home
RSS
My Take: When evangelicals were pro-choice
The author notes that evangelical Christians were once largely pro-abortion rights.
October 30th, 2012
05:54 PM ET

My Take: When evangelicals were pro-choice

Editor's Note: Jonathan Dudley is the author of "Broken Words: The Abuse of Science and Faith in American Politics."

By Jonathan Dudley, Special to CNN

Over the course of the 2012 election season, evangelical politicians have put their community’s hard-line opposition to abortion on dramatic display.

Missouri Rep. Todd Akin claimed “legitimate rape” doesn’t result in pregnancy. Indiana Senate candidate Richard Mourdock insisted that “even when life begins in that horrible situation of rape, that it is something that God intended to happen.”

While these statements have understandably provoked outrage, they’ve also reinforced a false assumption, shared by liberals and conservatives alike: that uncompromising opposition to abortion is a timeless feature of evangelical Christianity.

The reality is that what conservative Christians now say is the Bible’s clear teaching on the matter was not a widespread interpretation until the late 20th century.

Opinion: Let's get real about abortions

In 1968, Christianity Today published a special issue on contraception and abortion, encapsulating the consensus among evangelical thinkers at the time. In the leading article, professor Bruce Waltke, of the famously conservative Dallas Theological Seminary, explained the Bible plainly teaches that life begins at birth:

“God does not regard the fetus as a soul, no matter how far gestation has progressed. The Law plainly exacts: 'If a man kills any human life he will be put to death' (Lev. 24:17). But according to Exodus 21:22–24, the destruction of the fetus is not a capital offense… Clearly, then, in contrast to the mother, the fetus is not reckoned as a soul.”

The magazine Christian Life agreed, insisting, “The Bible definitely pinpoints a difference in the value of a fetus and an adult.” And the Southern Baptist Convention passed a 1971 resolution affirming abortion should be legal not only to protect the life of the mother, but to protect her emotional health as well.

Opinion: Why the abortion issue won’t go away

These stalwart evangelical institutions and leaders would be heretics by today’s standards. Yet their positions were mainstream at the time, widely believed by born-again Christians to flow from the unambiguous teaching of Scripture.

Televangelist Jerry Falwell spearheaded the reversal of opinion on abortion in the late 1970s, leading his Moral Majority activist group into close political alliance with Catholic organizations against the sexual revolution.

In contrast to evangelicals, Catholics had mobilized against abortion immediately after Roe v. Wade. Drawing on mid-19th century Church doctrines, organizations like the National Right to Life Committee insisted a right to life exists from the moment of conception.

Follow the CNN Belief Blog on Twitter

As evangelical leaders formed common cause with Catholics on topics like feminism and homosexuality, they began re-interpreting the Bible as teaching the Roman Catholic position on abortion.

Falwell’s first major treatment of the issue, in a 1980 book chapter called, significantly, “The Right to Life,” declared, “The Bible clearly states that life begins at conception… (Abortion) is murder according to the Word of God.”

With the megawatt power of his TV presence and mailing list, Falwell and his allies disseminated these interpretations to evangelicals across America.

CNN’s Belief Blog: The faith angles behind the biggest stories

By 1984, it became clear these efforts had worked. That year, InterVarsity Press published the book Brave New People, which re-stated the 1970 evangelical consensus: abortion was a tough issue and warranted in many circumstances.

An avalanche of protests met the publication, forcing InterVarsity Press to withdraw a book for the first time in its history.

“The heresy of which I appear to be guilty,” the author lamented, “is that I cannot state categorically that human/personal life commences at day one of gestation.... In order to be labeled an evangelical, it is now essential to hold a particular view of the status of the embryo and fetus.”

What the author quickly realized was that the “biblical view on abortion” had dramatically shifted over the course of a mere 15 years, from clearly stating life begins at birth to just as clearly teaching it begins at conception.

During the 2008 presidential election, Purpose Driven Life author Rick Warren demonstrated the depth of this shift when he proclaimed: “The reason I believe life begins at conception is ‘cause the Bible says it.”

It is hard to underestimate the political significance of this reversal. It has required the GOP presidential nominee to switch his views from pro-choice to pro-life to be a viable candidate. It has led conservative Christians to vote for politicians like Akin and Mourdock for an entire generation.

And on November 6, it will lead millions of evangelicals to support Mitt Romney over Barack Obama out of the conviction that the Bible unequivocally forbids abortion.

