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. Tommy

    I wonder how many of those protesters have stood up to the plate and offered to adopt or at least pay for the raising of the children they demand be born-

    January 22, 2014 at 3:54 pm |
    • Tandy

      I would guess very few.

      January 22, 2014 at 3:59 pm |
    • Ken Margo

      NOT ANY BECAUSE NONE OF THEM CARE.

      January 22, 2014 at 4:02 pm |
      • kzooresident

        Oh look, the bigots are here. What a surprise.
        Murder any children lately?

        January 22, 2014 at 4:17 pm |
        • Ken Margo

          Oh look the phony is here. How many have you adopted?

          January 22, 2014 at 4:19 pm |
        • Tandy

          How is it bigoted to support choice? Do you know what bigot means? So you know a child is an entity that already been born? Do you know what hyperbole means?

          January 22, 2014 at 4:26 pm |
      • james

        "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." ..... any is kind of harsh, don't you think? Also, a lie.

        January 22, 2014 at 4:20 pm |
        • Ken Margo

          Ok they adopted one. Unfortunately there are thousands of kids waiting to be adopted. Instead of being a pain in the azz marching, why aren't they adopting until there aren't any more to adopt. Where is this energy when it comes to common sense gun laws? these schmoo's support repubs who vote against gun control laws. You know, guns that help kill over 10,000 babies that were born.

          January 22, 2014 at 4:25 pm |
        • Cpt. Obvious

          Agreed, however, what percentage of raging, tea party, foaming-at-the-mouth, anti-choice, christards have even considered adoption as it relates to their backwards view on abortion?

          January 22, 2014 at 4:26 pm |
        • Cpt. Obvious

          I put a million dollars on a bet that it's not even a half of one percent.

          January 22, 2014 at 4:27 pm |
  2. Tommy

    This is a joke, right?

    The continuation of the republican war on women.

    January 22, 2014 at 3:53 pm |
    • Tandy

      Naturally.

      January 22, 2014 at 4:00 pm |
    • Logic.

      You're conveniently ignoring the fact that many pro-lifers are young WOMEN. Buzzwords/red herrings like "republican war on women" will get you nowhere.

      January 22, 2014 at 7:27 pm |
  3. Mark

    If you want to prevent abortions, you make sure everyone has health care, a high school education and birth control. Not the exact opposite.

    January 22, 2014 at 3:47 pm |
    • Alias

      But how does that allow god to control behavior?

      January 22, 2014 at 4:09 pm |
      • Cpt. Obvious

        You can't control god's behavior; he always aborts 4 out of every 5 embryos. Sometimes......you know...he just drowns them in a global flood that kills everybody, but you get the idea.

        January 22, 2014 at 4:14 pm |
      • A traveler

        Who?

        January 22, 2014 at 4:15 pm |
  4. Doc Vestibule

    Topher says:
    "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.

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

      I think he was talking about Christian Science. Christian Science rejects evolution. However, Christian Science is not science in any way, shape, or form. Just in name.

      January 22, 2014 at 3:52 pm |
      • 54StarryNights

        However, even in schools for Christian Scientists, evolution is taught and creationism is not. (Unlike Catholic schools, schools for Christian Scientists are not run by the church).

        January 22, 2014 at 4:12 pm |
        • skarphace

          Well, Christian Scientists do not believe in evolution as defined by scientists. They teach "intelligent design", which is their form of evolution, and they call it evolution, but that form of evolution has been rejected by the scientific community. Again, Christian Science is not science.

          January 22, 2014 at 4:14 pm |
        • Doc Vestibule

          Christian Science is a particular, and rather peculiar, sect that came to be in the 1800.
          Their founder, Mary Baker Eddy, had nothing to say about evolution.
          Their schtick is that everybody can channel Christ's magical healing powers if they just do what she says.

          You're probably thinking of "Creation Scientists" like the people at the Discovery Insti/tutue and Professor Behe, the evolution denier who was decimated in the Kansas Dover trials about teaching evolution in schools.
          Their goal is not to teach what they think is actual fact.
          An internal doc.ument leaked in 1999 described their objectives as ""to defeat scientific materialism and its destructive moral, cultural and political legacies". They want to use Intelligent Design (which is what they dub their pseudo-science) as a wedge to separate actual science from its allegiance to "atheistic naturalism".
          In other words, they fear that teaching FACTS to children will drive them away from religion.

          January 22, 2014 at 4:25 pm |
        • Topher

          I'm not a Christian Scientist. I'm Baptist.

          January 22, 2014 at 4:58 pm |
        • 54StarryNights

          @Sharphace–Christian Scientists do not teach intelligent design. They believe that life exists independent of matter and that true life is entirely spiritual. They believe that material existence is essentially a dream with its own set of laws of which evolution is one.

          January 22, 2014 at 4:59 pm |
    • Alias

      You still read what Topher posts?
      You have a darker sense of humor than I do.

      January 22, 2014 at 4:11 pm |
      • Madtown

        Topher is our court jester!

        January 22, 2014 at 4:15 pm |
    • Colin

      Topher, I have to ask, in any discussion, there are basic unwritten rules that are expected, without which discourse is meaningless. One of these is not to blatantly lie or say things that are so without foundation that they amount to a lie. To say "science rejects evolution" is squarely in that category.

      Now, you may not like evolution on theoretical grounds, or you may even think you have a better theory for the diversity of life on Earth, but to say "science rejects evolution" is ridiculous. No, "ridiculous" is not even a strong enough word for it. I doubt such an adjective even exists.

      January 22, 2014 at 4:11 pm |
      • Alias

        I think 'dishonest' described that kind of statement very well.

        January 22, 2014 at 4:14 pm |
      • Topher

        Please show me where it's testable, repeatable and demonstrable. That's sciences standard.

