Abortion and the American Church 

By Lauren Enriquez Published on October 12, 2018

In our sins of silence and omission, we Christians are responsible for the strength and breadth of the abortion genocide. In fact, a majority of women undergoing abortions identify as Protestant or Catholic. Seventy-six percent of post-abortive women reveal that the Church had no impact on their choice. 

To turn the tide, Christians must first own the abortion genocide as our responsibility. Politicians have made it clear that they are not going to end abortion.  

America’s Leading Cause of Death 

More than 2,500 children are killed in abortion every day in the United States. The children killed in America would fill five to six elementary schools every day. Abortion is the leading cause of death in America, surpassing deaths from cancer and heart disease.

Believers hold that each individual is a divine work of art made in the image and likeness of a loving God. This is what leads us and our churches to minister to the poor, the hungry, and all the oppressed. It is what drives us to provide such services as marriage counseling and grief support.

Far from being disturbed by the presence of the church, the power structure of the average community is consoled by the church’s silent — and often even vocal — sanction of things as they are. 

— Martin Luther King, Jr.

Yet when pro-life advocates speak with pastors, they tell us they are afraid they will offend the congregation. Or they claim abortion is not a pressing issue. Some churches have not just averted their eyes from the abortion genocide. They changed their doctrines to support abortion.

Our churches have followed the secular priority of private needs rather over God’s priorities. But God’s command is clear. He tells us in the Ten Commandments: “You shall not murder.” He tells us in Proverbs 24:11: “Rescue those who are being taken away to death; hold back those who are stumbling to the slaughter.” 

Our Responsibility

Christians must own the abortion genocide as our responsibility.

First, we must repent of our failure to take responsibility for this genocide sooner. 2 Chronicles 7:14 reads, “If my people, who are called by my name, will humble themselves and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven, and I will forgive their sin and will heal their land.”  

Help us champion truth, freedom, limited government and human dignity. Support The Stream »

Second, we must educate ourselves and our churches about abortion. This is difficult but necessary. We have to show our pastors why they must risk offending the congregation, why abortion is a pressing issue.

Third, we must engage in spiritual warfare. We are the only ones who recognize that abortion is a symptom of spiritual death. It is the particular calling of the Christian to pray that women and children be released from the violent grips of evil in abortion.  

And finally, the Christian Church must speak as the Church and not as part of the world. In his Letter From Birmingham Jail, Martin Luther King, Jr., lamented the Church’s tendency to uphold the status quo. He urged Christians to rally for the truth without apology, saying: “There was a time when the church was very powerful — in the time when the early Christians rejoiced at being deemed worthy to suffer for what they believed. In those days the church was not merely a thermometer that recorded the ideas and principles of popular opinion; it was a thermostat that transformed the mores of society.”

Christians are an influential force in America. It’s time for us to stop conforming to the culture and start transforming it. We can be the thermostat that transforms society’s disregard for the unborn.

  
Lauren Enriquez is public relations manager of the Human Coalition. Founded in 2009, Human Coalition fuses technology, best practices, and tangible help to compassionately serve the unreached, abortion-determined woman. Hear more about this topic on our weekly broadcast, The Human Element. She wrote Who Cares More? Pro-Lifers or Pro-Choicers?  for The Stream.

Print Friendly
Comments ()
The Stream encourages comments, whether in agreement with the article or not. However, comments that violate our commenting rules or terms of use will be removed. Any commenter who repeatedly violates these rules and terms of use will be blocked from commenting. Comments on The Stream are hosted by Disqus, with logins available through Disqus, Facebook, Twitter or G+ accounts. You must log in to comment. Please flag any comments you see breaking the rules. More detail is available here.
  • John A.

    Amen. Very troubling that so many people are coming out as pro-life, yet saying in the next breath they wouldn’t impose it on anyone by overturning Roe.

    • That means they aren’t pro-life.

    • Athena771

      You cannot force another person to continue being pregnant against their will.

      What do you propose that all pregnant women be imprisoned for 9 months to make sure every woman carries to term?

      How far are you willing to go to violate a woman’s right to her body to force her to gestate?

      I certainly would not encourage anyone to have an abortion, but at the same time, women are individuals with rights and you cannot just imprison someone for not wanting to gestate.

      Have any of you pro-lifers thought this through really, the ramifications of trying to criminalize abortion? Are miscarriages now going to be investigated as crimes?

      Trying to criminalize abortion is by default forcing women to remain pregnant against their will.

      If anyone wants to respond to my post, please do not respond about sex and responsibility.

      Somebody please address the logistics of ENFORCING pregnancy for 9 months on ALL WOMEN?

      • tz1

        Pregnancy isn’t something spontaneous.

        Are women now mere cows that cannot realize where babies come from? Or are they too weak to simply say “no” but can’t control themselves losing all reason?

        If they don’t get pregnant in the first place, there is no “remaining pregnant against their will”.

