home
RSS
March for Life
January 21st, 2014
02:24 PM ET

Six surprising changes to the anti-abortion March for Life

By Daniel Burke, Belief Blog Co-editor

(CNN) - For decades, the March for Life has followed a familiar formula: Bus in thousands of abortion opponents. Protest in front of the Supreme Court. Go home.

But this year, in addition to braving snow and bone-chilling wind, the March will move in a different direction, says Jeanne Monahan, president of the anti-abortion group.

Long-winded political speeches? See ya.

An exclusive focus on Roe v. Wade, the 1973 Supreme Court case that lifted restrictions on abortion? Gone.

A hipster Catholic musician, evangelical leaders and March for Life app? Welcome to the protest.

And those changes just skim the surface.

The March for Life, billed as the world’s largest anti-abortion event, is remaking itself in deeper ways as well, says Monahan.

For its first 40 years, the march was marshaled by Nellie Gray, an occasionally irascible Catholic who had little use for modern technology, political compromise or the mainstream media.

Gray died in her home office in 2012 at age 88. A short time later, Monahan was named her successor at the March for Life.

While abortion opponents praise Gray’s legacy, there’s a popular saying around the March for Life’s Washington headquarters: “We’re a brand-new, 41-year-old organization.”

The goal: to turn their annual, one-day demonstration into a potent political machine.

Abortion rights advocates say they’re skeptical that March for Life leaders can convince more Americans to join their cause. Since 1989, the percentage who want to overturn Roe has barely budged above 30%.

“It’s an impressive show,” Jon O’Brien, president of Catholics for Choice, says of the March for Life. “But at the end of the day, they have failed dramatically at their goal.”

Still, even O’Brien expressed respect for his foes’ new plans. “It’s pretty clever, actually.”

With that in mind, here are six big ways the March for Life is changing this year:

1) 9 to 5

Since 1974, the March for Life has made a really loud noise every January 22, the anniversary of Roe. V. Wade.

Estimates of the crowd’s size vary, but it seems safe to say tens of thousands have attended the protest each year.

Organizers estimate that at least 50% of the marchers are under 18, as busloads of Catholic school kids descend on the capital from across the country.

But some abortion opponents complain the March for Life had morphed in recent years from a political demonstration to a photo op.

Ryan Bomberger, an anti-abortion activist who is speaking at march events, says the protest needs to find ways to harness its youthful energy throughout the year.

“You’ve got all these young people with energy and passion and the desire to do something about the injustice of abortion. But what do they do when they leave the march and go home?”

March for Life leaders want to turn its young protesters into citizen lobbyists, much like Tea Party partisans and the Obama campaign did with their troops.

The key to that, says March for Life's Chairman of the Board Patrick Kelly, is to keep them engaged throughout the year, including through social media. (More on that later.)

In addition to Monahan, an experienced Washington politico, the March for Life has beefed up its Washington office by hiring a full-time lobbyist and social media manager who will also lead outreach to evangelicals, a big and politically active constituency.

The focus this year will be combating the Obama administration’s contraception mandate, which requires most companies to provide free contraceptive coverage to employees. Abortion opponents say that some covered services are tantamount to abortion.

2) If You’ve Got the Money, We've Got the Time

For decades, the March for Life subsisted on a meager budget: Just $150,000 a year, according to tax filings from 2009-2011.

But new Washington offices, lobbyists and social media managers don’t come cheap. Fortunately for the March for Life, a donor who was a friend of Gray’s bequeathed $550,000 to the organization last year.

That, along with a more robust fund-raising campaign, has allowed the March to increase its budget from $252,000 when Monahan took over in 2012,  to $780,000 this year.

“We are professionalizing the March for Life,” said Kelly.

3) With Arms Wide Open 

Though various religious groups oppose abortion (many support abortion rights as well) the March for Life has come to be considered mainly a Catholic event.

Catholic clergy offer prayers, Catholic politicians make speeches and Catholic school kids fill out the rank-and-file.

Monahan says this year will different.

The March for Life has hired a full-time staffer devoted to bringing more Protestant evangelicals to the protest, and they hope to see that effort bear fruit this Wednesday.

They’ve tapped James Dobson, founder of the evangelical powerhouse ministry Focus on the Family, as a keynote speaker. Dobson and his adopted son, Ryan, will talk about adoption, an issue close to the heart of many evangelicals.

4) The Hardest Part

For the first time in its 41 years, the March for Life will focus on an issue besides abortion on Wednesday.

Through Dobson and other speakers, the march is also promoting the idea of “noble adoption” as an alternative to abortion.

“Adoption is a heroic decision for pregnant mothers who find themselves in a difficult situation,” says Monahan. “We want to eliminate the stigma of adoption and encourage women to pursue this noble option.”

The spotlight on adoption dovetails with new focus within the anti-abortion movement on crisis pregnancy centers, which urge women to carry their pregnancy to term.

Critics charge that the centers divulge false medical information about abortion and deceive unwitting patients into thinking they provide abortions, only to advise them otherwise. Supporters say they help women through financial assistance, counseling and adoption referrals.

5) Wish You Were Here

Despite the youth of many March for Life participants, the group’s website had been decidedly Web 1.0.

Under Monahan, that has changed dramatically.

The group posts Instagram pics of chilly protesters trudging through snow at past marches on Throwback Thursdays. They upload posts about prenatal development to Pinterest and tweet throughout the year, including this one about the difficult choices pregnant women sometimes face.

For the more technically advanced, the March has developed an app that connects to a 360-degree camera so folks can follow the protest from home. The app also has anti-abortion information, links to articles about adoption and tips for lobbying Congress.

“We have to find a way to take those boots on the ground and talk to them throughout the year,” says Kelly. “And with Facebook and Twitter and other social media we have the tools to do so.”

The March is also hoping for a high-profile social media endorsement on Wednesday: Monahan says she’s asked the Vatican to send a tweet from the Pope in support of the March for Life.

UPDATE: On Wednesday morning, Monahan got her papal tweet.

6) Yakety Yak

Imagine listening to politicians drone on for hours about their voting records in the chilly January air.

Fun, right?

Monahan didn’t think so either, so she’s trying to accomplish a minor miracle: limiting the speaking time of politicians at the pre-march rally.

Only a handful of politicians, including House Majority Leader Eric Canton, R-Virginia, and Rep. Dan Lipinski, D-Illinois, have been invited to speak. They’ve all been asked to keep their speeches to a just a few minutes.

“In past years our rally has gone on for two or three hours and people lost interest,” Monahan says.

So, instead of boring speeches, the rally this year will feature a live concert by Matt Maher, a Catholic singer-songwriter with a huge following among young Christians.

So, will all this make any difference?

Clearly, changes are afoot this year at the March for Life. But what effect, if any, will they have on the larger anti-abortion movement?

Not much, says Ziad Munson, a sociologist at Lehigh University and author of the book “The Making of Pro-life Activists.”

