home
RSS
Did Facebook save an unborn child?
Hundreds of adoption offers flooded in after a Catholic church posted this message on Monday.
July 11th, 2013
11:47 AM ET

Did Facebook save an unborn child?

By Daniel Burke, CNN Belief Blog Co-Editor
[twitter-follow screen_name='BurkeCNN']

(CNN) - On Monday morning, a Catholic parish in Virginia posted an urgent message from its priest on Facebook.

A couple was pregnant with a child diagnosed with Down syndrome, said the Rev. Thomas Vander Woude of Holy Trinity Catholic Church in Gainesville, Virginia.

If they didn't find a couple willing to adopt the unborn child by the end of day, they would abort it, according to the priest.

Within hours, hundreds of couples had contacted the church with adoption offers, according to Holy Trinity staffers.

The parish had to bring in extra staff to field the phone calls flooding in from around the world, including the Netherlands, Puerto Rico and Canada, said Martha Drennan, the parish's director of Adult Faith Formation & Liturgy.

In addition, Vander Woude received upwards of 600 e-mails, Drennan said. "It has to be well over 1,000 couples who were interested in adopting the baby," she said.

"It's really beautiful," said Vander Woude. "Here you have this unborn babe with handicaps and all these people almost immediately offer to take care of it. It's just really a testament to the goodness of people."

READ MORE: Dad's confession: I almost left my disabled daughter

On Tuesday, a local adoption agency presented three prospective families to the pregnant couple. Drennan said the church is not disclosing the name of the adoption agency, which screened prospective adopters, to protect the biological parents' privacy.

"It was so exciting to see all those people stepping up to give that baby a voice - a life," said Geraldine Erikson, a member of Holy Trinity who posted Vander Woude's urgent message on the church's Facebook page.

Erikson, who manages the church's social media accounts, also said she sent an e-mail blast to 140 families on a Yahoo discussion board for homeschooling families

Dozens of Catholic Facebook groups, as well as international media, have jumped on the story.

"I was doing a search this morning and saw some articles in languages I don't understand," Erikson said.

The Catholic Church teaches that all life is sacred and strongly advocates against abortion – but the story is even more personal for Vander Woude. The 47-year-old priest has a brother, Joseph, who has Down syndrome.

The priest's father, Thomas Vander Woude, died in 2008 after diving in a septic tank to save Joseph, who had fallen in while walking in the backyard.

"With our experience with my little brother Josie, this is something that is close to my heart for sure," said the priest.

More than 70 priests attended Thomas Vander Woude's funeral at Holy Trinity Church, including his eldest son, Thomas Jr., who officiated at the Mass and delivered the homily.

It's not unusual for families to find children with Down syndrome to adopt on social media,  said Diane Grover, founder and president of the International Down Syndrome Coalition. In fact, several of the coalition's board members have adopted children after seeing a Facebook post, she said.

"It's a beautiful way for people to get the information out there," Grover said. After checking to make sure the story was true, the coalition helped spread the word on social media about Vander Woude's message and received hundreds of calls in return, she said.

"Its a good eye-opener for our society to see that so many families value a child with Down syndrome like any other child and want to raise them as their own," said Jon Coleman, president of the National Down Syndrome Society.

"People with Down syndrome are making great strides in living more independently, attending college and working. With the proper support, they can do so much if given the opportunity."

READ MORE: Breakfast, lunch and hugs at Tim's Place

- CNN Religion Editor

Filed under: Abortion • Catholic Church • Church • Faith • Faith & Health • Virginia

soundoff (807 Responses)
  1. Floating babies in heaven

    Who got here first, and didn't want to allow another to arrive?

    Who got there first, after?

    These are questions only the angels can answer... or a baby, if you'd let it arrive.

    July 11, 2013 at 11:02 pm |
    • Observer

      Floating babies,

      Do all aborted babies go to heaven?

      July 11, 2013 at 11:04 pm |
    • Ken Margo

      Not to sound technical (I guess I am anyway) babies are not aborted. Fetuses or embryos.

      July 11, 2013 at 11:08 pm |
    • I'm sorry Dave, I can't let you do that

      Wouldn't they be in Limbo?

      July 11, 2013 at 11:10 pm |
    • Grandma

      Floating...,
      "These are questions only the angels can answer... or a baby, if you'd let it arrive."

      Strange, I had 4 babies (and 3 grandbabies, thus far), and none of them answered those questions. I guess I got gypped.

      July 11, 2013 at 11:11 pm |
    • Observer

      Ken Margo,

      You are right. Thanks for the correction.

      July 11, 2013 at 11:14 pm |
    • Floating babies in heaven

      Not just angels, God too, the Holy Spirit, and Jesus, for example:

      Mat 18:10 Take heed that ye despise not one of these little ones; for I say unto you, That in heaven their angels do always behold the face of my Father which is in heaven. For the Son of man is come to save that which was lost.

      Aborted babies are despised, unloved, rejected, tossed away after being shredded in the womb. Wait until the baby smiles before you decide what to do. Else it looks to me like they get there first...

      July 11, 2013 at 11:17 pm |
    • My Take

      Catholics believe in Limbo. It's not in the Bible. For all other Christians a baby carries the sin of its parents and if it hasn't been saved then who knows what awaits it in the afterlife.

      July 11, 2013 at 11:18 pm |
    • Observer

      Floating babies in heaven,

      "Little ones" usually mean children and babies, not fetuses.

      Try again. The Bible NEVER mentions the word "abortion".

      July 11, 2013 at 11:21 pm |
    • I'm sorry Dave, I can't let you do that

      My Take

      So the sins of the father do pass on to the son?

      July 11, 2013 at 11:24 pm |
    • My Take

      The sin of Adam is passed down to all of humanity.

