marjon9

For myself, I like the either way

I don't understand your point here. But aside from that, I don't believe I have the responsibility to convice pro-life people that abortion is a good thing. That's not my job. And I have no inclination to do so. In fact, I am glad the pro-life movement is here because it forces us all to examine important and difficulte questions. I'm glad for that debate. I don't claim to have all the answers, and I'm not trying to convince anyone else that I am right and they are wrong. The ONLY thing I have ever asked on this issue is that pro-life individuals understand that no matter how deeply held their beliefs may be that an dividing embryo is a human life, that other people who are just as intelligent and compassionate disagree. And that the pro-life group does not get to set the rules for others to follow simply because they really, really, really, really, really believe that abortion is killing a human being. As long as pro-life individuals understand that it is the voters, the judges, the politicians, and society in general that will make the rules that control people's lives, I have no problem.

Obviously I understand that this is why you are using these arguments. I just do not believe that these two horrible examples in any way support your opinion that abortion is the next similar example. Just because there are examples in the past of how human beings were considered less than human does not mean that abortion suffers from the same misconception today. You have the right to your opinion, certainly. But the existence of Hitler and slavery does not in any way tend to "prove" that abortion is the next similar example. There is simply no connection between these examples from the past and abortion today except your own personal opinion that abortion is "just like Hitler and slavery." That argument is totally without substance and it is not even remotely convincing to me. There's no "there" there, as the saying goes.

I have not in any way "forgotten" that Hitler and the people around him had certain outrageously evil beliefs. But I don't think that helps you prove your point at all. You see, I don't agree with you that abortion is "evil." Is it possible that someday people will look back and say that abortion was evil like Hitler and slavery? Yes it's possible. But I don't think so. You have singled out Hitler and slavery as your examples of how the majority is not always right. These are the two examples of the greatest evil and the greatest mistakes in the last several hundred years of human history. I do not think that this helps you prove your point at all. Your argument is that because occassionally human beings make truly horrible mistakes, and in hindsight we see they were wrong, that that means the same thing will happen with abortion. You are welcome to your opinion. I do not agree with you. There are very few examples of mistakes in human history on the level of Hitler and slavery. Just because there are a few, does not in any way tend to prove that abortion will be the next one.

Obviously abortions are not performed when an embryo consists of 4 cells, but if you will agree that an embryo with 4 cells is not a human being, then where do we draw the line? And who gets to decide? I don't know exactly what you mean by the "everybody knows" answer. If you are talking about my statement that "everybody knows" that Jews and African Americans are human beings, then yes, that is how I answer. I am not opposed to taking wisdom and insight from centuries of human experience. I am willing to be guided by the rule of law to the greatest extent my conscience will allow. I don't really understand why you consider that to be improper. But the "everybody knows" argument does not work with abortions. That's the whole point. Everybody does not know at what point a dividing embryo becomes a human being. There are differences of opinion. And as long as you agree that society, voters, politicians, judges, etc. will be the ones to decide, and not you, then we will have no problems between us at all. And I make no claim to telling anyone else what to believe or what they must do or think. Remember, that is your game, not mine. If Nobel Prize winners and professors and other distinguished individuals want to believe whatever they want to believe, I have no problems with that at all. My problem comes in where Nobel Prize winners and others want to make laws and use the police power of the state to control my life and force me to live by their rules. I totally reject their right to do that. To be clear, I totally accept the right of voters, judges, politicians, and society in general to make laws that control my life. And I will abide by such laws except in the most rare circumstances where I am unable to do so for moral reasons. But I do not accept the right of any particular group, in this case pro lifers, to determine on their own that they have the right to make the rules. Apparently you agree with that, so really, I have no problems left on this issue. I have no need to try and change your views, or tell you that you are wrong, or do that with anyone else either. All I ask is that pro life individuals understand that they are not the one who gets to make the rules. That voters, judges, politicians, and society in general make the rules. Apparently, you do agree with that. So there really are no more problems here as far as I'm concerned.

Great news! Looking forward to hearing your progress on this new angle. And I'm sure we will also learn some things about dealing with insurance companies.

