an even more helpless child? Why should we take the choice of abuse, slavery, and discrimination away from people? God gave us the choice, so by your logic, we should be allowed to use it. I for one, am thankful that God has given us laws to protect. The reason we are for these laws is that we realize that by someone using their “right” to murder, have a slave, or abuse, the rights of another suffer and we can all agree that is not right after all. So, why do you exclude the unborn who are “indeed a human life” by your own words, from these rights? By the way, I am a woman but I believe I’m called to lay down my rights for the sake of others, including the unborn.

          • I. E.

            HR, please read my post again. I never said we should take away the choice of the unborn. Here is a direct quote from my previous post: “It is not about taking away the baby’s choice. My point is we have to be consistent in not taking away anyone’s choice – the baby’s, the mother’s or the father (if he is involved).”

            Also, I am not against laws. We need laws if we are to have a viable society. By the way, we have have laws against most of your counter arguments (Mass shootings, killing an unwanted child, slavery, spouse abuse etc) but people still commit such evil. Don’t they?

            My point is that if we really want to see a decline in abortions, (and I believe we all do), the most effective way to do it is to address the root causes. Find out WHY women want to abort their babies and address those issues. Some measures may be proactive (e.g. anything we can do to prevent teenage pregnancies) others reactive (providing alternatives and support to a would-be pregnant mom who may be considering abortion).
            For example, I believe this excerpt from another article by Kristen Day on RLC is a pragmatic step to reducing the number of abortions: “…One of the most overlooked achievements of the Affordable Care Act was the inclusion of the Pregnancy Assistance Fund (formerly part of the Pregnant Women Support Act). This provision gives grants to states to establish pilot programs aimed at assisting women in crisis pregnancies and helping them bring their pregnancies to term. Seventeen states are running successful pilot programs that help pregnant and parenting college women complete their degrees and find jobs, help pregnant teens complete their high school education, and provide job training and other support. None of this grant money can be used for abortion.”

      • I “support” the woman’s right to make a choice (and for the record, I don’t think that the zygote/embryo/fetus/baby is “her body”—it’s a different living, breathing, and growing living entity from her).. the right to make a moral choice, that is. But…as soon as she says, “I choose abortion,” I will have to disagree strongly with that although I know I can’t exactly “force” her to not do it. I may respect her free will, but I can’t condone the decision to have an abortion.

        • HR

          This is still confusing. Do you support a woman’s “right” to kill her 3 month old because it’s too much work? Do you support a woman to kill her baby that was born premature and is only 3 hours old because there’s no way it can survive on it’s own? Would a doctor be considered ethical if it delivered a baby with a serious illness and chose not to treat it because “it was unable to survive on it’s own” and “must not be fully human”? You can say you are against abortion all you want, but still giving this the dignity of calling it a “choice” and “free will” makes this less than murder. No one says that they respect the free will and “Support” the murder’s right to make the “choice” to go on a killing spree in a theater or school. We need to call abortion what it is in the eyes of God.

          • No, I don’t believe abortion is ethical and I do believe it is technically speaking murder. I’m not a law expert, so don’t argue me about the legal category and all that I’m no use. I think “support” and “respect” are not the best term to use, but it refers to my inability to violate other people’s free will or force other people to agree with me when their mind is set. The thing is that people sin because they misuse their free will, but that doesn’t mean that God other people’s free will. We all know if God chooses to violate the free will, then we will all be automatons, but we’re not. God wishes for everyone to choose life over death and believe in His Son, but He doesn’t use coercion to accomplish His plan. People who sin CHOOSE to sin, be it abortion, oppression of the poor, slavery, Pharisaic self-righteousness, murder off-the-womb (including school shootings), theft, lying, adultery, etc. So, a woman faced with an unwanted pregnancy has to make a choice and I pray that it will NOT be abortion, because that is not acceptable in the eyes of God. Even if you’re pro-life, you do realize, you’ve made the choice to not even consider abortion. Personally, I find the terms “pro-choice” and “pro-life” themselves can be misleading AT TIMES.

      • Perhaps a bigger question could be: How do we help empower potential parents to make the right choice? If we want to reduce abortion (I do), perhaps we need to help people who are considering it. If, as was cited in this piece, the most constant reasons for choosing abortions are economic ones, then this should be the front we choose to take the fight.

        • Frank

          I agree but we shoudont allow the slaughter to continue while people decide whether they want to make the right choice or not. We shoudont sacrifice innocent children while people, find their morality or their bank account. If someone cannot afford a child then they should do everything they can to not get pregnant. If they choose to engage in sexual activity they should be prepared for the consequences and not be willing to kill an innocent life to pay for their choices.