      July 11, 2013 at 11:25 pm |
    • Floating babies in heaven

      Who else despises their dead baby?

      Abortions were happening 1580 years before Jesus said it... recorded abortions. Add time before that for unrecorded.

      July 11, 2013 at 11:26 pm |
    • Grandma

      Floating...

      "Happy is the one who seizes your infants and dashes them against the rocks." Psalm 137:9

      And please do not slip-slide out of it by saying that's the "Old" ways. Your "Jesus", as a Jew, would have believed it - and if you allege that he was "God", he even **wrote** it!

      July 11, 2013 at 11:27 pm |
    • Floating babies in heaven

      It's the smile, you need to see the smile, then you know, you know it's love.

      Wait for the smile, then decide.

      July 11, 2013 at 11:32 pm |
    • Observer

      Floating babies in heaven

      "It's the smile, you need to see the smile, then you know, you know it's love.

      Wait for the smile, then decide."

      God never waited for the smile when he killed every fetus on the face of the earth.

      July 11, 2013 at 11:34 pm |
    • Floating babies in heaven

      Jesus was right, if you despise a baby as if it's your enemy and want to smash it and shread it... like in an abortion.

      Wait for the smile... the smile is pure love. Nothing better, ever. That is the definition of love.

      July 11, 2013 at 11:38 pm |
    • Grandma

      Floating...,

      Didn't the babies of the Babylonians and the Amalekites, smile?

      July 11, 2013 at 11:39 pm |
    • Observer

      Floating babies in heaven,

      Skip your "hate the baby" fantasy. There are plenty of reasons for abortions and a major one is family planning meaning that the mother may want a baby in the future that she can give a better life to.

      July 11, 2013 at 11:43 pm |
    • Freddy

      Why do the babies have to be born? Don't you guys believe that they have souls starting at conception?

      July 11, 2013 at 11:48 pm |
    • Candiano

      Floating babies, you forgot to post the verses up to Mathew 18:10, so I took the liberty of doing it for you.

      <<

      >>

      Show Commentary
      Add parallel
      Matthew 18
      New International Version (NIV)
      The Greatest in the Kingdom of Heaven

      18:1 At that time the disciples came to Jesus and asked, “Who, then, is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven?”

      2 He called a little child to him, and placed the child among them. 3 And he said: “Truly I tell you, unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven. 4 Therefore, whoever takes the lowly position of this child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven. 5 And whoever welcomes one such child in my name welcomes me.

      6 “If anyone causes one of these little ones—those who believe in me—to stumble, it would be better for them to have a large millstone hung around their neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea. 7 Woe to the world because of the things that cause people to stumble! Such things must come, but woe to the person through whom they come! 8 If your hand or your foot causes you to stumble, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to enter life maimed or crippled than to have two hands or two feet and be thrown into eternal fire. 9 And if your eye causes you to stumble, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to enter life with one eye than to have two eyes and be thrown into the fire of hell.

      As you can see, Jesus was talking about a CHILD. As in, already born. As in, he wasn't talking about a fetus. As in, stop cherry picking to support your argument, because the Bible says nothing about abortion, at all, and surely if the topic was so sinful, it would have been mentioned at least ONCE.

      I won't even get into the whole lopping off of hands and gouging out of eyes.

      July 12, 2013 at 11:15 am |
    • WASP

      @candiano: " the Bible says nothing about abortion"

      actually the bible supports abortion.

      NUMBERS 5:20-22
      20 But if you have gone astray while married to your husband and you have made yourself impure by having se-xu-al relations with a man other than your husband”— 21 here the priest is to put the woman under this curse—“may the Lord cause you to become a curse among your people when he makes your womb miscarry and your abdomen swell. 22 May this water that brings a curse enter your body so that your abdomen swells or your womb miscarries.”
      “‘Then the woman is to say, “Amen. So be it.”

      I BELIEVE THIS IS PRETTY CLEAR THAT GOD IS PRO-ABORTION.

      July 12, 2013 at 1:15 pm |
    • Floating babies in heaven

      Yes the verse before the children Jesus is talking about are alive there then, and they're loved by the people bringing them to Jesus.

      But then Jesus shifts gears and talks about dead, despised children, that are in heaven as angels. The only children I know that he could be describing that their parents would despise them, are the ones having been aborted for 1580 years prior. There are records of abortions centuries before he said it. The people then despised them as much as anyone else ever has. They are real children, in heaven, as angels, and angels have names. They don't remain nameless, someone names them in heaven. They have friends, and they can see God. They got their first.

      Jesus told them because he came to save the lost. He didn't tell them because it was alright to do it. It was said as something to learn from. He was teaching them what they needed to know.

      July 13, 2013 at 8:51 am |
  2. rebecca

    Can't stand facepage. So many people are addicted to it these days but there's literally nothing worth reading on there.

    July 11, 2013 at 10:40 pm |
    • I'm sorry Dave, I can't let you do that

      Why say facepage? You know it's called Facebook. Only a hermit who has completely cut himself off from society would not be aware of Facebook's name. Is the need to feel offbeat/anti-society so great that you must pretend not to know the name of the most popular social networking site on the planet?

      July 11, 2013 at 10:49 pm |
    • bostontola

      So you think finding parents for this baby was worthless?

      July 11, 2013 at 10:49 pm |
  3. bostontola

    Friar VW asked people to pray for the infant and wisdom for the parents. A little insulting towards the parents given they were trying to find adoptive parents. As a religious ritual, prayer seems like a very ancient practice that modern man would know is not effective. Meditation can be effective to quell strong emotions and stress to get better thinking, but praying for an omnipotent being to intervene with people is inconsistent with other religious precepts (free will).