I did miss those posts from 1:00 am this morning. There were too many things to read this morning and I missed them. I think you did provide an answer, that judges, voters and politicians will decide the question. We are in complete agreement on that. As for the questions you claim I have not answered, what I see in these posts is: Why is a black person not 3/5 of a person, but rather a full person. Why are Jews considered human life? I can't agree that I have not answered those, several times. But I don't have time to research the various threads so I will do so again here. The answer is that the judges and politicians and voters have spoken on these issues for many years now. Whatever mistakes in the law and in society that existed in the past on those issues have been fixed now through the political and social processes of our society. Whatever mistakes may have existed in the past on these questions, they do not exist now. There really is no longer a rational basis for disputing that a Jew is a human being, or that an African American is a human being. The same is not true with abortion. Rational people of intelligence, compassion and good will do disagree on exactly the question of whether or not a dividing embryo is a human being. I know you believe that the book is closed on that subject, but it clearly is not and, as you acknowledged in the posts above, you are not the one who gets to decide. The only way a comparison could exist between Hitler and abortion is if you start from the premise that a dividing embryo with 4 cells is a "human being." Your comparison falls apart immediately without that presumption. But that is exactly the issue that is in dispute in society today. A person who holds the view that a dividing embryo is not a human being is absolutely not the same as a person having the view that a Jew is not a human being. That is because many - in fact a majority of Americans - do not agree that a dividing embryo with 4 cells is a "human being." So, as I have stated on numerous occassions before, this Hitler/abortion comparison misses the mark completely.

I really have no recollection of you answering that question. And I don't have time to go back and do research. Can you just put aside the hostility and be kind enought to answer again? I am really curious. You believe that abortion is killing a human being. I do not agree. Why do you get to be the one to decide? (And please, the answer cannot be "because abortion is killing a human being." That's can't be the answer since that is exactly the issue in dispute) And, if there is something I have not answered, please ask again. I'll be happy to answer you. If there is a particular question you have asked I really don't know what it is.

Regardless of what you think of TommyO you should consider his point that your abrasive style is not going to win you any converts. If your goal is to "save babies," you might want to give that some thought. The more you, and people like you, continue to speak, the fewer people will join the pro-life movement. I'm not saying you are an evil person (notwithstanding that you think I am). I'm just saying your style needs some work. You are not doing your cause any favors by lashing out viciously toward all who deviate in the slightest from your "one true way." Even pro-life people are trying to tell you that.

You don't accomplish anything when you put words in the mouth of your opponent and then argue that those words are wrong. That is meaningless exercise. I never said "if I think any action is right, do it" or "if it feels good, do it." I never said anything like that. And I am against "murder" every single bit as much as you are. I simply disagee that abortion is murder. You refuse to address that issue. You just keep repeating over and over again that "abortion is murder because .... well ... because it just IS !!!" But that's not an intelligent argument. It is also not a valid argument to say "look at gadgetlady's video and that will "prove" that abortion is killing a human being." That is not a valid argument. It "proves" nothing. All it means is that YOU see a murder when you look at that video. It does not prove that abortion is murder. I know YOU think abortion is killing a human being. I know that YOU believe that anyone who thinks otherwise is evil and shameful. But just because you think that does not make it true. Many, many people -- in fact the majority in the United States -- disagree with you. So again, my question is: since intelligent, compassionate people have thought about this issue at great length, and there is profound disagreement on the answer to the question, why do YOU get to be the one to decide the rights of all others? Why? And, to be honest, what is even more curious to me is, why no pro-life person will even answer that question. What are you afraid of? If you do answer, I fully expect that your answer will be "We get to decide because abortion is clearly, and obviously murder." But that is not a valid answer. All you are doing is assuming that you are correct and declaring yourself the winner. That's not how a debate goes. Someday, in order to carry the day, you are going to need to say something more than "Abortion is murder because... well ... because it just IS !!!" I have no need to change your views. I respect your views. But I do not believe that you have the right to create laws and use the police power of the state to force all others to live by your moral code. And I hold that view notwithstanding the fact that you really, really, really, really really think abortion is murder.

