home
RSS
My Take: Are evangelicals dangerous?
Many evangelicals want to ban abortion, but does that mean they want theocracy?
October 15th, 2011
10:00 PM ET

My Take: Are evangelicals dangerous?

Editor's Note: R. Albert Mohler, Jr., is president of The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, the flagship school of the Southern Baptist Convention and one of the largest seminaries in the world.

By R. Albert Mohler, Jr., Special to CNN

Here we go again.

Every four years, with every new presidential election cycle, public voices sound the alarm that the evangelicals are back. What is so scary about America’s evangelical Christians?

Just a few years ago, author Kevin Phillips told intellectual elites to run for cover, claiming that well-organized evangelicals were attempting to turn America into a theocratic state. In “American Theocracy,” Phillips warned of the growing influence of Bible-believing, born-again, theologically conservative voters who were determined to create a theocracy.

Writer Michelle Goldberg, meanwhile, has warned of a new Christian nationalism, based in “dominion theology.” Chris Hedges topped that by calling conservative Christians “American fascists.”

And so-called New Atheists like Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris claim that conservative Christians are nothing less than a threat to democracy. They prescribe atheism and secularism as the antidotes.

This presidential cycle, the alarms have started earlier than usual. Ryan Lizza, profiling Rep. Michele Bachmann for The New Yorker, informed his readers that “Bachmann belongs to a generation of Christian conservatives whose views have been shaped by institutions, tracts, and leaders not commonly known to secular Americans, or even to most Christians.”

Change just a few strategic words and the same would be true of Barack Obama or any other presidential candidate. Every candidate is shaped by influences not known to all and by institutions that other Americans might find strange.

What stories like this really show is that the secular elites assume that their own institutions and leaders are normative.

The New Yorker accused Bachmann of being concerned with developing a Christian worldview, ignoring the fact that every thinking person operates out of some kind of worldview. The article treated statements about wifely submission to husbands and Christian influence in art as bizarre and bellicose.

When Rick Perry questioned the theory of evolution, Dawkins launched into full-on apoplexy, wondering aloud how anyone who questions evolution could be considered intelligent, even as polls indicate that a majority of Americans question evolution.

Bill Keller, then executive editor of The New York Times, topped all the rest by seeming to suggest that conservative Christians should be compared to those who believe in space aliens. He complained that “when it comes to the religious beliefs of our would-be presidents, we are a little squeamish about probing too aggressively.”

Really? Earlier this month, comedian Penn Jillette - a well–known atheist - wrote a very serious op-ed complaining of the political influence of “bugnut Christians,” in the pages of The Los Angeles Times, no less. Detect a pattern here?

By now, this is probably being read as a complaint against the secular elites and prominent voices in the mainstream media. It’s not.

If evangelicals intend to engage public issues and cultural concerns, we have to be ready for the scrutiny and discomfort that comes with disagreement over matters of importance. We have to risk being misunderstood - and even misrepresented - if we intend to say anything worth hearing.

Are evangelicals dangerous? Well, certainly not in the sense that more secular voices warn. The vast majority of evangelicals are not attempting to create a theocracy, or to oppose democracy.

To the contrary, evangelicals are dangerous to the secularist vision of this nation and its future precisely because we are committed to participatory democracy.

As Christians committed to the Bible, evangelicals have learned to advocate on behalf of the unborn, believing that every single human being, at every stage of development, is made in God’s image.

Evangelicals worry about the fate of marriage and the family, believing that the pattern for human relatedness set out in Scripture will lead to the greatest human flourishing.

We are deeply concerned about a host of moral and cultural issues, from how to address poverty to how to be good stewards of the earth, and on some of these there is a fairly high degree of disagreement even among us.

Above all, evangelicals are those who believe that Jesus Christ is Lord and are most concerned about telling others about Jesus. Most of America’s evangelical Christians are busy raising their children, working to support their families and investing energy in their local churches.

But over recent decades, evangelical Christians have learned that the gospel has implications for every dimension of life, including our political responsibility.

We’re dangerous only to those who want more secular voices to have a virtual monopoly in public life.

The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of R. Albert Mohler, Jr.