          • I kind of agree Frank. The thing is, I don’t think that we are going to be able to stop people having sex, when they do fall pregnant the stats seem to suggest that making abortion illegal will not have any meaningful effect.
            With those two strategies essentially being ineffectual, what are our next options to help reduce abortion? I’m looking for real ways to change the figures.

  • Rev. Jarrett Kerbel

    Thank you for this thought provoking dialogue. What I found especially helpful was Professor Campolo’s statement about the correct response to uncertainty about when life begins. If we don’t know then the bias needs to be toward protecting future life. On the other hand, extending this insight to connect it with the Roman Catholic prohibition of contraception really undermines the reasonableness of a helpful statement with really unfortunate confusion about biology, if I understand your point correctly and I may not. Also, the portrayal of Mother Theresa here is somewhat misty eyed. Her response to the adoptable children was – and I am speaking as the adoptive father of two children – an unethical manipulation. It takes more than a year to get children adopted from India, using them as pawns in her moral/political effort reduces humans into mere means. It would also help if you would elaborate on Euthanasia. You assume opposition but you don’t explain why? I think a fairly consistent argument could be made that Euthanasia is substantially different than abortion, war etc and there is a very sophisticated ethical corpus out there about this. At the end of the day, I am all for your point though. More efforts needed to be made so more women can chose to carry children to term.

    • TheodoreSeeber

      I am Roman Catholic and opposed to both contraception and Euthanasia. For me, it is about giving God the right to decide matters of life and death. How can one claim to be giving their entire life to God, dedicating their children to God, then say “oh, but not here Lord, I want control more than I want you”. Is that not the very definition of Original Sin?

  • Rev. Jarrett Kerbel

    One added point. A life ethic would also be concerned about the life of women. We know that when abortion is illegal women die, horribly. This is a fact that we need to respond to morally as well. The traditional response of judgement and justification, i.e. the woman deserves this death, is morally horrifying. For me, the ethical solution requires abortion to be legal and rare, with the work put into make it rare through alternatives and persuasion.

    • Frank

      That’s not true. Even when abortion was illegal the majority of abortions were done by qualified doctors, not some back alley quack, and were successful Yes tragedies did occur (they still do despite legality) but even then the woman made the choice to have the procedure and chose the person to do it. She was not forced to. Consequences have actions and if someone chooses to kill an innocent life and knows that the person killing it is not qualified or is a quack and they still choose it, they have to live (or die) by their choice. Actions have consequences and if I choose to act immorally and I suffer as a result, should I expect anything different?

      • Did you even read the article Frank? It’s like you are ignoring everything written there. I think Rev. Kerbel makes a really valid point, and the statistics support him.

    • I appreciate the point of this article – that support for life requires much more than a particular stance on the legality of abortion. I also appreciate Rev. Kerbel’s point that the life of the pregnant mother must be respected as well. Some people in the comment section miss the point, as expected, and essentially claim that women who consider having abortions are evil and their lives don’t matter. This hardly seems consistent with a pro-life ethic, and it seems opposite of the compassion that Jesus shows.

      In this article, Campolo and Claiborne present the issue of abortion as pretty straightforward – abortion as birth control is morally wrong because it fails to take seriously human life. I wonder what level of compassion they are willing to extend to women in extreme circumstances, such as instances where the life of the mother is at risk, or pregnancies resulting from abusive cases of rape and incest. Clearly, their focus is on the Christian response to the majority of cases, but to present all cases as falling into the same category would be to use the same extremist and uncaring rhetoric that they recognize as unhelpful.

      Overall – a very helpful reminder than life is important, sacred even, and we are called to treat it as such. The best way to do so is showing compassion for those people whose lives are in difficult situations.

      • Pablo

        Our daughter faced an “extreme circumstance” — a fatal diagnosis of Trisomy 18 for our third grandchild. She said, “I will carry and care for this child as long as God ordains.” Marie was born alive and was with us for three precious hours during which her other grandfather, a retired pastor, administered the Sacrament of Holy Baptism with about 30 family and friends witnessing that unforgettable ceremony. Now that’s pro-life to the extreme!

  • Just a thought

    and here is the problem… the debate has been dominated by men, just like this comment section. why is it that men are always more vocal on the pro-life issue? do men have a higher set of ethics compared to women? I seriously doubt that. yet, most women (including women of faith) are in support of legal abortions. wouldn’t it be beneficial to have women lead the discussion more often?