    July 11, 2013 at 10:39 pm |
  4. commonsense101

    Ahhhh abortion. Who says the eugenics movement is dead?

    July 11, 2013 at 10:22 pm |
    • I'm sorry Dave, I can't let you do that

      Not all abortion is based on eugenics. In fact, very little of it is.

      July 11, 2013 at 10:32 pm |
  5. Tam

    Oh man – religion ..... AGAIN – being part of a damn conversation. It's about choice from a woman's point and her decision not about God or Jesus or any high power that you believe in. Just a tough decision that a woman had or has to make ........ That's why everyone hates religion and find it hard to believe – freaks talk about it so damn much O_o

    July 11, 2013 at 9:57 pm |
    • Just the Facts Ma'am...

      It's because Christians don't think you can get pregnant without Jesus wiggling his little wand...

      July 12, 2013 at 2:31 pm |
  6. shirley12

    I am a Christian and a woman. I am a mother and a grandmother. I myself could never abort a baby I was carrying for any reason, and would hope that none of my children or grandchildren would, but I would support them if they made the decision to do so. I believe that every woman has that right, the right to choose. I also believe in the death penalty. I have had discussions with my Pastor on these subjects, he agrees with me (according to the Bible) on the death penalty but we disagree about abortion....but that is ok, we are all adults and we can agree to disagree because we both know that there is only one Judge for all decisions we make in life.

    July 11, 2013 at 9:54 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Other One

      But then there is only one truth and one of you (you or your Pastor) is wrong on the basis of it.

      July 11, 2013 at 10:00 pm |
    • I'm sorry Dave, I can't let you do that

      Simon Cowell?

      July 11, 2013 at 10:03 pm |
    • Ken Margo

      You sound conflicted. You're against abortion but are for the death penalty? Where's the consistency?

      July 11, 2013 at 10:26 pm |
    • I'm sorry Dave, I can't let you do that

      Most liberals are pro-abortion and anti-death penalty. They are two completely different kettles of fish. And at least she acknowledges the right to choose. Being anti-abortion but being pro-choice is a sign of intellectual maturity.

      July 11, 2013 at 10:30 pm |
    • Ken Margo

      @Dave...............We're not pro abortion. We're pro CHOICE. I don't cheer abortions. I'm against the death penalty because i feel the govt. should set an example and NOT kill people. Also our legal system is far from perfect. We shouldn't give a death sentence with such an imperfect system.

      July 11, 2013 at 10:36 pm |
    • I'm sorry Dave, I can't let you do that

      Well, you said anti abortion in reference to Shirley, not anti-choice. She clearly states she is pro-choice. As for the death penalty, if guilt is proven beyond reasonable doubt, many criminals deserve execution, not to mention the burden lifted from the taxpayer.

      July 11, 2013 at 10:44 pm |
    • Hermes

      No one deserves to be killed, not even a serial murderer who has taken the life of others. Human life is sacred regardless of how old a person is or what they have done in their life.

      July 11, 2013 at 10:48 pm |
    • I'm sorry Dave, I can't let you do that

      Hermes

      Sanct.ity is an abstract concept, one rational people don't believe in. Many people deserve to die and 'sanct.ity' is not a reasonable argument otherwise.

      July 11, 2013 at 10:53 pm |
    • Ken Margo

      My reference to anti abortion is to what shirley wrote. As far as guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. The innocence project has gotten 310 people's conviction overturned. 18 of those people were on death row. Those were 18 INNOCENT people the govt. was going to kill. So much for your guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

      July 11, 2013 at 10:54 pm |
    • I'm sorry Dave, I can't let you do that

      Well there was obviously reasonable doubt in those cases. I'd argue that we also need to widen the net with executions. R.ape, child molestation, aggravated assault and burglary should all be executable crimes.

      July 11, 2013 at 11:01 pm |
    • Ken Margo

      @Hermes....................."Human life is sacred" Sorry but that line is a bunch bull. And I'll prove it.

      Repubs will not pass common sense gun laws despite the fact over 10,000 people die from gun violence and 18,000 people commit suicide every year.

      Repubs are against healthcare reform (Obama care) Did you know it has been estimated that over 40,000 people die a year because of lack of insurance

      Mutt Romney ran his presidency on cutting and gutting social programs poor people need

      'ol bushie (dubya) killed over 100,000 Iraqis that had noting to do with 9/11

      I could go on but you might pass out from the carnage.

      People are very good at killing others.

      July 11, 2013 at 11:03 pm |
    • Hermes

      That is what I find so utterly terrifying about atheism, Dave. The total lack of a moral standard or higher authority. Today you might feel that murderers deserve to die, but tomorrow you might decide the same should apply for shoplifters. Anything goes so long as the majority agree.

      July 11, 2013 at 11:03 pm |
    • Ken Margo

      @dave.......If there was reasonable doubt, they never should have been convicted! Like I said an IMPERFECT system should not have the ultimate penalty.

      July 11, 2013 at 11:06 pm |
    • I'm sorry Dave, I can't let you do that

      Ken Margo

      Apart from Iraq, you're naming all the good things the Republicans have done.

      July 11, 2013 at 11:07 pm |
    • I'm sorry Dave, I can't let you do that

      Hermes

      Maybe shoplifters should die.

      Ken Margo

      People often get convicted when there's reasonable doubt.

      July 11, 2013 at 11:09 pm |
    • I'm sorry Dave, I can't let you do that

      I should have maybe made it clearer. By reasonable doubt, I meant beyond a shadow of a doubt.

      July 11, 2013 at 11:14 pm |
    • Hermes

      Ken, Republicans are politicians and rarely does a good person enter into or amount to anything in the world of politics.