- CNN Belief Blog

Filed under: Christianity • Opinion • Politics

soundoff (5,318 Responses)
  1. Snoreeeee

    I would say they are dangerous to all those who like to live in peace and quiet without being told they're going to burn in hell. But that's just me I guess. Otherwise, sure they're totally harmless (unless you are trying to end an unwanted pregnancy.) Yep, also not dangerous to those of other faiths who want to build places of worship in their communities...wait who is trying to monopolize...? Ah yes, the liberal elite of course.

    October 25, 2011 at 3:57 pm |
    • Ryan

      Your comment makes it sound like every day religious people are outside of your home shouting,” You are going to hell” Have you ever been harassed by a religious person ? I fail to see how Christians believing/preaching the doctrine of hell is dangerous or a threat to peace& quiet. When it comes to Issues like abortion you focus only on one aspect of pregnancy the mother. You like so many pro choice people forget about the baby inside the womb.

      October 26, 2011 at 12:32 am |
  2. Tom

    All religious nuts are dangerous.

    October 25, 2011 at 2:30 pm |
  3. Eric

    Would evangelical christians extend this same expectation or arguements to muslims living in this country? Muslims that want their religious beliefs in public life and politics? I doubt it. American Evangelicals are one of the most hypocritcal people on the planet. Bunch of snakes.

    October 24, 2011 at 5:07 pm |
  4. Tom Piper'Sr.

    I was pretty sure that my son Tom Tom was cute little boy. The the doctor told my wife the garbage, I mean..the child she was carrying has the 99.999 percent of becoming gay that's why she wanted it to be aborted. But I've been able to stop her by her making her to siniff solvent 3X a day before meal and save Tom Tom Piper MY Son.

    But he carried several defects and deformities after birth that have been causing so much pain, anguish and misery in his entire useless life . He is half blind bald with 3 toes and a butthole on his forehead.

    It's the reason why he has been spreading hate and advocating abortion. He is pro-choice but want to limit the choice of the unborn restricted (2 choices) what his mother (my wife) gave to him. Die or suffer the same sufferings he gone through for him to have companions in misery.

    I know Tom tom so well coz I'm his father.

    October 24, 2011 at 4:42 am |
  5. Muneef

    Allow me to Quote;

    allah wallah bing tong big tong la la la (14:23).

    zingo bingo singaling a dingding (14:24).

    woot woot toot toot tumba bumba rin tin spin gin (14:25).

    and shalla thalla falla wallah (14:26).

    gobbledy wobbledy nobbbledy (14:27).

    Have you not considered manga ranga tanga (14:28).
    --
    Unquote:

    October 23, 2011 at 7:37 pm |
    • Muneef

      Correction: Oooh eee, oooh aah ahh, ting, tang, walla walla bing bang. Ooo ee oo ah ah ting tang walla walla bing bang.

      October 23, 2011 at 9:32 pm |
    • Muneef

      Hmm.
      Imposter in an act of arrogance...or Satan in pain from the truth of words?! I take refuge in GOD from Satan and his tribe...!

      October 25, 2011 at 7:24 pm |
  6. Muneef

    Allow me to Quote;

    And those who believed and did righteous deeds will be admitted to gardens beneath which rivers flow, abiding eternally therein by permission of their Lord; and their greeting therein will be, "Peace!" (14:23).

    Have you not considered how Allah presents an example, [making] a good word like a good tree, whose root is firmly fixed and its branches [high] in the sky? (14:24).

    It produces its fruit all the time, by permission of its Lord. And Allah presents examples for the people that perhaps they will be reminded. (14:25).

    And the example of a bad word is like a bad tree, uprooted from the surface of the earth, not having any stability. (14:26).

    Allah keeps firm those who believe, with the firm word, in worldly life and in the Hereafter. And Allah sends astray the wrongdoers. And Allah does what He wills. (14:27).

    Have you not considered those who exchanged the favor of Allah for disbelief and settled their people [in] the home of ruin? (14:28).
    ----
    Unquote:

    October 23, 2011 at 7:24 pm |
  7. Sola Scriptura

    The fool has said in his heart, “There is no God.” [Psalms 14:1]

    October 22, 2011 at 11:06 pm |
    • Bob

      The fool has said "I believe the stuff in the bible even though that priest guy keeps trying to bug-ger me and take my money". -Bob 1:1:1:1

      October 23, 2011 at 7:29 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      Bwahahhha!

      October 23, 2011 at 9:32 pm |
    • Tom Piper'Sr.

