Cover story April Citizen: Stanek on Obama

The April issue of Citizen magazine, published by Focus on the Family, features a cover story I wrote on my experience with Barack Obama when he was a state senator opposing IL's Born Alive Infant Protection Act. Read the rest of the story here or on page 2.

citizen2.jpg

With Obama no longer in the state Senate, the Born Alive legislation passed in 2005.

First encounter

An Illinois lawmaker offered the first draft of the state's Born Alive Infant Protection Act in 2001 after I revealed publicly that Christ Hospital left babies who survived abortion -- viable babies whose delivery was induced, and whom the abortionist intended to kill but somehow survived -- in a utility room to die.

The bill, sponsored by state Sen. Patrick O'Malley of Oak Lawn defined "born alive" using language identical to that of federal legislation introduced in 2000 by Rep. Charles Canady, R-Fla., who in turn drafted wording developed by the World Health Organization in 1950 and adopted by the United Nations in 1955:

The term "born alive," with respect to a member of the species homo sapiens, means the complete expulsion or extraction from its mother of that member, at any stage of development, who after such expulsion or extraction breathes or has a beating heart, pulsation of the umbilical cord, or definite movement of voluntary muscles, regardless of whether the umbilical cord has been cut, and regardless of whether the expulsion or extraction occurs as a result of natural or induced labor, cesarean section, or induced abortion.

I first encountered Barack Obama on March 27, 2001, when I testified before the Illinois Senate Judiciary Committee, of which he was a member. My testimony included my description of holding a premature aborted baby until he died:

One night, a nursing co-worker was taking an aborted Down's syndrome baby who was born alive to our Soiled Utility Room because his parents did not want to hold him, and she did not have time to hold him. I could not bear the thought of this suffering child dying alone in a Soiled Utility Room, so I cradled and rocked him for the 45 minutes that he lived. He was 21 to 22 weeks old, weighed about ½ pound, and was about 10 inches long. He was too weak to move very much, expending any energy he had trying to breathe. Toward the end, he was so quiet that I couldn't tell if he was still alive unless I held him up to the light to see if his heart was still beating through his chest wall. After he was pronounced dead, we folded his little arms across his chest, wrapped him in a tiny shroud, and carried him to the hospital morgue where all of our dead patients are taken.

Obama questioned whether the born alive legislation would impede the right to abort and doctor/patient decision-making. He and an American Civil Liberties Union attorney speculated Born Alive would force doctors to resuscitate nonviable aborted babies.

Obama opposed Born Alive in committee, but voted "present" -- neither "yes" nor "no," but merely "present" -- on the state Senate floor, one of many "present" votes that Hillary Clinton has cited as evidence that Obama lacks leadership skills. Clinton voted for the federal Born Alive bill, putting her on record as more pro-life than Obama.

Constitutional blindness

A graduate of Harvard Law School, Obama taught constitutional law at the University of Chicago for 10 years. Both schools are listed in the top 10 law schools in the country.

But Obama revealed his constitutional blind spot in his book The Audacity of Hope:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created [emphasis added] equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among those are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

... (T)he essential idea behind the Declaration -- that we are born [emphasis added] into this world free, all of us; that each of us arrives with a bundle of rights that can't be taken away by any person or any state without just cause; that through our own agency we can, and must, make of our lives what we will -- is one that every American understands.

Note Obama's choice of the word "born" over the word "created." Perhaps that helps explain his support for unrestricted abortion. Also note that our "bundle of rights" can be "taken away" with "just cause."

Obama clearly considers abortion a "just cause." Here is how he argued against Born Alive during Illinois Senate debate in 2001:

... I just want to suggest ... that this (legislation) is probably not going to survive constitutional scrutiny.

Number one, whenever we define a pre-viable fetus as a person that is protected by the equal protection clause or the other elements in the Constitution, what we're really saying is, in fact, that they are persons that are entitled to the kinds of protections that would be provided to a -- child, a 9-month-old -- child that was delivered to term. That determination then, essentially, if it was accepted by a court, would forbid abortions to take place.