But before casting their ballots, such evangelicals would benefit from pausing to look back at their own history. In doing so, they might consider the possibility that they aren’t submitting to the dictates of a timeless biblical truth, but instead, to the goals of a well-organized political initiative only a little more than 30 years old.

The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of Jonathan Dudley.

- CNN Belief Blog

Filed under: Abortion • Catholic Church • Christianity • Opinion

soundoff (2,844 Responses)
  1. WrshipWarior

    What is Jonathan Dudley smoking? This article is so out of touch with what the Bible very clearly teaches. His entire defense for a round about approach to a biblical justification for pro-choice has absolutely no credibility. The quote he uses from the Evangelicals of Dallas Theological Cemetery regarding Exodus 21:22-24 is completely insane because Exodus 21:22-24 very clearly speaks about if a women gets hit accidentally during a fight between two men and miscarries. This has absolutely nothing to do with dehumanizing a fetus or justifying a woman's right to choose to have an abortion. Nor does it contradict Leviticus 24:17 which speaks about premeditated murder. These are two entirely different life situations and the "professor" from Dallas is way off base.

    I wish folks would read the Bible themselves for what it says – and not just take what some alleged authority with a theological degree thinks that it says. If you have a desire to know Truth the Bible is very clear about a lot of issues and speaks for itself: Abortion is murder. There is no biblical justification for the shedding of innocent blood (Proverbs 6:16-17).

    October 30, 2012 at 10:58 pm |
    • Observer

      "Truth the Bible is very clear about a lot of issues and speaks for itself: Abortion is murder."

      Have you actually read the Bible? It NEVER mentions abortion. Skip the fantasizing and deal with the truth of what the Bible actually says and doesn't say.

      October 30, 2012 at 11:04 pm |
    • WrshipWarior

      @Observer – Yes I have read the Bible. Have you? You are correct in that the word "abortion" is not found in the Bible. But what exactly is abortion but the termination of life? I believe that would be synonymous with "murder" which is definitely addressed in the Bible.

      October 30, 2012 at 11:13 pm |
    • Observer

      WrshipWarior,

      If you have read the Bible, you know that causing a miscarriage is punished by a FINE, but injuring a PERSON is punished by "an eye for an eye". Obviously, they are NOT the same.

      October 30, 2012 at 11:17 pm |
    • Inglourious

      The Bible authorized genocide of women and little boys in the Book of Numbers. How do you reconcile that with your belief that "There is no biblical justification for the shedding of innocent blood"?

      October 30, 2012 at 11:18 pm |
    • WrshipWarior

      @Observer – Right you are again! If the consequences of my actions cause a woman to miscarry, then under Levitical Law I would be fined since I am a man and obviously cannot provide a fetus for a fetus.

      October 30, 2012 at 11:31 pm |
    • Otherside

      And yet that is exactly what the bible says God has either done or ordered others to do.

      October 30, 2012 at 11:33 pm |
    • WrshipWarior

      @Inglourious – In t he book of Numbers the children of Israel were commanded by the Lord to go and destroy an evil nation. Again, this is a totally different situation than one making their own personal decision to destroy life. Fortunately for us today the Lord is not commanding these things of His people. He's going to come back and deal with the evil of this world Himself.

      October 30, 2012 at 11:45 pm |
  2. H. Terrell Thompkins

    This is the most amateur-istic article I have ever read. This is your argument; "evangelicals would benefit from pausing to look back at their own history. In doing so, they might consider the possibility that they aren’t submitting to the dictates of a timeless biblical truth, but instead, to the goals of a well-organized political initiative only a little more than 30 years old."

    With this illogical banter I guess we could surmise that before segregation was banned, and before slavery was outlawed that all of those fighting for the dignity of the human person back then should have "given pause" at their own history and realized that they too were mere puppets of a very young organized political initiative. DUDE....You are a pubescent hack! And you have no reason!.

    October 30, 2012 at 10:54 pm |
    • MNCros

      For Christians the bible is the end all be all.... all he is saying is that you people interpreted things one way and then interpret them another decades later. So much for the book that holds all truth and dictates people as bad or good, evil or worthy... when it's interpretations mean totally different things depending on the decade.

      October 30, 2012 at 11:07 pm |
    • WrshipWarior

      @MNCros – How right you are with your observation. People try to interpret the Bible for their own generation to support their own agendas rather than seeking for the truths of the Bible to be revealed in their hearts. And thus we end up with 2 Christians, 3 opinions. We need revelation (with confirmation) – not interpretation (2 Peter 1:20).

      October 30, 2012 at 11:59 pm |
  3. 24HCC

    I have four questions for any people supporting killing humans in war.