      July 11, 2013 at 11:16 pm |
    • Ken Margo

      And you wonder why Arabs can find people to fly planes into our buildings. If killing 100,000 Iraqis seem OK to you. don't complain when they do something to us.

      As far as the uninsured are concerned. Do you realize when an uninsured person ends up in the hospital and can't pay the bill, guess who pays. YOU DO.

      Do you also realize that you have no choice but to pay it? So that makes it a MANDATE.

      Did you know the mandate was a republican idea?

      Gun violence cost ALL of US billions in increased health care costs.

      I guess life is good when you live in fantasy island.

      July 11, 2013 at 11:19 pm |
    • I'm sorry Dave, I can't let you do that

      Ken Margo

      Spoken like a true liberal automaton.

      July 11, 2013 at 11:22 pm |
    • Observer

      Hermes

      "That is what I find so utterly terrifying about atheism, Dave. The total lack of a moral standard or higher authority"

      Believers aren't nearly as stupid as you think they are. Most of them are bright enough to figure out, for instance, that it's not a good idea to go around killing everyone without needing a 2,000-year-old book to do their thinking for them.

      July 11, 2013 at 11:29 pm |
    • Ken Margo

      Reply like a clueless repub

      And you wonder why Obama spa,nked your boys. You're lucky he can't run again!

      I couldn't help but notice you didn't say I was lying.

      July 11, 2013 at 11:33 pm |
    • Akira

      Its the save the fetus, starve a child mentality that the far right and social conservatives fight for.

      In other word, they don't care. At all. Pffft.

      July 11, 2013 at 11:49 pm |
    • Lisa

      Those are your choices Shirley, not everyone's.

      July 11, 2013 at 11:51 pm |
    • Ken Margo

      @Akira....................."Its the save the fetus, starve a child mentality that the far right and social conservatives fight for"

      I don't understand how they feel that way. I have two kids. If were to stop feeding my kids I'd be called the worst kind of dad you could imagine. Yet this is a repub policy?

      July 11, 2013 at 11:57 pm |
    • I'm sorry Dave, I can't let you do that

      Ken Margo

      Where did I say I was a Republican?

      July 12, 2013 at 12:38 pm |
    • Cpt. Obvious

      @ I'm sorry Dave...

      Are you saying that people should read your posts and not conclude that you are a republican?

      There are other members here who will argue and advocate for a particular viewpoint (say god belief) and then when another person writes as if that person is a believer, the poster says something like: "Whoah!! Hold on there, cowboy?!? When did I ever say that I believed in god?!? When???? Where???? Where did I ever say that?!?!??"

      I think that sort of behavior is sh!tty. What about you?

      July 12, 2013 at 12:48 pm |
    • I'm sorry Dave, I can't let you do that

      No, assumption is far more sh!tty. One can agree with a number of a political party's actions/views without being a supporter of that party.

      July 12, 2013 at 12:53 pm |
    • Cpt. Obvious

      What you call "assumption," I call "reasonable determination based on evidence." If 99.5% of your posts espouse the republican party line, then that's evidence of your tendency to agree with the republican position. If you tend to agree with the republican position in nearly every comment, then it's reasonable to conclude that you are republican.

      Again, if all the evidence of the reasoning of my posts points to me being an atheist, then regardless of whether I have ever claimed to be an atheist is irrelevant to the logical conclusion that I am one.

      I think your reasoning is fvcked up, in this case, and I think asking someone where you ever said you were a republican when the vast majority of your posts advocate the republican position is an azzhole move.

      July 12, 2013 at 12:59 pm |
    • Saraswati

      @Ken, I don't see why opposing either abortion or the death penalty should entail opposing the other. There could be a number of reasons one opposes each. For instance some oppose abortion because they think we need more workers in the next generation or because they think as many potential persons need to be born as part of the requirements or their religion. These have nothing to do with the death penalty. Or one might oppose the death penalty because one thinks the risk of killing innocent persons too great, or the cost too high. Neither relevant if you think fertilized eggs aren't "persons" and limiting unwanted children a cost savings. There doesn't seem to me to be much reason to tie these ideas together unless your religion does.

      July 12, 2013 at 1:06 pm |
    • I'm sorry Dave, I can't let you do that

      I agree with low taxes and privatized public services, which I stated twice. I fail to see how that implies that I support the Republican position in every comment.

      July 12, 2013 at 1:07 pm |
    • Saraswati

      @Sorry, You could probably clear things up by listing a couple of positions on which you disagree with Republicans and telling us how often you've voted Democrat or another party.

      July 12, 2013 at 1:10 pm |
    • I'm sorry Dave, I can't let you do that

      Saraswati

      I disagree with more or less everything else on the Republican platform. I've never voted either Republican or Democrat. I used to vote Reform until Buchanan took over, now I don't vote.

      July 12, 2013 at 1:14 pm |
    • Cpt. Obvious

      @dave

      Even though I disagree with you about 5% of the time, I enjoy reading your posts and the way you present your reasoning. I believe I have read at least 70% of them or so. I have NEVER seen you post anything that a moderate republican would disagree with, and most of the political views you post seem much more to the extreme end of the republican spectrum.

      Also, what about the smarminess/politeness of the situation? I mean, why not just clear up the matter? Something like, "Actually, I'm not a republican, but..." or "I can see where you might get the idea that I'm a republican, but actually..." or "Just because many of my views are the same or similar to the general republican view doesn't mean that I am a republican. I feel that...."

      Again, the question is hostile and intended to confound since you could clear up the matter completely by just saying if you are or aren't a republican. It's antagonism for no other sake than antagonism, and that's why it's a d!ck move.