        January 22, 2014 at 4:57 pm |
        • In Santa we trust

          You were given that yesterday and many times before.

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

          Nope. All I'm ever told is that I'm ignorant or too stupid to understand evolution. Never any evidence.

          January 22, 2014 at 6:30 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Other One

      I think there are aspects of evolution even Topher accepts. I think he feels microevolution, as a creationist would define it, comprises it – covers the readily observable phenomena we see in the lab every day. It can't lead to speciation, he would say. And must, I suppose, lead nowhere over long time scales.

      January 22, 2014 at 4:19 pm |
      • Topher

        Exactly right.

        January 22, 2014 at 4:56 pm |
  5. davecu

    FWIW, Pro-choice does not necessarily mean pro-abortion.
    Who am I to tell anyone what they must do?

    January 22, 2014 at 3:39 pm |
    • RB

      Would you tell someone not to commit murder?

      January 22, 2014 at 3:46 pm |
      • skarphace

        Can you support your argument that abortion is murder on our Consti tution? If not, then you have no argument.

        January 22, 2014 at 3:50 pm |
        • RB

          Amendment 5, “No person shall be ….. deprived of life…”

          January 22, 2014 at 4:09 pm |
        • Ken Margo

          @RB...........Are you against the dealth penalty? Are you against war? Are you against the repubs who voted for cutting SNAP, Pell Grants and other social programs needed by the poor?

          January 22, 2014 at 4:15 pm |
        • skarphace

          Ok, then, RB. Find out the meaning of the word "person" as defined in our Consti tution. Hint: an unviable fetus would not fit that definition.

          January 22, 2014 at 4:20 pm |
        • RB

          Ken,
          I don’t particularly like death of any flavor, but the death penalty seems necessary for premeditated murderers. I’m often very critical of political warfare, but we need to defend ourselves.
          I’m all for feeding the poor, but I would like to weed out some these folks that lay around all day doing drugs and making babies. Would you like to pay more in taxes so they can party on your dime?

          January 22, 2014 at 4:25 pm |
        • Ken Margo

          NO RB that's why I'm for abortion. To save money. My money. I find it ironic you have no problem killing a person, yet you have a problem with abortion of an embryo that you don't know, don't know the s3x of, don't know how the child will turn out(Murderer for ex.)

          January 22, 2014 at 4:40 pm |
      • Ken Margo

        I wouldn't tell someone not to commit murder because they might want to kill me. Abortion isn't murder so who cares? Abort away. Yahoo.....

        January 22, 2014 at 4:01 pm |
  6. Vic

    A HUMAN LIFE, aka PERSON, consists of Spirit, Body and Soul.

    A spermatozoon/sperm cell and an ovum/egg are living organisms but are not human life. The body naturally purges itself of unused spermatozoon/sperm and ovum/egg cells.

    Although most Pro-Life advocates believe life begins at conception, the definition of conception differs from one group to another. Some groups consider conception the fertilization of the ovum/egg into a zygote during the first day or two. Others consider conception is when pregnancy begins. In medical science, pregnancy begins with implantation—the attachment of the zygote onto the wall of the uterus—eight to nine days after insemination.

    Whatever the case may be, medical science establishes that the first HEARTBEAT occurs somewhere during the first 21 to 28 days. I have no doubt in my mind, at that stage at least, that is a HUMAN/PERSON.

    Now, the question is: What is a PERSON?

    Genesis 2:7
    "7 Then the Lord God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being." (NASB)

    In the order stated:

    Dust of the ground....Body
    Breath of Life............Spirit
    Living Soul.................Soul

    I believe a PERSON is when all three are combined.

    Therefore, I believe the first HEARTBEAT is a definite indication of all three combined, hence a PERSON.

    p.s. I find it compelling that the human being one of three—Spirit, Body and Soul—is reminiscent of God Being One Of Three—Father, Son and Holy Spirit, hence the "Image Of God" in Genesis 1:26,27.

    January 22, 2014 at 3:33 pm |
    • Science Works

      And the bowl/dish it germinated in ?

      January 22, 2014 at 3:36 pm |
    • skarphace

      Until you can support your argument with quotes from our Consti tution instead of a religious text, you have no argument. There are many, many religious texts out there, but there is only one Consti tution of the United States. This is why our civil laws are not based on any religious text, but rather on our Consti tution.

      January 22, 2014 at 3:38 pm |
      • Vic

        If "We The People...." were to vote on it, abortion wouldn't be legal.

        January 22, 2014 at 3:43 pm |
        • Science Works

          Says you or the moral majority ?

          January 22, 2014 at 3:46 pm |
        • Science Works

          *supposed moral majority*

          January 22, 2014 at 3:48 pm |
        • skarphace

          That may or may not be true, but that would not be based on our Consti tution either, as we are not a pure Democracy, but rather a Democratic Republic. Just because the majority supports a law does not mean that law is consti tutional.

          January 22, 2014 at 3:48 pm |
        • Ken Margo

          According to polls most americans (including Catholics) support abortion. What you fail to realize is that children are not free for taxpayers. You subsidize chlidren in public school, pay heathcare when the parents can't and subsidize all social programs for parents/children.

          January 22, 2014 at 3:50 pm |
        • Take Note

          Vic
          How do you know that, the same way that gay marriage has been approved in many States? Your biased opinions mat not be shared in the privacy of a voting booth, after all the vast majority of women believe in pro choice no matter their religious affiliation or none.

          January 22, 2014 at 3:54 pm |
        • SkepticalOne

          What part of barely over 30% support overturning Roe do you not understand? I guess if you can make yourself believe in an invisible sky spirit you can make yourself believe that you are in the majority too...