        If I overeat and get fat, do I have a right to liposuction? If I smoke heavily a right to a lung transplant? If I drink to excess, a liver transplant?

        She has an absolute right to HER body, by not letting men into her body. She doesn’t have the right to kill a DISCRETE different body of the baby she allowed to come into existence.

        (The 0.01% of forced rape is an exception, which I can address, but there is no point if you believe that women who decide to do acts that risk pregnacy voluntarily in the moment – like drinking before driving where no one intends the fatal crash – they don’t have to suffer the natural, knowable 9 month consequences).

        Miscarriages would not be investigated as crimes, and pre Roe, they flew to Mexico or found a back alley until the Gosnell was shut down.

        • Athena771

          thank you for NOT addressing how you are going to force all pregnant women to gestate?

          Thank you for NOT addressing how by outlawing abortion, DOES reduce women to mere cows that lose their rights to their own bodies just because a sperm fertilizes an egg?

          Yes if abortion is outlawed micarriages would be suspect because what if the woman performed a self-abortion to herself?

          So tell me why should a fertilized egg or embryo HAVE MORE rights then a a woman to her OWN UTERUS?

          • tz1

            I addressed some in the second reply.
            I won’t force pregnant women to do anything but would execute anyone who killed their baby.
            You say we need abortion BECAUSE WOMEN ARE MERELY COWS that can’t think or have free will. The “sperm” is not a random infection so if a women has sex and gets pregnant, I say they are responsible for the new human life.
            On miscarriages, see above. Assuming you have the intellictual capacity.
            A woman has a right to her uterus.
            and to her HYMEN too.
            She can have a hysterectomy (hysteria – well, your posts…) and keep her Uterus in a jar with other nik-naks and not worry about pregnancy.
            If she shops her uterus around and someone ends up moving in, she should have no more right to kill the “squatter” she tacitly invited than any other landlord to kill a tenant. And the latter is for 9 months, not longer.

          • Athena771

            You are being inconsistent, if you are NOT willing to prosecute the woman, then that tell me you DO believe a woman has the right to terminate a pregnancy.

            What if she did a self abortion? why would you prosecute the third party? that does not make any sense.

            If you agree a woman has a right to her uterus, then she has the right to EXPEL its contents, which include an embyo? do you agree?

            So tell me does a woman have a right to her OWN uterus, if so, then she has the right to expel anyone that implants itself there.

          • tz1

            There is a pragmatic reason. The same reason I am against the war against guns and the war against drugs (beyond the underlying rights – and if it is MY BODY, then why doesn’t Roe cover whatever I wish to ingest in any manner?). I cannot think of any manner of enforcement that wouldn’t produce worse evils than the original crime. I would apply that to prostitution.

            Not all sins ought to be crimes. Even those that involve the murder of the innocent. So there is a difference between going after a woman (unless she admits and celebrates killing her baby with the dead baby in a jar or something equally gruesome), and going after the murdering “doctor”.

            I’m also generally unwilling to ban OTC pregnancy tests for the same reason, but it could be done.

          • Athena771

            why would you want to ban OTC pregnancy tests? are you saying a woman has no right to know that she is pregnant?

            You think i am crazy, you sound nuts to me.

            If you are against the war on drugs, then you should be against trying to control what a woman does with her uterus, which includes EXPELING an unwanted gestation.

          • tz1

            Only because OTC pregnancy tests are private.
            Women should know if they are pregnant.
            But there should be some escrow of the information to check what happens to her baby.

            Does the woman have the right to use cocaine or heroin or some other drug that will harm her baby and yet bring it to term and not be responsible for such harm?

          • Athena771

            “But there should be some escrow of the information to check what happens to her baby.”

            What do you mean by that?

          • tz1

            Roughly the same reason the left gives for registering guns so they can know who might be responsible for a death.
            If a pregnant women doesn’t have a baby 9 months later there are questions as to why.

          • Athena771

            Oh my gosh, you are nuts, you actually want somekind of registry of pregnant women to make sure they give birth.

            Wow!, you actually would go that far to make sure every pregnancy is brought to term?

            Thank you, by you telling me this, tells me everything i need to know about you.

            I will fight people like you tooth and nail, over my dead body will people like you take my right to my own body.

            You are the one wanting to reduce women to incubators.

            I am now more pro-choice then ever thanks to you!

          • tz1

            No, only those who plan abortion. Generally they would know by the missing period.
            Meanwhile there’s the facebook, twitter, google, and amazon private privacy rape which could be used.

            Meanwhile you will prostitute or sell your “own body” because you wish to be able to murder a distinct, separate body.

            Women can choose not to get pregnant.
            If they do, choosing murder should have the penalties for murder.

          • Kevin Quillen

            you used to post under a different name, why did you change it?

          • Athena771

            i like this name better, you have a problem with that?

          • Athena771

            their is not such thing as shopping a uterus. consent to sex is NOT consent to giving up her rights to an embryo or fertilized egg.