Gosh, I sure agree with you. There is nothing I hate worse than people killing other people for their own convenience. That is just about the worst thing anyone can do. Fortunately, aborting a dividing embryo is not killing a human being. If it were, abortion would be a really bad thing.

That is just a monstrously ugly thing to say. According to your way thinking, the majority of the population of the United States is "stained." The fact is, intelligent, compassionate people have struggled over this issue for a very long time. Some agree with you, but most don't. You have every right to your point of view, but to cast all who disagree with you as "stained" is arrogant and ugly. No one is going to listen to that kind of crap for very long. If you keep it up you'll be debating no one but yourself in a very short time.

I'm sorry to astonish you, but there is a key difference between all your examples and the example of abortion. People disagree about whether a dividing embryo is human life. That's the whole issue. You cannot simply assume that abortion is taking a life. That is the very issue in dispute. You have every right to believe what you want, but it is a hollow technique of argument to simply assume that you are correct and declare yourself the winner. Many intelligent, compassionate people do not agree that an embryo consisting of 4 cells equals "human life." So that is why your comparison to slavery is completely off the mark. Slavery involves fully formed human beings who are walking the earth. Abortion involves a clump of cells that many people do not consider to be "human life." That is the problem with having these debates about abortion. The pro-life camp always wants to assume that they are correct about the exact issue in dispute. There is no way to have a debate about abortion if every argument you make carries with it an assumption that is precisely what the other side does not assume. I have absolutely no doubt that you sincerely believe that a dividing embryo with 4 cells equals a human life. I fully respect the sincerity of your belief. I know that you sincerely believe that abortion is taking a life and that it is an "evil" act. But I disagree with you. So now what do we do? Why do you get to decide? Why do you get to make laws that force me to live by your rules? That is a question I keep asking gadget and, of course, she keeps refusing to answer. And that is the only question that matters to me. I don't have any need to change your mind. I just have a need to stop you from forcing me to live by your rules. So can you please give me an answer to this question? If you believe an abortion is the killing of a human life, and if I disagree with you, why do you get to be the one to decide, and set the rules, about how I live my life? (I wonder if anyone will answer this time. Probably not).

Taking your hypothetical, let's assume for a moment that you are right about everything you said. You have two women who are pregnant and one decides she is carrying a life and one decides she is not. Let's say that humanity is an issue outside personal feelings, and that the existence of life is a matter of science. Let's assume all of that is true. I'll go even further and say that one of the women is definitely wrong and one of the women is definitely right. I have a couple of simple questions for you (I wonder if you'll actually answer them): Why are you the one who gets to decide which woman is right? Why do you get to pass laws forcing your view on the woman who disagrees with you? Will you actually answer those questions? I doubt it, but we'll see. I hope you don't try to answer these questions by saying, "Oh. look at the video with the little hands, the little feet, how could it not be life." That is a totally meaningless answer that does not answer the question. Other people may look at the same video and conclude that it is not life as that term is defined for them. I'm not asking you for your own, personal, emotional response to a video, or a list of the stages a fetus goes through, and what week the blood starts pumping, etc. None of those things "prove" that the woman is carrying a life. You may consider those things to be proof, but others do not. Remember, I'm granting that you are correct about everything you set forth in your hypothetical. Two pregnant women, one thinks she is carrying a life, one does not. The answer to that question is not based on personal feelings, there is a scientific answer to the question, and one of the women is definitely wrong. So I ask you again, why do you get be the one to decide which woman is right? Why do you get to make laws that force the one who disagrees with you to live by your moral code. I rather doubt that you will give honest answers that actually address the specific questions I am asking, but I guess it's worth a shot.