          January 22, 2014 at 3:58 pm |
        • Vic

          The best telling of all is to let it be decided by people's vote on then!

          Note that from all legislating issues, abortion is unique in that regard because it involves "Human Life."

          January 22, 2014 at 3:59 pm |
        • skarphace

          Vic: "The best telling of all is to let it be decided by people's vote on then!"

          You clearly are unclear on the concept of a consti tution. Look up the difference between a Democracy and a Democratic Republic. Look up the definition of a Theocracy. Your arguments are not based on our Consti tution, but on your personal faith. Therefore, you have no argument.

          January 22, 2014 at 4:02 pm |
        • Ken Margo

          @VIC...........Should we also vote on wether men should have vasectomies also? If you want to control a womans body, shouldn't we control men also?

          January 22, 2014 at 4:04 pm |
        • Vic

          The Constitution Of the United States was based on Natural Law which the Founders believed is from Nature's God. Abortion, except for the safety of the bearer, a mother or a surrogate, is UNNATURAL. It is a life or death matter.

          January 22, 2014 at 4:07 pm |
        • Vic

          It is inhumane and selfish, to say the least, to even equate the life of the unborn with personal conveniences, let alone making it less.

          January 22, 2014 at 4:11 pm |
        • Ken Margo

          Ok Vic has confirmed it. He's a crack head. No need to respond to him any longer. Reality has exited stage left.

          January 22, 2014 at 4:11 pm |
        • Take Note

          Vic
          You devolve into some opinion you may have what the founding fathers may have thought long ago and disregard the fact that people of today would more than likely vote for free choice for women. You want your views to prevail no matter what others think; you do not want democracy you want a theocracy.

          January 22, 2014 at 4:19 pm |
        • Vic

          If it weren't for Roe v Wade decision by SCOTUS, abortion would never be legal in the United States by its people, to day.

          January 22, 2014 at 4:21 pm |
        • Take Note

          Vic
          That is pure unadulterated BS, your ability to perceive anything beyond your religious bias is the mark of a fanatic. If you were in the middle east with a mind like yours you would no doubt be a jihadist.

          January 22, 2014 at 4:31 pm |
        • igaftr

          Vic
          "If it weren't for Roe v Wade decision by SCOTUS, abortion would never be legal in the United States by its people, to day."

          More opinion.

          Also there are often times that things are legal, that are unconst!tutional, which means they are illegal...like the lie on our money.

          legal does not mean right all the time either. It was legal to own slaves...was it ever right?

          January 22, 2014 at 4:33 pm |
      • Reality # 2

        The same Consti-tution that did not allow women to vote until 1919. The same Consti-tution that did not ban slavery until 1865.

        January 22, 2014 at 4:31 pm |
    • Vic

      Clarification:

      Genesis 2:7
      "7 And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul." (KJV)

      January 22, 2014 at 3:38 pm |
      • skarphace

        So move to a country that has a Theocracy, then. We have a Democratic Republic in this country. You may not like it, but unless our Consti tution is rewritten, it will stay a Democratic Republic.

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

          Since when protecting "human life" is not democratic?!

          Protecting "Human Life" is one of the most prominent AMERICAN IDEALS.

          January 22, 2014 at 3:47 pm |
        • skarphace

          Our Consti tution defines human life at the point where a fetus is viable outside the womb. You may not like this definition, but until you can get enough support to rewrite our Consti tution, then you have to live with it or move to another country that has a different consti tution. Again, we are not a pure Democracy. We are a Democratic Republic, which means that majority rule is not enough. Our laws must abide by our Consti tution.

          January 22, 2014 at 3:56 pm |
        • Take Note

          Vic
          You are strangely deluded about your country. This nation has been in some kind of war almost for its entire history, not exactly protecting human life. The laws of the nation allow a woman's right to choose, get over it or find a country to move to that agrees with your position.

          January 22, 2014 at 4:05 pm |
        • 54StarryNights

          @Vic–"Protecting "Human Life" is one of the most prominent AMERICAN IDEALS." Except when it costs too much or when it is politically expedient not to (such as when our youth are sent to fight in entirely unnecessary wars, usually for somebody's profit, etc.)

          January 22, 2014 at 4:07 pm |
    • Martin

      The Supreme Court wisely set the cutoff for abortion at the point of viability, when the fetus can survive outside the womb. That interestingly lines up with your "breath of life". A fetus can't breath at 21 days when there is a heartbeat... The ability to breath comes months later.

      January 22, 2014 at 3:39 pm |
      • Vic

        The "Breath Of Life" is of God Almighty, aka spirit, it is not to be confused with the breath—inhale/exhale—a creature takes.

        January 22, 2014 at 3:52 pm |
        • skarphace

          Again, you make your argument based on your faith. This is not a valid argument.

          January 22, 2014 at 3:59 pm |
        • igaftr

          Vic
          "The "Breath Of Life" is of God Almighty, aka spirit, it is not to be confused with the breath—inhale/exhale—a creature takes."

          False. At the time they wrote the bible, they believed them to be one and the same. It was only AFTER it was discovered that was not true did they start teaching that. Once again...they got it wrong, so you twist your interpretation of the word of man to make it more pallatable.

          January 22, 2014 at 4:52 pm |
        • no

          No, Vic. The supreme court is more powerful than your 'god' and I have proof: you live it.

          January 22, 2014 at 5:43 pm |
    • igaftr

      vic
      "A HUMAN LIFE, aka PERSON, consists of Spirit, Body and Soul."
      Speculative opinion...nothing more.

