Dear Pastor: Why decry human trafficking but ignore abortion?
by Kelli
We need to ask ourselves why we are openly boasting of our efforts to end human trafficking while remaining mute on the issue of abortion. Are we attacking human trafficking because we are broadly opposed to those who would deny the humanity of the people they wish to treat as commodities? Or are we only opposed to the evil things that are not happening right here within our own congregation. I’ve never seen a human trafficker at our church. But I’ve seen a Planned Parenthood employee at our church. Is our silence a courtesy to her and to any of her clients who happen to attend our services?
I believe we need to act immediately to remedy the moral inconsistency of attacking the issue of human trafficking while remaining mute on the issue of abortion. We need to open our doors to people who work for Planned Parenthood as well as their clients who seek abortions – even if they do so because they see nothing wrong with abortion, or merely abort for purposes of convenience. But we need not accommodate such people to the point of turning our backs on those who need our help when faced with the prospect of having an abortion against their better judgment – whether due to financial or other forms of pressure.
The time has come for us to start a rescue fund for these women. We need to make funds available to help them avoid the abortion choice – and we need to explain that we are doing so because it is not a morally neutral choice. The church, of all places, cannot remain a zone of moral neutrality when it comes to this issue.
~ Mike Adams, sharing the text of a letter he wrote to his pastor regarding human trafficking and abortion, Townhall.com, November 17
[Photo via liveactionnews.org]
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
Hmmm. I agree with this. It reminds me though of a certain former abortion worker who has become a big name in pro-life circles complaining because she wasn’t allowed to join a church while slaughtering babies at her job. She humphed about how unkind the church was to not turn a blind eye to her baby killing proclivities.
She was not told to leave the church and never come back, mind you. She was simply told that joining and being a member in good standing was not an option as long as she worked for the number one abortion provider in the US. And to her, that was not a nice “Christian” thing to do. Completely ignoring Ephesians 5:11 and I Corinthians 5 regarding unrepentant believers this woman decided to write an article recently wagging her finger once again at pro-lifers for taking a stand for life.
I say it is the very fact that most churches do NOT take a stand for life that has landed us in the midst of the carnage of 56 million lives snuffed out. We’re too busy trying to pack our pews rather than remember we serve a HOLY God Who CANNOT tolerate sin. The Bible says if we cherish iniquity in our hearts God does not hear us. So to truly love abortion workers we have to stop pretending they are in fellowship with God as long as they put their tithe in the collection plate.
Well said, Sydney !
If there’s any ‘moral inconsistency’ it’s in opposing human trafficking while supporting the forcing of women through the gestation and delivery of an unwanted pregnancy.
“If there’s any ‘moral inconsistency’ it’s in opposing human trafficking while supporting the forcing of women through the gestation and delivery of an unwanted pregnancy.”
Only if you really don’t understand how human reproduction works, and you believe there is some sort of “force” involved on the part of the child in utero.
Only if you really don’t understand how human reproduction works, – hah, this from someone who thinks a fetus can successfully gestate of its own accord without the need for a woman’s body. How droll.
and you believe there is some sort of “force” involved on the part of the child in utero. – no I don’t, how did you misinterpret that so badly? The “force” is demonstrated by those who would “force” women to gestate and deliver unwanted pregnancies.
Reality…I’ve been pregnant twice. Never ever delivered a “pregnancy”. Egads! I don’t even know what that would look like. I did however gestate and deliver two living, human children. <3
You found what I said too difficult to understand? OK, just for you – The “force” is demonstrated by those who would “force” women to continue an unwanted pregnancy and then give birth. Easier for you?
Give birth to what? a pregnancy? What?
Ooo, an attempt at a trick question! I’d better watch out!
A human infant. If you’ve been paying attention you’ll be aware that I don’t dispute the ‘human’ part of the equation.
Why are you bothering to niggle about some semantics which are irrelevant to the actual point of my original comment. You know, that the ‘moral inconsistency’ is in those who claim to oppose human trafficking whilst wishing and constantly attempting to force women who find themselves with an unwanted pregnancy into continuing gestation and the ensuing delivery.