    Answers are YES or NO only. If you say anything else I will assume you mean YES

    1. Is the human alive?
    2. Is it human in nature?
    3. Does it have its own unique human DNA not found in any other human being?
    4. Is it protecting mom or anyone else?

    If YES to all four (note: this may not be true for #4 in all cases), then the human is a unique living human that is protecting itself and/or loved ones. Now, you argument please...

    October 30, 2012 at 10:50 pm |
    • SnoPhox

      Changing your name from SoldierOfConscience doesn't change anything.

      October 30, 2012 at 10:59 pm |
    • sh

      How infantile. War is inevitable. Of course, war should be the very last option. The strong have always protected the weak. So tell me this Einstein, should we have gone to war in 1941 or let Hitler march across Europe, kill all of the Jews, and then head across the Atlantic? Sometimes, bad people must be stopped. It results in war. It's sad, but true. So, you really want to compare war (with all of its complex situations and issues) to killing a a living child not yet born? Seems as if you are comparing apples to oranges. If someone wants to kill the child growing inside her – there is absolute no way to stop her – but keep the medical system, tax dollars, and forcing anyone else to pay for it.

      October 30, 2012 at 11:02 pm |
    • 24HCC

      War is a choice.

      Abortion is a choice.

      Laws are made by man.

      October 30, 2012 at 11:11 pm |
  4. ltsmychoice

    It should be up to the PREGNANT WOMAN to decide if she wants to keep HER baby or not. It shouldn't be up to religion, politics, men, friends, etc. l'm not anti nor for abortion but l do believe it should be a PERSONAL CHOICE.

    October 30, 2012 at 10:49 pm |
    • Benjamin

      It's not a woman's choice any more than the life of a slave was a slave owner's choice. That is a cop out.

      October 30, 2012 at 10:54 pm |
    • sh

      Slavery should be a personal choice? It both involves "owning" another person.

      October 30, 2012 at 10:56 pm |
    • I'm not a GOPer, nor do I play one on TV

      @Benjamin,

      of course it's about a woman's right to choose. Almost nobody is pro-abortion.

      The right of the living woman supercedes the proto-life of the unborn fetus. A woman can choose whether or not she continues with a pregnancy.

      October 30, 2012 at 10:57 pm |
    • Timodeus

      Is it not a man's baby as well? It takes two to tango, remember?

      October 30, 2012 at 11:01 pm |
    • Sam29

      I am really grateful that my mom allowed me to live!

      October 30, 2012 at 11:04 pm |
    • Inglourious

      @sam Are aborted fetuses somewhere lamenting being aborted? No, of course not - they never existed.

      October 30, 2012 at 11:09 pm |
    • servJBR

      so, your OK with the stainless steel bowl full of human parts X's a few million each year? Doesn't it at least turn your stomach a tad, maybe even make you think, hmm, bad choice?

      October 30, 2012 at 11:19 pm |
  5. LPK

    Any biblical interpretation that implies that life begins at life is a deviation from the Bible's original intent and should never have existed in the first place. If you look at the history of Christianity as a whole (not just Evangelicalism) the early Christians and the original churches (Orthodox and Catholic, for example) have never supported this interpretation. This should be obvious to any Christian. During the Annunciation, at the moment of conception, "the Word" (that is Jesus, not a mere bundle of cells) "became flesh and dwelt among us." Any reader can tell, from this reading that human life begins at conception. Any other interpretation of it is twisted.

    October 30, 2012 at 10:49 pm |
    • LPK

      *life begins at "birth", not "life" lol

      October 30, 2012 at 10:50 pm |
    • Inglourious

      So our laws should be based on your interpretation of the Bible?

      October 30, 2012 at 10:56 pm |
    • waitasec

      is god a murderer for killing wanted babies in the womb?

      i don't believe in heaven or hell but you seem to so look at this way...
      an aborted unwanted fetus will be spared the potential of living on a highway to hell and instead go straight up to heaven...

      October 30, 2012 at 11:04 pm |
  6. Kellie

    Actually this article is inaccurate Exodus 21:22–24 states that if the baby is only born prematurely then no death penalty will be used but if further injury at all (to the woman or baby) occurs then the death penalty will be used.
    Not point at all if you totallly reject the Bible. I often wonder why people who loathe the bible and Christians debate so much about their scriptures. Agree to disagree and let the vote decide.
    As a mother, pregnancy and the birth of my child was all I needed to experience to know there is something very wrong with abortion.