            She retains her right to her uterus

          • tz1

            Shopping?
            So I consent to drink and drive, but don’t “consent” to the natural consequence which might be crashing into someone else and killing everyone in their car.

      • tz1

        I responded about sex and responsibility because if women are mere cattle, then we need to repeal the 19th amendment and have them as wards of their Fathers or Husbands because YOU think women are unable to accept responsibility for their acts, i.e. that they either lack the intellect or will.

        We can’t have a discussion until we first establish if women are mere animals without intellect or free will, or have both and thus ARE responsible.

        The logistics of abortion are simple. Abortion is murder and any DOCTOR, or drug pusher (think fentanyl that kills someone), or anyone else that murders a baby or assists would face first degree murder charges and the penalty including captial punishment (see the Gosnell Movie since it would typically be mass murder).

        The Woman can do what she wants which might result in permanent disability or death, but that is her choice if she would rather risk that than remain pregnant. Such risks and the stories should suffice.

        • Athena771

          So basically a woman should be forced to gestate against her will by using the threat of punishment or imprisonment?

          Please answer me yes or no?

          • tz1

            Answer: No.
            But she can engage in something risky to end the pregnancy that might leave her maimed or dead. And whomever provided it would be guilty of homicide.
            However the third parties that would provide an abortion should be considered the murderers and face the full force of the law.

          • Athena771

            Thank you for finally answering my question, so basically you DO believe that a woman has a right to her body and stop a gestation process then? since you said no.

            An abortion is actually not that risky if it is done in the 1st trimester actually.

            So just to understand you, YOU would NOT prosecute the woman for procuring an abortion, so then you admit that abortion is NOT murder then?

            i will tell you that if abortion were illegal tommorrow, i would find a way to end a pregnancy, because i refuse to gestate, i find pregnancy a disgusting horrible condition.

            Thank you for admitting that woman have a right to not be treated like an incubator.

          • tz1

            The woman has an absolute right to her body as you apparently cannot understand.
            With rights come responsibility.
            I have the absolute right to gamble, but then I don’t have the right to rob the casino if I voluntarily lost a lot of money.
            The Baby also has an absolute right to its body.
            Murder is illegal, but people manage to find ways of murdering.
            Rape is illegal, but still happens.
            You can have your womb removed, aka a hysterectomy since you seem hysterically phobic about pregnancy. That would fix it for you (beyond even tubes tied).
            Any of the Handmaid’s Harpy tailfeathers could end any danger by just having a hysterectomy. And insure their crazy genes would not be passed on to the next generation.

          • Athena771

            Why should i need to do a hysterectomy to have a right to my own uterus?

            I like my uterus inside my body, thank you very much.

          • Kathy

            Why is that? It’s a useless organ taking up space in your body, according to your comments. The purpose of the uterus is to “house” and “incubate” a baby and for nothing else. Just think, you could be done with those pesky monthly periods and any chance of getting uterine cancer if you have it removed.

            Don’t agree with some posters on here that you should be forced to procreate, but if there is an unplanned pregnancy, it is nothing short of murder to abort the child. Not sure if it’s a concern for you, but God does not look kindly on those who murder.

          • Athena771

            And the purpose of breasts is for breastfeeding, should i have them removed too if i never breastfeed?

          • Kathy

            I wasn’t suggesting you have your uterus removed (that was tz1), but you seemed adamant about keeping it. Was wondering why you would be since it would free you from the stress you feel about accidentally getting pregnant. No concerns about abortion then either.

            Again, unlike some on this site, I believe it is your choice whether or not to TRY to have children. Just my thoughts, but maybe you’ve been afraid of the possible complications that come with pregnancy since you mentioned risks? Or, maybe this is one area of your life that you can have control over? Know you have your reasons, and I would not fault you for any of them…the other commenters here are men, so think I could relate to you a little better.

          • Athena771

            tz1 just said to me that their should be a registry of pregnant women and the pregnancy test should not be private, he utterly disgusts me now.

            His utter disregard for women and her rights to her body are beyond the pale.

            I am now 42 and going through menopause, so i cannot get pregnant anymore.

            That being said, no, i never wanted to have children and still don’t. The idea of being pregnant disgusts me to no end.

            The idea of being used like an incubator to me is the stuff of nightmares. If i was to become pregnant by accident, i would RUN not walk to the nearest abortion clinic.

          • Kathy

            I very often disagree (to put it mildly) with tz1, and I think his suggestions are ridiculous as well.

            Like I said, I am not at all telling you that you should have had children… that is none of my business, it’s between you and your husband. Don’t believe either that you should not be married if you don’t have children…there are many couples who can’t have them. Would anyone tell them to divorce if they discover that? I would hope not.

            Many people think along those lines…even though they knowingly and willingly commit any kind of sin, God will forgive them because He understands. Yes, you are accountable to Him and not me, but that is telling a holy God that sinning against Him is no big deal, that He will give it a wink and a nod because knows why you chose it.

          • Athena771

            Why don’t you worry about your own sins, i will worry about mine.