The March for Life hasn’t really been politically influential since the early 1990s, says Munson. Meanwhile, other abortion opponents, like Catholic bishops and National Right to Life Committee, have led the charge.

“In effect, what we’re seeing is a new organization within a movement, not a new approach,” he says. “I don’t think the March for Life is likely to make inroads that haven’t already been made.”

Monahan is more optimistic.

If the March can recruit even a slice of its youthful protesters into citizen activists, she says, it might be enough to tip the balance in a country deeply divided on the morality of abortion.

- CNN Belief Blog Editor

Filed under: Abortion • Bioethics • Catholic Church • Christianity • Church and state • Culture wars • Ethics • evangelicals • Politics • Women

soundoff (1,983 Responses)
  1. Lucifer's Evil Twin

    Who's having abortions (religion)?
    Women identifying themselves as Protestants obtain 37.4% of all abortions in the U.S.; Catholic women account for 31.3%, Jewish women account for 1.3%, and women with no religious affiliation obtain 23.7% of all abortions. 18% of all abortions are performed on women who identify themselves as "Born-again/Evangelical". Citation: Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese of North America

    January 22, 2014 at 2:11 pm |
    • Vic

      That's what happens when it is legal, an individual problem that goes against one's beliefs, a spoil. Those same Christians would not elect for abortion to be legal if they were called for voting on the issue. We believe the fate of the unborn should be left to God.

      January 22, 2014 at 2:16 pm |
      • ari

        the fate of the unborn should be left to god?

        better stop women from going to the doctor during pregnancy, then. wouldn't want the doctors to spot a problem and then try to fix it. leave it to god!

        January 22, 2014 at 2:22 pm |
      • Observer

        The two largest groups are Protestants and Catholics.

        Just one more example of HYPOCRISY.

        January 22, 2014 at 2:23 pm |
        • Vic

          Ending the life of the unborn by choice is one of the worst conscious acts, regardless of by whom.

          January 22, 2014 at 2:31 pm |
        • igaftr

          vic
          "Ending the life of the unborn by choice is one of the worst conscious acts, regardless of by whom."

          So when your god does it (which he does so often)...same definition?

          January 22, 2014 at 2:34 pm |
        • Observer

          The statistics show that more than 75% of all abortions are performed on believers who are HYPOCRITES if they claim the Bible opposes abortion.

          January 22, 2014 at 2:36 pm |
        • Vic

          God is the creator and owner of life and all creation. What God decides to do is up to Him, no problem.

          January 22, 2014 at 2:37 pm |
        • Vic

          God is the creator and owner of life and all creation. What God decides to do is up to Him, no problem.

          If God has created a natural Birth Control, that's fine and up to Him.

          January 22, 2014 at 2:39 pm |
      • Lucifer's Evil Twin

        That's a silly observation totally disconnected with the data just presented. Because it is legal, all of your religious buddies disregard their god and their book to go have abortions? If your god/book had any real sway over people.. they wouldn't disregard the word of their 'lord'. LOL.

        As an example... pot is legal in CO, but that doesn't mean that I have to go there and buy some and smoke it. I don't do that because I gave my word to the U.S. government that I wouldn't when I swore to defend the Constitution and when they gave me a security clearance.

        January 22, 2014 at 2:27 pm |
        • Vic

          The is of abortion is different from all others. Everything else pales in comparison to unjustly ending an innocent life.

          January 22, 2014 at 2:35 pm |
        • Vic

          The issue of abortion is different from all others. Everything else pales in comparison to unjustly ending an innocent life.

          January 22, 2014 at 2:35 pm |
        • In Santa we trust

          Vic. An abortion is worse than 9/11? Worse than Katrina or Sandy? Really?

          January 22, 2014 at 5:32 pm |
      • Cera

        Those same Christians are the ones who visit the abortion clinics at over 80% of abortions performed BEING on Christian women.

        Your words belie the reality.

        January 22, 2014 at 2:28 pm |
      • In Santa we trust

        Presuming your god exists, I'd have to conclude that a omnipotent, omniscient god could solve this problem very easily – either prevent the need or prevent the response. It does neither so either god doesn't exist or its OK with loss of life however that happens.

        January 22, 2014 at 5:31 pm |
  2. Wombs as tombs is perversion, scripture twisters.

    Wombs as tombs is perversion, scripture twisters.
    Your comment is awaiting moderation.
    ****$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ :) :) $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$*****

    January 22, 2014 at 2:11 pm |
  3. Stahp

    Antichoicers amuse me.

    Antichoice, because if they were truly pro life they'd save 10 times as many people by fighting malaria or war.

    Of course, they'd rather focus on dubiously living fetal tissues, even fighting the morning after pill which doesn't even cause abortion.

    January 22, 2014 at 2:10 pm |
    • Alias

      Unfortunately, they think the pill does cause abortion.

      January 22, 2014 at 2:15 pm |
    • Wait a minute

      Why do you consider it a woman's right to cut the head off of a baby, even if it's in her body. Why isn't the baby transplanted and why is she that desperate in the first place?

      January 22, 2014 at 2:22 pm |
  4. Fetal Realism

    [youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hV2xAAJOmVo&w=420&h=315][youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hV2xAAJOmVo&w=420&h=315]

    January 22, 2014 at 2:08 pm |
  5. Stahp

    The antichoicers amuse me.

    Anti choice, because if they truly wished to stop children from dying, they could do a whole lot more by pooling their cash to develop and distribute antimalarial drugs in Africa, or feed Chinese kids.

    But I suppose they're like the "Not in my backyard" folks- they don't care about the suffering of foreigners and would instead like to operate on nice, safe, christian friendly western ground, so they can chuckle as they attack women's rights.

    January 22, 2014 at 2:08 pm |
    • Not so

      The article was not about malaria in Africa and you don't know what the anti-choicers are doing.

      January 22, 2014 at 2:10 pm |
      • Stahp

        I know that they whine constantly about women who choose not to be forced into pregnancy by rapists.

        I know that the worst among them would even let her die on the operating table as long as the fetus survives.

        I know that they spend millions every year trying to fool people into their lies.

        January 22, 2014 at 2:12 pm |
        • Not so

          statement a) Why would anyone choose to end the life of a fetus over the rapist?

          statement b.) speculation

          statement c.) random venting

          January 22, 2014 at 2:18 pm |
  6. Liar for atheism spotted! Code Troll people!

    Dear commenters:

    Atheist trolls have been spotted. Please refrain yourself from responding.

    January 22, 2014 at 2:00 pm |
    • Pete

      Wait. you are an atheist?

      January 22, 2014 at 2:02 pm |
    • DCJeff

      Now that you've gotten TJI to end and you have to create a wp account to post on marquee? Your days of trolling is almost over.

      January 22, 2014 at 2:02 pm |
  7. CommonSensed

    Fundamentalism? Yeah, there's an app for that.

    January 22, 2014 at 1:58 pm |
  8. Fetal Realism

    Perhaps the best use of aborted conceptus would be as art material – in mixed media, for example. Human potential blending with human perception and the expression of human ideas and emotions. That is just so exciting. And now it is only medical waste.