    October 30, 2012 at 10:48 pm |
    • I'm not a GOPer, nor do I play one on TV

      Um Kellie, no you are incorrect here.

      look at an earlier translation. Here's the KJV:

      22 If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman's husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine.

      Wycliffe

      22 If men chide, and a man smiteth a woman with child, and soothly he maketh the child dead-born, but the woman liveth over that smiting, he shall be subject to the harm (he shall be subject to a fine), as much as the woman’s husband asketh (for), and as the judges deem (appropriate).

      The older versions are quite clearly miscarry. This is an example of modern biblical revisionism to be more consistent with an anti-abortion position.

      October 30, 2012 at 11:02 pm |
    • tnfreethinker

      Kellie...because religion is a lie!

      October 30, 2012 at 11:11 pm |
    • servJBR

      and parsing verses here and there conveniently nonetheless does not change the over arching theme and message of any book; love, obey and humbly follow. If only we could ignore the killing of helpless, innocent unborn babies... forgive us lord, we will fight for them

      October 30, 2012 at 11:14 pm |
    • I'm not a GOPer, nor do I play one on TV

      @servJBR,

      This topic is a clear indication that there is no such thing as absolute, biblical morality.

      Translations change with times. (Many) Evangelicals were for it, before they were against it.

      Like slavery, which is condoned in the bible but unacceptable today, or the punishment for adultery, which in the bible, like murder was death. How many adulterers still in pews today living full lives?

      All morality is relative to its society. I will grant you that the abortion topic is a difficult one to gain consensus. Almost no one is 'pro-abortion'. The issue is decided by choosing to support a woman's right to choose.

      October 30, 2012 at 11:27 pm |
    • Fact Check Needed

      TOPer – read on the VS 23-24.... There it states, "new" or "old" Bible translation, that if a baby "comes out" after such an argument or fight and "a fatal accident occurs" or "mischief should follow", then the Mosaic Law requiring a "life for a life" is to be imposed on the one causing the "fatal accidnet" or "mischief" to occur. So, vs. 22 ONLY applies if the result of 'her fruit departing from her' is a LIVE birth. Then the fine as penalty. If a DEATH occurs when 'her fruit departs from her' then the penalty is death. So, the Bible clearly condemns the killing of a fetus / fruit / child IN the womb, even when unintended, let alone with intention.

      Whether someone believes in the Bible or God is their choice. But those who claim to do so should really read it well before commenting. This evangelist who used this scripture, claiming to be an expert, did what you did (although you claimed that not) – read without reading well or in full context. Unfortunately, this is what divides, not the Bible itself – just people.....

      And no where does the Bible condone pushing Christian beliefs on a political nation. So Biblically, and for Christians, what politicians say and do is a moot point.

      October 30, 2012 at 11:54 pm |
    • David

      No, she is 100% correct. Miscarry at the time (1611) meant exactly what is appears: mis-carry. It means any premature birth, live or dead.
      see http://www.gutenberg.org/files/29765/29765-8.txt

      If you look at the marginal notes on this passage, it says that the "no harm" clause applies to both the mother AND child.

      October 31, 2012 at 12:12 pm |
  7. craig

    Rightly or wrongly I find this an interesting parallel to the evolution of anti-Semitism in Europe around 1900. To that point there certainly had been anti-Semitism throughout Europe, but it rose and fell for a variety of reasons. At various times Jews were welcomed in all countries. At one moment Germany welcomed the Jews being kicked out of France! However, the movement against Jews was always based upon Religion. Somewhere around 1900 that changed, and what had been Religious anti-Semitism became Racial anti-Semitism and suddenly the Jews were unacceptable because they were a different race.

    This is sort of the same situation, where the Bible said one thing...and then a few years later it seems it says something completely different. The fact is that nothing in the Bible changed. What changed was Man. So...clearly if the Bible IS the Word of God, then man seems to have trouble figuring out what God said. In fact, speaking about the Christian religion, we should remember that the source of that religion is/was Jesus, and he never said a word about when a fetus becomes a person. Of course, he also never said a word about hating the LGBTQ community either, but that hasn't stopped the Do-Gooders from making it part of the religion.

    October 30, 2012 at 10:45 pm |
    • servJBR

      what did he say about obeying God? A lot. We can see into the womb now, clearly. That is a person very early on. Leave religion out of your calculus for a moment- at what point do the remarkable pictures inside the womb resemble you or me enough to say, "maybe it's wrong to kill that (looks like a person, so it might be:)"

      October 30, 2012 at 11:07 pm |
    • servJBR

      and no true follower of Christ hates LGBT. Read the book peeps- it's a love story, really, it is.