So would you say that telling a teen mother she cannot birth her child at the prom, smother him and toss him into the garbage is “human trafficking”? Does “human trafficking” involve forcing people to do things they don’t want to do? If I am forced to drive my car a certain speed on the highway is that “human trafficking” according to you?
Preventing someone from killing children that you readily admit are human is NOT human trafficking.
I’d say that dismembering unborn babies and selling their parts (which happens) is akin to human trafficking.
What are you on about? I spoke of the ‘moral inconsistency’ of opposing human trafficking whilst forcing women to continue unwanted pregnancies and give birth. It’s not human trafficking but it’s the moral equivalent.
Preventing someone from killing fetuses that you readily admit are human is NOT human trafficking. – just to reinforce the message – I didn’t say it was. I didn’t even intimate that it was.
I’d say that dismembering unborn babies and selling their parts (which happens) is akin to human trafficking. – that’s because you value fetuses more than you do women.
There is no moral inconsistency. None. Nada.
I don’t value fetuses (aka known as young HUMAN BEINGS) more than I value women (aka older human beings). I value human beings. Period.
Women are not going to die from not being allowed to kill their children. Children WILL die from abortion. Makes the issue pretty clear cut for me.
And you care about women Reality? Do you care about Tanya Reaves? Or do you care more about killing fetuses than you do about women?
The funniest part of these comments is that Reality acts like he/she has any idea what “moral” means.
But I also have to chuckle when I see that it’s *crickets* from Reality and other pro-aborts on every thread that features a fellow pro-abort’s insanely eugenic quote or some such nonsense. Absolute silence. I mean, why not cheer? These are your peeps, man.
But put up a post about a church member writing to his pastor on matters of church and Christianity, and suddenly the godless, amoral crew come out to critique. Heh.
What’s funnier is the pathetic ad hominem/strawman attempts to paint those with a different viewpoint as not knowing the meaning of or possessing morals. We all have morals, they just differ to a greater or lesser extent.
But I also have to chuckle when I see that it’s *crickets* from Reality….a fellow pro-abort’s insanely eugenic quote or some such nonsense. – you may wish to recheck that claim.
godless =/= amoral
disagreeing with you =/= amoral
Hah.
(Un)Reality – If it’s preferable, in your opinion, for a woman to kill her baby in utero than to carry him or her to term, why isn’t it preferable, in your opinion, for a mom who doesn’t want a newborn to kill him or her? Why should she be prosecuted for that?
“hah, this from someone who thinks a fetus can successfully gestate of its own accord without the need for a woman’s body. How droll.”
When did I say that? Are you hallucinating? Did you stop taking your meds again? :(
The mother’s body is needed to supply nutrients to a gestating child, just like it is needed post-birth to supply nutrients and care to a neonate via breastfeeding. The child, however, due to his/her dependence, is unable to “force” anything on their mother. You don’t seem too knowledgeable about the reproductive process of placental mammals, so as someone who’s not only studied the subject but been through it 3 times-once as the offspring and twice as the gravida-let me just assure you that a mother is not being “forced” to gestate her young, but that she is quite biologically-complicit in the act, by design. Ain’t evolution grand?
I *wish* your ignorance was amusing enough to describe as “droll”. At this point, you’re far beyond “tiresome”.
“– no I don’t, how did you misinterpret that so badly?”
No misinterpretation about it. You’re speaking English, I’m reading English, and you’re quite obviously ignorant as to how human reproduction occurs.
“The ‘force’ is demonstrated by those who would ‘force’ women to gestate and deliver unwanted pregnancies.”
Ah. And now the truth comes out, albeit through scare quotes. Since you and I both know and understand that there is no *ACTUAL FORCE* used, because nobody can *MAKE* a mother continue to gestate her child-she simply does.
Pro-Life legislation is not about some strange fancy for compulsory pregnancy. Don’t be a dolt. You and I both know damned well it’s about preventing harm to the living/growing/developing child/offspring, and the fact that that currently requires pregnancy and giving birth on the part of the mother is unfortunate, but just how things work, currently, and *have* for a few thousand years at this point, by the way. It’s not like this is a new concept or anything, or that we’ve just mandated that “Subsection 5. Mammalian procreation requires pregnancy on the part of the females of the species.” last year because we’re meanies who hate women or something. Derp.