I mean, it -- it would essentially bar abortions, because the equal protection clause does not allow somebody to kill a child, and if this is a child, then this would be an antiabortion statute. For that purpose, I think it would probably be found unconstitutional.

The legislation passed the Senate but did not survive in the House.
When Rep. O'Malley reintroduced Born Alive and its companion bills in 2002, they headed again to the same committee, where Obama rewrote history:

"Ms. Stanek, your initial testimony last year showed your dismay at the lack of regard for human life. I agreed with you last year, and we suggested that there be a Comfort Room or something of that nature be done. The hospital acknowledged that and changes were made and you are still unimpressed. It sounds to me like you are really not interested in how these fetuses are treated, but rather not providing absolutely any medical care or life to them."

Of course, Obama had not agreed with me the year before, and I was the one who had told him about the Comfort Room, which the hospital created in response to my testimony: "We now have this prettily wallpapered room. ... There is even a nice wooden rocker in the room to rock live aborted babies to death."

The hospital made live birth abortions look nicer, but the end result was still dead babies.

"What we are doing here is to create one more burden on women, and I can't support that," Obama concluded, and voted "no" in committee again.

The bill went again to the Senate floor, where Obama was the sole speaker against it, claiming that it would impose a "burden" on physicians:

[T]his [legislation] puts the burden on the attending physician who has determined, since they are performing this procedure, that in fact, this is a nonviable fetus.

Troubled conscience?

Democrats won control of the state Senate in November 2002, and when Born Alive was reintroduced for the third time in 2003, it was directed to the Obama-chaired, infamously liberal Health and Human Services Committee, where he simply refused to call it for a vote.

By this time Obama was running for U.S. Senate. He won his primary in March 2004, and Republicans recruited former U.N. Ambassador Alan Keyes, who lived in Maryland, to oppose him. It was Obama's position against Born Alive that persuaded Keyes to run, as he stated in his announcement speech:

"When I was first approached about this possibility... I have to say that my reaction was negative.... What finally caught my eye, however... what finally arrested my attention and forced me to consider whether I not only had the opportunity to oppose him, but the obligation... was when I learned that (Obama) had actually, in April 2002, apparently cast a vote that would continue to allow live birth abortions in the state of Illinois ... .

"We are talking about a situation in which, in the course of an abortion procedure, a child has been born alive -- is out of the womb, breathing and living on its own -- and he cast a vote against the idea that we should not stand by and let that child die!"

This was why Keyes alleged during their campaign that Jesus Christ would not vote for Barack Obama, as he explained in an interview with an NBC affiliate:

Christ would not stand idly by while an infant child in that situation died. ... Christ would not vote for Barack Obama, because Barack Obama has voted to behave in a way that it is inconceivable for Christ to have behaved.

Obama later admitted Keyes' comment "nagged" him and has written or spoke about it several times, although he always misrepresents Keyes' rationale as being about abortion support when it was specifically about infanticide support. In a July 2006 opinion piece in USA Today, restated later in The Audacity of Hope, Obama wrote:

If I am opposed to abortion for religious reasons but seek to pass a law banning the practice, I cannot simply point to the teachings of my church. I have to explain why abortion violates some principle that is accessible to people of all faiths, including those with no faith at all.

Obama's faith has come into question on the campaign trail. Accused of being a Muslim, he's insisted that he's "rooted in the Christian tradition" and has a "personal relationship with Jesus Christ." In fact, Obama has attended the largest church in one of America's most stridently pro-abortion denominations -- the United Church of Christ -- for 20 years. His church, Trinity, is located just five miles from Christ Hospital. Obama's pastor, the Rev. Dr. Jeremiah Wright, served on the board of Christ Hospital's health care system.

It's ironic in the extreme that the most determined opponents of preborn life -- and even those who are born -- embrace the name of the One who caused John the Baptist to leap in his mother's womb.

Jill Stanek writes a weekly column for WorldNetDaily.com and is a pro-life speaker and blogger.

(NOTE: Referral to Web sites not produced by Focus on the Family is for informational purposes only and does not necessarily constitute an endorsement of the sites' content.)