This is a return to your usual method of argument that proves nothing. Essentially you are once again making the argument that "a dividing embryo is human life because a dividing embryo is human life." But this obviously proves nothing. You can't prove your argument by assuming that you are correct and declaring yourself the winner. You ask the question, "why should the question of human life ever be left up to another's judgment." That question obviously includes within it the assumption that a dividing embryo is human life. But that is the very issue in dispute. So, again, you are dragging out your same totally meaningless argument technique that proves nothing. You appear to have the view that a human life is formed at the moment of conception. You have every right to that opinion. But many other people disagree with you. The issue here is, when does a dividing embryo become human life. That is the question. People have different answers to that question. It is a matter of conscience. It is not your decision to make for everyone else. Now, are you going to respond again by saying, but how can we leave decisions about human life to other people's judgment. Are you really going to do that again and again? Because it is getting boring.

I've watched things like that before. That has nothing to do with the issue. In this context the question of human life is a matter of concience, not science. I have absolutely no doubt that the issue seems crystal clear to you. But that does not make it so for all others. This is not your decision to make for anyone but yourself.

If someone voted that they are against abortion even if the life of the mother is at stake, I don't want them "drawing any lines" within 100 miles of my wife and daughter. You may view yourself as a libertarian, but you want to obtain the power to control other people's lives in this particular way. I know that you view it as protecting the lives of the innocent. But other people do not agree with you. This is not your decision to make. The point where a dividing embryo becomes "human life" is a question each person must answer for themselves. There is no scientific "proof" one way or another. This is not a scientific question, it is a question of conscience. You have no right to make this decision for other people. Draw your lines somewhere else. Stay away from my wife and daughter.

That is a separate issue which has been repeatedly acknowledged in this thread. The issue is not the practical reality of saving the mother through abortion. The issue is, for me, how could anyone, faced with the choice in this poll, actually vote that there should be no option for abortion even if the life of the mother was at stake. I think that the way people voted on this question is a window into the pro-life mindset that is very revealing. And I think even you will have to agree, after seeing the links sent earlier, that this is not by any means a "fringe" position that is out of the mainstream of the pro life movement. I expect that you and many others will disagree with me, and that's fine. But one thing is for sure, the reason for raising this issue is not because anyone thinks that abortions, in fact, frequently save the life of the mother.

If you mean falafel, I think they are really great. But I can't promise that the particular brand available in the super market is going to be good. It may be, may not be. As you probably know, it's a middle eastern vegetarian sandwich. If the falafel itself is made well, and it has a well made sauce and a fresh pita bread, they are really good. If you have a chance to eat one in a good middle eastern restaurant, that might be the place to start. If you try the one in the store and it's not too good, you may not want to try one again. That would be a shame because a good, fresh falafel is truly grand.

I think it is "unnecessarily mean" to work toward forcing other people to live by someone else's moral code. As soon as the pro-life people take that off the table, I'll be much nicer, I'm sure. I have no definition of what I believe to be a "true" "pro-life" advocate. All I can say is, it sure looks pretty mainstream to me that pro-lifers do NOT make ANY exception for the life of the mother, notwithstanding gadget's protestations to the contrary. I think that is something that is important to look at, and says a lot about just how intrusive into the private lives of others the pro-life people are willing to be. And as for men having no right to vote (or speak at all, I'm sure you would recommend), this is something that I am not suprised to hear from you. But men have wives, mothers and daughters, you see, so I think we have every right to speak and vote on this issue.

I appreciate your comments Metalband. My views are actually quite close to yours. The last thing I am is an abortion advocate. I can't imagine a situation where I would ever want or encourage an abortion for my own child. My issue is with those who seek to legislate their version of morality. In my experience, almost all pro-life individuals would vote to overturn Roe v. Wade, for example. Their goal is to make abortion illegal. That's the issue that motivates me. This complex, highly personal issue must be left to individual choice. But like you, I am strongly opposed to abortion on a personal level in most situations I can imagine.