      July 12, 2013 at 1:15 pm |
    • I'm sorry Dave, I can't let you do that

      Cpt. Obvious

      And your posts here to me aren't antagonistic?

      July 12, 2013 at 1:22 pm |
    • Cpt. Obvious

      What was that about diversion?

      No, I don't think my posts to you have been antagonistic, though some of my wording may have been harsh. Besides, I wasn't talking about being antagonistic, I was talking about being needlessly antagonistic; more specifically, I was talking about being antagonistic purely for the sake of being antagonistic, which I am certainly not doing in this exchange. I am attempting to help you not alienate your readers by being off-putting when you could, instead, draw them into your argument more fully and not waste time with a d!ck move when you could simply clarify in less time and with a greater chance for civilized discussion. If you think you're on the right side of the issue, why derail the topic with a useless, snarky reply?

      And besides, I am only expressing my personal viewpoint. I'm telling you that it seems like a d!ck move and much more the sort of thing I would expect from others--not you. You are welcome to conclude that I am in the minority and everybody else thinks its a perfectly swell idea to do all the time.

      July 12, 2013 at 1:31 pm |
    • Just the Facts Ma'am...

      "I agree with low taxes and privatized public services" I like low taxes as well. So which private company should we hire as the police and fire departments? My neighbor Fred didn't buy in to the fire department or police department so I guess when he as that drunken party at 2 am wheer they light the living room on fire they can just burn. Of course that kinda sucks for me as I had to call the fire department to stand there for hours watering my house so it didn't catch fire from all those burning neighbors...

      I though about taking a trip to get away from all the noise but without any interstate highways and publicly maintained roads travel has gotten near impossible. So I stayed home and tried to relax but fell through my lawn chair and cut the back of my leg and i'm bleeding a lot and I would love to call the emergency hotline but 911 was discontinued and I forgot to pay my private ambulance company their monthly dues last month so... i'm just going... to lie back down... on ... thie broken ... chai...

      July 12, 2013 at 1:33 pm |
    • I'm sorry Dave, I can't let you do that

      Cpt. Obvious

      I honestly don't care if I alienate people, I'm not going to alter my writing style to meet their expectations. Anyway, it's noy like my diatribe with Ken was pleasant beforehand.

      Just the Facts Ma'am...

      Should've paid your dues.

      July 12, 2013 at 1:38 pm |
    • Cpt. Obvious

      Ah. Ok. I was unaware. My reasoning did not account for that possibility because I typically reason that most people want their ideas (that they consider "good") to be carried beyond themselves and be adopted by other thinking individuals. In that scenario, the individual wanting his idea to spread would not want to be antagonistic and confounding for no other reason than to be antagonistic and confounding.

      I apologize for misunderstanding your position.

      July 12, 2013 at 1:51 pm |
    • I'm sorry Dave, I can't let you do that

      Apology accepted.

      July 12, 2013 at 1:53 pm |
    • Cpt. Obvious

      @*

      My hope is that a conscientious person would call me out if and when I use a d!ck move. Sometimes I am antagonistic because I reason that process to be the most efficient path to the underlying issue that most needs to be addressed. I don't deny that.

      I do point out hypocritical reasoning whether or not I agree with the stated conclusion or argument, because I want to know the best reasoning possible for an argument and I don't consider good reasoning to include hypocrisy. True learning can only occur in the presence of cognitive dissonance, so sometimes you have to express the presence of that cognitive dissonance before any progress can be made.

      If you were intending to comment on my s3xual prowess, then you are correct. I am quite the expert at such moves.

      July 12, 2013 at 1:58 pm |
    • Cpt. Obvious

      @dave

      Could you please explain how the retort "Should've paid your dues" answers the complex contingencies raised by JTFM's scenarios? Thanks.

      July 12, 2013 at 2:01 pm |
    • I'm sorry Dave, I can't let you do that

      It's self-evident.

      July 12, 2013 at 2:06 pm |
    • *

      "I am quite the expert at such moves."

      Your hairy palms bear witness to that.

      July 12, 2013 at 2:06 pm |
    • Cpt. Obvious

      No, it isn't. The issues raised deal with OTHERS not paying THEIR dues, so "should've paid your dues" only works if you are advising one person to pay everyone's dues. Is that what you were advising, or was that a fvcking stupid reply?

      July 12, 2013 at 2:10 pm |
    • I'm sorry Dave, I can't let you do that

      Surely you, of all people, can reasonably determine my meaning based on evidence.

      July 12, 2013 at 2:13 pm |
    • Cpt. Obvious

      You didn't show any reasoning, so evidence doesn't yet factor in. Your response is evidence that you did not understand the reasoning in JTFM's post.

      July 12, 2013 at 2:17 pm |
    • I'm sorry Dave, I can't let you do that

      You may rely on it.

      July 12, 2013 at 2:19 pm |
    • Just the Facts Ma'am...

      "Should've paid your dues." aka "Fvck 'em"

      These libertarian morons love to read Rand and think of themselves as some kind of defender of liberty but all of them forget that John Galt used publicly funded roadways to get to work just like everyone else. Humans need society and well funded public services for all. I do not care that I may never drive accross the country, but I am glad our government funded highway projects to connect us so others can. I don't care if I never get to use medicare, I know many elderly friends and family that do and we could fix it if we were willing to increase deposits by 2%. Are there people who take advantage of the system? Of sourse there are, but I am not going to begrudge the 94% of people who use it honestly just because of the 6% of fraud anbuse. We can crack down on the fraud and abuse and lower that 6% number if we want to, but idiot republicans and some libertarians want to tear the whole thing down because of their selfish ideology. Well I say "Fvck 'em", not to those needing the benefits but to those trying to take away our social safety net that has enabled America to be the envy of the world. Do we have the best system? No. There is always room for improvement, but we do not need to destroy social security and medicare and the publicly funded police and fire and roadways to do it.