      October 30, 2012 at 11:09 pm |
  8. 24HCC

    God has you in his book. He has a plan for each of us. He knows when you will be born and when you will die.

    He is therefore responsible for all death, murder and destruction for all of history including every abortion ever performed, every r.a.p.e, every murder, every miscarriage, every atrocity.

    He is perfect. He is omniscient. He is omnipotent. So how could this not be so?

    If you oppose abortion, you are against God.

    October 30, 2012 at 10:44 pm |
    • Observer

      Guess again. God never mentioned abortion.

      October 30, 2012 at 10:46 pm |
    • 24HCC

      @Observer

      Actually god never mentioned anything. This is what YOU believe, not me.

      October 30, 2012 at 10:52 pm |
    • 24HCC

      @Observer

      my bad lol

      October 30, 2012 at 10:59 pm |
    • Observer

      24HCC,

      I am only reporting what the Bible says for those who believe it and use it as an excuse to hurt others.

      October 30, 2012 at 11:00 pm |
  9. Prophet of Framingham

    Have even goverment that want to help control people that not have control of their feelings, because today they like rex and tomorow they hate red. ( Exemplo)

    October 30, 2012 at 10:40 pm |
    • 24HCC

      Have even shoelaces that want to chew control bunnies that not have not dog catcher of their under shorts, because today they like sex and tomorow they hate sushi. ( sashimi)

      October 30, 2012 at 10:46 pm |
  10. John Thomas Tolbert

    Looks like Romney is going to carry this election. He will most likely appoint at least one member to the Supreme Court. This will be the tipping point and Roe v. Wade will be overturned.

    If you are sickened by the crime against humanity known as abortion, vote Romney/Ryan.

    October 30, 2012 at 10:40 pm |
    • Inglourious

      I am sickened by religionists wanting to encode their holy books into law. A fertilized egg is living tissue, but it is not a human life. A zygote is not a baby.

      October 30, 2012 at 10:54 pm |
  11. Joe

    This just goes to show you about the radicalization of America through the Evangelical Christian movement and other radical leanings. I grew up in an Evangelical Church, a Pentecostal Church, and even 20 years ago they were not as radical and vocal on abortion and politics in general as they are today. Now Evangelical preachers will come right out and tell you who God wants you to vote for. They never did that before. In my little Evangelical Church the most the pastor would say, in a sermon is to ask God for guidance before you vote. He never endorsed a candidate. I am telling folks their is a reason this country is polarized! They are no more folks in the middle anymore. You are forced to stake your claim. Either your a liberal democrat or a right wing republican. When I was growing up the republican party had a moderate wing and the democrats had a conservative wing but it's all out of whack now. I think you still have conservative democrats but not by the new republican standard of conservatism. In the republican world if your not conservative just like their far right party is then your liberal. It's all about radicalizing half of America. Good Day.

    October 30, 2012 at 10:39 pm |
    • I'm not a GOPer, nor do I play one on TV

      @Joe,

      right you are sir. This is a big problem.

      October 30, 2012 at 10:48 pm |
    • servJBR

      you forgot to tell us who to vote for

      October 30, 2012 at 10:55 pm |
    • servJBR

      thinkin the people who tell women it's an OK choice chop up their unwanted "fetus" may in some cases be thought of as "radical", perspective matters- we know full term babies unborn are biologically ready to roll, but because they are still in utero it's OK to suck their brains out if someone thinks they have to? Sick, pathetic, evil joke, Enjoy lying to yourself? Nothing can be determined re: souls. We do know, for sure, that an embryo starts looking a lot like you and me very early on, so lets stop lying about that.

      October 30, 2012 at 11:03 pm |
    • End Religion

      In his farewell address, George Washington warned of polarized political factions. And we all know overly zealous believers want a theocracy. I wonder if I'll be alive when the country realizes the radical right and radical religious are posing a threat to America.

      October 30, 2012 at 11:13 pm |
  12. Laura

    Perhaps...the reason why this law was a law back in the Old Testament was because the people of that time didn't realize how early life started. The science that we know now about life is a whole lot different than what they knew then. We have technology to show us the early signs of breath, movement and growth...where perhaps back in the day they didn't really realize all of that. Also abortions are done a lot closer to birth nowadays than they would have been at that time. If you have ever seen a baby that was aborted close to birth you would definitely agree that it's murder. A good book to read on this subject is Unplanned by Abby Johnson. (At least the first few chapters describing what she saw as an ultrasound technician in an abortion clinic).