    January 22, 2014 at 1:54 pm |
  9. ABC

    Sherman the point of the post was to point out how pro-lifer's are only fighting for unborn children.

    They are not adopting all the children that are not aborted, they are not fighting to end euthanasia, all they are doing is fighting to control a woman's choice, not helping the situation afterwards.

    January 22, 2014 at 1:51 pm |
    • Not so

      You don't know what other political arenas pro life people are involved in. Why compare it to euthanasia when euthanasia is voluntary and abortion is not.

      January 22, 2014 at 2:13 pm |
  10. Yeager

    How about the right to be born without original sin. First things first.

    January 22, 2014 at 1:47 pm |
    • Dyslexic doG

      AMEN!!!

      January 22, 2014 at 1:50 pm |
    • mzh

      @Yeager:

      Islam teaches that every human born in a state of submission to its Lord and then the children gets the religion based on the environment and parents that child grow up with/in. As long as the human is under parent, will not be held accountable but as soon as that human becomes an adult and makes his/her own decision, will be held accountable…

      There is no concept in Islam as reborn…

      The Quran explains following states of a human life:

      Beginning of this earthly life
      40:67 – It is He who created you
      i) from dust, then
      ii) from a sperm-drop, then (stage-1.1)
      iii) from a clinging clot; then He brings you out as (stage-1.2)
      iv) a child; then [He develops you] that you reach your [time of] (stage-2: Child)
      v) maturity, then [further] that you become (stage-3: Young)
      vi) Elders (old age). (stage-4: Old)
      vii) And among you is he who is taken in death before [that], so that you reach a specified term; and perhaps you will think. (stage-5: end of life)

      Detail of number ii (stage-1.1) and iii(stage-1.2):
      Then We made the Nutfah into a clot (a piece of thick coagulated blood), then We made the clot into a little lump of flesh, then We made out of that little lump of flesh bones, then We clothed the bones with flesh, and then We brought it forth as another creation. So blessed be Allah, the Best of creators. – 23:14

      End of this earthly life
      62:8 – Say, "Indeed, the death from which you flee – indeed, it will meet you. Then you will be returned to the Knower of the unseen and the witnessed, and He will inform you about what you used to do."

      Resurrection on that day
      Every soul will taste death, and you will only be given your [full] compensation on the Day of Resurrection. So he who is drawn away from the Fire and admitted to Paradise has attained [his desire]. And what is the life of this world except the enjoyment of delusion. – 3:185

      Peace to all!!!

      January 22, 2014 at 2:24 pm |
      • Yeager

        "As long as the human is under parent, will not be held accountable but as soon as that human becomes an adult and makes his/her own decision, will be held accountable… "

        So your saying a fetus gets a free pass to paradise? Wouldn't the humane thing to do be to abort all fetuses so they don't run the risk of committing the deadly sin of using their brains to question the beliefs of their parents.

        January 22, 2014 at 7:19 pm |
  11. Bob Penn

    You mean the pro-life or anti-death rally.
    The Supreme Court (Roe v Wade) allowed abortion based on not knowing when life begins and said if person hood for the unborn is established, the case collapses. We now know from science that life begins at conception and the baby is a unique person with DNA different than the mother's. Ultrasound proves the baby is always fully human and feels pain at week 20. The Court ruling should be overturned.

    Anti-abortion rights is an incorrect term. No one has a right to commit murder. Pro-life is pro baby's right. The baby is innocent and is not getting due process. The father also has a right and a responsibility to keep his baby alive.

    January 22, 2014 at 1:47 pm |
    • Observer

      Bob Penn,

      EVERYONE is pro-life. It depends if the more important one is the mother or embryo.

      The sides are PRO-CHOICE and ANTI-CHOICE.

      January 22, 2014 at 1:50 pm |
      • Marcus

        One choice results in the loss of a person, the other choice results in the inconvenience of the mother.
        The aborted is innocent, the mother is usually not facing the consequences of her own actions.

        January 22, 2014 at 2:14 pm |
        • Observer

          "the mother is usually not facing the consequences of her own actions."

          She faces an operation that is FAR less deadly than having a baby, but still an operation. She has to face her own conscience and concern about her decision, either way.

          January 22, 2014 at 8:30 pm |
      • Bill the Cat

        Didn't Jefferson write that ALL men were created equal? So there is no life "more valuable" than another according to the state.

        January 22, 2014 at 2:15 pm |
    • Doc Vestibule

      Should women who undergo in-vitro fertilization be forced to carry to term every single egg that is fertilized?

      January 22, 2014 at 1:53 pm |
    • Lucifer's Evil Twin

      Why is any of this your business or concern?

      January 22, 2014 at 1:55 pm |
      • Bill the Cat

        Um, because it involves the death of a member of our species?

        January 22, 2014 at 2:17 pm |
        • Lucifer's Evil Twin

          Other species eat their young all of the time... so what's your point again?

          January 22, 2014 at 2:46 pm |
    • DaJuan Hayes

      "We now know from science that life begins at conception and the baby is a unique person with DNA different than the mother's. Ultrasound proves the baby is always fully human and feels pain at week 20."

      Could you not say this about ANY animal species?

      January 22, 2014 at 1:56 pm |
      • Logic.

        I've never heard of another species that is always fully human.
        Other than that, sure it applies. But I doubt you honestly believe humans are of the same or less value than other animals.

        January 22, 2014 at 7:17 pm |
    • CommonSensed

      Fail on so many levels.

      January 22, 2014 at 1:59 pm |
    • Common Sense

      Bob:
      "We now know from science that life begins at conception." Uh, Bob, no, some limited scientists believe that is the case. There is no majority claim to that "fact".
      "Ultrasound proves the baby is always fully human..." Uh, no again. At two weeks ultrasound would show nothing even remotely similar to a baby.
      "... and feels pain at 20 (weeks)." So? Most abortions are done well before that time.

      January 22, 2014 at 2:04 pm |
      • Bill the Cat

        Sorry, but you shifted the goalpost. Bob said "human", not "baby". Baby is a colloquial term used to describe the offspring of a human, no matter what stage of development.

        January 22, 2014 at 2:21 pm |
      • Logic.

        Any honest scientist who knows what the definition of life is knows that conception is the start of an individual's life. Just because it's "a clump of cells" doesn't mean it's not a person. It's simply a stage of development. YOU were once a single cell.

        January 22, 2014 at 7:24 pm |
        • Observer

          Logic,

          Just like a chicken egg is a hen and an acorn is an oak tree.

          January 22, 2014 at 8:26 pm |
        • fred

          Observer
          This is the problem with atheists. When existence is an improbable accident without purpose a chicken, and oak and a human have the same meaningful life regardless of stage of development.

          January 22, 2014 at 8:36 pm |
        • Observer

          fred

          "This is the problem with atheists. When existence is an improbable accident "

          This is the problem with believers. They IGNORANTLY claim that atheists all agree on anything BESIDES the ONE CONCEPT – there are no gods.