      OhI That kind of laugh really scares me. Are you still wearing the straitjacket, SON?

      October 24, 2011 at 4:00 am |
  8. Anna

    Thank you Albert Mohler for a great article.

    The funny thing about all these people who are scared, and who are saying all these terrible things about Christians and the Truth of God's Word is that one day they will believe in it too. I just feel sorry that so many people have been duped and blinded so that they can't see the Truth.

    October 22, 2011 at 3:34 pm |
    • Sue

      Yes, Anna, that truth being that the Christian god, that claimed personal, loving and omnipotent creature, doesn't exist.

      October 22, 2011 at 3:43 pm |
    • Irony

      @Anna – " I just feel sorry that so many people have been duped and blinded so that they can't see the Truth."

      Uh...Pot, meet Kettle.

      October 22, 2011 at 5:42 pm |
  9. H. Thompson

    Mr. Mohler Jr. does not see his evangelical beliefs as dangerous because he thinks the actions of evangelicals derived from their beliefs are good. To him, destroying science education about the big bang and the evolution of life by natural selection is good. Forcing people to bow their heads for a christian prayer at school ceremonies is good, and certainly not harmful or insulting to non-evangelicals. He also thinks that evangelicals in government office do good when they force their evangelical beliefs into legislation, police work, prisons, schools, and the judiciary. He would also not think of evangelicals using government to impose their culture on everyone as something bad, but as something righteous in the service of god's biblical law, not to be confused with Islamic Sahria law. Mr. Mohler also has no idea that his words are proof of how dangerous evangelicals are.

    October 22, 2011 at 10:16 am |
    • Mark from Middle River

      What is interesting is that over and over people declare those that believe or vote opposite than themselves are dangerous. This happens at the extremes of all sides, such as the Faithful and the Atheist. The use of labeling someone as dangerous is what gets folks killed. We have all witnessed it on the side of the Faithful with acts such as 9/11 and the abortion doctor that was killed in his own church. Now with Atheist we are hearing the exact same rhetoric and call to action that I fear will spur some radical Atheist to act upon that which has been labeled to him or her as dangerous.

      >>>”Mr. Mohler Jr. does not see his evangelical beliefs as dangerous because he thinks the actions of evangelicals derived from their beliefs are good. “

      Well, H.Thompson, do you not see that you have described every person on this planet? Everyone thinks that his or her actions are good, that is simple René Descartes. Can you say today, that your actions are not derived from what you believe to be right and good?

      >>>”Forcing people to bow their heads for a Christian prayer at school ceremonies is good, and certainly not harmful or insulting to non-evangelicals. “

      The forcing people I can understand/agree with you but at the same time when you take, for example, the student that mentioned her Faith in her graduation speech and Atheist got “up in arms”. The same when they attempt to stop kids of Faith from giving out Christmas cards at their school while at the same time having no issues promoting other segments of society. People of Faith see it as you are “forcing” a view on them and their families that they are not part of society. The Atheist that want to tear down the Nativity scene at City Hall, but have no issue displaying Native American or other cultures items during this “history month” or that.

      There has a middle ground between sending a kid to the principals office for not bowing his head in class and for sending another kid to the same office for attempting to do a book report on his favorite book of the Bible. Some where both sides do not feel slighted.

      >>>”He would also not think of evangelicals using government to impose their culture on everyone as something bad....”

      Again, you have just described so many if not the whole of government. I am pretty sure if a politician was Gay or a Lesbian, or maybe if another served in the military, or even something basic as Race or gender, who they are is pretty much how they will vote.

      Supreme Court Justice Sodmayor quoted along the lines that there are issues and court opinions that her as a wise Latina would be a better justice than others. This is simple culture and how we as a society must accept to coexistence that there are many who not only do not look like use but do not think or hold the same views as us.

      >>>”Mohler also has no idea that his words are proof of how dangerous evangelicals are.”

      ...and you, my friend freely willing to use the label “dangerous”, have no idea that your words are no different than many of the hateful groups that are out there.