      January 22, 2014 at 3:42 pm |
    • Ken Margo

      Vic nobody cares about what you think. You don't get pregnant. I guarantee if men got pregnant, birth control would be available like chewing gum. If you want to prevent abortions you should:

      Teach s3x ed in school
      Make birth control as easy and cheap as possible
      Vasectomies should be offered at no cost to men

      January 22, 2014 at 3:44 pm |
      • RB

        Those are all good. The first one should be don't do it until you are married.

        January 22, 2014 at 3:47 pm |
        • Ken Margo

          You act as if marriage is a plateau of perfection. Marriage means nothing. There are plenty of marriages that are total disasters. (over 60% end in divorce and I'm married).

          January 22, 2014 at 3:54 pm |
        • igaftr

          RB
          "don't do it until you're married"

          That goes against nature and imposes false morality...as if $ex is something only for married people....ridiculous.

          Try understanding that it is human nature to have $ex....it is the single highest instinct in your body and your hormones beg constantly for $ex.
          Better to learn mature ways of dealing with nature that teaching abstinence against nature, not teaching some false morality form your immoral book.

          January 22, 2014 at 4:01 pm |
      • Vic

        No Problem!

        And if all those fail, YOU SHOULD NOT ABORT.

        January 22, 2014 at 3:54 pm |
        • Ken Margo

          Sorry to upset you vic. I bet there is an abortion happening now. One less kid to pay for. Hooray.

          January 22, 2014 at 3:57 pm |
        • Seriously?

          Your post makes you sound like a blood thirsty, money hungry psycho.

          January 22, 2014 at 4:21 pm |
        • Ken Margo

          No I'm not blood thirsty. It's tough to feel for a blob after a abortion. I don't know the s3x, name, how it would look, act etc etc.
          On the other hand, when people get shot. i feel for them because there is a face I can relate to. When people suffer I can relate to the pain because there is a face I can relate to.

          January 22, 2014 at 4:47 pm |
    • k9z

      Thank you Vic.

      January 22, 2014 at 3:54 pm |
    • Doc Vestibule

      The Bible makes it clear that God assigns a lesser value to infants under 1 month old.

      "And the LORD spake unto Moses in the wilderness of Sinai, saying, "Number the children of Levi after the house of their fathers, by their families: every male from a month old and upward shalt thou number them."
      – Numbers 3:14-15
      God tells Moses NOT to count babies less than a month old.

      "The Lord said to Moses, "Speak to the Israelites and say to them: ‘If anyone makes a special vow to dedicate a person to the Lord by giving the equivalent value, set the value of a male between the ages of twenty and sixty at fifty shekels of silver, according to the sanctuary shekel; for a female, set her value at thirty shekels ; for a person between the ages of five and twenty, set the value of a male at twenty shekels and of a female at ten shekelse; 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 of silver; for a person sixty years old or more, set the value of a male at fifteen shekelsh and of a female at ten shekels."
      – Leviticus 27
      Infants have only a fraction of the worth of an adult to God.

      January 22, 2014 at 4:19 pm |
  7. Death Showers for Diana of the Ephesians!

    Death Showers for Diana of the Ephesians!
    Your comment is awaiting moderation.
    $$$$$$$$$$$$$ :) :) :) $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

    January 22, 2014 at 3:33 pm |
  8. 54StarryNights

    Even though I support choice, I am fine with this organization's march since I also believe in free speech and free assembly. The one thing I do wonder about and feel some concern about is the participation of the students. I wonder just how free that participation is considering the bulk of the students that attend come from Catholic schools. My concern is that some may be their as the result of pressure, whether it be from faculty or from peers. It is a well known fact that not all Catholics oppose abortion. I am fine with the children being there as long as they are not being pressured or coerced to attend and as long as those who choose not to attend are not stigmatized or shunned.

    January 22, 2014 at 3:24 pm |
    • 54StarryNights

      Change the "their" in the 5th sentence of my comment to "there." It was a typo.

      January 22, 2014 at 3:27 pm |
  9. mzh

    The Female part:
    He created you (all) from a single person (Adam); then made from him his wife [Hawwa' (Eve)]. And He has sent down for you of cattle eight pairs (of the sheep, two, male and female; of the goats, two, male and female; of the oxen, two, male and female; and of the camels, two, male and female). He creates you in the wombs of your mothers, creation after creation in three veils of darkness, such is Allah your Lord. His is the kingdom, La ilaha illa Huwa (none has the right to be worshipped but He). How then are you turned away? – 39:6

    The meaning of creation after creation in three veils of darkness in the above verse:
    "creation after creation":
    – means everyone of you is originally a Nutfah (means a semen-drop which is mentioned in 22:5),
    – then he becomes an `Alaqah (means: clinging substance which is mentioned in 96:2),
    – then he becomes a Mudghah (means: the embryonic lump which is mentioned in 23:14 – this verse actually gives all the stages meaning mentioned Nutfah then 'Alaqah and then Madghah.... subhanallah glory be to Allah The Almighty who Created the human and the entire universe),
    – then it becomes flesh and bones and nerves and veins, and the Ruh (soul) is breathed into him, and he becomes another type of creation.

    "three veils of darknesses":
    veil # 1 – the darkness of the womb,
    veil # 2 – the darkness of the placenta which blankets and protects the child, and
    veil # 3 – the darkness of the belly.

    These three layers/veils are used to keep the child protected (belly, placenta and womb).

    Soul breathed:
    32:7 – Who perfected everything which He created and began the creation of man from clay. Then He made his posterity out of the extract of a liquid disdained. Then He proportioned him and breathed into him from His [created] soul and made for you hearing and vision and hearts; little are you grateful.

    January 22, 2014 at 3:07 pm |
    • skarphace

      Our civil was are, fortunately, not based on your religion. Try quoting our Consti tution to support your argument. Until then, you have no argument.

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

        Hello skarphace:

        Which one is older? who follows whom? The old one follows the new one or the new one follows the old one?