      July 12, 2013 at 2:26 pm |
    • Cpt. Obvious

      Ok. I will stick with the only reasoning that you've provided and I have outlined above.

      July 12, 2013 at 2:26 pm |
    • I'm sorry Dave, I can't let you do that

      Just the Facts Ma'am...

      Exactly, fvck 'em They're not my concern so they can keep their filthy hands out of my pocket.

      Cpt. Obvious

      You do that.

      July 12, 2013 at 2:31 pm |
    • Just the Facts Ma'am...

      "Exactly, fvck 'em They're not my concern so they can keep their filthy hands out of my pocket"

      Sadly, fvck 'em turns quite quickly into fvck 'me as you find out that we are social animals that need each other. By letting one sector of society fall through the cracks you put yourself on the chopping block.

      "First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out– Because I was not a Socialist. Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out– Because I was not a Trade Unionist. Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out– Because I was not a Jew. Then they came for me–and there was no one left to speak for me." – Martin Niemoller

      July 12, 2013 at 2:41 pm |
    • Cpt. Obvious

      Actually, dave's comment is more like "you paid your dues, but other people didn't, so fvck everyone."

      July 12, 2013 at 2:45 pm |
    • I'm sorry Dave, I can't let you do that

      Just the Facts Ma'am...

      If only they did come for the socialists and trade unionists. I'm not too pushed on the Jews though, although take Sarah Silverman if you have the time.

      July 12, 2013 at 2:46 pm |
    • Just the Facts Ma'am...

      All joking aside, do you not at least admit that there are some things that must remain publicly funded? I have a hard time imagining an America where we only have private police working on behalf of their members but just avoiding these anarchy zones. Do you really think anyone could contain the anarchy to those anarchy zones? Or do you imagine something akin to a "Green Zone" in each city where people with enough money can enjoy their police, fire and roads but everyone outside the wall is SOL? I hear many libertarians chanting this war cry but they never flesh out their desired future Utopia with anything more than "not outa my pocket!" What a selfish, insular and demented way for a social animal to behave, or is it that the social part was beaten out of them at some point by abusive parents or peers? It's very curious to me how someone can look accross the way at another human and not feel any empathy and never mentally walk in their shoes even for a moment so that they can be so hardhearted and bitter that they begrudge them food stamps or medical care housing assistance and instead just label them all "freeloaders" and walk away. And if you think the vast majority of those on food stamps or wellfare enjoy their situation and don't wish to be out of it with a good paying job so they can feed their kids with dignity instead of feeling guilt and shame then you must be blind deaf and dumb.

      July 12, 2013 at 3:01 pm |
    • I'm sorry Dave, I can't let you do that

      I do acknowledge the necessity of a police force, fire department and a strong but isolationist military, paid for by a consumption tax. As for everything else, fvck 'em.

      July 12, 2013 at 3:06 pm |
    • Saraswati

      You can't really have a conversation about what's right or ethical with someone who genuinely doesn't give a crap about other people. The best you can do is structure society to that such sociopaths have as low a likelihood as possible of reproducing.

      July 13, 2013 at 8:07 am |
    • Open the pod bay door

      Sociopaths can be useful. Who else can we turn to when we need someone to send our young people into war, or someone to imprison and execute the people we find guilty of crimes, or someone to deprive people whom we wish were invisible of basic rights and liberties?

      July 13, 2013 at 8:24 am |
  7. faith

    what i do with my body is none of your business. it is mine and no one has the right to tell me what i shall do with it or not do with it. it is my sovereign domain.

    July 11, 2013 at 9:37 pm |

    • Sovereign domain? Most of the genetic information in your body is not even human.

      July 11, 2013 at 9:43 pm |
  8. Shery Barnes

    I'm just glad she had a choice.

    July 11, 2013 at 8:32 pm |
    • Ken Margo

      That "choice" is what repubs want for women. No abortions. Adoption only.

      July 11, 2013 at 8:53 pm |
    • I'm sorry Dave, I can't let you do that

      Abortions for some, miniature American flags for others.

      July 11, 2013 at 10:04 pm |
  9. jarvusd

    They should abort it anyway.

    July 11, 2013 at 8:18 pm |
    • Ken Margo

      When My wife was pregnant with our second child. We (she) took all the tests to see if the baby would be born with birth defects. I have to be honest, if she had any she wouldn't be here.

      July 11, 2013 at 8:28 pm |
  10. ...

    Ah, religion. Interference with nature at its finest. And yet they complain about GMOs and pharmaceuticals.

    July 11, 2013 at 8:09 pm |
  11. Riano

    Hey Sam Yaza, before you get to decide who gets into the gene pool, you should probably know it's pool, not poll. Incorrect word usage is probably the least of your problems. You seem deeply troubled and filled with hate. I am guessing your life sucks.

    July 11, 2013 at 8:04 pm |
  12. Sam Yaza

    great now another down syndrome in the human gene poll. i know I'm cruel, but nature dictates how to treat these anomalies, and its the same way a mother rabbit would treat her children when they are born with a defect.

    July 11, 2013 at 7:40 pm |
  13. utopaline

    This is very inspiring to see so many people trying to help.

    How about we get some of these thousand plus people to adopt living children in foster care as well. WE have thousands of unwanted beautiful children all over North America looking for a loving home as well.

    I get very upset when I see the far right (not in this case so much) that want to protect unborn babies, but once they are born f^@k em

    July 11, 2013 at 6:57 pm |
    • funny farm

      Dido,

      July 11, 2013 at 7:07 pm |
    • toocherie

      That was my first thought as well. Why would there be any children in foster care or in an orphanage if there were that many people willing to take in a child? I wonder if some who said they were interested were really just trying to prevent the abortion and had no intention of adopting but were trying to buy time.