      October 22, 2011 at 12:18 pm |
    • Darryl Schoeman

      Amen and well done to Mark from Middle River

      October 24, 2011 at 3:02 am |
  10. garc

    Yes, evangelicals are dangerous. FAR more dangerous than the "liberals" they claim are "taking away their rights." (Ironically, they cite Obama as an example, when he is uber-moderate and they cannot name one right, when pressed, that he has taken away from them.) Evangelicals frequently appear to want to take away the right to choose, the right NOT to pray, or to pray to a different God, the right to marry or even cohabitate with the person of your choice–unless it's the person of THEIR choice–etc., etc. Ironic that people don't catch who is REALLY wanting to take away your rights. Another irony, of course, is that they think they are all doing it for your own good, to save your soul–whether you agree to these terms or not.

    October 22, 2011 at 8:42 am |
    • maljazur

      Amen to that!

      October 24, 2011 at 9:37 am |
  11. Mark from Middle River

    Goodness Tom'Tom....your like a little toy... I rattled you so much that you made three post in under 4 minutes. Are you that shaky when folks respectfully challenge your views?

    >>>"I wonder, Mark, if you could determine in advance that your wife's fetus was gay, would you urge her to have an abortion?"

    Umm.... check my past post my friend and see that you have totally and unbelievably barked up the wrong tree.

    >>>>"I'm more concerned with some smiley emoticon posting zealot"

    We I ... I .... I feel another sneeze coming on. ..... Ah !!

    ACH :D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂

    Sorry about that Tom'Tom... didn't mean to sneeze all over you.... I need to get you a Kleenex.

    October 21, 2011 at 2:36 pm |
    • Muneef

      Mark.
      Is it ok to speak to a woman this way !!?  You know the heart of mothers towards their children and how hard to separate between them before or after birth...this is natural even animals have similar feelings (Motherly Love)...and taking any of that is like taking a piece of the mother no matter how ugly or handicap the born child turns up to be still she will give all the love and seeing it as the most beautiful creature in her eyes... Motherhood feelings is some thing that is being lost as morals are in this new world..   

      Mother is a school if you have prepared her well ,by doing that you have well prepared a good generations and a good nation...

      http://www.amblesideonline.org/PR/PR04p081EducatedMother.shtml

      October 21, 2011 at 5:47 pm |
    • Muneef

      Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son
      Yes, I'm a woman. And your "shame on you" has utterly no effect. Save it for someone who cares about your opinion.

      October 21, 2011 at 10:32 am | Report abuse |

      October 21, 2011 at 5:49 pm |
    • Mark from Middle River

      Muneef, please explain what I posted that was, I take it, insulting to mothers. I did offer the suggestion of sterilizing folks from birth and only after they get permission from the government and both parents are deemed to be medically able to produce a healthy, are they allowed to have the sterilization reversed. Then after the birth for the woman and after conformation of the pregnancy for the male, both get re-fixed.

      October 21, 2011 at 7:59 pm |
    • The Tempest

      Never mind Mark, if you havn't observed already

      "Politics makes strange bedfellows"
      Muneef and Tommy.

      October 21, 2011 at 9:43 pm |
    • Muneef

      Mark.
      Never mind I know you are good hearted I just wanted to point out that Tom was a female when all the time I thought was a male and I my self must have had crossfire with thinking was a male... The thing about mothers was to point out to her that giving birth is not every thing but rather raising the child as should by morals&ethics is the core heart of the issue and if cannot achieve that then there is no need to give birth at all since children are not toys to play with and then be stored on shelves...! So Peace to you friend and carry on with your task...

      October 22, 2011 at 2:15 am |
    • Muneef

      Mark.
      Actually I was on shock to find out that Tom was a female and using such language she was using...!! I thought women shouldn't be like that..! How can we expect such to raise children with good morals and ethics...?!

      October 22, 2011 at 2:24 am |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      So women are supposed to be the only ones in charge of raising children? Good grief, idiot. This is 2012, not 1012.

      October 22, 2011 at 6:25 pm |
    • Muneef

      Dear,
      Raising a child is a joint effort by husband and wife as per Hadith;
      Quote;
      That is why mother deserves our good treatment more than the father. A Tradition of the Prophet (PBUH) tells us that a Companion asked the Prophet, “ Who deserves my good treatment most?” “Your mother”, said the Prophet. “Who next?” “Your mother”. “Who next?” “Your mother”. “Who after that?” “Your father”. This means that the mother deserves three times more good treatment from her children than the father deserves. Another Tradition wants us to extend kind treatment to close relations on the mother’s side also (even to her friends). A famous Hadith (Tradition) says, “Paradise lies under the feet of the mother”. This means doing good to our mother lead us to Paradise.
      Unquote;
      Parent-Child Relationship in Islam
      http://www.islam101.com/sociology/parchild.htm

      October 22, 2011 at 7:00 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      I'm no more interested in your religious dogma than I am in the extremist Christian dogma, you dip.