    • TheodoreSeeber

      It is because women see killing as tied to their freedom. 40 years woth of pro-choice proaganda have encouraged women to fear pregnancy and avoid it at all cost.

      • Just a thought

        if u are saying that women are just that naive to political propaganda, I take offense to that. because when a woman is faced with that most difficult decision, it is a traumatic experience. not for men, but the woman who had to actually live the experience. So please don’t reduce the argument down to women being brain washed. it sounds as calloused as mitt romney when he claimed 47% of low income americans don’t take responsibility of their lives.

        • TheodoreSeeber

          It is far worse than mild political propaganda. Several generations of Americans, both women and men, have been lied to and sold on the whole false idea that pregnancy is dangerous, that human life is a cost and parenthood is a sacrifice not worth making.

          The trauma is directly caused by the bigoted liars that claim the solution to poverty and disease is to kill the victim. Do NOT try to claim that pro-choicers care about women, because I see through the lie. Yes it is a traumatic decision, it should be. Because it is a decision that any truly charitable human being would respond to with food, clothing, and shelter rather than lies and the least-cost option of killing the victim.

      • bthomas

        Short. Succinct. And precisely correct. No beating around the bush. No waffling. Just the plain unvarnished truth. Very cool.

  • “The problem with evangelicals is that they think that life begins at conception and ends at birth.” — Barney Frank.

    Just because a proud homosexual politician makes a statement meant to ridicule and castigate Christians does NOT make it true or factual. It was a feckless deflection of the issue because he is so Pro-Filicide. His credibility on LIFE is virtually nil. Evangelicals – & I’ve been one for 35 years – do NOT think life ends at birth. Christians should NEVER let non-Christians speak for us or at us. I refudiate his specious allegation on behalf of Evangelicals everywhere.

    Barney followed with “. . . we don’t want to do what is needed to take care of the baby.”

    The PRIMARY responsibility to take care of a baby falls to that baby’s mother and father, and then to grandmothers, grandfathers, aunts, uncles, cousins and even siblings. Then to one of the 2,000,000 couples waiting to adopt – the reason there are so many couples WAITING to adopt is because there are not enough babies in the U.S. to adopt BECAUSE of all the homicidal abortions. Next, tangentially, the responsibility falls to the Church, Synagogue, Temple or Mosque. It is NOT the State’s responsibility to care for babies. That’s NOWHERE within the Constitution. Too many girls/women have babies because they know our profligate State will give them Other People’s Money (OPM) the amount of which provides them a surplus over expenses directly related to baby care to apply to the purchases of other goods and services.

    The egregious error critics of evangelicals and even some Christians who have distanced themselves from evangelicals make is to EQUATE supporting Capital Punishment for heinous homicides — sometimes against family members and loved ones — without actually directly engaging in it as Hangmen or Lethal Injectionists with CHRISTIANS some of whom themselves commit Filicide by killing their own babies and giving approval AND direct monetary support to others who do.

    Apples and oranges SHOULD be compared without EQUATING them. It is AXIOMATIC that to COMPARE is NOT TO EQUATE.

    Even within the New Testament God prosecuted Capital Punishment against Ananias and Sapphira for reasons that remain mysterious and incredulous to many of us, and whatever it was Jesus meant toward the very end of His earthly life He did say,

    “’When I sent you without purse, bag or sandals, did you lack anything?’ ‘Nothing,’ they answered. He said to them, ‘But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don’t have a SWORD, sell your cloak and BUY ONE. It is written: ‘And he was numbered with the transgressors’; and I tell you that this must be fulfilled in me. Yes, what is written about me is reaching its fulfillment.’ The disciples said, ‘See, Lord, here are TWO SWORDS.’ ‘That is enough,’ he replied.” Luke 22:35b-38

    And yes we should COMPARE Filicide with Capital Punishment for Heinous Homicidal Maniacs and realize the victims of the former never had the opportunity to sin outside the womb while the latter are people who have sinned egregiously and committed unspeakable crimes often repeatedly outside the womb. Murderers may or may not be forgiven by God, but nonetheless do NOT DESERVE heavenly or earthly forgiveness (FORGIVENESS IS NEVER DESERVED, otherwise mercy would not be mercy and grace would not be grace); and forgiveness should NOT be demanded from the survivors of homicide victims who may or may NOT be Jews or Christians who CHOOSE NOT TO FORGIVE.

    A Just, Civil, and Law-abiding NON-THEOCRATIC society must have a way to punish ALL criminals in ways where the ‘PUNISHMENT FITS THE CRIME.’ That’s what the quintessential governing document requires which our highest elected officials swear a solemn oath to God and before the American people — in Obama’s case with his hand upon NOT 1 but 2 BIBLES — to “preserve, protect, and defend, so HELP ME GOD!”