            Each one of us will have to answer to God about something, unless of course you will never sin again until you die?

            It is called MYOB.

          • Kathy

            Abortion aside, there are many misconceptions about God floating around, some of it wishful thinking on our part, some being exposed to false teachings…the list goes on. I see the evidence of that reading some of the comments by professing Christians on this entire website, not just this article. I”m sure I make mistakes and welcome others to “call me out” on them..it’s been only a 6 year journey for me.

            Bottom line, Athena, is reading and studying God’s Word in the Bible, the best way to help ourselves more fully understand Him and His ways. Since He is God and we are not, we will not understand everything, but we can know the most important truths He has revealed to us though the Bible and through Jesus. Best investment any of us can make.

          • Athena771

            i don’t believe in calling out nobody about their belief about God.

            Everyone has a wishful thinking view of God, nobody has an accurate view because we are finite and God is infinite and eternal.

            So your view is no better then mine, we are all grasping , and we are deluded if we think we have God all figured out.

          • Kathy

            What you are saying is that we can only guess? You are right, we can’t know everything, but do you think we can know anything with certainity?

          • Athena771

            yes, i think that we get a glimpse at who God is in Jesus, everything else we cannot know for sure.

          • Kathy

            Jesus said “I and the Father are One” and “If you have seen Me, you have seen the Father”. I think Jesus fully revealed the Father …. He actually is God, as He said.

            I learned it’s really important and beneficial to understand and fully grasp the meaning of the gospel message….why Jesus came and what He accomplished. Do you think we can find the answers by referring to Scripture?

          • Athena771

            To answer your question, yes it is mostly a guess, we only have partial information. Jesus said he was fully God and fully man, he is the example we should follow to the best of our abilities.

          • Athena771

            I used to be like you, thinking that i had God figured out, and that their is only 1 view , the views and interpretations about how God is are many, and the bible is subject to interpretation.

          • Athena771

            i don’t want my uterus removed, what is it with you people?

            it is very simple, if i get pregnant, i get an abortion, period, i don’t need you guys is permission or approval.

            This whole idea that just because a woman becomes pregnant, means she has to stay pregnant is so repugnant to me.

            What part of you cannot force me to gestate do you guys not understand?

          • Athena771

            To answer your question, i think God would understand that i do not want to gestate, i think he would understand how utterly disgusting pregnancy is to me.

            I think our God is more understanding then some people on this site are.

            God knows how i feel about this , and if i have an abortion , I will answer to God about it not you.

          • tz1

            Then keep sperm out so it won’t join with eggs and have a human being implant and start growing in it.

            Above I mentioned landlords. Why should it be harder to evict a problematic tenant than to murder the tenant in a womb?

          • Athena771

            body ownership is a stronger right then property ownership.

          • tz1

            So you would legalize all drugs because my body is more than my property and I can do anything I want with it?

          • Athena771

            yes

          • tz1

            Good. We agree on something!

          • Athena771

            I don’t need to remove my uterus, i can use birth control to prevent pregnancy or abstinence, etc…

            You are crazier then i am by resorting to telling women to remove their uterus.

          • tz1

            I am simply pointing out the science.
            If you want a 100% chance of avoiding pregnancy:
            1. Don’t have sex (abastinence – which apparently we both recommend)
            2. Remove your uterus.

          • Athena771

            I don’t really care what you say anymore, after your comment about the pregnancy registry, you actually DISGUST ME to no end.

            I am done speaking to you.

          • Athena771

            by the way i am not arguing that the baby has the right to ITS body, but that does NOT translate that it has a right to a uterus to be housed in.

          • tz1

            So you don’t think the baby has a right to its body? And not to be killed just because it is inconvenient and the “landlord” made a mistake so should evict anyone even if so?

            Yes, lets have landlords be able to on any whim evict tenants because they are “inconvenient” no matter how much trouble it causes the tenants.

          • Athena771

            By the way childbirth is MORE risky then a 1st trimester abortion.

            Childbirth has a history of causing death to many women through all of history.

            By the way why would you not consider the woman a murderer, if SHE herself is the one procuring the abortion or causing a self abortion?

            Why would you prosecute a third party, a third party is only doing what the woman is requesting?

            That just tells me that your REALLY DO NOT BELIEVE abortion is murder. You believe a woman has a right to terminate a pregnancy.

          • tz1

            I would consider the mother a murderer, but there are pragmatic reasons to target the immediate killer. Also if the woman confessed to murder she should be treated as a murderess.
            If I hire an assassin and manage to remain anonymous, why wouldn’t you prosecute the assassin?
            Lots of things caused death through all of history, especially before we learned about germs. Look up Simmelweis that actually had a way to prevent post partum infections but was ostracized.
            You are also moving the goalposts with “first trimester abortion”, and not even including things like the pill that the WHO considers a class 1 carcinogen.
            Amazing that the human species survived with all the risks!

          • Kevin Quillen

            YES!