      Get a freakin' clue stick and smack yourself, dumbbell.

      October 22, 2011 at 9:26 pm |
    • Muneef

      Guess Mark was right all along...

      You seem to admit that you are a failure and good for nothing...

      October 23, 2011 at 1:33 am |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      You don't have a grasp of English, Muneef. Keep working on it.

      October 23, 2011 at 10:24 am |
    • Muneef

      Tom.

      How very nice to remind me of that am trying my best to express my self in English since my mother tounge language is Arabic...living all my life in an Arabic speaking country where no English is used except with foreign visitors or clients...!!
      Am sure you have a good grip with the many languages you speak and write with...!?

      October 23, 2011 at 5:11 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      If I were as bad at is as you are, I'd stick to website in my own language.

      Look, dude, you're welcome to post wherever and whatever you want, but don't expect to get any quarter here. I don't take kindly to patronizing, se xist posts from anyone, regardless of cultural background. Women don't have the sole responsibility for parenting children, nor is it their only purpose in life. And my screen persona ain't all there is. Dig?

      October 23, 2011 at 5:29 pm |
    • Muneef

      Tom.
      Do as you please and that is your freedom...all I did was to point out what we as Muslims do but that does not mean to enforce upon you or expect from you to take accepting it...but rather I meant to bring your awareness of...
      although it never mentioned that peranting is the sole responsibility of mothers..? Do you now Dig? I loved this website for having to become across such people whom I think I could help to understand our thoughts and that's all...
      How old are you Tom you seem to be very young although you try to show being older...! Any way that is not my concern I guess so good night...

      October 23, 2011 at 7:19 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      I'm older than you are regardless of chronological age, Haji.

      October 23, 2011 at 9:34 pm |
    • Muneef

      THE ABODE OF PEACE

      Peace is not in the heart of the carnal man. Peace is not in the hearts of ministers, advocates, businessmen, dictators, kings and emperors. Peace is in the hearts of Yogis, sages, saints and spiritual men. It is in the heart of a desireless man, who has controlled his senses and the mind. Greed, lust, jealousy, envy, anger, pride, and egoism are the enemies of peace. Slay these enemies by the sword of dispassion, discrimination, and non-attachment. You will enjoy perpetual peace.

      http://www.sivanandaonline.org/public_html/?cmd=displayrightsection&section_id=1342

      October 24, 2011 at 7:06 pm |
    • Muneef

       11 ways to have a Calm and Peaceful Mind 

      The fast pace of the modern world may put our mind in chaotic state. Information comes and goes, we must do this and do that. There are simply too many things that reside in our mind. While it may cause stress or even depression, at the very least it puts us away from a peaceful state of mind. But a peaceful mind is essential for our effectiveness. It keeps us calm no matter how the situation is, and it allows us to stay joyful during the day. At the end of the day, it makes us happier and more productive.
      So here I’d like to share 11 ways to have a “mind like water”, a state of mind so peaceful that it’s like a calm water. Pick the ones that work for you:

      http://www.lifeoptimizer.org/2007/08/30/11-sure-fire-ways-to-have-a-calm-and-peaceful-mind/

      October 24, 2011 at 7:08 pm |
  12. Tho

    Well, by know you can guess that there was never be any chance of having an adult conversation with TomTom the Pipers Son. I get your point, you just need grow up in you responses. You make anything that you may say that is legitimate fade away in your asinine inability to communicate in any kind of way that would make anyone believe that you are older than 16. One that believes he has the upper hand has no reason to respond in such a way. Having said that, I could be wrong that you are just completely immature (I hope that I am) and you may just need to push away from the keyboard and breath. Then come back when you can respond in a respectful ADULT manner. Your points are valid. But they are not heard because of the manner you have chosen to respond. I think that your smarter than that...don't prove me wrong.