    God NEVER commands that Christians DEMAND that their secular, non-theocratic Government usurp their responsibility to care for the poor by forcibly confiscating wealth from wealth creators, siphoning off large amounts for salaries, bloated bureaucracy, and cost-inefficiencies, and transferring the paltry amount remaining to the poor masses that God put under the care of the Church, Synagogue, Temple and Mosque, with help from private charities and philanthropies.

    The father of our Constitution, James Madison, explained the document he penned and which was ratified by the States by the following:

    “I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents…”

    Ben Franklin who answered the woman who asked, “What have you given us, Sir?” after the framers emerged from the Constitution’s framing with,

    “A REPUBLIC, madam, if you can keep it” (NOT a tyrannical Mob Rule Majority Democracy), also stated,

    “I am for doing good to the poor, but I differ in opinion of the means. I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. In my youth I traveled much, and I observed in different countries, that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer.”

    Try — that’s all you and I can do is try — to imagine how much poverty, destitution and “helplessness” existed in the colonies right after the conclusion of the American Revolutionary War that our Founders truly believed was ordained by God and that God gave them the victory (whether True or not); not to mention the poverty, destitution, hardship and disease that existed those first couple years after the Christian Pilgrim landed in the New World — about half died. By comparison, we have no idea what poverty, destitution and hardship is in the 21st century; unless we’ve LIVED IN (not just visited) places like Haiti, Bangladesh, Nepal, many of the Central African nations, and elsewhere where true poverty exists.

    REMEMBER: Our Framers and Founders were both Christian Theists and God-believing Deists; there were virtually no ATHEISTS nor ANTI-CHRISTIANS among them such as we have today in Congress and throughout the seats of power.

    Non-Christians who castigate one or more other Christian sects, including and especially Evangelicals, are NOT the Church’s leaders and should NOT become our leading opinion makers. And Christians should be very cautious and circumspect when we criticize ourselves; we need not involve the non-Christians and those who otherwise despise and/or hold us in contempt.

    Until someone gets full prophetic clarity from God about the death penalty for Ananias and Sapphira it would be Biblically wise for Christians NOT to insist the entire nation — a growing number of whom are NOT Christian — make NON-CAPITAL PUNISHMENT NORMATIVE within secular society. Any Christians who wish to remain personally pacifist may do so — they do well — but they cannot project their Biblical conviction upon our non-theocratic secular society. Whereas there is NO CRIME NOR SIN outside the womb that any person — Christian or otherwise — can point to to justify Filicide by abortion. NONE!

    BTW: there is a difference with distinction between “celebrating” and re-iterating. To applaud justice for homicidal maniacs should not be anywhere near as disturbing as the fact that 3,300 unblemished, precious babies are slaughtered daily in their own mothers’ wombs by their own mothers! These do NOT morally equate!

    It is one thing to remind Christians that the commandment, “Thou shalt not Kill (better: “murder”)” is still in force and we are personally responsible NOT to murder another; it is quite another thing to teach that a Christian has the Christian duty to lobby Congress formally or informally to make all forms of capital punishment illegal in our non-theocratic, secular state. We may forgive homicidal maniacs but we are NOT obligated to insist the earthly society we live in forgive them because to forgive is to free which is to liberate them back into society to perhaps murder again. There is nothing particularly merciful about Life in Prison without possibility of parole. Many prisoners would rather die than spend 30, 50 or 60 years in solitary confinement and/or behind bars, and some do elect Capital Punishment rather than rot behind bars. This should be their prerogative and the mercy we extend to them.

    “. . . 73 percent of all abortions performed in America are economically driven. Many women have abortions because they lack the economic means to take care of a baby.”

    NO Christian should dare use economics as a viable reason to annihilate a baby because of the professed! poverty of a woman who voluntarily got pregnant the ONLY humanly way possible – by coitus. As was mentioned above there are at any one time 2,000,000 loving couples waiting to adopt newborn children. Women have no excuse given the availability of loving adoptive couples, Pro-Life Neo-Natal clinics, SNAP, CHIP, Welfare, churches, synagogues, temples, mosques, charities, philanthropies, etc. If there are NOT enough loving couples, government and private charities available to help pregnant women then let’s totally DEFUND Planned Parenthood and similar other Abortion Mills, redirect the money to Pro-Life charities, and start new charities and raise funds for them. Mendacious Planned Parenthood does NOT even do mammograms (they’re NOT licensed to) but speciously boast they do to naive and vulnerable girls and women.