          That's it. That's ALL there is to atheism. Tell yourself all the LIES about them all believing in anything else. Stay DELUSIONAL about it.

          January 22, 2014 at 8:42 pm |
        • fred

          Observer
          Really, tell me that the vast majority of atheists on this web site do not have a world view (belief) termed materialism.

          January 22, 2014 at 9:09 pm |
        • Observer

          fred,

          Please tell me that Christians are not materialistic, too. You can start with their top pastors – evangelists on tv.

          January 22, 2014 at 9:13 pm |
        • Logic.

          Observer, according to the law, protect,ed species, for example baId eagIes' eggs ARE for practical purposes considered equal to adults. And yet unborn humans are considered dlsposable.

          January 23, 2014 at 1:07 am |
        • Observer

          Logic.,

          When there are over 7,000,000,000 bald eagles in the world, you will have a better point.

          January 23, 2014 at 1:12 am |
        • Logic.

          Observer, also, don't make equivocations. Materialism is a philosophical term meaning the belief that only the material exists, and yes, atheists most often do hold it. He wasn't talking about the other meaning of it.

          January 23, 2014 at 1:19 am |
        • Logic.

          This wasn't about population. It was about the remark you made "and a chicken egg is a hen." Well, I always find it interesting that the people who think the world is overpopulated are still alive and presumably haven't killed anyone yet.

          January 23, 2014 at 1:22 am |
        • Observer

          Logic.

          If you don't believe in gods, then you'd probably be more likely into materialism, but it's a pretty pointless argument. Atheists have different views.

          For all we know we could all be avatars in a giant cosmic video game.

          January 23, 2014 at 1:24 am |
        • Observer

          Logic.

          "This wasn't about population."

          Wrong. It's EXACTLY about population that caused the protection of eagle eggs.

          January 23, 2014 at 1:29 am |
    • dlauf3

      Before you were born I knew you in the womb. Jeremiah 1:5

      January 22, 2014 at 2:07 pm |
      • Observer

        dlauf3,

        That's not a lot of consolation to all the fetuses in the world that God killed with his flood.

        January 22, 2014 at 2:12 pm |
        • Catholic

          You keep using this argument and it doesn't work. Murder is wrong because WE don't have the right to take other's lives. God gives life and only he may take it. You might not believe that, but at least get OUR theology right.

          January 23, 2014 at 1:10 am |
      • Lucifer's Evil Twin

        "When a Christian reaches for their book to reference a quote... you know they are about to lie their ass off..." ~LET

        January 22, 2014 at 2:13 pm |
    • Mike

      "Life" only in it's most basic sense. An undifferentiated mass of cells may be genetically unique, but it is not a -person-. In fact, it can be argued, from Genesis, that "life" begins with drawing the first breath. While in Exodus, it's quite clear that abortion does NOT get the same penalty as Murder, hence, by the bible, Abortion is not Murder.

      The question is Personhood, which is distinct from "Life."

      I'd argue that it can't be a "person" without consciousness. And it can't have consciousness until there's enough brain development to support it, which doesn't happen until MUCH later in development.

      January 22, 2014 at 2:20 pm |
      • Bill the Cat

        Sorry, but your attempt to use Exodus to support abortion is false. The verse about striking a pregnant woman does not mention the baby being expelled from her.

        January 22, 2014 at 2:23 pm |
        • Observer

          Bill the Cat,

          Please read a Bible before answering next time.

          January 22, 2014 at 8:32 pm |
      • Logic.

        Cool, you sound exactly like those who say "Slaves aren't people!" "Jews aren't people!" "Whoever I want to kill/degrade isn't a person!" ad nauseum. You're on the wrong side of history, my friend.

        January 22, 2014 at 7:20 pm |
        • Observer

          Logic.

          "Cool, you sound exactly like those who say "Slaves aren't people!"

          Yes. That's EXACTLY what the Bible says.

          January 23, 2014 at 1:30 am |
  12. Doc Vestibule

    At what stage does an embryo end and a fetus begin?
    When does the light of consciousness filter through to the womb?
    Do these distinctions really matter when contemplating the sanct.ity of life?
    Personally, I don't think so. Abortion is killing a potential human.
    I don't think that is a particularly negative thing in many circu.mstances.
    In 1900 in some U.S. cities, up to 30% of infants died before reaching their first birthday. Today the rate is .07%!
    Global population has increased from 2 to 7 billion in less than 100 years.
    There are simply too many people!
    Any species left to expand unabated will eventually die off, drowning in it's own waste – and we are well on our way. The species must be culled in order to remain healthy. Normally, this culling would be done by natural processes like disease or predation – but we have largely conquered disease and have no predator save for ourselves (barring statistically insignificant instances like bear attacks and whatnot).
    As unpleasant as it may be to face up to reality, a large portion of the species will die unnatural deaths sooner or later, be it in war or as a result of the pressure we have put on our environment (not just AlGoreMageddon global warming, but the inevitable proliferation of deadly diseases rushing through overcrowded urban centres).
    Think of abortion as a pre-emptive measure.

    Is it moral to condemn a child to a brutish life with an impoverished parent who never wanted them?
    What of a child conceived through ra/pe? Many women will never get over the trauma and will see the child as a constant reminder of when they were violated. As much as they might wish to love the child unconditionally, there can always be a subconscious animosity.
    What of adoption? Kids who have gone through the orphanage system are statistically far more likely to wind up with psychological problems, severe addictions, limited educations, criminal records etc.

    January 22, 2014 at 1:47 pm |
    • Doris

      The side-effects when people worry about more about shunning contraception and less about planning for the end results:

      The 50 most violent cities in the world:

      http://www.businessinsider.com/the-most-violent-cities-in-the-world-2013-11?op=1

      By far, most of these crime-ridden cities are in fundamentally Christian countries.

      January 22, 2014 at 1:57 pm |
    • Alias

      Your population numbers show a severe bias.

      January 22, 2014 at 2:13 pm |
      • Doc Vestibule

        How so?
        Can you cite any references that prove the number wrong?

        January 22, 2014 at 2:18 pm |
    • jonathanL

      I am pretty sure if lions had bigger brains and fingers and we had clumsy claws, their lives would be sanctified and holy and we'd be food. These are all man made rules and assumptions. In the ancient world if they didn;t want their children they would give brith and then put them in large urns to die of malnutrition. Safe and legalized abortion is a safer and more humane way to end an unwanted pregnancy. But if you have control you can make up any story, and rules you want. All major religions only got off the ground with royal backing. Jesus had gifts from 3 Magi, and Constantine was the King who legalized Christianity (it only bacame a legal cult in the 4th century). Moses was an adopted son of a Pharoah, Buddha was a Prince, Krishna was a King, Hammurabi was a Babylonian king (author of the first written moral code followed by Egyptians), Mithra was a King (Persia), and Muhammed was a warrior prince. Religion should stay out of politics, out of government. I don't want to live by their barbarian, uncivilized rules.