    October 21, 2011 at 12:54 pm |
    • Mark from Middle River

      Tho, we have folks like that on our side as well. They can't debate or they feel that they can. Tom'Tom has said and cut and pasted the same arguments that have been spoken and written since Roe vs Wade. Statements that our side has been said and said before, in the same manner. It is just when folks like Tom'Tom feel so right in their cause that when they encounter the other side, they devolve into insults and insane postings and speech.

      What would kill Tom'Tom is that entire families, co-workers , teams have had this argument and the discussion never goes to the level that him and others on all sides seemed destined to go.

      October 21, 2011 at 2:51 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      Suck on it if you don't like it.

      October 21, 2011 at 3:06 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      I'm smart enough to use "your" and "you're" correctly. That puts me leagues ahead of you.

      October 21, 2011 at 3:26 pm |
  13. Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

    When someone takes away your right to refuse medical treatment and forces you to have surgery against your will, you can let me know whether you're going to be polite about it, Mark. Suppose the government decides that you have a genetic flaw that would cause any children you fathered to be handicapped in some way, and said government decided you should therefore be prevented from impregnating anyone. Suppose it could forcibly sterilize you. Think it hasn't happened?

    October 21, 2011 at 12:06 pm |
    • Mark from Middle River

      >>>"Suppose the government decides that you have a genetic flaw that would cause any children you fathered to be handicapped in some way, and said government decided you should therefore be prevented from impregnating anyone."

      Hmmm....That sounds familier, someone mentioned stelization here before ...I know who mentioned...I DID!!

      Not only did I address that on October 18, 2011 at 5:38 pm you goof, you responded to it. So why ask the question about sterilization to the first person who made it as a suggestion and a option? I would ask if you read the post but you did respond to it, so now I am more concerned about other issues you might have in your life.

      October 21, 2011 at 2:44 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      No, you "goof", I didn't. One of my little stalkers likely did.

      I doubt you advocated the government involuntarily sterilizing you. If so, you're beyond idiotic.

      October 21, 2011 at 3:05 pm |
  14. Mark from Middle River

    Tom ' Tom..... you post are starting to look very desperate. A 9:16, 9:18 and a 9:20 post laced with a bit of insults looks like you are splashing in the water. I think what you are trying to argue is by today's medical standards it is not possible but, Chad's argument I think is that advancements in Medical Technology is pushing the viablity of the baby to be born earlier and earlier.

    That is a example of the "science" that so many Atheist champion but, when it threatens their view on a subject then why are those same Atheist not open and hostile to changing their opinion. Tom ' Tom, I think in our lifetime the nine months for a baby to be born will be pushed down to maybe 7 months.

    Question, you "cut and pasted" concerning birth defects and simular. Here is a question for you. If they were to be able to determine characteristics about a baby while still in the womb....such as medical issues such as autism, hearing and possible vision issues, in the same way as they can determine gender... would the parents be morally right to you, if they justified a termination of pregnacy due to those factors?

    There was a recent article that in China and other cultures are having issues because parents are terminating pregnancy when it is confirmed that the baby is a girl. Does this concern you?

    October 21, 2011 at 11:18 am |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      I'm more concerned with some smiley emoticon posting zealot believing he has any business interfering. Does it occur to you that a government that can force a woman to continue a pregnancy can just as easily force her to end it?

      October 21, 2011 at 11:49 am |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      I wonder, Mark, if you could determine in advance that your wife's fetus was gay, would you urge her to have an abortion?

      October 21, 2011 at 11:50 am |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      Did you not read that in the past 12 YEARS, the age of viability has not decreased at all? Do you know why? I do. Maybe you should read some research and find out.

      October 21, 2011 at 11:52 am |
  15. Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

    Chad must be desperately searching for any reliable, neutral source for that 12-week fetus that survived.

    October 21, 2011 at 10:02 am |
    • .

      Are you a Woman?

      SHAME ON YOU!!!!

      October 21, 2011 at 10:28 am |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      Yes, I'm a woman. And your "shame on you" has utterly no effect. Save it for someone who cares about your opinion.

      October 21, 2011 at 10:32 am |
    • .

      Your mom gave you a chance to live?????? Why????

      October 21, 2011 at 11:08 am |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      Oh, gosh, what a dimwit you are. My mother was pro-choice, just like I am. So is my mother-in-law. None of us ever had an abortion. None of us ever persuaded anyone else to have one, either. We simply all believed and continue to believe that the decision is the woman's. Not mine, not yours, not the church's, not the government's. Get it? That's what "the right to choose" means.