    BTW, even though Obama is solidly within the 1%, spends over $3,540,000,000,000 annually of OPM but boasts that “knowing when human life begins is above his pay grade,” that excuse is NO LONGER available to anyone, thanks to Christians’ love and support for Science which has told us unequivocally that Human Life begins at conception. We’ve examined a newly conceived human being under the electron microscope and tested her DNA every which way to Sunday. There remains no doubt and no question that that which begins at conception is quintessentially human and NONE other. This is entirely consistent with what God has stated through the prophets of yore. No excuse remains for anyone thanks both to God and confirmation by Science which over time has had a uncanny way of doing that repeatedly.

    “I want to be pro-life. For far too long, we Christians have been known more by what we are against than by what we are for. I am ready for a Christianity that is consistently committed to life and all about interrupting death everywhere it raises its ugly face. We are Resurrection people. When Jesus rose from the dead he declared essentially, “Death, thou art dead.” I am ready to see Christians make that same declaration. Death, thou art dead.” — Shane.

    To which I whole-heartedly add my AMEN!

    • You’ve used that “2 million waiting to adopt” statistic before. Several people,myself included, asked for you to cite the statistic. We’re still waiting. In fact, we’re waiting for you to support every single claim you make in every one of these rants – substantiation appears to be an issue for you.

      • adoption_mama

        As an adoptive mom and a foster care/adoption social worker I can pretty much assure you that there are not 2 million waiting to adopt. Maybe waiting for a healthy white infant to adopt but that sure ain’t where the real help is needed.

    • Tony Campolo was focusing on what Barney Frank said about caring for the babies post-birth, why the need to point him out as a “proud homosexual” and all that? He deflects the issue because he is pro-abortion, as you said (I personally don’t know much about him…I’m counting on you here), and you also deflect the issue by calling out on his voting choices and “gay lifestyle” instead of what he said. God can choose anyone that He wants to speak to us, it doesn’t need that non-Christian or the evangelicals’ permission for that. I don’t know if Frank was speaking God’s words, but I see his point.

      “forgiveness should NOT be demanded from the survivors of homicide victims who may or may NOT be Jews or Christians who CHOOSE NOT TO FORGIVE”—I don’t know, Sir, what do you think of Matthew 6:15?

      My confusion is that people demand the governmental involvement when it comes to protecting the unborn, but when it comes to helping the mothers to care for the babies, it’s like “Bye, you’re on your own, woman!” Economics are not acceptable excuses for abortion, but given the reality that it is the excuse used, it’s our responsibility to help these mothers so there is no excuse anymore. Why keep the government from doing so if it is helpful and good? Doesn’t Galatians 6:2 asks us to carry each other’s burdens, because that’s how we’ll fulfill the law of Christ? When we draw a caricature of these people as lazy and expecting the state to care for them from the womb, to the tomb, I think we can be guilty of bearing false witness against our brothers and sisters. Plenty of people are a lot more hard-working than you think

      • If you oppose laws against abortion you should logically also oppose laws that deny people the right to commit infanticide.

        • You misrepresent my view, Sir. The abortion issue needs a holistic solution & you don’t solve it by SOLELY enacting a law that says, “Don’t commit abortion.” For instance:
          1) Why do people have unwanted pregnancy to begin with? One answer is casual attitude towards sex from teenagers all the way to the adult pop’n. Anti-abortion law will at best only indirectly deters premarital sex. We need to create a culture of sexual responsibility, be it in the church or outside of church.
          2) Help poor pregnant women so they’ll have lesser and lesser “excuse” to abort due to economic reasons
          3)Be there for a woman dealing with an unwanted pregnancy. Don’t just picket in front of her house, but show you care through action. Direct her to an adoption agency, introduce to a couple that you know that wants a baby so bad, etc

          I agree with anti-abortion law and I support it because the unborn needs to be protected. I’m afraid that the conservative church is too narrow-minded in thinking that anti-abortion law is the ONLY magic wand solution to this issue. It’s not.

  • TheodoreSeeber

    When I started my new Knights of Columbus Council (John Clare Council #15485 in Portland, OR) one reason was to give pro-life men a voice in a heterodox Catholic parish that was increasingly controlled by pro-choice feminists. Our most prominen program so far? A fine jar at council meetings that will go to unwed mothers.