        • Athena771

          14 amendment,

          forcing a woman to stay pregnant against her will using the force of law is GESTATIONAL SLAVERY.

          • tz1

            No, it is not slavery unless she didn’t consent to whatever action caused the pregnancy.

            You also avoid the issue by using the term pregnancy. Let me correct you:

            “Doing anything to prevent the mother from murdering her (in this case unborn) baby is slavery”.

            But why does it matter that the baby hasn’t been born? If she gets tired of the toddler, why not just kill it?

      • Juan Garcia

        You obviously do not believe in the intrinsic value of human life. You therefore have NO business talking about human rights. Without human life there ARE no human rights.

        • Athena771

          What about the rights of the pregnant woman to her body?

          Without bodily rights we have no rights.

          Bodily rights trump right to life.

          • Juan Garcia

            You don’t even understand the argument. Here I will help you. You Athena, are an annoyance to me, an inconvenience. You have no value except as it extrinsically benefits me. Since I see no value in you, you should cease to exist. That’s what you are saying to your baby.

          • Juan Garcia

            Another point Athena is that if you truly believe that your bodily rights trump life then you are sledding full speed ahead down a slippery slope and someday a person with power and your same mindset will look at you with cold dead eyes and after deciding your value as a human being has ended will render the same decision you would make regarding an unborn child.

          • Athena771

            yes they do, try to take someone’s kidney or blood even for your very life and see what happens?

            Bodily rights trump right to life all the time that is why you cannot be compelled to donate organs or give blood.

          • Juan Garcia

            Strawman

          • Kevin Quillen

            Thank you my brother. You know where humanism leads. Preach it!

          • Juan Garcia

            And finally Athena, I will pray for you because I care for you too much not to.

  • erin

    Amen! And the next logical step to speaking as the church and not as the world is to declare artificial and hormonal contraception as the grave evil and sin that it is, noting its link to abortion and it’s support of the godless and disordered idea that humans have a “right” to childless sex.

    • Thank you

    • Athena771

      so does that mean that infertile women should refrain from sex since you seem to have a problem with childless sex?

      I mean what is the point of having sex when one is infertile i mean if their is no possiblity of conception?

      Should we outlaw sex to only occur during fertile times only? since you say it is a “grave evil” to have childless sex?

      • tz1

        No, as Humanae Vitae said, the act should be “open to life”. Sarah appeared sterile until she had Isaac. Rachel until she had Joseph.

        My only complaint about erin’s post is the problem doesn’t fit well in a tweet sized comment.

        To put it in greater relief, “Have Sex while slamming the door on God creating a new soul”. Souls are eternal. Souls have supposedly infinite value. If so, then to deny the procreation of a new soul is an infinite tragedy, at least inside the bonds of holy matrimony. Marriage has multiple aspects, but one is a factory for new souls. And preferring a new car over a new soul is gravely evil.

        • Athena771

          how is denying a new soul during sex an infinite tragedy? and how do you know that for certain?

          How do you know people prefer a new car over a new soul?

          What if the couple does not want to be a parent?

          So couples that do not want to be parents, should be denied companionship and intimacy?

          We are not factories to new souls, if that was the case then you should be against celibecy?

          Human Vitae is a human religious doctrine, not everyone is catholic.

          Their are so many things that you posted that are just PLAINLY religious belief, that cannot be proven to be the ABSOLUTE truth that everyone has to follow.

          You are ascertaining an absolute certainty about things that we DO NOT know for certain.

          • tz1

            If the “couple” doesnt’ want to be parents, they shoudn’t be a couple.
            Couples who don’t want to be parents (but are capable) can go NFP, or be intimate without penetration.
            There doesn’t have to be many factories, so celibates produce holiness instead of souls. But if you build a soul factory, it ought to produce souls.
            Humanae Vitae is TRUE, regardless if it is religious, doctrinal, or Catholic. Argue rationally, not ad hominem.

            Evil pagans including those who slaughter innocents with obsidian knives atop pyramids can hide behind the inability to prove truth. But I will say it is better to be pro-life. There is a difference between an unknowable absolute that slaughters millions, a fourth of the population, and one that lets them live. That is the metachoice.

            You have chosen death, but only in one narrow context. When you open the gates of hell, and see slaughter in the streets will you be so calm and supportive?

          • Athena771

            I will tell my husband that you said, we should get divorced and not be a couple anymore because we do not want to have children.

            Human Vitae is a religious doctrine created by man. I do not have to follow it.

          • tz1

            Sex is an act created by God to create the bodies for the souls he wants to create.

            You need not divorce, only stop having INTENTIONALLY sterile sex.

            And if the contraception fails, will you murder your baby?

          • Athena771

            I will continue to have sterile sex, and yes any unwanted pregnancy will be removed from my uterus.

          • tz1

            You will murder any baby you don’t want. What if you decide post birth, or if the todder becomes annoying?

          • Athena771

            ridiculous comparison and you know it, trying to equate a toddler to a 5 week embryo is absurd.