        Peace my friend...

        January 22, 2014 at 5:36 pm |
  10. bosfaninva

    And for the 41st consecutive year since Roe v. Wade, the world's number one abortionist is..... drum roll.....deep breath....it's GOD! Or nature, take your pick.

    Accepting on behalf of God/nature, anyone with a brain.

    January 22, 2014 at 3:07 pm |
    • Ummm

      You are nature, or part of it. FYI.

      January 22, 2014 at 3:11 pm |
  11. Thomas

    I'm having a hell of a time getting a post past the filter–can someone please post the list of character strings the filter looks for so I can reword it? Thanks.

    January 22, 2014 at 3:06 pm |
  12. JB

    Open question to any Christian. Since Christianity teaches that man is born sinful, my question is: When does that sinful nature get inherited, at birth or at conception?

    January 22, 2014 at 3:01 pm |
    • Thomas

      I'm guessing you'll get more than one opinion on that.

      January 22, 2014 at 3:16 pm |
    • 54StarryNights

      Not all Christian churches teach that humans are born in sin.

      January 22, 2014 at 4:16 pm |
    • JB

      Really, no takers on this yet?

      I realize this might seem like a baited question, but I'd really just like to know in order to shed light on a point of confusion for me.

      If the belief is that sin is inherited at conception, that would seem to discredit the idea that aborted fetuses are innocent and therefore go to heaven. But if the belief is that sin is not inherited until birth, it would tend to discredit the idea that life begins at conception.

      January 22, 2014 at 5:06 pm |
      • Catholic

        Original sin is inherited at conception, but we entrust to the mercy of God those who have died before committing personal sins.

        January 22, 2014 at 8:14 pm |
        • JB

          Thanks for the response. That view makes one wonder what original sin has to do with anything, though.

          January 22, 2014 at 9:52 pm |
  13. Ummm

    Nature knows what its doing a lot better than we do sometimes.

    January 22, 2014 at 3:00 pm |
  14. ME II

    @Topher,
    "...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 century old disproven hypothesis, then how can you call the entire theory lies?

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

      sorry mispost

      January 22, 2014 at 2:48 pm |
  15. Doc Vestibule

    Nobody seems willing to answer me...
    Given that in-vitro fertilization invariably results in numberous fertilized eggs being discarded, should the procedure be declared illegal or the women who opt for it be forced to carry all of the potential children to term?

    January 22, 2014 at 2:44 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Other One

      I think it's common for "pro-life" people to oppose unnatural procedures like in vitro fertilization. I'm surprised you haven't any takers.

      January 22, 2014 at 2:57 pm |
      • Liz the First

        Pro life generally means pro forced births with no thought about what happens next.

        January 22, 2014 at 3:04 pm |
        • Ummm

          If the in vitro customers are at the clinic for a transplant, there you go.

          January 22, 2014 at 3:09 pm |
        • TimArnold

          This statement is not correct. I am the father of one biological child and one adopted child. We have at least five other families at my church that have adopted children, and more that are weeding through the bureaucratic process -waiting for adopted children. In my state, TN, there are about 30 different privately funded agencies that offer assistance to women that are want to keep their baby. http://www.kdccw.org/cycwpregnancyhelp.pdf

          January 22, 2014 at 4:19 pm |
    • Ummm

      End in vitro, why cause more population problem deliberately. People who want children can take them off the hands of those who want to abort.

      January 22, 2014 at 2:58 pm |
    • skarphace

      If the pro-lifers had their way, all procedures such as in-vitro fertilization would be illegal. Their agenda is based on the Catholic and Evangelical religions which teach that all se x should be for procreation and all procreation should be done through se x. If these groups had their way, all casual se x would be illegal and all procedures other than se x used for procreation would be illegal. The abortion issue is merely the tip of the iceberg which is their true agenda. Their agenda being turning our Democratic Republic into a Theocracy based on their version(s) of Christianity.

      January 22, 2014 at 3:02 pm |
      • Ummm

        There is no reason for this argument to be a religious one. In vitro causes extra people in an overpopulated world and no room for those who could possibly find a family to find one. That's just logic.

        January 22, 2014 at 3:06 pm |
        • skarphace

          There is no argument that would permit a government to tell a woman how she should bring a child into this world other than a religious one. Forcing a woman who has a husband who is barren to adopt is not based on our Consti tution.

          January 22, 2014 at 3:11 pm |
        • Ummm

          Nobody would be forcing them to adopt, only telling them no more in vitro, because there are too many people already.

          January 22, 2014 at 3:13 pm |
        • skarphace

          You missed my point, so let me ask you a question. Can you cite a passage in our Consti tution that would support your argument that the government should be able to prohibit a couple who has one partner that is barren from having in-vitro fertilization? If you cannot, then you are basing your opinion on your faith, not on our nation's laws.

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

          First of all I have faith in nothing that isn't tangible. Secondly laws were made to be changed.

          January 22, 2014 at 3:19 pm |
        • skarphace

          Yes, laws were meant to be changed, but all of our nation's laws must be based on our Consti tution first and foremost. This is why laws are changed or thrown out altogether. This is why Roe v. Wade was upheld by our Supreme Court while DOMA was thrown out. The former is based on our Consti tution, while the latter is not. So, yes, laws are meant to be changed, but no, our Consti tution was not. Amended, yes. Changed, no.

          January 22, 2014 at 3:34 pm |
        • RB

          Shark, you may have read the details on Roe v Wade since I have, but I was thinking they relied on foreign law more than our own const on that one.

          January 22, 2014 at 3:39 pm |
    • 54StarryNights

      In-vitro should remain a legal option. No, a woman should not be required to carry all fertilized eggs to term. Even in nature, not all fertilized eggs survive to term. In fact, only about 50% of fertilized eggs move into the uterus and implant. The rest are expelled.