    Let's just think about this for a minute. If you didn't have a chance at life...aborted before you could even speak your mind...would your opinion still be the same?

    October 30, 2012 at 10:39 pm |
    • thecollegeadmissionsguru

      Laura, Your argument then begs several other questions. If the Religious Right admits that those who wrote the bible were perhaps no knowledgeable on a subject, then we can assume that EVERYTHING in the OT is outdated thinking.

      October 30, 2012 at 10:44 pm |
    • I'm not a GOPer, nor do I play one on TV

      @Laura,

      since according to you we can throw out the OT, including all the odious stuff in Leviticus?

      So gay marriage is OK then?

      October 30, 2012 at 10:47 pm |
    • servJBR

      ...guru- we are all free to assume anything about ancient scripture, and then decide after studying it- does it make sense? Read the whole book, study with folks who seem to care and who perhaps have garnered some of your respect. The Bible is the love story of Gods creation, full of true stories and lots of other info to guide us and clue us in to how things were and are. How many other books have you studied in-depth? Many I bet. So give the all time best seller a chance, don't dismiss it out of hand because a lot of boneheads don't get it all. So many more do get it to the extent that we get over things, try to do the right thing, make sacrifices and hopefully glorify a creator by showing christlike love. That's all most of us want to do. And we have the heaven thing going for us too:)

      October 30, 2012 at 10:53 pm |
  13. Mother in court for allegedly putting bleach in toddler’s eyes

    Jennifer L. Mothershead, 29, appeared in a Tacoma, Washington court yesterday on charges of repeatedly exposing her toddler daughter’s eyes to bleach. Mothershead reportedly used eye drops laced with bleach and repeatedly put the drops in both of her toddler’s eyes. The alleged abuse caused her daughter to lose vision in her right eye.

    October 30, 2012 at 10:30 pm |
    • John Thomas Tolbert

      You know, there are lots of horror stories of abuse out there. But that does not justify abortion. You can't seriously be arguing that this child would have been better off aborted.

      October 30, 2012 at 10:44 pm |
  14. A humble response...

    Jonathan, I appreciate your call to cognition on this subject, although I think what makes me consider abortion infanticide is the haunting image of an aborted fetus, not blind obedience to a "well-organized political initiative". The dismembered corpse that remains after the procedure in question seems difficult for any conscientious mind to ignore. Additionally, with all due respect to your accomplishments as a young author, I think you should hesitate before applying sweeping generalizations to millions based on the comments of one or two (or even ten) public figures, particularly those that are truly unscientific and not Biblical. Propagating cultural caricatures and promoting stereotypes for rhetorical convenience seems both inaccurate and unethical, and I fear it may diminish the credibility of your thoughtful future publications. Regardless, best wishes to you in your prose.

    October 30, 2012 at 10:28 pm |
    • servJBR

      wow... thanks for putting it nicely, as we need to alway be Christlike:) I was ready to haul off like our polyester clad punter here in MN, rip this brilliant little genius a new one, as if we didn't know (what's he like 19?) Jerry Falwell was a nutcase, and that we don't agonize with moms and their unborn. Sin sucks, but it's no excuse to kill, "...just an excuse not to try" (Cutlass quote / love that song, yes, lots of great Christian music these days folks, coming from an old Deadhead... peace, love, save the whales and the babies!!

      October 30, 2012 at 10:44 pm |
  15. Eddie

    The blood of over 50 million aborted babies in the USA since Roe vs. Wade on January 22, 1973 cries out to God for justice.
    Just think about how many people this really is. More than all of the wars and car accidents combined throughout our entire country's history!

    And the amazing thing about it is that virtually no discussion is allowed in public schools regarding this topic in a land where we value freedom of speech.

    Perhaps one day we can see the error of our ways and change the path we are on.

    October 30, 2012 at 10:28 pm |
    • Observer

      God never mentioned abortion but you are free to continue fantasizing.

      October 30, 2012 at 10:31 pm |
    • End Religion

      blood cries?

      October 30, 2012 at 10:58 pm |
    • MNCros

      Imagine all of the people that have been saved from being raised by a drug addicted mother, from being physically abused because they were unwanted, and the mothers that were saved because they could finish their education. Are you also going to pray for all the pregnancies that end in miscarriages.... because that's 1 in 4 brother.... sounds like you have a lot of praying to do.

      October 30, 2012 at 11:17 pm |
  16. SoldierOfConscience

    More excuses to kill unborn humans...