      January 22, 2014 at 2:52 pm |
  13. sly

    "OR is it you go by your selfish rules. That will not get you to heaven. End of story."
    ======
    Hmmmm ... let's see, everyone should have the right to life before being born, but not everyone gets the right to life after dying?

    Now ... that seems really hypocritical of y'all godsters. Seems to me, we ALL get to heaven, just like you want us all to be born.

    January 22, 2014 at 1:45 pm |
    • Logic.

      God doesn't force people who hate him to live with him forever.

      January 22, 2014 at 8:22 pm |
  14. Tom, Tom, the Other One

    Overturn Roe v Wade? Admit that all of the past abortions were actually murder? No one's hands are clean. I guess in my wildest dreams, the one where laws of logic and proportion are suspended, that could happen.

    January 22, 2014 at 1:43 pm |
  15. Dyslexic doG

    For all of you Christian frauds who believe that abortion is a sin, I hope you are following god's word and do not partake in the following:

    Eating ham: Leviticus 11:7-8
    Getting a tattoo: Leviticus 19:28
    Rounded haircuts: Leviticus 19:27
    Have injured private parts: Deuteronomy 23:1
    Consulting psychics: Leviticus 19:31
    Gossiping: Leviticus 19:16
    Wives helping out their husbands during a fight: Deuteronomy 25:11-12
    Children cursing their parents: Exodus 21:17
    Getting remarried after a divorce: Mark 10:11-12
    Working on the sabbath: Exodus 31:14-15
    Woman speaking in churches: 1 Corinthians 14:34-35
    Eating shrimp, lobster, or other assorted seafood: Leviticus 10-11

    you're a fraud aren't you?

    January 22, 2014 at 1:42 pm |
    • Topher

      Most of those are old covenant. So your argument is fallacious.

      January 22, 2014 at 1:43 pm |
      • Observer

        Topher,

        Try again. Was it the SAME perfect and "unchanging" God in BOTH TESTAMENTS?

        January 22, 2014 at 1:45 pm |
        • Topher

          Yep. But you're going to argue that because the covenant changed that means God did. Nope. We broke the old covenant. Not Him. So He gave an even better one that we can't break.

          January 22, 2014 at 1:47 pm |
        • Pete

          hat was pretty dumb of god to not give us a covenant we couldn't break the first time around.

          January 22, 2014 at 1:52 pm |
        • ME II

          @Topher,
          So God didn't change, but the rules did?

          January 22, 2014 at 1:53 pm |
        • Topher

          ME II

          The rules didn't really change. We didn't keep God's laws. Christ did. Every time you've lusted, He didn't. Every time you've lied, He didn't. He fulfilled those laws. And thus was the perfect "spotless lamb" to pay our ransom.

          January 22, 2014 at 1:56 pm |
        • ME II

          I'm confused. How does one "fulfill" laws?

          If one person never goes over the speed limit and then get crucified for it, can we then go as fast as we want?

          January 22, 2014 at 1:59 pm |
        • Observer

          Topher

          "The rules didn't really change."

          So we are still supposed to KILL people for the LONG LIST of reasons God gave?

          January 22, 2014 at 2:02 pm |
        • Happy Atheist

          So Jesus fulfilled the law he demanded of his people. So that law was righteous and good in Gods eyes correct? So even if we no longer have to follow it because God paid the price for our sins, they are still sins and they are still what God actually wanted for humans right? To live by those laws in the old tes tement, right? And if he is unchanging, then he does hate fabric woven of two fibers and shellfish and all the rest and is just washing away our sin of over eating at Red Lobster with his own never ending blood supply.

          January 22, 2014 at 2:03 pm |
        • Topher

          Observer

          No. Those civil laws were written for the Jews living at that time. We are not Israel and not living in that time period thus those laws aren't for us.

          January 22, 2014 at 2:04 pm |
        • Observer

          Topher

          "Those civil laws were written for the Jews living at that time. We are not Israel and not living in that time period thus those laws aren't for us."

          Yep. Same for the TEN COMMANDMENTS.

          lol.

          January 22, 2014 at 2:07 pm |
        • Topher

          Nope. See below. The moral laws are still at play in the new covenant.

          January 22, 2014 at 2:12 pm |
        • Happy Atheist

          So God has a different set of laws for each person? Or just different sets of laws for a period of time or a region? Or is it continent based? Just trying to figure out why your God would be such a Richard as to give different rules to different people and expect them to worship him in some sort of consistant fashion.

          January 22, 2014 at 2:22 pm |
      • AnyWho

        As are the ten commandments...

        January 22, 2014 at 1:59 pm |
        • Topher

          True, but the Commandments are also moral laws under the new covenant. They are still in play. How many have you kept?

          January 22, 2014 at 2:02 pm |
    • Colin

      Yes, basing 21st Century US social policy on a collection of late Bronze Age Jewish mythology is pretty fvcking stupid. If the evangelicals had their way, we would be teaching the "six days and a talking snake" theory of the origins of the Universe to schoolchildren!!

      January 22, 2014 at 1:46 pm |
      • Topher

        Nope. I don't want Creation taught in school. But I also don't want the lies of evolution taught, either.

        January 22, 2014 at 1:49 pm |
        • Dyslexic doG

          lies of evolution?!?!

          Oh Topher. Just when I think there may be some glimmer of hope for you, you say something asinine like this.

          January 22, 2014 at 1:53 pm |
        • ME II

          @Topher,
          There is plenty of evidence for evolution.I see our conversation about evolution on pg 1 has disappeared. Shall we repeat it?

          January 22, 2014 at 1:56 pm |
        • Topher

          ME II

          I'm game. I was just doing a bunch of studying on the topic this morning.

          January 22, 2014 at 1:58 pm |
        • Pete

          You can't learn about evolution in the bible Topher, and since it appears that is all you ever read you haven't actually learned anything.

          January 22, 2014 at 2:00 pm |
        • ME II

          @Topher,
          " I was just doing a bunch of studying on the topic this morning."

          I hate to even ask, but what did you learn?

          January 22, 2014 at 2:01 pm |
        • Topher

          Well, for instance, one of the evolutionary lies still found in textbooks today — and even claimed by several atheists on this blog — is that human embryos have fish gills. This was proven to be a lie in 1875. Those folds in the skin become bones in the ear and glands in the throat. They never have anything to do with breathing. ("Asking About Life.") Haeckel even admitted to falsifying his drawings ... “A small percent of my embryonic drawings are forgeries; those namely, for which the observed materieal is so incomplete or insufficient as to fill in and reconstruct the missing links by hypothesis and comparative synthesis.” And even stated ... “I should feel utterly condemned … were it not that hundreds of the best observers, and biologists lie under the same charge.”

          You can believe in evolution if you want. That's fine. Just don't teach these lies as truth to support your belief.

          January 22, 2014 at 2:11 pm |
        • Doc Vestibule

          @Topher
          Medical imaging has advanced just slightly since 1875.