      January 22, 2014 at 3:07 pm |
      • skarphace

        If the pro-lifers had their way, every time a fertilized egg was expelled, the woman would be charged with murder and would have to prove that she did not take a drug or do something physical to her body which caused that egg to be expelled.

        January 22, 2014 at 3:14 pm |
      • Ummm

        You must be making money off of in vitro then. Why would someone choose to put more kids into a world, forcibly when there are so many that people don't want already?

        January 22, 2014 at 3:17 pm |
        • skarphace

          Here is a novel idea: why don't you find out for yourself the reasons why a couple would prefer in-vitro fertilization over abortion. I am sure you could find at least a few couples that would permit an interview. What you are suggesting is that we take this option away, but you are not giving any supporting argument as to why we should take this argument away that would be held up in a court of law.

          I could make the same argument you are, "There are too many people already in this world", to suggest that we should limit couples to two children. However, I could not support this suggestion using our nation's laws any more than you can your suggestion. By the way, my suggestion would be ironically anti-pro-life as any couple that got pregnant that already has two children would have to abort.

          January 22, 2014 at 3:25 pm |
        • 54StarryNights

          I agree that there are too many people in this world. That is why I chose never to have any children. However, whether to conceive or not conceive and how to conceive or not conceive are not choices for me to make for others. Ironically, it is in those countries and societies where those decisions are not left up to the individual and where all options are not made known or available that birth rates are the highest. Where there is informed free choice and a full range of options from which to choose, birth rates tend to fall below even the replacement rate.

          January 22, 2014 at 3:52 pm |
    • inOntario

      I think this is certainly an interesting question. Emotionally, In-vitro comes from an actual desire for a child. -I imagine a desire for just one. They've learned through the process that it's more efficient to try for many. I believe this process has been allowed AFTER 1973 and with the increase in technology. The hope that has developed out of in-vitro certainly makes it culturally hard to go back, but does that make it right? I'm certain that the Abortion Rights and Right to Life issue cannot be separated from in-vitro issues. Which brings us all back to "Just because we can do it, should we?" or "I have the right to do anything-but not everything is beneficial/constructive" If you're into it, one of these is quoted from 1 Cor 10:23. Even if you're not into that line of thinking, it's not an invalid question.

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

        You bring up an interesting question: can the pro-life argument be made without referencing faith? I do not feel it can. I have seen no pro-life argument that is based on our Consti tution. If you can make your same argument, but instead of quoting a religious text quote our Consti tution, then I would be all ears. If not, then you have no argument.

        January 22, 2014 at 3:30 pm |
  16. Fetal Realism

    How about a fetal petting zoo. Just to let people get to know the unborn?

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

      Fetal Realism,

      With orphanages flooded with TENS of THOUSANDS of kids, how many will you adopt?

      January 22, 2014 at 2:38 pm |
      • Ummm

        They don't allow everybody to adopt that wants to adopt

        January 22, 2014 at 2:39 pm |
        • skarphace

          That is a good thing. Not everybody is qualified to be parents. The process to determine whether or not someone should be allowed to adopt is absolutely necessary to protect the well-being of the children being adopted.

          January 22, 2014 at 3:07 pm |
      • Fetal Realism

        None I think. But that does suggest a magnificent collage.

        January 22, 2014 at 2:40 pm |
        • Observer

          Fetal Realism,

          So you won't adopt any.

          How many are you willing to sponsor for mothers that can't afford to have them? Amount please.

          January 22, 2014 at 2:44 pm |
        • Fetal Realism

          Each is the protégé of the one who sent them, wouldn't you say?

          January 22, 2014 at 2:52 pm |
        • Observer

          Fetal Realism,

          Tell people how to run their lives. Criticize what they do. Offer no GOOD alternatives. And be totally unwilling to help.

          Good job.

          January 22, 2014 at 3:22 pm |
        • Fetal Realism

          Now Observer, have I done any of those things?

          January 22, 2014 at 3:53 pm |
    • Science Works

      Flame on huh ?

      January 22, 2014 at 2:39 pm |
      • One of the Guys

        As long as they don't tell all those catholic girls that oral s&x is forbidden, I am good with the rest of the brainwashing. Passing strange that they have to bus in school children to fill the ranks of the marchers, anything to get a day out of class I suppose.

        January 22, 2014 at 2:49 pm |
        • Science Works

          That won't work it is against the doctrine of pro-creation- (oral se-x)

          January 22, 2014 at 3:01 pm |
        • skarphace

          They do teach that any casual s&x, such as oral s&x is forbidden. In their opinion, s&x should be for procreation and procreation only, and they want our civil laws to be based on their version of God's Law. They want a Theocracy.

          January 22, 2014 at 3:20 pm |
        • One of the Guys

          Well a lot of the catholic girls I grew up with either did not get the message or disregarded it, thank you.

          January 22, 2014 at 3:28 pm |
        • Science Works

          One of the Guys

          That is one of the problems the whacky message – about se-x

          January 22, 2014 at 3:40 pm |
  17. Dr. Planarian

    I hope they freeze. If God had wanted 'em here, he'd have made it warmer.

    I once attended one of these. I held up an "aborted fetus" in a jar and the people rallied me around as I ranted on like a fire-and-brimstone preacher about the "UnHOOOOOly abortion that ended the life of this poor child." They were weeping and gnashing their teeth about the "poor baby."

    The jar contained an octopus in formaldehyde that I had bought down at Nag's Head. It was no less a child than an aborted fetus is, but what does it matter to these ignorant yahoos?