Comments:

I actually believe in the born alive infant protection act. Well I obviously should, I always said the point of the pro-choice position was to let women decide wether or not to be pregnant; wether it be abstinence, birth control or abortion. It is no longer an issue of bodily autonomy once the child is born and the woman ceases to be pregnant.

Posted by: Jess at April 3, 2008 10:37 AM


"Accused of being a Muslim,"

Just like accused of being an arsonist, murderer, robber? Accusing someone of belonging to a particular religion reminds me of the Inquisition.

Posted by: Jess at April 3, 2008 10:40 AM


It is amusing how the more desperate and shrill the attacks on Obama from extremists become, the better he seems to do in the polls, endorsements and delegate counts. So keep it up, Jill.

Speaking of which, It appears that the comments on your website are now dominated by rational people like Jess, Amanda, TR, Hal Doug (my apologies to anyone inadvertantly left out),who are outnumbering you and your amen chorus.

Maybe, like most extremist websites, you will have to bar those who may disagree...

Posted by: Bystander at April 3, 2008 10:52 AM


Don't forget to view and listen to Obama's Mad World again!!

Posted by: lesforlife at April 3, 2008 11:21 AM


Yes, Keep It Up Jill!! You are doing a fantastic job and I am so grateful for this blog!

Welcome Bystander! Unless you get nasty you can disagree until the cows come home...
Just think of all of the amen chorus that read but never comment...outnumbered? HA!

Posted by: Carla at April 3, 2008 11:34 AM


Maybe all the people who read and don't comment are pro-choice? Lol Hi Carla!!!!

Posted by: Jess at April 3, 2008 11:38 AM


HI Jess!!!!!!
I guess it doesn't really matter to me...if I am the only ProLifer left on earth I would still be shouting to save the babies! :)

Posted by: Carla at April 3, 2008 11:42 AM


It's ironic in the extreme that the most determined opponents of preborn life -- and even those who are born -- embrace the name of the One who caused John the Baptist to leap in his mother's womb.


AMEN!!!! I can not, for the life of me, understand how a denomination can define itself as being both "Christian" and "pro-choice". I believe you can't be both. Pick one.

Posted by: Kristi at April 3, 2008 11:45 AM


Good for you : ) If I was the only pro-choicer on Earth... um I guess that would mean no more abortions? No you would have the pro-aborts to deal with. Yes I believe there is a big difference between pro-choice and pro-abortion.

Posted by: Jess at April 3, 2008 11:46 AM


haha, I just read the earlier comments, apparently now this makes me part of the "amen chorus"!!!!!! lol!!!

Posted by: Kristi at April 3, 2008 11:46 AM


Jess - thanks for being intellectually honest in saying that abortion isn't a process with a scope that includes killing of the child once outside the body of the mother.

That said - I'm curious about your response to my post at http:// www.thrufire.org where I address bodily rights and the unborn:

Controlled Burn: Bodily Rights or Lileigh's Location (Part I)

Posted by: Chris Arsenault at April 3, 2008 11:47 AM


Well Kristi Jesus doesn't ask us to be perfect or have all the answers. The Bible has pro-life messages, pro-choice messages and pro-kill your enemies and their families messages. We could spend an eternity debating it.

Posted by: Jess at April 3, 2008 11:48 AM


Chris I have to get to class but I promise to read your entire article later tonight. I'm sure I'll have something to say about it so keep an eye on this thread : )

Posted by: Jess at April 3, 2008 11:55 AM


We could spend an eternity debating it.
Posted by: Jess at April 3, 2008 11:48 AM

Agreed, do you think Jill's website will be around that long so we can keep at it?? lol!

I get your point, Jess, but in my heart of hearts I know that ending the life of a preborn baby is not a Christian behavior. And, while I recognize that not everyone will agree with me, it's my *opinion* for what it's worth, that supporting the legal right to chose abortion is equally "un-Christian" if that's a word.