    October 30, 2012 at 10:27 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      Blow it out your butt, SOC.

      October 30, 2012 at 10:28 pm |
    • Observer

      If they were full-fledged human beings, they would be breathing air instead of swimming in a liquid and they'd have legal rights like PEOPLE do.

      October 30, 2012 at 10:29 pm |
    • Moby Schtick

      God apparently doesn't need any as nearly a quarter of pregnancies end in miscarriage--most before the mother knows she is pregnant. God is the most prolific abortionist on top of being a sadistic pr!ck who tortures people forever.

      October 30, 2012 at 10:29 pm |
    • SoldierOfConscience

      I have four questions for any people supporting killing unborn humans.

      Answers are YES or NO only. If you say anything else I will assume you mean YES :)

      1. Is the fetus alive?
      2. Is it human in nature?
      3. Does it have its own unique human DNA not found in any other human being?
      4. Is it harming mom or anyone else?

      If YES to all four (note: this may not be true for #4 in all cases), then the fetus is a unique unborn human that is not harming anyone else. Now, you argument please...

      October 30, 2012 at 10:36 pm |
    • hawaiiguest

      @Soldier

      Restricting to yes or no is a dishonest tactic you constantly use with the same questions. Leave troll, we all know you're not interested in actual discussion of the issues, just with posting your self-righteous idiocy. Go ask people in your church, their the ones who won't actually think about your questions.

      October 30, 2012 at 10:38 pm |
    • SoldierOfConscience

      Observer,

      More arguments like the one you made above:

      If babies were full fledged human beings they would be walking around, able to talk and feeding themselves...
      If chickens are full fledged birds, they will be able to fly high like an eagle...

      I can come up with more.

      October 30, 2012 at 10:41 pm |
    • I'm not a GOPer, nor do I play one on TV

      1. Is the fetus alive? It's cells are replicating, by which you can assume YES
      2. Is it human in nature? YES
      3. Does it have its own unique human DNA not found in any other human being? YES
      4. Is it harming mom or anyone else? MAYBE, by which you can assume YES :D

      October 30, 2012 at 10:42 pm |
    • Observer

      SoldierOfConscience,

      1. Yes it is alive; the same could be said for other things like cancers
      2. Yes, it is human in nature; so are sperm cells
      3. Yes, it has its own DNA; so do miscarriages
      4. Yes, it can be hurting (or even killing mom).

      October 30, 2012 at 10:42 pm |
    • Laura

      So...Observer...You weren't a human being until the age of 18 then right? Cause legally YOU don't have rights until then....you parents have the LEGAL rights over you. Ask your mother if she thought you were a human being before you were born. I bet she did.

      Moby...I'll pray for you...cause clearly you have a lot of issues you need to deal with.

      October 30, 2012 at 10:43 pm |
    • Simple

      1) No, the fetus is not alive due to its inability to survive outside the womb. I don't consider it alive until it can survive outside the womb, until it can, it is not alive, but still part of the mother's body. Early stages of the fetus also cannot react to outside stimuli.
      2) No, the fetus does not truly look human until at least week 17.
      3) No, it has the DNA donated from its father and mother. Most of the DNA is identical to the rest of humanity. It has a unique coding however.
      4) Yes/no. Depends on the situation.

      October 30, 2012 at 10:44 pm |
    • SoldierOfConscience

      @ Hawaii guest

      It is not "their the ones who.."

      try "they are the ones who.."

      October 30, 2012 at 10:45 pm |
    • SnoPhox

      @SoldierOfConscience

      So, lets say all these children are born. Situations will raise from teen pregnancy, to people making decisions they financially they can't sustain.

      Your counter-argument consists of "There are many foundations that can support the children".

      Yet your foundations run out of money for adoption agencies, family homes and half-way house, that is usually given to by state and federal funding, YOU, ME, and EVERYONE else must pay for these children. These aren't my kids..

      Lets look at the population growth if every kid was born. It would explode. Don't say it isn't decreasing, because the birth rate of US Citizen may be decreasing, but third world birth rate is increasing.

      No one is pro-baby killing, but others are rational and understanding that sometimes you cannot sustain any good way to raise a child in certain times in life.

      October 30, 2012 at 10:50 pm |
    • hawaiiguest

      @Soldier

      Just as I expected of you. Don't actaully address the post, merely find something irrelevant that you can use to dismiss it. I was hoping you developed some kind of honesty since I've last seen your tag, but I guess that's just too much to ask for. Dishonesty is your only weapon, so I guess you need to keep at it to preserve your tiny little bubble of a worldview.