    • Thank you, sir, you’re a fine example of a Christ-follower who walks the talk…because anyone can protest

  • Really strange, exotic even, for me to see Ron Sider, Barney Frank, Mother Teresa, Jerry Falwell, Cardinal Bernardin, and Tony Campolo all campin’ out on the same pro-life page. It’s a brave new pro-life world we all live in. Happy to be here. Would be even happier fryin’ up trout, roastin’ marshmallows and sharing the Good News with all these wonderful, heroic luminaries. ‘Cept I won’t ever come out (har), as pro-same sex marriage or union or whatever. Ever. Thanks for this place, folks.

  • Dan

    Excellent article.

  • This is a great piece lads. Thanks for putting it together, you have given me much to think about, and I think that I might have to revisit some of my long held mindsets. Thanks again!

  • heymossy

    I want to very quickly point out a political angle to the question.

    If by some amazing and almost magical confluence of events, a Republican president had it in his power to unilaterally declare abortion illegal nationwide by executive order, what would he/she do? This decision would be fraught with political pitfalls for any Republican. If the decision was made to make abortion illegal, vast swaths of American woman who normally avoid politics would all of a sudden become very political and I dare say they almost would all be Democrats. The resulting shift in elections at all levels would see Democrats taking control at virtually every level government. If you were to just politicize 5% of women who normally don’t take part in politics. you would have more that enough numbers to dominate elections federally plus take of a lot of safe blue state houses.

    I would go further and also suggest that Republicans leaders are well aware of this potential. And this in turn explains why Republicans have been giving lip service to the topic all these years while hardly do anything of importance.

    That’s why evangelicals need to get out of the political game on this topic. The likelihood of success will always be thwarted by Republicans who recognize just what a complete ban on abortions could do to the Republican party.

    • 22044

      In principle that would be acceptable, but in practice I wouldn’t recommend it. Even an executive order would have to be enforced by the states, I believe.

      But we shouldn’t “get out of the game”. After all, we are citizens too.
      So we try to change policy by changing hearts & minds and working to get small victories, e.g. decreasing demand for abortions so that clinics shut down voluntarily, empowering states to defund Planned Parenthood, etc.

      • Frank

        The key is to continue to pass more and more restrictions, state by state. It’s working and we should be doing more of it starting with electing people locally who will protect the innocent children.

        • Heymossy

          If you pass more and more restrictions, the end result will be a political backlash. That political backlash will result in more women becoming involved in politics – and these women will invariably be liberal Democrats. With the new found strength the Democrats will receive from these women, liberals will roll back the restrictions and then probably go on to make abortion even more available than it is right now.

          In the long run politics is not going to solve this problem – in fact it will probably make it even worse. If we want to change the culture, we have to do it through the hearts of those involved. And its not as is we don’t have any ammunition. We have the Holy Spirit. I believe effective evangelical outreaches can do more to bring down the abortion rate than any other means – especially political means.

          But here’s the problem right now. When many look to Christians on this issue, they see nothing but scorn and judgement. In other words, outright politicalization of abortion by Christians makes it more difficult to engage in evangelical outreach.

          The best way to stop a women from having an abortion is to help put the Holy Spirit in her life – or maybe her sister’s life, or her best friend’s life or into the life of anyone around her who might make a difference. Banning abortions will never stop abortions. So lets put our efforts elsewhere.

  • Jim Egbert

    My pastor recently said, “If anyone here this morning or who can hear my voice, is pregnant and contemplating an abortion, please let me or anyone on our church staff know. We will provide a loving family to raise and care for your child.” To me this is the correct Christian response!

    • Perfect. That is EXACTLY what it means to be PRO LIFE!

  • It would be hard to imagine a greater COLLECTIVE expression of authentic Pro Life than several hundred thousand great Americans, including many YOUNG WOMEN, marching for Life in Barack Hussein Obama’s backyard, and in OPPOSITION TO Obama-supported and funded FILICIDE !

    Obama was stunned by the huge turnout, and by the ipso facto rebuke by the Pontiff’s tweet in support of Life Marchers! (See the Pontiff’s tweet attached below).

    Let’s listen to Pro Life leader Dr. Tony Perkins:

    “For four decades, families have traveled over miles of wintry highways in the hope that their trips to Washington, D.C. will someday end–and with it, one of the darkest periods of American history. Until then, they continue their pilgrimage to protest a ruling now responsible for the slaughter of millions of unborn lives . . . Today, despite freezing temperatures and whipping winds, people came by the hundreds of thousands to fill the National Mall with a word the media won’t even say–life.

    “In bundled-up babies to busloads of students, this year’s March for Life was a powerful reminder that Americans have not forgotten the ugly legacy of Roe. As somber as the occasion was, I couldn’t help but stand at the podium and marvel at all the young faces staring back at me. Looking out over the vast crowd, it was clear that in 40 years, our movement has not deteriorated but is thriving as never before in the passion of the next generation.