          • tz1

            How about a viable 8 month gestation fetus?

          • Athena771

            Since it is viable, it can be delivered and it can live outside the body, no need for an abortion.

          • tz1

            Not answering the question – should it be legal to abort it?
            Or at 7, 6, 5 months, there are 20 week gestation fetuses that survived, so where would you draw the line? Or at the point where the baby feels pain? Has a heartbeat?

    • Kathy

      Wouldn’t the “Rhythm Method” or “Natural Family Planning” be included in that contraception list as well? It is preventing pregnancy by determining a woman’s fertile time of the month, thereby giving the couple freedom to stop conception from taking place during that particular month. In other words, they are making a choice not to have a child by avoiding sex at that time. As with artificial or hormonal contraception, the unfertilized egg will be lost forever.

  • tz1

    Amen Amen Amen.

  • Juan Garcia

    It was over 50 years ago, but I remember it like it was yesterday. I was dating a Catholic girl who informed me her sister had a baby. I blurted out “I didn’t even know she was married!” She informed that her sister was not married, that she had been raped by three men. I blurted out “Why didn’t she get an abortion!” She replied “Kill the baby! It wasn’t the baby’s fault!” Then she took me in and introduced to a beautiful newborn human being who grabbed my outstretched finger and smiled. Now all these years later in my retirement, my wife and I run a crises pregnancy center. Any further discussion needed?

    • Athena771

      Yes, if a woman that is raped wants to carry to term that is her perogative, you cannot force a rape victim to gestate against her will.

      So yes it is not a one size fits all.

      • Andrew Mason

        Is it right to murder someone because of the sins of their father?

        • Athena771

          Is it right for a woman to be forced to endure pregnancy and childbirth just because YOU or others think she should?

  • Athena771

    Anybody here going to respond to my posts about how far you are all willing to go to force a woman to gestate a pregnancy for 9 months?

    How many people here are willing to use the threat of imprisonment or fines to compell pregnant woman to STAY pregnant against their will?

    This is the crux of the issue that you all do not address. Everytime i post such a question i never get a an answer.

    setting aside the question of responsiblity and sex.

    Someone answer me if they are willing to use the threat of imprisonment or fine to compel women to gestate including their own friends and family?

    • Ameribear

      This is the crux of the issue that you don’t address. When do the unborn become persons worthy of equal protection under the law and why?

      • Andrew Mason

        When they become Democrat voters? 🙂

        More seriously ethicists have argued that birth shouldn’t grant a person equal protection under the law, indeed that some born children should be terminated. Very 1930’s Germany thinking of course, but that’s where the West is headed.

        • Ameribear

          Yep, I know. They’re just being consistent though.

      • Athena771

        i say viability which is about 24 weeks.

        • Ameribear

          I asked when and why. Why is viability the line that says a person did not exist before but does now?

        • Kevin Quillen

          you say? I say at conception. who is right? We should err on the side of caution.

          • Athena771

            Viability= can live outside the womb.

          • Ameribear

            The unborn at 24 weeks gestation are not developed enough to live outside the womb without external mechanical aids. You are making the same mistake of attempting to link personhood to development. Human development is on a continuum that begins at conception and ends at death. Your opinion that personhood begins at 24 weeks is completely arbitrary.

          • Athena771

            all lines are arbitrary, just like when you become 18 years of age, you are an adult, yet a 17 year old is no different than an 18 year old.

            I think viability is a reasonable line, it balances the woman’s right to choose and a more developed fetus have a chance at life.

          • Ameribear

            all lines are arbitrary, just like when you become 18 years of age, you are an adult, yet a 17 year old is no different than an 18 year old.

            Which Is exactly why you cannot link person-hood or humanity to any stage of development. Since development fluctuates over our entire lifespan anything liked to it will also have to fluctuate.

            I think viability is a reasonable line, it balances the woman’s right to choose and a more developed fetus have a chance at life.

            It is a new, separate, genetically distinct, whole human being from the moment of conception on. That is a datum of embryology and not anyone’s personal opinion. Women’s bodily rights is fictitious first of all and even if it wasn’t, no ones bodily rights trumps another human’s right to life.

          • Kevin Quillen

            cannot live out side the womb without Mom. Can she kill the child up until the baby can take care of itself? Answer it this time.
            I was honest with you.

          • Athena771

            Viability- does not require gestation anymore.

            A newborn can be taken care of by anyone, it does not require a uterus.

    • Andrew Mason

      You assume that folk have seen and ignored your previous posts. This is the first of yours I’ve seen. Before I respond though I’ll glance at your other posts …

      The problem seems to be that you’re creating a false paradox – either women have the right to kill their children, or men have a right to force women to stay pregnant against their will. Since you aren’t accurately defining reality any solution will be flawed. Rape aside, the reality is women choose whether or not to risk getting pregnant. If they choose to risk it then they also chose to take responsibility for their pregnancy and the subsequent birth. If they don’t want to be a mother they don’t have to keep the child – adoption is an option, but killing the child is never a solution.