          January 22, 2014 at 2:33 pm |
        • Johnny

          Topher, you should really just give it up. Trying to argue that evolution doesn't only makes you look like a fool.

          January 22, 2014 at 2:48 pm |
        • ME II

          @Toopher,
          "...human embryos have fish gills"

          Well that's incorrect. I don't know of any current textbooks that claim that human embryos actually have gills.

          "Haeckel even admitted to falsifying his drawings..."

          This is a canard, Haeckel's images are commonly used an example of a disproven hypothesis. So, yes, they may be in textbooks, but as an example of *bad* science.

          "Just don't teach these lies as truth to support your belief."

          As I've posted before there is plenty of evidence to support the theory of evolution. If the only thing you can come up with is a centrury old disproven hypothesis, then how can you call the entire theory lies?

          January 22, 2014 at 2:49 pm |
        • ME II

          @Topher, not Toopher.

          January 22, 2014 at 2:50 pm |
        • Topher

          ME II

          "Well that's incorrect. I don't know of any current textbooks that claim that human embryos actually have gills."

          I can't speak to what is in a student's hands today, but I can give you specific examples from the last decade in which this is the case. Second, apparently it's being taught somewhere because atheists have made this claim to me in more than a handful of occasions on this blog alone.

          "This is a canard, Haeckel's images are commonly used an example of a disproven hypothesis. So, yes, they may be in textbooks, but as an example of *bad* science."

          The bad science I agree with. In fact, it's not science at all. “Moreover, the biogenetic law has become so deeply rooted in biological thought that it cannot be weeded out in spite of is having been demonstrated to be wrong by numerous subsequent scholars.” — Walter J. Bock (Dept. of Biological Sciences, Columbia Univ.) “Evolution by Orderly Law” Science.

          “Surely the biogenetic law is as dead as a doornail.” — Keith Stewart Thomson, “Ontogeny and Phylogeny Recapitulated” American Scientist

          "As I've posted before there is plenty of evidence to support the theory of evolution. If the only thing you can come up with is a centrury old disproven hypothesis, then how can you call the entire theory lies?"

          Well, because I believe that when all the lies are weeded out (like the one above that IS still being taught as fact) I don't think you have any evidence. If you have some with good science, have at it. The problem is science rejects evolution (not testable, repeatable nor demonstrable). There's not one shred of evidence of a change of kinds (one creature becoming a different creature) nor is it scientific to argue it because a creature only has the genetic information to create whatever it already is. A cow will only produce a cow. A dog will only produce a dog. To get anything else would require an addition of genetic information, a problem since we only see losses of information. So clearly, its not just a Haeckel problem.

          January 22, 2014 at 3:09 pm |
        • I Wonder

          Why is it that only religious nut jobs such as topher don't believe in Evolution?

          January 22, 2014 at 3:19 pm |
        • Doc Vestibule

          "The problem is science rejects evolution."

          Nearly every scientific society, representing hundreds of thousands of scientists, have issued statements rejecting intelligent design and a peti.tion supporting the teaching of evolutionary biology was endorsed by 72 US Nobel Prize winners.
          The American Association for the Advancement of Science, the world's largest general scientific society with more than 130,000 members and over 262 affiliated societies and academies of science including over 10 million individuals, has made several statements and issued several press releases in support of evolution.

          According to the The International Federation of Biologists, there are more than 3 million bilogical scientists globally who rely on the 5 laws of Darwinian evolution for their jobs every single day.

          "To get anything else would require an addition of genetic information"
          That isn't so.
          DNA is a quadrinary code, just as computers use a binary code for their programming.
          It isn't so much about how much information there is, but rather how it is arranged.
          Slight re-arrangements or alterations in the base code may or may not yield demonstrable differences, but the difference will still be there – and changes become cu.mulative and exponential as time goes on.

          What really bothers your Creationist mind, Topher, is that the theory of evolution – practiced and practically applied by thousands of people in hundreds of different disciplines every single day for more than 150 years, is predicated on the understanding that that the world is not constant, nor recently created, nor cycling, but is changing; and that the types of enti.ties that live on it also change.

          In order to keep from being tarred and feathered, Evolutionary scientists are strongly motivated to ameliorate conflict between evolution and religion. Sociobiology offers them an apparent conciliatory path to the compatibility of religion and evolution, avoiding all language of inescapable conflict. Sociobiological evolution is the means to understand religion, whereas religion as a 'way of knowing' has nothing to teach us about evolution.

          January 22, 2014 at 3:40 pm |
        • Topher

          Doc

          All those scientists liking evolution does not prove its existence. It only proves their presuppositions and worldview. Plus its an argument from authority fallacy.

          I'd like to know what jobs require the "5 laws of Darwin." There are six types of evolution and only one of them has been observed.

          “The central question of the Chicago conference was whether the mechanisms underlying microevolution can be extrapolated to explain the phenomena of macroevolution. … the answer can be given as a clear, No.” — Roger Lewin, “Evolution Theory Under Fire” Science.

          Changing DNA code around doesn't get you from one creature to another.

          "and changes become cu.mulative and exponential as time goes on."

          You mean like mutations? There's big problems for mutations. Second, there are changes, we see these — hair color, height, eye color, body mass, all the things that make me physically different from you. But these changes have limitations. You only have the genetic information to be a human. You and I are different in many ways, but we're still human.

          January 22, 2014 at 3:54 pm |
        • ME II

          @Topher,
          "I can't speak to what is in a student's hands today, but I can give you specific examples from the last decade in which this is the case. Second, apparently it's being taught somewhere because atheists have made this claim to me in more than a handful of occasions on this blog alone."

          As I said, if anyone is claiming that human embryos have actual gills then they are incorrect. Embryos do have "pharyngeal pouches", which are often mistakenly called "gill slits", but never as far as I know are actual "gills" indicated.

          As I said before recapitulation, or "biogenetic law", is a disproven hypothesis. Proposing hypotheses and either disproving or confirming them is the whole point of science. How does that disprove the Theory of Evolution?

          "Well, because I believe that when all the lies are weeded out (like the one above that IS still being taught as fact) I don't think you have any evidence."

          I don't think "biogenetic law" is being taught as fact, but if it is, then I agree that it should not be, because it is incorrect. However, evolution is not in anyway dependent of "biogenetic law" and therefore is not impacted.

          "If you have some with good science, have at it."

          I have already listed many highlight, which you were "not familiar with".
          some of which are Tiktaalik, Ambulocetus, Cytochrome-C, Human Chromosome 2, ERVs, Marsupials, Lenski's experiment, etc.

          "The problem is science rejects evolution (not testable, repeatable nor demonstrable)."

          This is incorrect. 1) It has been observed (testable, demonstrable) and 2) the predictions based on the theory are tested all the time by evidence in the field and labs. ex: Tiktaalik, Lenkski's experiment, Human Chromosome 2, etc.

          "There's not one shred of evidence of a change of kinds (one creature becoming a different creature)..."

          1) Kind is a va.gue term.
          2) Evolution happens to populations not to individuals, i.e. not "one creature becoming a different creature", and it only happens between species, not higher orders.