      October 30, 2012 at 10:51 pm |
    • I'm not a GOPer, nor do I play one on TV

      @Laura,

      look at Leviticus 27:6.
      6 for a person between one month and five years, set the value of a male at five shekels of silver and that of a female at three shekels

      In Mosaic Law all people had a monetary value. Babies had no value until they were one month old. What does that tell you about Hebrew tradition on the beginning of life? As a bonus it's also misogynistic.

      October 30, 2012 at 10:53 pm |
    • Observer

      Laura,

      Child have legal rights that prevent them from being abused by parents, etc.

      October 30, 2012 at 10:54 pm |
    • End Religion

      Hey SOC, gonna keep on abortin', abortin', abortin'. We know you want to watch each video to satiate your bloodlust, creepster.

      October 30, 2012 at 10:55 pm |
    • LPK

      @Simple: If a fetus isn't alive, why do you have to kill it to stop it from growing? Something has to be alive in order to be killed. There is no real argument on this matter.

      In response to your second point, humans come in many shapes and sizes! Remember that Southern plantation owners used to try and argue that black people didn't look human either. They were wrong.

      If you have trouble opposing abortion, because you feel sorry for women, I can certainly understand. The problem is: No matter how horrible a woman's situation is, a fetus is not "HER BODY" as feminist's love to scream. It is a real, separate human being, whether or not you want to believe it.

      October 30, 2012 at 11:00 pm |
    • I'm not a GOPer, nor do I play one on TV

      The argument is not about living or not-living tissue.

      The pre-existing rights of a woman supercede the proto-life of the unborn fetus. It is about choice for the woman.

      October 30, 2012 at 11:06 pm |
    • Simple

      Oh its alive, but its alive just as a liver is alive. Its not sapient, or even sentient yet.

      No humans do not look like that, humans that do, do not for long due to serious genetic mutations.

      I can agree that it is a separate being that is alive, growing almost as if a new organ, but it is not ALIVE in the biological sense until it can respond to outside stimuli. I refuse to accept that something that can't even detect nor respond to changes in its environment is alive.

      October 30, 2012 at 11:07 pm |
    • MNCros

      Are you going to be there to tell that pregnant mother to put down her beer because she's drinking while the fetuses pancreas and heart are developing? Obviously you can't make that decision for her so why should you be able to choose if she has that child....

      October 31, 2012 at 12:09 am |
  17. realbuckyball

    Fallacy #1 ; Without first establishing the authority of scripture all the rest is baloney. Scripture was written by humans, who appropriated the HUMAN law and customs of the day and religion LATER sanctioned it. Religion RECEIVED the law, it did not give the law.

    Fallacy #2 : There is not one person here who can define for us what exactly what the "moment of conception " actually is.

    October 30, 2012 at 10:25 pm |
    • concerned

      easy (in unscientific terms): the event of mixing of two individuals DNA (fertilization) creating the new, complete, and unique DNA of a new individual human

      October 30, 2012 at 10:59 pm |
    • realbuckyball

      When during the "mixing" does life begin ? I see you cannot answer the question. DNA replication is a long complex PROCESS. Is it when the DNA is 50 % "mixed" / 50.000002 % "mixed " LOL. Try harder.

      October 31, 2012 at 1:07 am |
  18. Where is your God now?

    A three month old infant had to have half of her skull removed resulting from injuries of torture and abuse by her father. The infant had bruises all over her body, a blood clot in the brain, a fractured skull, many fractured ribs, a fractured wrist which has left her with brain damage. Her doctors believed the baby wouldn’t survive, but she did, although her quality of life will be anybody’s guess.

    October 30, 2012 at 10:25 pm |
  19. Prophet of Framingham

    Pray for angel and heros

    October 30, 2012 at 10:25 pm |
  20. Prophet of Framingham

    They change their face every day...

    October 30, 2012 at 10:24 pm |
    • No

      Gross.

      October 30, 2012 at 10:25 pm |
    • No Religion

      Gross..

      October 30, 2012 at 10:26 pm |
    • End Religion

      [youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MPE676mTp-I&w=640&h=390]

      October 30, 2012 at 10:44 pm |
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37

Post a comment

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Advertisement
About this blog

The CNN Belief Blog covers the faith angles of the day's biggest stories, from breaking news to politics to entertainment, fostering a global conversation about the role of religion and belief in readers' lives. It's edited by CNN's Daniel Burke with contributions from Eric Marrapodi and CNN's worldwide news gathering team.