      October 21, 2011 at 11:20 am |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      Using a slew of punctuation marks does not make your argument valid.

      October 21, 2011 at 11:25 am |
    • .

      You were given a chance to live and yet you will deny some one else that chance?

      You are a DISGRACE to humanity!!!!

      October 21, 2011 at 12:08 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      Oh, blow it out your ear. I am not "denying" anyone anything. You are. You are denying women the right to decide for themselves-you want to decide for them. Sorry, dear, you're not smart enough to give advice on choosing a restaurant.

      October 21, 2011 at 12:15 pm |
    • Tom Piper'Sr.

      I was pretty sure that he was cute little boy. The the doctor told my wife the garbage, I mean..the child she was carrying has the 99.999 percent of becoming gay that's why she wanted it to be aborted. But I've been able to stop her by her making her to siniff solvent 3X a day before meal and save Tom Tom Piper MY Son.

      But he carried several defects and deformities after birth that have been causing so much pain, anguish and misery in his entire useless life . He is half blind, bald with 3 toes and a butthole on his forehead.

      It's the reason why he has been spreading hate and advocating abortion. He is pro-choice but want to limit the choice of the unborn restricted (2 choices) what his mother (my wife) gave to him. Die or suffer the same sufferings he gone through for him to have companions in misery.

      October 24, 2011 at 4:35 am |
  16. Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

    Wanted to make SURE that Chad saw this: the limit of viability in the developed world has declined since 50 years ago, but has remained unchanged in the last 12 years.[

    October 21, 2011 at 9:37 am |
    • chad

      In theory, there is no limit to the time span required for an unborn child to remain in the mothers womb. Current technology puts it at 21 weeks (you are correct, not 3-4 month's as I said). As medical abilities to mimic the wombs environment get better and better, the time span will decrease.

      just because a recent preemie tied a record established in 1987 doesn't imply a floor has been permanently established.

      October 21, 2011 at 3:42 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      IN 12 YEARS, it hasn't decreased. There's a very good reason why it won't continue to decrease ad infinitum. Why haven't you looked at research to find out what that reason is, chad?

      October 22, 2011 at 10:34 am |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      In addition, chad, regardless of the age of viability, a woman will still have the final say. When you can find a way to transplant an unwanted embryo into your body and give birth to it, do alert the media. Because then and only then will you have anything to say about what happens to it.

      October 22, 2011 at 6:27 pm |
  17. Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

    The limit of viability is the gestational age at which a prematurely born fetus/infant has a 50% chance of long-term survival outside its mother's womb. With the support of neonatal intensive care units, the limit of viability in the developed world has declined since 50 years ago, but has remained unchanged in the last 12 years.[4][5] Currently the limit of viability is considered to be around 24 weeks although the incidence of major disabilities remains high at this point.[6][7] Neonatologists generally would not provide intensive care at 23 weeks, but would from 26 weeks.[8][9]
    During the past several decades, neonatal care has improved with advances in medical science, and therefore the limit of viability has moved earlier.[10] As of 2006, the two youngest children to survive premature birth are thought to be James Elgin Gill (born on 20 May 1987 in Ottawa, Canada, at 21 weeks and 5 days gestational age),[11][12] and Amillia Taylor (born on 24 October 2006 in Miami, Florida, at 21 weeks and 6 days gestational age).[13][14] Both children were born just under 20 weeks from fertilization, or a few days past the midpoint of an average full-term pregnancy.
    Amillia Taylor is also often cited as the most-premature baby.[15] She was born on 24 October 2006 in Miami, Florida, at 21 weeks and 6 days gestation.[16] This report has created some confusion as her gestation was measured from the date of conception (through in-vitro fertilization) rather than the date of her mother's last menstrual period making her appear 2 weeks younger than if gestation was calculated by the more common method.[17] At birth, she was 9 inches (22.86 cm) long and weighed 10 ounces (283 grams).[15] She suffered digestive and respiratory problems, together with a brain hemorrhage. She was discharged from the Baptist Children's Hospital on 20 February 2007.[15]
    The lower limit of viability is approximately five months gestational age, and usually later

    October 21, 2011 at 9:20 am |
  18. Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

    Most pregnancies last around 40 weeks. Babies born between 37 and 42 completed weeks of pregnancy are called full term. Babies born before 37 completed weeks of pregnancy are called premature. In the United States, about 12.8 percent of babies (more than half a million a year) are born prematurely (1). The rate of premature birth has increased by 36 percent since the early 1980s (1).