      Elsewhere you mention that childbirth has caused the death of many women throughout history, that abortion in the first trimester is not the risky. The problem is that more than 50% of abortions kill a female. Even during the most primitive periods of history women in childbirth had a better than 50% chance of survival!!! The fact is there are no safe abortions, only ones which have more or less survivors. As an aside, pro-abortionists don’t want to see abortion restricted to the first trimester, nor do they want it to be a rare procedure. And when something like Gosnell happens the pro-abortionists quash it as it doesn’t help their agenda at present.

      A woman I know just had a miscarriage. She and her husband are devastated. You ask whether imprisonment or fines for women who murder their own children is appropriate? Answer me this, is the death of a child a tragedy? If you agree it’s a tragedy it’s you’ve answered your own question. If you argue it’s not then please explain why this young couple are so devastated.

      • Athena771

        The couple is devastated because they feel they lost something, that is fine, it is their perogative to feel that way. Other couples may not feel the same sense of loss, it is not a one size fits all experience.

        The problem is i don’t see an embryo as a child, to me it is a child once it is viable and can live outside the body of the woman .

        Most abortions occur at 5-6 weeks when it is an embryo the size of an appleseed. I just cannot wrap my head around ANYONE saying that a 5-6 week embryo should have more rights then the pregnant woman to her OWN BODY.

        A woman that becomes pregnant has the choice carry to term or terminate, to me that is a no brainer, why should her rights be taken away because of becoming pregnant.

        I never said abortion is not risky, but it is LESS risky then childbirth, and you know that. Women have dies in childbirth for hundreds of years , so don’t minimize it.

        Having sex does not nullify bodily rights which include a woman deciding to remove an embryo from her uterus

        Does a woman stop owning her uterus after a fertilized egg implants itself?

        • Andrew Mason

          You contend that an embryo is not a child, that a child is only a person once viable and capable of living outside the mother’s body. The problem is children are still not capable of independent life and need care once born. Why should a dependent child be deemed human? According to some ethicists disabled newborns should be killed. I see no grounds for pro-choicers to disagree.

          The problem is the right to life is more fundamental than the right not to be pregnant, and there is no right to commit murder, though it may be legal.

          And as I said more than 50% of abortions kill a female. Abortions are not merely risky but almost always fatal for one or more of the people involved.

          Yes it does. Do the crime do the time. Okay possibly a misuse of that phrase but if you don’t want to be pregnant don’t fool around. She doesn’t lose her rights, however they must be balanced with those of the child(ren) she is carrying.

          It’s more a case of landlord v tenant rights. If you choose to put your property on the market you do not have the right to change your mind. The sole exception would be criminal conduct by the tenant. Similarly, unless the mother’s life is genuinely in danger, as opposed to her figure, convenience, or other trivial reason, no intervention should be considered.

          • Athena771

            I fundamentally disagree with your view of right to life. You are basically saying that the fetus/embryo has SPECIAL rights, which is to use the woman’s body to live, that is NOT right to life, that is the right to take from someone else or use someone else to live.

            We will have to agree to disagree on this subject.

          • Andrew Mason

            Agree we’ll not agree. I don’t see it as a matter of special rights but equality.

        • Kevin Quillen

          At conception, all DNA is present and a unique human being created. AT CONCEPTION! Abortion is murder. Why, if a pregnant woman is murdered, can the killer be charged with two counts? Legally, the “fetus” is a human being with rights. Deny it all you like. We live in the 21st century. We know what causes pregnancy. We know how to prevent it. However, there are too many who use abortion as a method of birth control. Humanistic thinking kills babies in what should be the safest place in the world, the mothers womb.

          • Athena771

            I actually disagree with the law, it should NOT be double murder, the reason that law was passed was to appease pro-lifers like yourself.

        • isleAwhile

          Athena, you were once a 6 week old growing baby. At this age you had all the developing organs of an adult, including a beating heart. Your human life began at the beginning, of course, at the moment of fertilization. Life is a gift from God.

        • Ameribear

          The problem is i don’t see an embryo as a child, to me it is a child once it is viable and can live outside the body of the woman.

          A newborn cannot live outside the mothers body. It has to have it’s basic needs met by another person for many months after birth so according to that logic it’s not a person until it’s old enough to meet all it’s basic needs without any external help.

          If living outside of the body is your criteria for personhood, then any living person who is not developed enough to meet all their basic needs unaided is not a person.

          I just cannot wrap my head around ANYONE saying that a 5-6 week embryo should have more rights then the pregnant woman to her OWN BODY.

          An unborn should not have more rights than it’s mother, it should have the same rights which you are denying it.

          A woman that becomes pregnant has the choice carry to term or terminate,to me that is a no brainer, why should her rights be taken away because of becoming pregnant.

          A woman gets pregnant because she accepted the risk of pregnancy when she willingly engaged in the act that causes it.