I know that viewpoint will really make some people here angry, but that's my opinion and I can respect your right to have an opposing opinion. I just won't agree with you! :)

Posted by: Kristi at April 3, 2008 11:56 AM


Jill - Amen to your article - excellent. (Oh look - I'm part of a chorus! :-)

Speaking of choruses: It still irks me with the involvement of Christ Hospital or invocations of God's blessing upon abortion mills etc. Typical Adversarial mockery. When the King of Kings comes...Maranatha!

Posted by: Chris Arsenault at April 3, 2008 11:57 AM


I'll vote for Obama, or for Hillary simply because I wont vote for McCain.

Posted by: TexasRed at April 3, 2008 11:59 AM


I often think abortion is un-Christian but I just can't accept the right to be born over the right to bodily autonomy (sorry I use that way too much). I also can't not believe in God, Jesus as his son he sent to save us from our sins. As you can tell I'll probably end up with some massive brain tumor trying to get my beliefs to mesh, lol. No sorry, brain tumors aren't funny. But I do hope Jill's site is around for years and years. We're coming up to its third anniversary next month!

Posted by: Jess at April 3, 2008 12:02 PM


Bystander, 10:52a, Obviously the only voices you hear are those in your pro-abort bevy. Peek into big world of politics and you'll see Obama losing to McCain among mainstream voters. And Obama's national negatives are only going higher, not lower. But remain deluded and comfortable. That's fine.

Posted by: Jill Stanek at April 3, 2008 12:10 PM


Out-numbered you must be kidding me! HA HA! Please I knew obama was a fraud! I hope this twisted freak doesn't even get to step foot on the white house.

Posted by: Adlyn at April 3, 2008 12:16 PM


Jess,

"Jesus doesn't ask us to be perfect"

Well, I might check Matthew 5:48... :) God love you, friend.

Posted by: Bobby Bambino at April 3, 2008 12:32 PM


Bobby-

yet that seems strangely contradictory to me. The Bible seems to constantly express that in no way can we be equal to God, or perfect for that matter, yet then there's pieces that seem to say otherwise.

Just one reason why I don't view the Bible as infallible. lol.

Posted by: Dan at April 3, 2008 12:40 PM


"You have heard that it was said, 'Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.' But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be sons of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? And if you greet only your brothers, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that? Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect."

As in try beacuse we all know it is impossible to actually be perfect but the less you try the less you will come close. That's my interpretation.

Posted by: tori at April 3, 2008 1:01 PM


Jess, I think your position is logically sound, except I'm curious as who you think should be responsible for the child if it is born alive?

Because if you make the mother responsible, that kinda kills the whole point of getting the abortion, doesn't it?

Also (not specifically directed at you, Jess), with legislation like the born alive act, I'm afraid it would force doctors to be more brutal in the act of abortion so that the child is definitely dead at the time it is extracted.

Thoughts?

Posted by: Edyt at April 3, 2008 1:41 PM


Note Obama's choice of the word "born" over the word "created."

Yes, kind of like how the 14th Amendment to the Constitution says "born" instead of "created." Shocking.

Perhaps that helps explain his support for unrestricted abortion.

You think?

Also note that our "bundle of rights" can be "taken away" with "just cause."

Of course. Like when the state executes convicted murderers, for example.

The hospital made live birth abortions look nicer, but the end result was still dead babies.

Induced delivery of nonviable fetuses will always result in dead babies. If a woman goes in to preterm labor and delivers at 21-22 weeks, she is allowed to refuse treatment for the baby because it has very little chance of survival. Why shouldn't women who have induced deliveries at 22 weeks also have the right to decline treatment?

What you propose -- forcing doctors and nurses to provide emergency care to every delivery, no matter how hopeless -- is insane. Before viability, it should be up to doctors and parents.

Posted by: reality at April 3, 2008 1:42 PM


reality - are you virtual or objective?