          "nor is it scientific to argue it because a creature only has the genetic information to create whatever it already is."

          New genetic sequences can and are generated by duplication, transposition, and genetic drift among other mechanisms.

          "To get anything else would require an addition of genetic information, a problem since we only see losses of information."

          Although it is unclear what you mean by "genetic information," we don't only see "losses", for example, Lenski's long term experiment shows the evolution of an new function previous unavailable to e.coli.

          "So clearly, its not just a Haeckel problem."

          I've explained that what you think are problems are not in fact problems. In addition, there is no Haeckel problem; 1) his hypothesis on recapitulation is disproven which, by the way, is part of the scientific process and 2) the Theory of Evolution is not dependent on recapitulation.

          January 22, 2014 at 3:58 pm |
        • ME II

          @Topher,
          You are quote mining. Your Lewin quote is from an article about a conference, not a scientific paper, and what was being talked about was the punctuated equilibrium debate, which is not an argument against evolution, just a consistent pace for evolution. (http://www.sciencemag.org/content/210/4472/883.extract)

          And here's a quote from Gould, one of the originators of punctuated equilibrium:
          "Since we proposed punctuated equilibria to explain trends, it is infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationists - whether through design or stupidity, I do not know - as admitting that the fossil record includes no transitional forms. Transitional forms are generally lacking at the species level, but they are abundant between larger groups."
          – Gould, Stephen Jay 1983. "Evolution as Fact and Theory" in Hens Teeth and Horse's Toes: Further Reflections in Natural History. New York: W. W. Norton & Co., p. 258-260. (as quoted at http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/part3.html)

          January 22, 2014 at 4:23 pm |
        • ME II

          @Topher,
          "Changing DNA code around doesn't get you from one creature to another."

          Umm... isn't that exactly what differentiate one creature from another?

          January 22, 2014 at 4:24 pm |
        • Topher

          ME II

          I have a rather lengthy response to your points, but there must be a word not getting through the censors. It won't post. Sorry about that. Going to move on to the current page ...

          January 22, 2014 at 4:54 pm |
        • ME II

          @Topher,
          Well, at least you let me know. Thanks for that.

          January 22, 2014 at 5:15 pm |
    • get realist

      Yeah, you hear that, doG? Christians get to pick and choose the parts of the Bible they believe. Yet they still believe in the creation story, Noah's Ark and other such nonsense. Only when confronted with hypocrisy do they pull the "that's Old Testament" stuff...

      January 22, 2014 at 1:48 pm |
      • Topher

        It's not picking and choosing. It's what God has told us to obey. When you atheists whine and say we're "picking and choosing" all it does is show you've not read the Bible.

        January 22, 2014 at 1:50 pm |
        • Observer

          Topher,

          You are the ONE who hasn't read the Bible.

          Tell us JUST ONE TIME when God commanded the killing of women, when he gave a rip if the woman was pregnant or not.

          Please go read a Bible.

          January 22, 2014 at 1:53 pm |
        • JB

          Topher

          Just curious, where in the Bible does it say Christians and believing Jews do not still have to follow Old Testament commandments?

          January 22, 2014 at 1:58 pm |
        • Topher

          JB

          "Just curious, where in the Bible does it say Christians and believing Jews do not still have to follow Old Testament commandments?"

          Depends on which law you're talking about. For instance, eating of certain foods was admitted in Mark 7 and Acts 10. I believe if you read Hebrews 9:11-12 it talks about why we no longer have animal sacrifice, thus the priestly laws are out ...

          January 22, 2014 at 2:14 pm |
        • JB

          Topher –

          So Jesus didn't say it, his apostles reached that conclusion? And what about the other commandments not related to food or to temple sacrifices?

          January 22, 2014 at 2:57 pm |
        • Topher

          JB

          "So Jesus didn't say it, his apostles reached that conclusion?"

          Read those texts. It is Jesus.

          "And what about the other commandments not related to food or to temple sacrifices?"

          Do you honestly want to know or are you just one of those atheists who will ask 100 questions and will say "gotcha" when I can answer only 99?

          January 22, 2014 at 3:16 pm |
        • JB

          I'm not a Christian, but I do try to understand it. It seems there are conflicting directives concerning the law. Matthew 5:17-20, for instance, seems to have Jesus saying the law still needs to be followed.

          January 22, 2014 at 3:32 pm |
        • Topher

          JB

          "'m not a Christian, but I do try to understand it."

          Good on you, dude! If you're going to reject something, at least know what you are rejecting.

          "It seems there are conflicting directives concerning the law. Matthew 5:17-20, for instance, seems to have Jesus saying the law still needs to be followed."

          A general "rule" is that all the old testament rules are out unless reaffirmed in the new testament. That's why some of the OT things are still in place, such as the moral laws (10 Commandments). You also have to understand that during Christ's earthly ministry they were still under the OT rules. That's why when Jesus says the laws (OT) are not to be removed until all is fulfilled ... it wasn't fulfilled yet. But of course He fulfills those laws.

          January 22, 2014 at 3:43 pm |
        • JB

          "... all the old testament rules are out unless reaffirmed in the new testament"

          That strikes me as backwards and an interpretation out of convenience.

          "For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished."

          Heaven and earth haven't disappeared, so how can it be thought that "everything is accomplished"? Seems to me Jesus was likely referring to the day of judgement.

          January 22, 2014 at 4:58 pm |
    • Liar for atheism spotted! Code Troll people!

      😝

      January 22, 2014 at 1:58 pm |
  16. Ctrygrl

    It would be extremely good to have a renewed emphasis on adoption, before Roe v. Wade the Catholic Church was one of the leading proponents of adoption that seems to have lost favor in the past several years. I am all for presenting the choice of adoption over abortion but the key word is CHOICE. Let us not kid ourselves here, when you give the government the power to force a woman to have a baby you give them the power to force a woman NOT to have a baby, remember the states that had eugenics programs.

    January 22, 2014 at 1:32 pm |
    • Topher

      What do you think Planned Parenthood was started for?

      January 22, 2014 at 1:37 pm |
      • Observer

        Topher,

        Planned Parenthood was started about ONE HUNDRED years ago.

        This is 2014, when women are allowed to vote.

        January 22, 2014 at 1:43 pm |
        • Topher

          OK ... what does that have to do with how Planned Parenthood started?

          January 22, 2014 at 1:46 pm |
        • Pete

          What odes how it started have to do with what it does today?

          January 22, 2014 at 1:47 pm |
        • Topher

          It was started as a eugenics program and you can argue it still is ... if not on the abortions alone, but the neighborhoods where they're located.

          January 22, 2014 at 1:52 pm |
        • Cera

          Do you think that is the function of PP today? Or are you one of those that thinks all women 'a health should be decided by men?
          Topher, slavery used to be legal. You're throwing out red herrings left and right.

          The way it started (and there are differing opinions on this) has no bearing on how it functions today. So stop bringing it up as if it were.

