Lies, Murder, and Roe: 41 years of Satanic Influence (By Joel Rainey)

Joel Rainey is the Director of Missions at Mid-Maryland Baptist Association, an adjunct professor at Capital Bible Seminary and blogs at Themelios (Twitter – @joelrainey). This post was originally published at his site on Thursday,  January 23.

41 years ago yesterday, nine black-robed justices handed down a decision that would forever change the moral landscape of the United States.  Since that time, more than 55 million human beings created in God’s image and likeness have been murdered within the confines of their mother’s wombs.

Is that too strong a statement?  Is it too negative a tone?  Is it too culturally divisive to employ such incendiary language?  Well, let me ask it this way.  If something is bad, do you use good words to describe it?

I understand the moral complexities that come into play where abortion is concerned.  As a pastor of more than 20 years, I have more experience counseling women through the gut-wrenching decisions our society forces them to make than any politician who has ever voted on this issue.  I’ve sat with the single mom whose budget is stretched thin.  I’ve sat with the woman who has just been told her baby has down syndrome, or some other dreaded, chronic disease.  I’ve also sat with those who chose to have an abortion.  Women who have submitted to this procedure are 34% more likely to suffer from anxiety, 110% more prone to alcohol abuse, and 155% more likely to take their own lives, and I have seen the flesh and blood evidence of those statistics in my office.  Anyone who automatically equates being “pro-choice” with “pro-women” is either an idiot or a liar.

The emotional havoc that comes as a result of this now four-decade long culture of death should come as a surprise to no one.  Regardless of the circumstances that gave rise to each decision to  terminate a pregnancy, each abortion is the elimination of a human life.   This is not a matter of philosophical or even theological debate.  It is plan science.  Life begins at conception.  And for the past 41 years our nation has been busy eliminating more than 55 million of those lives.

55 million.

Let that number sink in, because its greater than the current populations of Kentucky, Oregon, Oklahoma, Connecticut, Iowa, Mississippi, Arkansas, Kansas, Utah, Nevada, New Mexico, Nebraska, West Virginia, Idaho, Hawaii, Maine, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, Montana, Delaware, North and South Dakota, Alaska, Vermont and Wyoming combined.    To kill that many people over a 41 year period, you must terminate a pregnancy every 20 seconds–and not stop killing for an entire generation.

Meanwhile, God continues to speak clearly.  “You shall not murder.”

Anyone who objectively observes this bloodshed must come to the inescapable conclusion that abortion is not at heart a political issue.  It isn’t even a philosophical issue.  It is, quite simply, Satanic.  In John 8:44, Jesus states that Satan’s natural language is to lie, and his natural actions are to murder.  Anywhere there is deception and bloodshed on a massive scale, you can be sure our enemy is involved.  Whether it is Herod’s murderous rage through a blood-soaked Bethlehem, Hitler’s merciless and genocidal paranoia, or the lies of a U.S. President seeking to cast this issue as one of granting women “safe, affordable health care,” death and deception can always be found holding hands.

Politicians who hide their moral cowardice with trite phrases like “reproductive freedom” and “women’s rights” betray with their own incoherence the unvarnished reality that “I believe in a woman’s right to choose” is half a sentence.  If you finish that sentence honestly, then what I’ve seen in the counseling room over the past 20 years begins to make perfect sense.  Satan has lied to us by telling us that there is a quick way out of a tough situation.  He has convinced us that the presence of moral complexity means that there is no moral clarity.

Meanwhile, God continues to speak with abundant moral clarity. “You shall not murder.”

Since 1973, we’ve been told that this was an issue of women’s rights and freedom of choice.  We believed that lie, and the result is roughly 28 million females aborted–and having no “choice” in the matter.  We were told that abortion would be, in part, a solution to supposed population control that would result in great financial costs to society.  We believed that lie, and the result is a workforce that lacks roughly 30 million workers who would be contributing to a social safety net that wouldn’t be under such financial constraints with their contributions.

And as these ripple effects of our bloodshed continue to puzzle us, God continues to call out and say “You shall not murder.”

We wonder why there is such seeming disregard for human life in society.  Why are women increasingly victims of violence?  Why does it seem that men are increasingly unable to control their lusts?  Why do they eagerly seek sex but avoid marriage and commitment?  Why do they think its OK to abandon their children to poverty and all its effects?  Why all the senseless killing in our schools?  From whence comes this beastly ambivalence toward the sanctity of human life.

Once again, God connects the dots with this command. “You shall not murder.”