Posted by: Chris Arsenault at April 3, 2008 1:57 PM


"Most babies at 22 weeks are not resuscitated because survival without major disability is so rare."
http://tinyurl.com/2bgsma

"Premature babies born after only 22 weeks in the womb or earlier should not be routinely resuscitated, according to suggested guidelines published today for parents and doctors. It is "extremely rare" for babies born before 22 weeks to survive and only around one per cent of babies born between 22 and 23 weeks survive to leave hospital, according to the Nuffield Council on Bioethics."
http://tinyurl.com/3yodwm

"Babies born before 22 weeks into a pregnancy virtually never survive. Therefore, we provide hospice care for such babies, unless there is a significant chance the baby is really more mature than we thought."
http://tinyurl.com/2kwb5p

Sounds to me like a comfort room with a rocking chair is exactly the right treatment for such babies.

Posted by: reality at April 3, 2008 1:58 PM


Jill 12:10

Since McCain is a shoo-in, and Obama doesn't stand a chance, why do you feel it necessary for you to run an Obama hate-o-rama piece 12 times a week?

Posted by: Bystander at April 3, 2008 2:13 PM


Good for you : ) If I was the only pro-choicer on Earth... um I guess that would mean no more abortions? No you would have the pro-aborts to deal with. Yes I believe there is a big difference between pro-choice and pro-abortion.
Posted by: Jess at April 3, 2008 11:46 AM
*******

Jess, you are 100% correct that there is a huge difference between pro-abort and pro-choice. The pro-aborts don't like to acknowledge it though cause they like to hide out under cover of a wommens right to choose, but in actuality they want them to have abortions for reasons like reucing the burden on the earths resources by controlling the earths population (especially the if people are poor)....

Posted by: truthseeker at April 3, 2008 2:18 PM


Edyt,
Abortion is the brutal killing of a baby. Abortion. Is. The. Brutal. Killing. Of. A. Baby.
Thoughts?

Posted by: Carla at April 3, 2008 2:29 PM


You don't have to shoot a horse to kill it.

Posted by: Edyt at April 3, 2008 2:44 PM


>Since McCain is a shoo-in, and Obama doesn't stand a chance, why do you feel it necessary for you to run an Obama hate-o-rama piece 12 times a week?

Masterful comeback, Bystander. Well done!

Posted by: Ray at April 3, 2008 2:54 PM


Horses?
Oh, silly me. I thought we were talking about babies. Huh.

Posted by: Carla at April 3, 2008 2:54 PM


Well Dan, in order to properly answer your objection, I would have to get into some Catholic theology, and I don't want to get into that right now. But if nothing else, at least know that I think I have an answer to your objection :)

Posted by: Bobby Bambino at April 3, 2008 2:55 PM


Edyt,
Abortion is the brutal killing of a baby. Abortion. Is. The. Brutal. Killing. Of. A. Baby.
Thoughts?

Posted by: Carla at April 3, 2008 2:29 PM
*****************************
My thoughts?
Easy.
Youre wrong.

Posted by: TexasRed at April 3, 2008 3:01 PM


AMEN!!!! I can not, for the life of me, understand how a denomination can define itself as being both "Christian" and "pro-choice". I believe you can't be both. Pick one.

Posted by: Kristi at April 3, 2008 11:45 AM
*****************************
What about being a christian precludes being pro choice? In order to be saved you must believe that jesus is god born in flesh who came to earth to die for the sins of mankind, that he rose from the dead, and accept him as your personal savior. What about any of that precludes being pro choice?

Posted by: TexasRed at April 3, 2008 3:02 PM


HI TR!! How are you? How was your day?
I've missed you!!

Posted by: Carla at April 3, 2008 3:03 PM


HI TR!! How are you? How was your day?
I've missed you!!

Posted by: Carla at April 3, 2008 3:03 PM
**********************
Your nose is growing.

Posted by: TexasRed at April 3, 2008 3:18 PM


Hi again TR!!
Ok. So.....
I am a little on edge because I am agreeing with you more lately. How can this be?! :O

Posted by: Carla at April 3, 2008 3:22 PM


Jess:

Well Kristi Jesus doesn't ask us to be perfect or have all the answers. The Bible has pro-life messages, pro-choice messages and pro-kill your enemies and their families messages. We could spend an eternity debating it.