      July 11, 2013 at 7:27 pm |
    • Guest poster

      If you contact you're local social service agency they'll tell you that most of the children in foster care are not eligible for adoption. The goal of most foster care agencies is to reunite children with their birthparents or a birthfamily. There are many foster parents who want to adopt but the children they are caring for are not eligible for adoption. There's a lot that needs to happen before a child in foster care is even available for adoption.

      July 11, 2013 at 8:54 pm |
  14. bostontola

    To the folks who criticize the mother's choice:
    Pro choice means her choice, not you get to choose for her. Of course there will be people who would make a different choice if they were in that situation. They would get to make that choice as well.

    July 11, 2013 at 6:28 pm |
    • Akira

      I agree.
      People haven't figured out that if they give the government the power to decide, the government may decide things they don't want. To give the power to forbid abortions is to also cede the power to force them.

      July 11, 2013 at 6:37 pm |
    • Guest poster

      If a woman is experiencing a crisis and chooses something based solely on a knee-jerk emotional reaction, is it true choice? I think the important thing here is this couple felt like they were experiencing a crisis, an outpouring of support was shown for them, and because of it, they can more clearly assess their options rather than making a decision governed by shock and some sort of 'deadline'. Before this, did she really feel like she had a choice?

      July 11, 2013 at 9:01 pm |
    • Akira

      What knee-jerk emotional reaction are you referring to, Guest?

      July 11, 2013 at 9:16 pm |
    • faith

      it is my body and with it i am going to murder my aunt lily

      July 11, 2013 at 9:20 pm |
    • faith

      it is my body and with it i am going to murder my aunt lily

      it is my body. i made it. from nothing. i willed myself into existence. out of the vast vacuum of nothingness and before i ever had a thought, i decided to make me. i did a fine job. i am god, my friend, if you don't like it, start something

      July 11, 2013 at 9:24 pm |
    • Observer

      faith,

      What does God have to do with this? His book never mentioned abortion, but it did offer some good arguments that support abortion.

      July 11, 2013 at 9:27 pm |
    • Akira

      Yes, Observer, one would think it would be mentioned somewhere if God was against it, instead of giving out the recipe to cause an abortion of a woman suspected of adultery.

      Faith: your parents made you. Really, it's true. I hope I'm not letting the cat out of the bag.

      July 11, 2013 at 9:58 pm |
    • Observer

      Akira,

      The Bible shows God to be indifferent to pregnant women and fetuses.

      July 11, 2013 at 11:18 pm |
  15. lionlylamb2013

    We have a winner folks! It's the jerk dot off! He will smite you and follow you along while ever willfully procrastinating one's every move! Dotted jerks are a dime a baker's dozen!

    July 11, 2013 at 5:59 pm |
    • .

      Just remember LL is the belief blog psuedo intellect, just laugh at their comments and move on.

      Which God?

      LL threw up his brain cell, again.
      July 11, 2013 at 12:49 pm | Report abuse |
      Candiano

      And yet I got Dot's meaning immediately. There is something to be said for speaking plainly; understanding a point one is trying to make. When a person's eyes glaze over reading a post, it isn't the fault of the reader. It's the fault of the communicator who is more interested in trying to sound intellectual rather than conveying a succinct point.

      In other words, I didn't get past the first two sentences. And before you mangle my name trying to be clever: don't. It looks immature.
      July 11, 2013 at 12:51 pm | Report abuse |

      .

      A pseudo intellect is someone who acts pretentiously and wishes to impress, rather than modestly trying to communicate effectively uses rhetoric over content.
      July 11, 2013 at 1:08 pm | Report abuse |
      Candiano

      Three words: buy a diary.

      Dot: exactly. And I most definitely am not impressed.
      July 11, 2013 at 1:15 pm | Report abuse |

      Yo!

      Hey guys stop picking on LL and just recognize this poor soul suffers from low self esteem issues and this is how they compensate for it..
      July 11, 2013 at 1:26 pm | Report abuse |

      Candiano

      And calling people "simpletons" because they don't want to slough through a bunch of randomly strung-together words to figure out a simple message is disingenuous, and the sure sign of a vain, prideful pseudo intellect who cannot communicate effectively.

      Although it is telling that you would put the onus on the person receiving the message, and being dismissive of their ability to comprehend your incomprehensible way of writing, rather than to look at yourself and the way you communicate.
      If you talk this way, you are likely friendless.

      July 11, 2013 at 1:37 pm | Report abuse |.

      July 11, 2013 at 6:18 pm |
    • Observer

      dot,

      Congratulations. You actually got lionlylamb2013 to respond in language close to what most people would use. Looks like he was talking to us rather than just using pomposity to impress himself

      July 11, 2013 at 6:25 pm |
  16. Truth Prevails :-)

    I am very much pro-choice. What a tough decision to make...abort a unborn fetus that you admit to not being willing/able to take care of and potentially living the guilt for the remainder of your life or giving the baby a chance, history speaks well...children with Downs Syndrome are capable of so much.
    My point is that until you're faced with this situation, it's hard to say what you'd do.
    I feel for the parents and I wish the child the best.

    July 11, 2013 at 5:51 pm |
    • Ken Margo

      Not all women that have an abortion feel guilt. Some feel relief!

      July 11, 2013 at 6:01 pm |
    • lionlylamb2013

      Sired Ken Margo,

      Relief is but a slash of the scalpel away, Swoosh,,, Oh what a relief it is! Yeah right!