Here's another web site with the same view quoting a Pope and several doctors including Bernard Nathanson. Wasn't he the 75,000 abortion guy? I guess those Popes and physicians are wild and crazy fringe elements. American Life League - your pro-life information source: Declaration: Protecting the Life of the Mother Here is a quote from that page: There is never a reason in law or in practice to advocate a "life of the mother" exception for abortion. We base this statement on testimony of many pro-life physicians over the years, including John F. Hillabrand, M.D., Herbert Ratner, M.D., and Bernard N. Nathanson, M.D. Further, we adhere to the following teaching of Pope Pius XII: Every human being, even the infant in the mother's womb, has the right to life immediately from God, not from the parent or any human society or authority. Therefore, there is no man, no human authority, no science, no medical, eugenic, social, economic or moral "indication" that can show or give valid juridical title for direct deliberate disposition concerning an innocent human life-which is to say, a disposition that aims at its destruction either as an end in itself or as the means of attaining another end that is perhaps in no way illicit itself. Thus, for example, to save the life of the mother is a most noble end, but the direct killing of the child as a means to this end is not licit. Allocution to Italian midwives Pope Pius XII October 29, 1951

If this is a "fringe" point of view in the pro-life movement, that is news to me. My understanding has always been that this is how all pro-life people view the world. After all, there is no "life of the mother" exception to so-called partial birth abortion ban, isn't that right? So, if a fetus is a separate human being with a heart and brain and a different blood type at 8 weeks, or whatever your claim was, why should there be an exception for the life of the mother there? You are more familiar than I am with the pro-life movement. I suppose I should take your word for it that this guy's views are out of the mainstream. But that is truly a surprise to me.