The question is, "where would you prefer to hold that debate?"
We can take a gamble and not worry too much about life's questions or play it smart. It's our choice.

Posted by: Janet at April 3, 2008 3:49 PM


Jill,

Great article. I'm praying that Sen. Obama will see the light on PBA.

Posted by: Janet at April 3, 2008 6:45 PM


the comments on your website are now dominated by rational people like Jess, Amanda, TR, Hal Doug (my apologies to anyone inadvertantly left out),who are outnumbering you and your amen chorus.

Bystander, appreciate it, but Jill has said she wants a spirited debate, and I think she's done very well in allowing the back-and-forth, practically without restriction.

There are also rational people on the Pro-Life side. I don't say that one side is more rational than the other, necessarily - it all depends on what is wanted. Is it more for women to have the freedom that they do, or is it more for the unborn life to continue?

There are also a bunch of really nice people here, on both side. Any and all BS aside, Carla and Bethany, for example, both Pro-Lifers, are a couple of the sweetest and truest people ever, in my opinion.

Doug

Posted by: Doug at April 3, 2008 9:21 PM


Doug,

I gotta say, you are a classy, classy man. :)

Posted by: Rae at April 3, 2008 9:33 PM


Aw, thanks Doug!

Posted by: Carla at April 3, 2008 9:38 PM


Carla,

If you don't answer my question, I won't answer yours.

Posted by: Edyt at April 3, 2008 10:34 PM


What about being a christian precludes being pro choice? In order to be saved you must believe that jesus is god born in flesh who came to earth to die for the sins of mankind, that he rose from the dead, and accept him as your personal savior. What about any of that precludes being pro choice?
Posted by: TexasRed at April 3, 2008 3:02 PM

Red, nothing about being Christian precludes pro choice. God teaches us the value of choice by giving us free will even though we are not always going to make "loving" choices. However, as Jess stated earlier, their is a big difference between pro choice and pro abort. A Christian can be pro choice, but a Christian cannot believe it is o.k. for a woman to kill the human life inside her womb.

There is no part of Jesus' birth,life, or ministry that could make a woman believe he would approve of abortion. What would/could a woman who wanted an abortion say to Jesus in to get his blessing on her abortion? There isn't anything I can think of. I think he would be more likely to cast the demons from her and tell her to place her faith in the heavenly Father.

Notice how the flowers grow. They do not toil or spin. But I tell you, not even Solomon in all his splendor was dressed like one of them. If God so clothes the grass in the field that grows today and is thrown into the oven tomorrow, will he not much more provide for you, O you of little faith? Luke 12: 27-28

Posted by: truthseeker at April 4, 2008 2:20 AM


I think that it's been so long since a politician came along with the speaking skills of Obama that he's gotten a lot of mileage on that alone. You have to go back to Ronald Regan or maybe Jack Kennedy to find the last politician who could deliver a speech that well.

So well, in fact, that a lot of people seem to ignore the actual content of his speeches, or what is missing from them. And there's the problem, some of the things he says (or leaves out) should be giant red flags to the average voting citizen.

His uber-radical position on abortion, for example, is so extreme that he makes Hillary look almost moderate on the subject. He even implies support for infanticide, and that's about as radical as you can get on abortion.

Posted by: Doyle at April 4, 2008 5:39 AM


Edyt,
You wanted thoughts on your thoughts? That doctors may have to be more brutal to make sure the baby is dead before extraction.
Abortion. Is. The. Brutal. Killing. Of. A. Baby.
How much more brutal does it have to get, Edyt?? Yes, doctors better "do their jobs" and murder their patients, making sure that those tiny, helpless babes are indeed DEAD. You have no idea how this rips my heart out....

Ok. I am off to have a good cry.

Posted by: Carla at April 4, 2008 6:50 AM


Great article, Jill!!!

Posted by: Bethany at April 4, 2008 8:26 AM


Red, nothing about being Christian precludes pro choice. God teaches us the value of choice by giving us free will even though we are not always going to make "loving" choices. However, as Jess stated earlier, their is a big difference between pro choice and pro abort. A Christian can be pro choice, but a Christian cannot believe it is o.k. for a woman to kill the human life inside her womb.