Our nation is swimming in the blood of its own innocent, and we do so because we have believed the lies of our enemy, who wants to see the bloodshed continue.  There is one way to stop it.  Turn from the enemy.  Stop being complicit in his schemes, and return to Jesus.

This is the great news of the Gospel–that even hands covered with blood can be forgiven.  The single mom who killed her child because she thought there was no other way can have peace.  The thug who drove his girlfriend to the Planned Parenthood clinic because he wanted pleasure without responsibility can be forgiven. The doctor who made millions off of baby’s bones can be forgiven.  And the nation guilty of purging 55 million of its most vulnerable citizens–largely for the mere sake of convenience–can be forgiven, healed, and restored.  But the bloodshed has to stop.  We cannot find healing in the one true God while still sacrificing our children to Molech.

41 years.  55 million children.  One simple command.

“You shall not murder.”


  1. John Wylie says

    Another way to put things into perspective is that it is more than all the people who were killed in WWII.

  2. Roger Simpson says

    What is your view on taking the “day after pill” in those cases where women were raped?

    • Adam Blosser says

      Because I believe life begins at conception, I do not support the use of any form of “contraceptive” that has an abortifacient mechanism like the morning after pill or any other oral contraceptive that is currently on the market.

      Evangelicals have done a really poor job thinking about this issue, choosing to stick their collective heads in the sand rather than facing the facts.

      While my heart grieves for women who are raped, the above principles do not change. Also, only around 1% of women who have an abortion report being a victim of rape.

      • Adam G. in NC says

        I looked up the “morning after pill” and it explicitly says it is not an abortive drug, that if you are already pregnant, it will not harm the fetus. In fact, its just a really high dose of the regular birth-control pill.

        If this is true, I think the real problem with this is that it promotes promiscuity.

        • Tarheel says

          Yes, they (pharmaceutical and AMA) market it as not being abortive…..but remember for years we were told that “fetuses” are just tissue. They’re not exactly known for honesty.

          Also, a careful reading of ebpven thier material tells us that it is designed to prevent implantation…not conception. Once conception (fertilization) has taken place, distinctive and unique DNA is formed and human life has begun.

          Also, this medication can “wash” the lining of th uterus potentially causing the washing away of an implantated baby.

          The use of the word fetus is giving in to the linguistic wordplay that proabortionists use…it masks the reality….

          Once fertilization/conception has taken place there’s a baby in the womb.

          • Tarheel says

            I said; “Also, a careful reading of even thier material tells us that it is designed to prevent implantation…not conception. Once conception (fertilization) has taken place, distinctive and unique DNA is formed and human life has begun.”

            I’ll add to that, that any medical technique, medication, or procedure that intentionally interferes with the development of a baby after the moment of conception is to be considered a medically induced abortive action.

        • Adam Blosser says

          Common sense would tell you that the morning after pill has to prevent more than just fertilization to be very effective. It prevents implantation. I also have a problem with the regular birth control pill for the reasons stated by Tarheel. It has three mechanisms. If the first two don’t work, the abortifacient mechanism that prevents implantation comes into effect. Randy Alcorn’s book “Does the Birth Control Pill Cause Abortions?” is extremely helpful in thinking through this issue.

          • Adam G. in NC says

            After reading you guys comments, I went back to my articles on Levonorgestrel and how it’s used for the “morning-after pill” and saw basically the opposite of what you guys are saying…

            All of the articles I found stated that it’s primary use is to prevent the release of the egg, not prevent implantation. In fact, most of those articles refuted the notion that it even has an effect on implantation at all. The International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics has stated this as well.
            It also says that it may thicken mucus to prevent the mobility of sperm. Nowhere could I find from a credible source that it “washes” the sides of the uterus to prevent implantation. I could only find the opposite.

            Alcorn’s a smart guy, but if he thinks the birth-control pill is a form of abortion, he’s gone off the deep end.
            I know this is a highly politicized issue, but most of the folks who called these “abortive pills” at recent campaign rallies were Catholics who see ANY form of contraception as abortion…and were looking to fire up some voters.
            Either way, I dont want this readily available OTC because it promotes promiscuity and enables the spread of disease.

          • Adam Blosser says

            Adam G.,


            “It also may work by changing the lining of the uterus (womb) to prevent development of a pregnancy.”

            The problem you are likely running into is that the makers of this drug and many OBGYNs argue that you are not pregnant until the fertilized egg has implanted itself in the uterus. Therefore they can say that this drug is not an abortifacient. I am arguing that life begins at conception (fertilization) not implantation. Therefore, this drug is an abortifacient. There is not a drug on the market that I am aware of, oral or inserted, that only prevents fertilization. They all have the backup mechanism of preventing implantation.