    January 22, 2014 at 2:35 pm |
    • Lucifer's Evil Twin

      Did it look like the Prometheus alien baby?

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

      Damaged temporal lobe doc? Why should the right for comfort be limited to humans?

      January 22, 2014 at 2:41 pm |
    • TimArnold

      You lied, yet have the audacity to mock those that trusted you-if in fact you are even telling the truth about your cephalopod mollusk antics.

      January 22, 2014 at 3:32 pm |
    • Logic.

      You honestly can't tell the difference between two different SPECIES? That is truly pitiful. FYI, "fetus" means "offspring" in Latin. Human offspring are called "children."

      January 22, 2014 at 8:01 pm |
  18. mzh

    Hello,

    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 2:26 pm |
    • Science Works

      Not from dust then -but stardust from billions of years mzh.

      January 22, 2014 at 2:32 pm |
      • mzh

        SW:

        I understand your point... but you need to know that the koran is not a book of science or fiction my friend...

        January 22, 2014 at 3:02 pm |
        • Science Works

          Well it is like Greek Mythology mzh

          [youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FyT3A4vi6cw&w=640&h=390]

          January 22, 2014 at 3:06 pm |
        • mzh

          @SW:

          Quran itself gives answer for this subject:

          2:2 – This is the Book (the Quran), whereof there is no doubt, a guidance to those who are Al-Muttaqun [the pious and righteous persons who fear Allah much (abstain from all kinds of sins and evil deeds which He has forbidden) and love Allah much (perform all kinds of good deeds which He has ordained)].

          2:3 – Who believe in the Ghaib and perform As-Salat (Iqamat-as-Salat), and spend out of what we have provided for them [i.e. give Zakat , spend on themselves, their parents, their children, their wives, etc., and also give charity to the poor etc.]

          2:4 – And who believe in (the Quran) which has been sent down (revealed) to you (Muhammad Peace be upon him ) and in [the Taurat (Torah) and the Injeel (Gospel), etc.] which were sent down before you and they believe with certainty in the Hereafter. (Resurrection, recompense of their good and bad deeds, Paradise and Hell, etc.).

          2:5 – Those are upon [right] guidance from their Lord, and it is those who are the successful.

          There are plenty of places in the quran that explains that this is to take mankind from darknesses to light... as we know that the language of the quran is Arabic and it is amazing that the entire quran used sungular for light and always plural for darknesses...

          Peace!!!

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

          science?...certainly not...fiction?...until any of the wild calims in the book can be verified...it is fiction.
          As far as rules for life...some good, but those are not unique to Islam, the bad, far outweighs any good.

          January 22, 2014 at 3:33 pm |
        • mzh

          @igaftr

          Do you think everyone likes the fed laws?

          Why there are dispute about gun control, same s.e.x marraige and many more?

          The fed laws are there whether you like it or not... and it will be applied to the one who breaks it...

          So, it is the same thing that those who does things and it goes agains the law, will not like it...

          To be a law abiding citizen of America, you have to accept the entire package and not like i like one and i do not like other...

          Peace

          January 22, 2014 at 3:44 pm |
        • mzh

          @igaftr

          Me as proud Muslim, I do not need any evidence to prove the message in the Quran...

          As a matter of fact the scientists will have to go to the Quran in order to know the science...

          For example: Quran talks about the universe is in expansion every single moment and our fellow human great scientists discovered it not too long ago... also here the human creation stages are there since 14 plus hundred years and it is being discovered few decades ago... or the highest mountains about which quran explains that 2/3 of it is under the ground to balance the earth and our scientists discovered it recently... and there are many more examples could be used...

          That does not mean I do not appreciate what our great scientists have been doing... it is really appreciated for their efforts and time and the help of The Lord Almighty that He is make their intellects to discover these... regardless of their faith...

          Peace!!!

          January 22, 2014 at 3:51 pm |
    • Lucifer's Evil Twin

      as-salaam 'alaykum

      Sorry mzh, but the Quran is no more valid than the Christian bible when it comes to reality

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

        L:

        Wa ‘alaykoum assalam warahmatullahi wabarkatuh

        Quran is valid since the day it was reveled for mankind and it will be till the end whether I like it or not… but there will not be any more revelation as it explains that this is the seal of revelation and prophet…

        Its up to individual whether to accept or reject… and there is no compulsion in accepting religion… so its totally free will of a human being the best creature of the entire creation…

        Peace my friend…

        January 22, 2014 at 3:06 pm |
        • Lucifer's Evil Twin

          wa 'alaykum salaam ...

          but your 'Allah' does not show much peace or mercy... so between two human beings I have no problem saying 'Peace be upon you' or 'upon you be peace' those to me are non-religious sentiments

          January 22, 2014 at 3:25 pm |
    • Ummm

      A&P I and II. Great classes, best thing about the unborn they haven't had time to become dipsh&ts yet

      January 22, 2014 at 2:39 pm |
      • mzh

        Peace be upon you my friend... I wouldn't use that term as it could apply on me...

        January 22, 2014 at 3:38 pm |
    • nameless

      ii) from a sperm-drop, then (stage-1.1) – created from a sperm-drop....nothing to do with a woman I see.....

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

        @nameless:

        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

        He created you (all) from a single person (Adam); then made from him his wife [Hawwa' (Eve)]. And He has sent down for you of cattle eight pairs (of the sheep, two, male and female; of the goats, two, male and female; of the oxen, two, male and female; and of the camels, two, male and female). He creates you in the wombs of your mothers, creation after creation in three veils of darkness, such is Allah your Lord. His is the kingdom, La ilaha illa Huwa (none has the right to be worshipped but He). How then are you turned away? – 39:6

        The meaning of creation after creation in three veils of darkness in the above verse:
        "creation after creation":
        – means everyone of you is originally a Nutfah (means a semen-drop which is mentioned in 22:5),
        – then he becomes an `Alaqah (means: clinging substance which is mentioned in 96:2),
        – then he becomes a Mudghah (means: the embryonic lump which is mentioned in 23:14 – this verse actually gives all the stages meaning mentioned Nutfah then 'Alaqah and then Madghah.... subhanallah glory be to Allah The Almighty who Created the human and the entire universe),
        – then it becomes flesh and bones and nerves and veins, and the Ruh (soul) is breathed into him, and he becomes another type of creation.