Here is something that might help move the discussion forward. It is an article by a pro-life advocate who argues that there should be no exception for the life of the mother. (Does this help explain why some of us find the pro-life argument so terrifying? Can you imagine if you guys become the majority and start making laws?). So, even if nothing else happens today, you will be introduced to your first pro-life advocate who maintains the view that the dividing embryo should be saved but the mother should die. (That may not be a choice often in the real world, but if it were, this guy would vote for the mother's death). You can find the article here: Why the Life of the Mother is Not a Valid Exception for Abortion - Vision Forum Ministries (You see Carlene, sometimes I do my research). I've pasted the text below: Why the Life of the Mother is Not a Valid Exception for Abortion by Douglas W. Phillips, Esq., December 16, 2002 Susie, a mother of five children, finds herself and her three-year-old year son Johnny adrift at sea in a tiny one-person raft. They are hundreds of miles away from the nearest boat or landmark. The prospects look grim for both mother and child. On board is a container of water and food. One problem is that there is no realistic means for acquiring additional food at sea and even less for collecting rainwater. If the food and water on board are carefully rationed, Susie will have enough provisions on board for one person to barely survive two weeks at sea, which is the time she has estimated it will take for the little raft to follow the currents to a latitude and longitude frequented by shipping vessels, one of which, she is sure, will rescue her. This is her one hope for survival, but she must last two weeks at sea. Although she might hope that a rescue ship will arrive before that time, the appearance of such would be nothing short of a miracle. Susie now confronts the biggest dilemma of her life. Based on the information before her, only one person can survive the sea voyage. As things stand now, both mother and child seem destined to die of dehydration and hunger. The only realistic hope for any survival would be for one of the two to die, leaving the other with the supplies. What to do? Susie is aware of only three options. Option One: She could simply pray, trust God and accept the very real possibility that both she and her son will die; Option Two: She could sacrifice her own life and leave her son with the necessary provisions for his own survival; or, Option Three: She could kill her son, leaving her with the necessary food and water to make it to safety. This last option is the most ominous, but the one Susie feels obligated to carefully consider. Susie ponders the situation. It is true that Johnny is her son, but it is also true that he poses a very real threat to her survival. Mother and child are both yoked in an uncomfortable environment for a long period of time, mother and child are both living off the same limited food source, and mother and child both find themselves in a life-threatening situation. With every bite of food or drink of water that he takes, Johnny increases the possibility that Susie will not survive at sea. The fact that Johnny does not intend her harm is not at issue. The bottom line is that little Johnny is a threat to her own life. To kill her son, Susie reasons, is really an act of self-defense. After all, isn’t it better for one of them to live, than for both to die? Furthermore, there are four other children at home who will suffer greatly if they lose their mother. The loss of a brother is tragic, but the loss of mother can harm many lives by depriving other children of love and affection. Susie’s life should be saved because it is clearly the more valuable of the two. As she considers these points, Susie notices a school of sharks circling her boat. Her decision made, Susie waits until the middle of night at which time she kisses her son, effortlessly lifts his sleeping body from the raft, and then throws him into the water where he quietly slips below the waves and is ripped to pieces and consumed by the man-eating sharks. Thanking God that she did not have to watch her son’s death or hear his screams, Susie wipes the tears from her eyes and resolves to move on. She knows that her decision was a valid choice and an act of self-protection. Further, she is comforted by the fact that Johnny is probably better off to have died a quick death with the sharks than to be put through the agony of long-term starvation and dehydration. All things considered, her actions were merciful. Susie manages to survive the next two weeks, is rescued, and returns home to serve as the mother of four healthy children. What shall we think of Susie? Shall we bless a mother who kills her own child to save herself? Are we proud of such a woman? Shall we sing of her virtues? Perhaps we should just chalk-up her decision to feed her son to the sharks as “an unfortunate, but necessary evil.” After all, she was just acting in self-defense. It was either the mother or the child. One would live and the other would die. Who could blame Mama for wanting to fight for her life, even if it meant that her son would be torn to pieces in the darkness of night? In point of fact, this woman’s behavior is utterly despicable. Susie is a criminal. Her behavior is indefensible. To murder another is wrong, but for a mother to murder her own child as an act of self-preservation is a crime of unspeakable ignominy. Why do we shudder at reports of ancient pagan parents who threw their children into the flames or put them to the knife to appease a heathen god? We shudder and cringe because the parent-child relationship is the most sacred, the most inviolable, and the most foundational to life and civilization. Upon this relationship rests the eternal destiny of every true Believer. It is the relationship of the heavenly Father to the Son, and it is the relationship that every Christian has as a child of God. It is our one hope. It is because of this truth that we embrace the spirit of R.M.S. Titanic commander E.J. Smith who proclaimed “women and children first” as the great ship went to its demise. A man worth his salt will not try to evaluate the value of his life in comparison to that of his wife or children. He will simply die for his loved ones. He will play the part of the man and willingly sacrifice his life for those dependent on him. He will give up his seat on the lifeboat for them; he will face death and make any sacrifice for those that God has placed under his protection. Just as every man should know that it is his duty to die for his wife and children, every wife should know that that it is her duty to sacrifice for the child she has nurtured in her womb. Sacrifice is implicit to the Christian definition of mother. This brings us to the question at bar. Is there any substantive difference between Susie’s actions and that of the mother who orders an abortion “to preserve her own life?” Count on the fact that the blade of the abortionist is every bit as bloody when applied to the skull and chest and legs of an unborn little boy or girl as the teeth of the sharks were to young Johnny. Does this description