          January 22, 2014 at 2:20 pm |
        • Topher

          Cera

          "Do you think that is the function of PP today?"

          Yes, I do. Maybe not as strongly since the founder is no longer with us. But the same actions are taking place and a lot of the time for the same reasons. Not the neighborhoods.

          "Or are you one of those that thinks all women 'a health should be decided by men?"

          I don't think gender needs to be brought into it at all. Both men and women can make decisions on morality even if it only affects the other gender. Something is either right or wrong. Gender has nothing to do with it.

          "Topher, slavery used to be legal. You're throwing out red herrings left and right."

          Which only goes to show you laws can be wrong. Nothing "red herring" about it.

          "The way it started (and there are differing opinions on this) has no bearing on how it functions today. So stop bringing it up as if it were."

          There are no differing opinions on what the founder believed. We have interviews with her and she's quite clear. So if that organization is still operating today and still performing the same actions, what makes you think it's any different?

          January 22, 2014 at 2:30 pm |
    • Cera

      Exactly. I've pointed this out many times.

      January 22, 2014 at 1:38 pm |
  17. torchytodd

    The only people who should have a say in whether or not to abort are the expecting woman and her doctor. It is her body, and it is illogical to suspend her rights as a fully grown, fully sentient, biologically independent, thinking, feeling human being because she *might* have a baby in 9 months. Anti-choice people are just bored nosy-neighbors who think they know what's best for everyone, and it's simply not their business. They are what's wrong with our country - if we want small government we have to tell these people to bugger off about regulating things that do not personally affect them unless they choose to allow it. If it's not your body, it's not your business.

    January 22, 2014 at 1:29 pm |
    • Nexus974

      What about the unborn child's rights? Who protects them?

      January 22, 2014 at 1:37 pm |
      • Lucifer's Evil Twin

        unborn children are over-rated

        January 22, 2014 at 1:50 pm |
      • torchytodd

        A wanted fetus has the rights as something valuable to the mother should harm (assault, attacks, etc) come to it via the mother's body. But it doesn't have any rights, nor should it, as it is not a person. It is a part of a person's body. If you feel the need to protect a child, there are thousand upon thousands in foster care that could use it.

        January 22, 2014 at 2:14 pm |
    • Topher

      Two problems with your argument ... at least.

      1). Men can't make moral decisions.
      2). In 9 months a human baby will be born every time.

      January 22, 2014 at 1:39 pm |
      • Pete

        Not every time. God likes to kill unborn babies too.

        January 22, 2014 at 1:40 pm |
        • Topher

          Fine. Should it come to term, it will be born a human every time.

          January 22, 2014 at 1:53 pm |
      • Observer

        Topher

        "In 9 months a human baby will be born every time"

        Totally FALSE. Ever heard of miscarriages? God watches MILLIONS of them and doesn't do anything about it.

        January 22, 2014 at 1:47 pm |
      • torchytodd

        1 – It's not their body. Nothing's stopping the father from speaking his mind, but in the end if she doesn't want the child he can't force her into being an incubator. You shouldn't force anyone to do something to their body that they don't want to do.

        2 – There are many children born that I question whether or not they are human. Not to mention, 10-20% of known pregnancies result in miscarriages, so in 9 months a mother might not have anything because nature.

        January 22, 2014 at 2:20 pm |
        • Topher

          torchytodd

          "There are many children born that I question whether or not they are human."

          You mean like people who think it's OK to murder their unborn child?

          January 22, 2014 at 3:18 pm |
        • torchytodd

          Topher, you are all over this message board and you don't strike me as an intelligent person. You strike me as a rigid, religious fanatic that society would be better off without. Suffice it to say, until you can listen to reason and stop using semantics and erroneous words ( see your use of "unborn child" - it's not a child, a 2 year old is a child, a fetus is a clump of cells), I suggest you stop talking to everyone. Don't you have a bible to cherry-pick?

          January 22, 2014 at 5:39 pm |
    • Winston

      " It is her body, and it is illogical to suspend her rights as a fully grown, fully sentient, biologically independent, thinking, feeling human being because she *might* have a baby in 9 months. "

      Why is it illogical to protect someone from being harmed by someone else? I assume you argument is that the unborn child does not have rights–if that is the case, that's all you need to say, you don't need to come up with any other argument.

      January 22, 2014 at 1:43 pm |
      • Nexus974

        Which leads to the inevitable questions...what makes a person a person? When is a baby human enough that it gets to be protected? Who gets to decide who is or isn't human?

        January 22, 2014 at 2:09 pm |
      • torchytodd

        Why should something that is not technically alive or sentient have rights? Up until birth, it is simply a part of a woman's body. It's not a person, it's a mass of cells that may become a person, and only that.

        January 22, 2014 at 2:11 pm |
        • Winston

          "Why should something that is not technically alive or sentient have rights? Up until birth, it is simply a part of a woman's body."

          How do you conclude a fetus is not technically alive or sentient until birth? Is it the birth process itself that somehow triggers those qualities?

          January 22, 2014 at 2:51 pm |
        • torchytodd

          Science and medicine, Winston. People who are much smarter than you and much more skilled than you have determined that a fetus lacks the required organs and/or functions to be alive or sentient, or cognizant. It's why late-term abortions are frowned upon - after 23-24 weeks sentience with medical assistance is possible (though not always probable). Before that, a fetus doesn't even have the neural pathways it needs, which is why it is not life. If the mother miscarried at 9.5 weeks, there'd be no identifying that lump of cells as a baby (unless you're the doctor). So why is abortion at 9.5 weeks so wrong? Why are your protestations anything but you meddling where you ought not to?

          January 22, 2014 at 3:28 pm |
        • Winston

          You seemed to be asserting that a child was not alive or sentient until birth–that seemed silly and not supportable scientifically or otherwise, and is what I was addressing. I don't have a problem with identifying a point at which life and sentience begins in some scientific way, I have no religious or other agenda. But like I said, I think defining that point as the moment of birth is unsupportable.

          January 22, 2014 at 5:32 pm |
  18. DamnYankee

    Nothing makes me more sure that I'm right, than seeing a christian on the other side of the issue.

    January 22, 2014 at 1:28 pm |
    • Logic.

      And then there are those of us who judge the merit of an argument based on the actual argument. But I guess broad brushes and ad hominem attacks are easier.

      January 22, 2014 at 8:26 pm |
  19. Doc Vestibule

    "I do not believe that just because you're opposed to abortion, that that makes you pro-life.
    In fact, I think in many cases, your morality is deeply lacking if all you want is a child born but not a child fed, not a child educated, not a child housed.
    And why would I think that you don't? Because you don't want any tax money to go there.
    That's not pro-life. That's pro-birth.
    We need a much broader conversation on what the morality of pro-life is."

    –Sister Joan Chittister

    January 22, 2014 at 1:24 pm |
    • Logic.

      There is a difference between charity and letting the government do everything for you.
      Why can't one be for charity AND equal rights to life?

      January 22, 2014 at 5:25 pm |
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
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.