Oh please, Reality. I don’t have to recheck any claim, because I read the comments here and so do the other mods.
I will agree with you that godless doesn’t necessarily equal amoral. But I never said it did. I used two adjectives: godless and amoral. See how that little comma works?
Disagreeing with me on certain matters – like killing innocent human beings, for example – could reasonably be considered amoral, as you are unconcerned about the deaths of those human beings and choose to pretend, as xalisae has pointed out, as if they don’t enter into the pregnancy equation at all.
Claire, an infant can be adopted out, a fetus can’t.
When did I say that? Are you hallucinating? Did you stop taking your meds again? – oh look, denial mixed with cheap insult. How very deep of you. You’re the one who expressed disagreement when I mentioned that a woman’s body is subjected to the needs of the fetus.
The mother’s body is needed to supply nutrients to a gestating child, just like it is needed post-birth to supply nutrients and care to a neonate via breastfeeding. – exactly. That is what I was saying.
The child, however, due to his/her dependence, is unable to “force” anything on their mother. – I didn’t claim that the force was perpetrated by the fetus, something I pointed out the first time I was accused of having said so.
You don’t seem too knowledgeable about the reproductive process of placental mammals, so as someone who’s not only studied the subject but been through it 3 times-once as the offspring and twice as the gravida-let me just assure you that a mother is not being “forced” to gestate her young, but that she is quite biologically-complicit in the act, by design. Ain’t evolution grand? – it sure is! That doesn’t mean that anti-choicers aren’t attempting to force women to gestate fetuses and then go through delivery however.
I *wish* your ignorance was amusing enough to describe as “droll”. At this point, you’re far beyond “tiresome”. – and your pretend ignorance of the point being that anti-choicers are the ones exhibiting force, not the fetus or evolution, is mildly amusing but too obvious.
No misinterpretation about it. You’re speaking English, I’m reading English, and you’re quite obviously ignorant as to how human reproduction occurs. – go on then, show us where I said it was the fetus perpetrating force. Do it.
Ah. And now the truth comes out, albeit through scare quotes. – now? Seriously? Here am I repeatedly stating that the force comes form anti-choicers while you’ve been busily trying to say that I’ve been accusing the fetus of force. Too obvious.
Since you and I both know and understand that there is no *ACTUAL FORCE* used, because nobody can *MAKE* a mother continue to gestate her child-she simply does. – don’t make false assumptions, it doesn’t become you. Preventing a woman from terminating an unwanted pregnancy is forcing her to gestate. It does indeed *MAKE* her continue to gestate a fetus.
Pro-Life legislation is not about some strange fancy for compulsory pregnancy. Don’t be a dolt. – I won’t be a dolt, I can’t be. Because I didn’t say it was some strange fancy for compulsory pregnancy, did I. It’s a strange fancy for forcing all of society to comply with what anti-choicers want.
You and I both know damned well it’s about preventing harm to the living/growing/developing child/offspring, and the fact that that currently requires pregnancy and giving birth on the part of the mother is unfortunate – ‘unfortunate’. Despite the impacts on the women involved. You give priority to the fetus, I give priority to the woman.
but just how things work, currently, and *have* for a few thousand years at this point, by the way. – as has abortion.
It’s not like this is a new concept or anything, or that we’ve just mandated that “Subsection 5. Mammalian procreation requires pregnancy on the part of the females of the species.” last year because we’re meanies who hate women or something. Derp. – nah, you just consider them less important than fetuses. Duh.
I don’t have to recheck any claim, because I read the comments here and so do the other mods. – perhaps there are times when you should :-)
I used two adjectives: godless and amoral. See how that little comma works? – uhuh.
Disagreeing with me on certain matters – like killing innocent human beings, for example – could reasonably be considered amoral – you might like to think so but it doesn’t. It just means that your morals and mine have a certain level of differentiation.
as you are unconcerned about the deaths of those human beings and choose to pretend, as xalisae has pointed out, as if they don’t enter into the pregnancy equation at all.