offend you? Infanticide is offensive. “But we must have abortion when the life of the mother is in jeopardy,” some will argue. “Is it fair to deprive a husband and family of a mother? After all, such an abortion is simply an act of self-defense by the mother against the child. And what if the child’s chance of survival is rather slim in comparison with the likelihood that the mother will die if the baby is brought to term? Surely, abortion is reasonable in such circumstances.” For thousands of years, man has found ways to rationalize murder, but for those who call upon the name of Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior, there is but one standard for resolving this and all ethical questions: Holy Scripture. The Bible gives no authority for a parent to ever take the life of an unborn child. Scripture does give three valid bases for taking the life of another, none of which can even remotely be construed as a justification for “abortion for the life of the mother.” Man may take another’s life in the case of just warfare; man may take another’s life when acting on behalf of the civil magistrate to execute a person guilty of a capital crime; or man may take another’s life as an act of self-defense, or in defense of others where there is a significant and immediate threat to life best remedied with a lethal response. To conclude, mothers should never kill their babies. There are no exceptions. The Bible condemns abortion and offers no exceptions to this rule. Abortion is not even biblically permissible in so-called “life of the mother” cases. As with all ethical decisions, our approach to the question of “abortion for the life of the mother” must be dictated by Scripture alone. We are not to look to situation ethics, the advice of the medical community, personal opinion, or even “common sense” to help us make life-and-death decisions concerning our unborn children. Nor may a Christian look to their emotions, to human traditions, to majority consensus, to their personal experience, or to a private revelation from God as the basis for their decision-making. “All Scripture is given by inspiration of God and is profitable for doctrine for reproof and for instruction in righteousness that the man of God may be perfect thoroughly equipped unto all good works” (2 Timothy 3:16-17). This is the only source of wisdom for our ethical decisions. Even within the Christian community, however, some would argue that it is better to kill one unborn baby, than to risk depriving a family with living children of their mother. Others would argue that it is a legitimate act of self-defense for a mother to kill her baby where medical experts conclude that there is a high probability that the little baby could threaten the life of the mother. Still others might argue that where a baby will probably not make it to term anyway, but the continuing growth of the baby threatens the health of the mother, that it makes common sense to allow the mother to take the life of the child. Each of these arguments is rooted in a form of unbiblical situation ethics and a rejection of the sufficiency of Scripture. In Scripture, we learn that God alone is the author of life and that He alone can grant jurisdiction to take life. Further, we learn that the unborn baby is a life with an eternal soul; that man does not have the right to judge or evaluate the quality of a person’s life, and thus, the right to determine which babies have a right to life; that “expert” medical predictions about the future are based on the thinking of finite men and are often wrong; that God alone knows the future because He planned it and superintends every micro detail; and that He alone holds the key to life including the power to heal. Finally, we learn that taking innocent life is universally condemned as a crime punishable by death. Concerning abortion as a form of self-defense, the Bible teaches that such killing is only valid as an act of self-defense against a wrongful party. Wrong requires intent. Mothers may not kill their babies as an act of self-defense because an unborn child intends the mother no harm and lacks the mental capacity to pose a willing threat to a mother. Furthermore, child-sacrifice as a means of self-preservation is universally condemned in Scripture as one of the most wicked crimes imaginable. On the other hand, self-sacrifice is the “greatest form of love” and the essence of arenthood, even as it is the essence of true Christian leadership. Because there is no biblical distinction between the value of life in utero and ex utero, mothers and fathers must always be willing and ready to sacrifice their lives for their children, born or unborn. In light of the above, Christians must join together to uphold God’s Law and stand in defense of the unborn. Killing a baby in the womb is unconscionable under any circumstances. To embrace anything but a “no exception” policy in opposition to abortion is to condone infanticide. Historically and biblically, the greatest judgments have been reserved for those nations which embrace perversion and child sacrifice. (Both are rampant within our nation.) Political leaders who profess to be Christian, but who promote the right of any individual to perform abortions (child sacrifice) for any reason whatsoever, are party to the promotion of the slaughter of the innocent and will be judged. Such men and women will be judged even before heathen leaders, because “judgment begins first in the house of the Lord.” Consequently, before pointing out the speck in the political eyes of unbelieving politicians, we must first remove the enormous log of compromise from the collective eyes of our own evangelical community. The unwillingness of Christians to take a principled “no exception” stance on abortion, as well as their habitual fear of holding professing Christian leaders accountable to the biblical no-exception standard, is a likely cause of our ineffectiveness to turn back abortion in America. God often blesses nations because of the obedience of the elect. The elect of God is the remnant of faithful believers who occupy and advance the kingdom of God in their land. (Had there been but ten in the days of Abraham, Sodom would have been spared.) Because of this, it is the failure of the remnant, even more than the evil of the heathen majority, which determines the future of a nation. The remnant must be faithful to God’s standards. If past is prologue, and history does repeat itself, we can and should expect that, absent repentance, such compromise within the Church will possibly become the heavenly impetus for our collapse as a nation. Rescue the perishing. Care for the dying.

Even if you did have the thought process you describe, do you suppose that the 11 others all made the identical mistake, notwithstanding the relative clarity of the three options? Do you suppose 396power made the same mistake, notwithstanding that he wrote the poll? If it is really true that you never before even heard of a pro-life advocate who would not allow the option of saving the physical life of the mother, then meet 396power. As the author of the poll I think he knew what he was saying. And I think the eleven others did as well. The poll is pretty clear.