    “As I closed the rally in prayer, I thanked God for the hope these young people represent–not just to our movement, but to America. In the Old Testament, through God’s servant Moses, He put before a new generation, the covenant that was over 1,000 years old. It was this new generation’s time for choosing. God said, “I call heaven and earth as witnesses today against you, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing; therefore choose life, that both you and your descendants may live; that you may love the Lord your God, that you may obey His voice, and that you may cling to Him, for He is your life and the length of your days.” May we not just be a nation that chooses life, but chooses abundant life in Jesus Christ.”

    “The need for (new Pro Life state) laws is demonstrated by the latest Centers for Disease Control and Prevention study showing maternal deaths resulting from abortion are at their highest level since 1994.

    In 2012, 43 pro-life provisions, on everything from clinic safety standards to parents’ rights, were enacted.

    In 2011, 92 pro-life state laws were enacted.

    The pro-life movement has also given birth to thousands of pregnancy resource centers, which offer support and care for mothers and their children. Taken together, we see this as evidence that support for abortion-on-demand is continuing to decline.

    The Roe v. Wade decision was without foundation in the text of the Constitution and is losing its grip on more and more American hearts and minds.”

  • One type of fool says to his fellow fools, “Our President Obama would never do anything similar to what Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot did to their citizens, and what Htiler did to the Jews. Tyranny can not occur in the 21st-century while Barack Hussein Obama is President. That only happens to other people living in other countries; not America. Obama is comprehensively PRO-LIFE!”

    Meanwhile, the Department of Homeland Security — whose mission is to protect the homeland from enemies foreign and domestic but ONLY WITHIN the borders of the U.S. — has begun purchasing millions and millions of .223 rounds and has placed a preliminary order for 7,000 5.56x45mm (fully interchangeable with American made Remington .223 rounds) NATO select fire (semi-auto, AND full auto capable of firing up to 850 rounds per minute) “personal defense weapons” (PDW) — also known as “assault weapons” when owned by civilians. The solicitation, originally posted on June 7, 2012, comes to light as the Obama administration is calling for a ban on semi-automatic rifles and high capacity magazines for all private citizens while Senator Feinstein’s legislation EXEMPTS all government officials and employees.

    • Citing a General Service Administration (GSA) request for proposal (RFP), Steve McGough of RadioViceOnline_dot_com reports that DHS is asking for the 7,000 “select-fire” firearms because they are “suitable for personal defense use in close quarters.” Civilians are prohibited from obtaining these kinds of weapons. Additionally, DHS is asking for 30 round magazines that “have a capacity to hold thirty (30) 5.56x45mm (or Remington .223) NATO rounds.”

      Sen. Diane Feinstein (D-Calif.) on Thursday introduced legislation that would enact a so-called “assault weapons” ban. The bill would ban more than 150 firearms and limit magazines to 10 rounds for non-government employed citizens; in other words, “We The People.” There is no expiration date on Feinstein’s bill.

      NEXT . . . couple this with the fact that when recently asked by congress FBI Director Robert Mueller could NOT state whether or not Obama could LAWFULLY shoot American Citizens on sight without the benefit of Due Process, Habeaus Corpus, and other Constitutional protections including arrest only with probable cause, a speedy trial by jury of one’s peers and if convicted, no cruel or unusual punishment

      What is the Godly Pro-Life, Constitutional Rule of Law Republic Response to these FACTS? I welcome your comments, and Biblically and Constitutionally supported opinions.

      NOTE: CITATIONS are available upon request. RLC just began prohibiting imbedded URLs within Comments.

  • Ceteris Paribus a Pro-Life Result occurs when no one dies when one or more other people have died in the same or similar circumstances in the past. For example, reducing the number of dead babies annually by 1,211,000 would occur if Roe v Wade were killed.

    Here’s an Inconvenient Truth that many Christians don’t like:


    Similar headlines are appearing all over the nation where States honor the 2nd amendment.

    Meanwhile . . .

    . . . in Anti-Second Amendment Rahm Rahmbo Emanuel’s Hyper-Strict Gun Control Chicago, Gun Crime continues to sky-rocket, making Chicago one of the most gun lethal cities in the nation.

    NOTE: I have citations for both these facts where are available for the asking. RLC recently began prohibiting imbedding URL citations and thus must be obtained separately from Comments.

  • Here’s the logic (I use the term loosely) employed by many Christian and non-Christian Leftist Liberals alike:

    “If America repents and turns back to God and Morality and KILLS Roe v Wade abortion becomes ILLEGAL again. But that won’t STOP abortion, just make it unsafe.”