    Premature birth is a serious health problem. Premature babies are at increased risk for newborn health complications, such as breathing problems, and even death. Most premature babies require care in a newborn intensive care unit (NICU), which has specialized medical staff and equipment that can deal with the multiple problems faced by premature infants.

    Premature babies also face an increased risk of lasting disabilities, such as mental retardation, learning and behavioral problems, cerebral palsy, lung problems and vision and hearing loss. Two recent studies suggest that premature babies may be at increased risk of symptoms associated with autism (social, behavioral and speech problems) (2, 3). Studies also suggest that babies born very prematurely may be at increased risk of certain adult health problems, such as diabetes, high blood pressure and heart disease (4).

    When are most premature babies born?
    More than 70 percent of premature babies are born between 34 and 36 weeks gestation (1). These are called late-preterm births. Late-preterm babies account for most of the increase in the premature birth rate in this country. A 2008 study found that cesarean sections (c-sections) account for nearly all of the increase in U.S. singleton premature births, and this group had the largest increase in c-section deliveries (5).

    About 12 percent of premature babies are born between 32 and 33 weeks gestation, about 10 percent between 28 and 31 weeks, and about 6 percent at less than 28 weeks gestation (1).

    All premature babies are at risk for health problems, but the earlier a baby is born, the greater the risk for serious complications. Babies born before about 32 weeks gestation usually are very small, and their organs are less developed than those of babies born later. Fortunately, advances in obstetrics and neonatology (the branch of pediatrics that deals with newborns) have improved the chances of survival for even the smallest babies.

    October 21, 2011 at 9:18 am |
  19. Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

    Yes, chad. I am. And if you knew a thing about the development of a fetus's lung tissue, you wouldn't look so stupid.

    Do post sources other than the nrlc propaganda that show any fetus surviving outside the uterus at 3 months. Go ahead. Then prove said fetus will ever be able to live any kind of normal life.

    Idiot.

    October 21, 2011 at 9:16 am |
  20. Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

    You really are dense, Chad. An infant can be cared for by anyone else. A fetus cannot. If you can't figure out the difference, read a biology text.

    Asserting that the age of viability will continue to drop because of better medical intervention bespeaks ignorance of biology as well. There are no fetuses that survive after 3 months or 4 months of gestation unless tremendous medical intervention takes place and none of those fetuses survive without immense physical and mental challenges.

    Pretending otherwise just makes you look ridiculous and ignorant of fetal development.

    Abortion isn't murder.

    You have still failed to tell us all how "sacred" all life is to you, personally. How many unwanted, unplanned children have you adopted? There are thousands and thousands of them in foster care. Many have physical or mental challenges. Many aren't white. Many aren't infants. Are you caring for any of them?

    October 21, 2011 at 9:07 am |
    • Chad

      A fetus cant be cared for by doctors?
      lol

      20 years ago an unborn child would have had to be 7 month's old to survive. Today it's 3-4 month's, 20 years from now it will be lower. Are you arguing that's not true? lol

      October 21, 2011 at 9:11 am |
    • Chad

      @Tom "personally. How many unwanted, unplanned children have you adopted? There are thousands and thousands of them in foster care. Many have physical or mental challenges. Many aren't white. Many aren't infants. Are you caring for any of them?"

      Web Definition: "An Ad Hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument. Typically, this fallacy involves two steps. First, an attack against the character of person making the claim, her circu mstances, or her actions is made (or the character, circ umstances, or actions of the person reporting the claim). Second, this attack is taken to be evidence against the claim or argument the person in question is making (or presenting). "

      A tactic extremely common among atheists (and actually anyone that has run out of real arguments to make)...

      October 21, 2011 at 9:32 am |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      So you are doing nothing to preserve the lives of those already born. Good to know.

      October 21, 2011 at 9:59 am |
    • Tomitina

      "An infant can be cared for by anyone else. A fetus cannot."

      @ Tom Tom

      Haven't you heard about pre-natal "care"? Obviously Biology is NOT your strong suit. Best time for you to shift to other interests, try cosmetology instead.

      October 27, 2011 at 12:36 pm |
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81
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.