There is no part of Jesus' birth,life, or ministry that could make a woman believe he would approve of abortion. What would/could a woman who wanted an abortion say to Jesus in to get his blessing on her abortion? There isn't anything I can think of. I think he would be more likely to cast the demons from her and tell her to place her faith in the heavenly Father.

Notice how the flowers grow. They do not toil or spin. But I tell you, not even Solomon in all his splendor was dressed like one of them. If God so clothes the grass in the field that grows today and is thrown into the oven tomorrow, will he not much more provide for you, O you of little faith? Luke 12: 27-28


Posted by: truthseeker at April 4, 2008 2:20 AM
******************
Back to your fabrications. The fact of the matter is not one single word in the bible condemns the practice of abortion. There are verses which deal with what to do after a wet dream and what to do with poop but not one word deals with abortion. Poop and wet dreams are important enough to mention. Abortion isnt. Youre left with what you make up and assume and invent. Too often we hear the insistance that a *real christian* couldnt possibly be pro choice. That's bull. The insistance that 'god' is agains abortion is based on translations, inventions, interpretations and what people make up. Its not based on what the bible actually says.

Posted by: TexasRed at April 4, 2008 9:23 AM


Ok. I am off to have a good cry.

Posted by: Carla at April 4, 2008 6:50 AM
*************
You do it to yourself. You act as if the early theory of pregnancy is valid where there is a tiny perfectly formed infant in the head of each sperm and 'all' it has to do is implant in the wall of the uterus and 'get bigger'.

Posted by: TexasRed at April 4, 2008 9:26 AM


The fact of the matter is not one single word in the bible condemns the practice of abortion. There are verses which deal with what to do after a wet dream and what to do with poop but not one word deals with abortion. Poop and wet dreams are important enough to mention. Abortion isnt. Youre left with what you make up and assume and invent. "Too often we hear the insistance that a *real christian* couldnt possibly be pro choice. That's bull. The insistance that 'god' is agains abortion is based on translations, inventions, interpretations and what people make up. Its not based on what the bible actually says."

Posted by: TexasRed at April 4, 2008 9:23 AM

_____

Exactly. The Bible is for people's own decisions about abortion, as it was those thousands of years ago.

Posted by: Down with PD Sk8tr at April 4, 2008 11:10 AM


Red said:
Too often we hear the insistance that a *real christian* couldnt possibly be pro choice.
******

Red, read my post again. I said Christians can and should be pro-choice. What cannot be is pro-killing or pro-death. It is really simple. Can you get your mind around it? Abortion is killing. Jesus never condoned killing PERIOD. It is all over in his Gospel that Jesus is pro-life. But you didn't answer my question. I would really get a kick out the answer if there are any "pro-abort" Christians put there.

What would/could a woman who wanted an abortion say to Jesus in to get his blessing on her abortion?

Posted by: truthseeker at April 4, 2008 11:27 AM


Thanks TR.
I am so glad you have all of the answers. I don't cry over sperm.

Posted by: Carla at April 4, 2008 1:55 PM


TR:

The fact of the matter is not one single word in the bible condemns the practice of abortion.

That's irrelevant. I think it goes without saying (that God condemns abortion).



Posted by: Janet at April 4, 2008 6:30 PM


see Red, nobody answered my question, is that proof enough for you that there is no such such think as a Christian who would choose abortion.

Posted by: truthseeker at April 4, 2008 11:02 PM


*giggles* That's silly, truthseeker. With the number of abortions that happen every day, they can't ALL be for atheists... that's just mathematically impossible!

Posted by: Edyt at April 5, 2008 7:59 PM


I'm a Christian who would choose abortion.

Posted by: Jess at April 6, 2008 3:16 AM


Jess,

Under what circumstances?

Posted by: Janet at April 6, 2008 7:20 PM


Doug, I didn't notice your post above at 9:21, and I just wanted to say thank you for being so kind!

Posted by: Bethany at April 25, 2008 10:42 AM