          • Adam G. in NC says

            Adam B.,


            “There are no data supporting the view that levonorgestrel can impair the development of the embryo or prevent implantation. ”

            Saying the very opposite of your link, but in much greater detail…and more specific.

            I would agree with you that life begins with conception, not implantation. Abortion is murder. Birth control is not. I disagree that levonorgestrel prevents implantation or has any effect on a fertilized egg.

            This is a newer issue and I just dont want politics to play a role into whether or not I believe this is an abortive drug. I gotta look at what the research has said, not partisans.

          • Tarheel says

            Like I earlier, the proabortionists are not known for honesty on these issues…

            You spoke f not letting partisans define the way you feel….but you’re posting links written and edited by the most proabortion administration we’ve ever had.

            Just sayin’

          • Tarheel says

            Adam G, from your link….

            “In contrast, other very effective methods of emergency contraception, such as mifepristone and intrauterine devices, can also inhibit implantation.”

            Notice the word “also”.

          • Adam G. in NC says

            You’ve thrown the Obama trump card. I guess there can be no real conversation then. Pulled the jake brake on this one. Good job. Put another gold star on your blog-argument win-list.

            “also”. Really dude? Then what does “In contrast” mean?

            I’m not arguing this for arguments sake. Are you?

          • Adam G. in NC says

            Well that settles it. Excellent work of science and research. Not even a hint of bias.

          • Tarheel says

            No, I’m not arguing for arguments sake….I’m very passionate about this issue.

            The “in contrast” and “also” follows the sentence you plucked from the article to buttress your point regarding the specific drug named levonorgestrel.

            “There are no data supporting the view that levonorgestrel can impair the development of the embryo or prevent implantation. In contrast, other very effective methods of emergency contraception, such as mifepristone and intrauterine devices, can also inhibit implantation.”

          • Adam G. in NC says

            honestly, i believe you’re reading this incorrectly. Probably because it’s already settled in your mind. “No data” means no data.

            I dont think anyone who comes at this issue on the “morning-after pill” (which is 1.75mg levonorgestrel…not mifepristone and intrauterine devices) and really wants to know the truth (not what “____” says the truth is) will conclude as you do that this is an abortive drug and not a viable option of birth control for married adults.

            just wondering…Do you tell your congregation that birth control is abortion?

          • Tarheel says

            So then you’re contending, along with your link, that one drug (levonorgestrel ) is not abortive but the others mentioned are?

            Ok. I’m not conceding that, but for discussion.

            I wonder if patients ask which one they’re getting and if doctors offer that info without being asked?

          • Adam G. in NC says

            it’s over-the-counter in NC…which I DONT agree with…for other reasons. The others are not OTC.

          • Adam G. in NC says

            yes, thats what i’m contending…and that’s the ONLY one that is commonly called the “morning after pill”.

          • Tarheel says

            “just wondering…Do you tell your congregation that birth control is abortion?”

            Yes. I teach that “the pill” works as an abortifiant. Because it does.

            I teach that God determines the beginning and ending of life and we are moving “outside our rank and grade” when we attempt to circumvent that.

            I further teach that when medicinal means is used to stop a pregnancy it is abortion.

            One of the “fail safes” of “the pill” is certainly to prevent implantation should the other means of preventing fertilization fail….therefore, I teach that Christians should consider the abortifiant nature of “the pill”.

          • Adam G. in NC says

            Tarheel, dont think this is something you go into planned parenthood and get or have to see the doctor. I would think since its OTC its right beside the condoms.

          • Tarheel says

            I an mot sure how old you are…I’m almost 40….let me explain to you what “science”, abortion lobby and pharma companies have “taught” us over th years. It may explain why I don’t trust them on this issue….

            “it’s just tissue” (refering to what they now call a “fetus”)
            “fetuses as not viable until at least 24 weeks”
            “abortion does not cause any pain to the fetus”
            “There’s no discernible signs of human life until the second trimester”

            I could go on.

            All of of which have been resoundingly debunked.

            They lie.

            Abortion and birth control is big business….it big money….it’s political capital….therefore it’s big money.

            Human life hangs in the balance…and I refuse to pretend that “the pill” cannot cause abortions when common horse sense tells us it can. If it prevents implantation of a conception….it’s abortion.

          • Tarheel says

            “and condoms have spermicide…which is medicinal contraception.”

            So what? I’ve been talking about medicinal abortion.

            But I’ll bite on the red herring.

            A. Not all of them do.
            B. if the spermicide kills the sperm…there’s no way an egg can be fertilized….so there’s no way it can be abortive. It doesn’t prevent implantation of fertilized egg(s)….unless you know of some kind of condom I’m not familiar with.