        "three veils of darknesses":
        veil # 1 – the darkness of the womb,
        veil # 2 – the darkness of the placenta which blankets and protects the child, and
        veil # 3 – the darkness of the belly.

        These three layers/veils are used to keep the child protected (belly, placenta and womb).

        Soul breathed:
        32:7 – Who perfected everything which He created and began the creation of man from clay. Then He made his posterity out of the extract of a liquid disdained. Then He proportioned him and breathed into him from His [created] soul and made for you hearing and vision and hearts; little are you grateful.

        Peace!!!

        January 22, 2014 at 3:00 pm |
  19. JohnRJohnson

    The anti-abortion movement is a made-up movement designed to incite the ultra-right wing and nurture hatred of people who take the opposing view.

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

      No it's made up of people that know a fetus can't get up and say, "Ouch dude that was my arm". Religious debates are made up of what you are describing.

      January 22, 2014 at 2:26 pm |
      • Liz the First

        When some rights are taken away, all rights can be taken away. Choice matters.

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

          Maybe he wants the right to his spinal chord Liz, are you going to take that from him?

          January 22, 2014 at 2:36 pm |
        • Liz the First

          Who? I am not in the business to force my choices on others. Why do you feel you have that privilege?

          January 22, 2014 at 2:46 pm |
        • Ummm

          No I'm pretty sure you are advocating that the fetus loose his rights to his spinal chord

          January 22, 2014 at 2:54 pm |
        • Liz the First

          No, I'm not, but I am unsurprised that you would project, and your use of hyperbolic rhetoric is flawless.

          January 22, 2014 at 3:06 pm |
        • Jeff from Columbus

          Murder isn't a right. Should a mother have the "choice" to kill her baby after childbirth if she doesn't want the baby? I mean within the first trimester of course.

          Now, you think what I just typed is silly because you don't think life begins at conception. But, I and others who do believe that view abortion as murder.

          We see that ultrasound and hear the heartbeat at 6 weeks and see life. And an abortion kills that life and is therefore murder.

          January 22, 2014 at 3:26 pm |
        • Observer

          Jeff from Columbus,

          You keep calling people "murderers". Murder is ILLEGAL.

          Please use a DICTIONARY so you'll know better.

          January 22, 2014 at 3:33 pm |
        • Jeff from Columbus

          Liz – Right. That's why people are fighting to make abortion ILLEGAL. Because its murder.

          I'm not calling PEOPLE murderers. I – and other anti-abortion supporters – are saying the act of abortion is murder and should be made illegal.

          January 22, 2014 at 3:36 pm |
        • Observer

          MURDER cannot happen without a MURDERER.

          READ a dictionary.

          January 22, 2014 at 3:37 pm |
        • Jeff from Columbus

          Observer – Please read slowly.

          Today, abortion is legal. Therefore, LEGALLY, it isn't murder. With me so far? So, people TODAY having abortions can't be labeled murderers because they are having a legal abortion.

          BUT, people like me want to...now read this slowly...CHANGE THE LAWS and make abortion illegal. Because we believe abortion is murder.

          Now, I know I just threw you, so sit down. Breathe. Calm down, now? Ok, good. Read on...

          In the FUTURE (not now), if abortion is made illegal, then people who would have abortions could be labeled murderers. Because, the LAW WAS CHANGED.

          Got it? Probably not, but it was worth a try.

          January 22, 2014 at 3:43 pm |
        • Logic.

          @ Liz
          "Who? I am not in the business to force my choices on others. Why do you feel you have that privilege?"

          Yeah, I'm pretty sure abortion is forcing a "choice" on the fetus, by KILLING him/her. THAT is far worse than 9 months of "inconvenience."

          January 22, 2014 at 8:06 pm |
      • Doc Vestibule

        In Chile, abortion is illegal in any and all circu/mstances.
        The Chilean government is forcing an 11 year old girl, who was impregnated by her step-father, to give birth.
        Do you think that's ethically sound?

        Should women who undergo in-vitro fertilization be governmentally mandated to carry all fertilized eggs to term?

        January 22, 2014 at 2:41 pm |
        • Ummm

          Here's a thought why not take the life of that girl's father and instead of in vitro fertilization give the parents to be someone's unwanted baby.

          January 22, 2014 at 2:55 pm |
        • Liz the First

          By the logic of those who don't have any skin in the matter, yes.

          January 22, 2014 at 3:00 pm |
    • I agree...

      Abortion is a "fake" issue in politics and gay marriage is quickly taking it's place.

      January 22, 2014 at 2:56 pm |
      • Ummm

        Unlike abortion gay marriage hurts no one.

        January 22, 2014 at 3:03 pm |
  20. Doctors Love their $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ and death, the last enemy.

    $$$$$$$$$$$
    $$$$$$$$$$$$
    $$$$$$$$$$$$$$
    $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
    $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
    $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

    January 22, 2014 at 2:20 pm |
    • Lucifer's Evil Twin

      You sure do practice a lot on being stupid... good job!

      January 22, 2014 at 2:35 pm |
      • You're done. Go to the Showers!

        :) :) :): :) :) :)

        January 22, 2014 at 2:54 pm |
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
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.