      July 11, 2013 at 6:23 pm |
    • Truth Prevails :-)

      Ken: That is why I used the word 'potential'.

      July 11, 2013 at 6:27 pm |
    • Ken Margo

      @lion.................I know a women whose mother-in-law took her to have an abortion. Trust me "relief" is the appropriate word.

      July 11, 2013 at 6:37 pm |
    • Ken Margo

      @truth.................To be honest I know people that had an abortion and not one of them expressed guilt.

      July 11, 2013 at 6:40 pm |
    • Truth Prevails :-)

      Ken: I don't doubt that there are those people but then there are these people who obviously were torn.

      July 11, 2013 at 6:49 pm |
  17. funny farm

    Correction

    Daniel Burke requested restraint by everyone who is/will/might have in the past to stop bashing, condemning or commenting on Christian beliefs, whether that is about JESUS, GOD, the Bible or our we exercise our belief in church, public, or blog sites.

    Opinions used on the CNN Belief Blog site towards Christians continue to bash our belief and use hateful speech.

    Stop now.

    Daniel Burke is monitoring his post sites.

    July 11, 2013 at 5:49 pm |
    • Observer

      funny farm,

      This should also mean that Christians stop trashing gays and pro-choice supporters on this site.

      July 11, 2013 at 5:53 pm |
    • Damocles

      Translation: I like my freedom of speech as long as it only works for me.

      July 11, 2013 at 5:57 pm |
    • Akira

      Daniel Burke said nothing about not criticizing the Christian religion, only to stop with the personal attacks. This goes for atheists and Christians alike.
      Please make a note of that.

      You also need to learn what constitutes "hate speech".

      July 11, 2013 at 5:58 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Other One

      Christian beliefs are childish, based on misinterpretations of ramblings by a collection of people of an ancient cult that spun off of the fringes of Judaism. This is not bashing. This is helping believers in the Cult of the Man on the Stick to realize that it's time to move on.

      July 11, 2013 at 6:01 pm |
    • Roger that

      "condemning or commenting on Christian beliefs, whether that is about JESUS, GOD, the Bible or our we exercise our belief in church, "

      Really? This is a Christian blog? Is the bashing of Islam and other religions encouraged?

      July 11, 2013 at 6:02 pm |
      • CNN Belief Blog Co-EditorCNN

        No. No bashing of any kind is welcome. Including bashing of atheism/agnosticism/freethinking...

        July 11, 2013 at 6:09 pm |
    • Ok

      "You also need to learn what constitutes "hate speech"."

      If it was true hate speech it would hold up in court what is posted on a word press blog like this would not hold up in court. CNN is catering to the few to make their advertisers happy they have total disregard for freedom of speech.

      July 11, 2013 at 6:17 pm |
    • Akira

      Which was my entire point to "funny farm", OK, that what is written here does not constitute "hate speech", and some people throw that around without knowing what the definition of it actually is.
      Nobody is supressing free speech, either. My goodness.

      July 11, 2013 at 6:30 pm |
  18. Finally

    @lionlylamb2013. I find it interesting that you have this under your bio "God and my Faith in Christ Jesus will never be undone" By reading your posts today, I would never have guessed this to be the cased. Good for you though.

    July 11, 2013 at 5:31 pm |
    • .

      just remember LL is the belief blog pseudo intellect, everyone laughs at their comments and moves on because this person is posting to try and boost their own low self esteem.

      Which God?

      LL threw up his brain cell, again.
      July 11, 2013 at 12:49 pm | Report abuse |
      Candiano

      And yet I got Dot's meaning immediately. There is something to be said for speaking plainly; understanding a point one is trying to make. When a person's eyes glaze over reading a post, it isn't the fault of the reader. It's the fault of the communicator who is more interested in trying to sound intellectual rather than conveying a succinct point.

      In other words, I didn't get past the first two sentences. And before you mangle my name trying to be clever: don't. It looks immature.
      July 11, 2013 at 12:51 pm | Report abuse |

      .

      A pseudo intellect is someone who acts pretentiously and wishes to impress, rather than modestly trying to communicate effectively uses rhetoric over content.
      July 11, 2013 at 1:08 pm | Report abuse |

      Candiano

      Three words: buy a diary.

      Dot: exactly. And I most definitely am not impressed.

      July 11, 2013 at 1:15 pm | Report abuse |

      Yo!

      Hey guys stop picking on LL and just recognize this poor soul suffers from low self esteem issues and this is how they compensate for it.

      July 11, 2013 at 1:26 pm | Report abuse |

      Candiano

      And calling people "simpletons" because they don't want to slough through a bunch of randomly strung-together words to figure out a simple message is disingenuous, and the sure sign of a vain, prideful pseudo intellect who cannot communicate effectively.

      Although it is telling that you would put the onus on the person receiving the message, and being dismissive of their ability to comprehend your incomprehensible way of writing, rather than to look at yourself and the way you communicate.
      If you talk this way, you are likely friendless.
      July 11, 2013 at 1:37 pm | Report abuse |

      July 11, 2013 at 5:35 pm |
  19. Dianne

    She should abort it.

    July 11, 2013 at 5:30 pm |
    • Una Houser

      I agree with abort. This is not a pet, it is a person with a life time of trouble.Who will step up if the people who adopt die?

      July 11, 2013 at 6:00 pm |
    • Ken Margo

      @una..................Wow "lifetime of trouble" LOL

      July 11, 2013 at 6:45 pm |
  20. Nosey Doctors

    If they wouldn't be so nosey, the baby could have been born and adopted later anyway if they didn't like their baby. Next they'll be testing for intelligence, male/female, hair color, end height and weight, life expectency, and political leanings.

    July 11, 2013 at 5:29 pm |
1 2 3 4 5 6
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.