– well, xalisae is wrong for a start. Or are you misrepresenting what she said, since she keeps mistakenly claiming I’m accusing fetuses of being the perpetrators of force? If they didn’t enter into the pregnancy equation why would I mention them?
(Un)Reality, you did not answer my question – If it’s preferable, in your opinion, for a woman to kill her baby in utero than to carry him or her to term, why isn’t it preferable, in your opinion, for a mom who doesn’t want a newborn to kill him or her? Why should she be prosecuted for that?
Claire, I gave you an indicative response of my opinion of the question you asked because I thought it unlikely this (Un)Reality you addressed it to would respond, given that I’ve not seen them here. If you need me to expand on what I have said so that you can understand it, please just ask.
Reality (yours, anyway), that’s twice that you did not answer my question – If it’s preferable, in your opinion, for a woman to kill her baby in utero than to carry him or her to term, why isn’t it preferable, in your opinion, for a mom who doesn’t want a newborn to kill him or her? Why should she be prosecuted for that?
Since you appear to have difficulty understanding an even slightly succinct answer Claire, let’s address your question in detail:
If it’s preferable, in your opinion, for a woman to kill her baby in utero than to carry him or her to term, – you’re off to a bad start.
why isn’t it preferable, in your opinion, for a mom who doesn’t want a newborn to kill him or her? – as I stated earlier, a newborn can be adopted out, a fetus cannot.
Why should she be prosecuted for that? – can you figure it out now?
Claire: If it’s preferable, in your opinion, for a woman to kill her baby in utero than to carry him or her to term
Why would it be, in Reality’s opinion? I doubt that Reality ever said anything affirming that. I would think that Reality is going to let the individual woman decide what she wants to do.
Reality (yours, anyway), your arrogance doesn’t intimidate me. I don’t have the slightest difficulty understanding an answer. Your first two responses weren’t answers – they were prevarications. (Doug, please note my use of the word “If” in my earlier question.)
You still haven’t answered me. Fine, that’s your choice to keep prevaricating.
Allow me to ask one more question; perhaps it will be easier to answer.
Assuming you’re not opposed to abortion (feel free to correct me if you are), why is it that a woman can have her baby killed one day before he or she is due, with no consequences – but if she has the baby killed one day after he or she is born, she is prosecuted for murder?
You still haven’t answered me. Fine, that’s your choice to keep prevaricating. – no prevaricating, my answer is quite clear.
why is it that a woman can have her baby killed one day before he or she is due, with no consequences – but if she has the baby killed one day after he or she is born, she is prosecuted for murder? – the reason , as I keep telling you, is that infants can be adopted out whilst fetuses cannot.
Of course babies in the womb can be adopted out – that happens all the time. The adoption papers and the adoptive parents are there when the baby is born.
You’re avoiding the real question and you know it. Your sense of Reality is not very keen.
Are you being deliberately obtuse or do you struggle with contextual concepts?
A woman with an unwanted pregnancy cannot adopt the fetus out at any point during the pregnancy such that the unwanted pregnancy ends. No one else can take over the pregnancy. Post-birth there is an infant, no longer gestating, which can be handed over to someone else. Is that simple enough for you or are you still confused?
Far from me avoiding the ‘real question’, you’ve been avoiding the real answer. You border on Unreal.
Yes, you’re avoiding the real question – the real issue. You’re being deliberately obtuse.
Adoption has nothing to do with my question, and you know it. Quit throwing out red herrings and just answer the question, please.
Why is it that a woman can have her baby killed one day before he or she is due, with no consequences – but if she has the baby killed one day after he or she is born, she is prosecuted for murder?
Not at all. You are either being ‘cute’ or rather naïve.
Adoption has everything to do with your question, stop pretending you don’t understand. A woman with an unwanted pregnancy cannot adopt the fetus out at any point during the pregnancy such that the unwanted pregnancy ends. No one else can take over the pregnancy. Post-birth there is an infant, no longer gestating, which can be handed over to someone else. What is it about this that you don’t understand?