    “However, if we IMPOSE un-Constitutional Gun Confiscations and/or Bans we’ll be SAFER than we are now.”


    Violent Criminals by definition DO NOT OBEY LAWS and many of them use guns to kill people; however . . .

    The vast majority of Board Certified Medical Abortion Doctors are NOT CRIMINALS and thus will NOT perform a procedure that could result in the revocation of their medical licenses — which would ruin their careers — should abortion once again become criminal and/or illegal.

    The number of women who will attempt to BREAK the LAW and administer an abortion to themselves with a coat hangar is about as many as the number of criminals who have committed homicide with a gun in Chicago since January 1, 2013 DESPITE some of the toughest Gun Laws in the Nation. When they get caught they are prosecuted and thrown in jail where they can NOT KILL ANYONE ELSE

    In short, by KILLING ROE v WADE we’ll save about 1,211,000 precious girls’ and boys’ lives per year.

    As of January 26 there have been “only” 36 homicides in Barack Hussein Obama’s hometown of Chicago.

    NOTE: URL citations corroborating the facts above are available for the asking. RLC recently banned the use of URLs in Comments.

  • Bruce Milligan


  • IN spite of the reluctance of the feckless Lamestream Media to report on the Horror Show that is the Kermit Gosnell Infantice and Homicide Murder trial, several members of Congress did so.

    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/

  • A Litmus Test that God would Approve of:

    The only thing that holds up the Collapse of Roe v Wade is the question of “When does a fully human homo sapien become a ‘person’?” Science told us at Fertilization. Pro-Abortionists disagree.

    The only thing that holds up the Collapse of Roe v Wade is the question of “When does a fully human homo sapien become a ‘person’?” Science told us at Fertilization. Pro-Abortionists disagree.

    Here’s one possible solution: Instead of a litmus test for when a 100% Human DNA homo sapien becomes a person, let’s decide when a person becomes a HUMANE HUMAN. Show everyone a video depicting a 10 week abortion and a 24 week abortion. Everyone who recoils in horror and calls it “gross” and INHUMANE is a HUMANE human being; everyone who ignores the gore and slaughter and calls for Abortion on Demand is INHUMAN and INHUMANE. Then let ONLY the HUMANE HUMANS decide when a human being becomes a “person.”

    Problem Solved: Roe Collapses and ~1,211,016 babies & moms lives will be saved every year.

  • bthomas

    Pro-life… if you want to water the discussion down, fine. Water it down. If you want to actually address the killing of unborn children, address it. Broadening the discussion to include extraneous issues is only a strategy to downgrade the reality that abortion is the legalized killing of children.

    At present, those who prize their personal convenience and political agendas have succeeded in using the sword of justice to kill children. They have made medical providers partners in the wholesale industrial killing of children on a scale not seen since Hadamar and other similar “facilities.”

  • Pro Choice not Pro Abortion

    In all these comments I have read very little about the father. It sounds like this is a woman’s problem. But she didn’t create it herself. I’ve seen cases of child support as low as $20/month. I know there are men who refuse income to avoid child support. But if 73% of abortions are the financially motivated, then maybe the fathers should be expected to step up to the plate to help solve this problem. He does not incur medical expenses when the child is born, she does. It seems just as reasonable to me that he be required to financially support his children and the mother(s) of his children as to sentence her and her family to a life of poverty because she is not allowed to have an abortion. But that would be tougher to do.

  • J

    Why am I seeing so few comments here saying ‘Yes! We must take some responsibility for the situation! We must provide a situation for these women in which they can give birth knowing their children can live a decent, dignified life – without the struggles of poverty, lack of health care etc ( which could result in their death anyway.)’ The majority of what I see is cheerful blaming from afar. Perhaps there should be some legal obligation for those of you who oppose abortion to support these women economically and through love, rather than just condemning them your villas and comfortable family lives. I would hope anyone who has a pro-life stance on abortion is willing to go out of their way to support the woman/girl and her child, not just through during the pregnancy but through life. If not, you are just as much to blame as the women you are judging and you represent nothing more than the atheist views of Christians summarised by Shane in the article above. If you are just criticising but not being pro-active in offering love, help and support to these women, then you are only a part of the problem, you are actually encouraging abortion and you are not doing God’s work.

Read previous post:
Roe v Wade
Has Roe Been Good For Women?

BY: KRISTEN DAY -- From the pro-life perspective, Roe is often portrayed as the beginning of an era of legalized...