          Having sex does not nullify bodily rights which include a woman deciding to remove an embryo from her uterus

          Having sex brings a new, genetically distinct, whole human being/person into existence who is in a natural state of need because of the willful actions of it’s parents. No ones bodily rights trump the rights of another human being getting his/her basic needs met which can only be done through the mother for the first 9 months.

          Does a woman stop owning her uterus after a fertilized egg implants itself?

          A woman is half responsible for bringing a new human being into existence who is supposed to be entitled to equal protection under the law.

          • Athena771

            No equal protection under the law, does not include being housed and gestated inside another person’s body, that is NOT equal that is SPECIAL RIGHTS.

            Do you have the right to live inside another person’s body? can you compel someone to gestate you? if you need it to live?

          • Ameribear

            No equal protection under the law, does not include being housed and gestated inside another person’s body, that is NOT equal that is SPECIAL RIGHTS.

            It is one human being having it’s most basic needs met by another which is not special rights by any stretch of the imagination. If an unborn human is being granted special rights by having his or her basic needs met by their mother then a so is newborn, a toddler, and a preschooler. You could extend that warped logic to anyone at any stage of life who requires the care of another person to live a normal life.

            Do you have the right to live inside another person’s body? can you compel someone to gestate you? if you need it to live?

            Every single living human being has the right to have his or her basic needs met. The willful act of the mother that brought a new, separate distinct whole human being into existence obligates her to meet the needs of that human being for the first nine months of it’s life because there’s only one way those needs get met during that time period.

          • Athena771

            We will have to agree to disagree on this issue, i think Viability is a fair line to draw that balances the woman’s right to terminate a pregnancy with respecting the rights of a more developed fetus to have somekind of rights in later stage of development.

            It does not have to be a all or nothing, i believe in a fair compromise.

          • Ameribear

            That’s a total cop out and I’m thinking you really don’t have anything to counter well reasoned arguments against abortion so you’re folding.

            Getting back to your original question regarding what kind of punishment women who have abortions should get. What comes into existence after conception has been scientifically defined to be a fully human being from conception for some time now which means viability, birth or any other point along the development continuum has no bearing on the argument anymore.

            Women are in prison for killing their born children and they can’t use
            any fictitious bodily rights fairy tales to get them off the hook even
            though a born child is a far greater imposition on the bodily rights of
            the mother long after her pregnancy ends.

            Since every living human should have the right to having their basic needs met, what do you think the punishment should be for a mother (that means she’s willfully responsible for her child’s existence) who intentionally denies her child (who is a human being from the moment of conception) his or her basic needs?

    • Kevin Quillen

      I have not read the thread yet but I will address your questions. Yes abortion is murder and as such the murderer(woman and doctor) should be prosecuted for murder. Yes the threat of imprisonment should be used as a deterrent. Yes, this includes my family members. Also, I will add that as a society we have a responsibility to provide for the babies who have no one to care for them. Adoption instead of abortion. Clear enough for you?

      • Athena771

        Thank you for being honest, i disagree with you, i would not even dream of putting any embryo or fetus rights BEFORE any of my friends, family or my sister for that matter.

        If the law were to ever change, i would NEVER turn any woman in for excercising her right to NOT continue incubating.

    • Irene Neuner

      Yes Athena, the taking of an innocent life, even in the womb, is barbaric, murder and should be punished with prison or capital punishment.

  • Cody

    First the church is not having an impact is only partially true, all true churches preach abortion is wrong, but we have many seeker friendly churches out there, liberal churches, tickle my ears end time churches, which Jesus warned us about who only want members not converts many of these pastors are not saved themselves and could not lead someone to Christ if they had to.These pastors are more interested in entertaining goats than feeding the sheep, next we have another problem in the church we have to many members who have a false sense of salvation they sit in church week after week and are not even saved yet believed they are this is one reason they don’t know the truth. The word of God will set you free but you must know the word of God, which leads us to the next problem, we have fake news, fake preachers, and fake bibles, this is a fake trinity all wrapped up in one, hum, fake bibles you say yep thats right folks, I will not go into detail but some of our most popular bibles on the market today our full of mistakes put in there by the devils agents on purpose to deceive us some bibles omitt complete verses why would they do that? it could only be that satan has just pulled out of his hat his most popular trick, give all these church going members a fake bible so if they do read it they get their fake truth. Just think about it satan has a great trick up his sleeve and the church is eating it up like candy, Jesus said don’t be deceive there will be false prophets and deceptions out there and it will only get worse as we get closer to the end.

  • Kevin Quillen

    The church will never be the thermostat until the tax exemption is given up and political action takes place. Not likely to happen though. The church has given up the moral authority to Uncle Sam. For cash.

    • Athena771

      I do not want the church having that kind of power, no thank you, i want the tax exemption to stay.

      Churches shut up, stay out of politics

Inspiration
Don’t Despair: There is Light
Aliya Kuykendall
More from The Stream
Connect with Us