          • Tarheel says

            I’ll try to be as clear as possible here, in case I haven’t.

            “plan b one step” / levonorgestrel is advertised in the pharma’s own material/website that it is effective up to three days after unprotected sex in “preventing pregnancy”…..question?

            What is this medication “doing” days later if not working to prohibit implantation of a fertilized egg?

            By that time, one would presume, that the egg has been released, sperm has traveled its course, and fertilization has taken place. The only “preventive” mechanism left to do is to prevent implantation.


            When these companies say that “it does not end a pregnancy” they are telling the truth as they’ve redefined it. They’ve defined pregnancy not as “conception or fertilization” but as “implantation”….which is not in line with what we know to be true….that life begins at conception. They’re playing with the words and thier meanings to make their propoganda “true”.

            Any medicine that causes the stoppage of a pregnancy (any point after conception) is medicinal abortion. Period.

          • Adam Blosser says

            “This is a newer issue and I just don’t want politics to play a role into whether or not I believe this is an abortive drug. I gotta look at what the research has said, not partisans.”

            This is not a new issue and you are the one that keeps bringing politics into it by accusing me of some ulterior motive. You don’t know me or my motives.

            I have been married for just over three years. I began studying this issue when I got engaged 3 1/2 years ago. I wanted very badly to discover that the birth control pill only prevents fertilization. I wish I never had to use another barrier method in my life.

            If the birth control pill only prevented fertilization, I would have no problem with it. Instead I discovered that the birth control pill has three mechanisms: 1) Prevent ovulation, 2) Thicken the cervical mucus to prevent fertilization, 3) Thin the lining of the uterus to prevent implantation. The first two are not problematic for a pro-life person. The third one is very problematic. I wish you were right, but all of the evidence says exactly the opposite.


            “It is possible that Plan B One-Step® may also work by preventing fertilization of an egg (the uniting of sperm with the egg) or by preventing attachment (implantation) to the uterus (womb).”

            So please, give me a break and be honest with the facts.

          • Adam G. in NC says

            I am being honest. There is much controversy regarding specifically PlanB’s labeling that you provided and why it was labeled as such. It will be changed because more research has been done to show that prevention of implantation is not the case with Plan B…not because they re-define when life begins.

            This article goes into detail about this labeling and even gives credence to what you have stated about “the pill”…so that may assuage your fears that this isnt by one of those lying articles.


            I also think I remember Christianity Today having an article saying that Plan B doesnt cause abortions, and that Catholics removed it from their “banned” list.

    • Christiane says

      even the most orthodox of Catholic hospitals WILL give the victim the Plan B Pill under the following conditions:

      “1. The woman is not already pregnant from prior, freely-chosen sexual activity.
      2. The woman has been sexually assaulted.
      3. The woman has not yet ovulated (i.e. has not released an egg from her ovary into the fallopian tube where it could be fertilized by the attacker’s sperm).
      4. The morning-after pill can reasonably be expected to prevent her from ovulating.”

      Yes, there is a medical test to determine whether or not the woman has ovulated. It examines her urine to detect the presence of leutinizing hormone (LH) which can be used to gain information about whether she is ovulating. If it is determined that her LH levels have spiked and she is ovulating, the morning-after pill will NOT be able to block the egg’s release from her ovary.

      So the ‘morning after’ Plan B Pill is NOT considered an ‘abortifacient’ if the four conditions listed above are true.

      A Catholic emergency room will not give the pills to a woman who is ovulating (shown by a spiking of the LH hormone in her urine), as under that circumstance, the pills could be considered an ‘abortifacient’, which the hospital is not permitted morally to administer in such a case.


      I, also, would like to know the SBC’s policy on this tragic issue.

      • cb scott says


        The SBC is an affiliation of churches who are in cooperation to fulfill the Great Commission, having a commonality based on doctrinal truths and commitment to evangelism and missions. Those churches are autonomous churches. It is not a hierarchical order as is the Catholic Church. Therefore, there is no specific SBC policy regarding the issue to which you and Roger are in reference.

  3. Roger Simpson says


    I don’t think any plausible Biblical interpretation supports the idea that people who are mentally disabled and are raped are in the same category as other women who are involved in sex.

    My daughter was raped by another athlete after a Special Olympics basketball practice. The police investigated the situation but didn’t press criminal charges on the guy because the police/DA determined that the perpetrator was not competent to stand trail.

    Real life situations do not necessarily fit into neat boxes. My daughter was about 25 at the time. He mental age has never exceeded that of a person about 12 years old.

    Roger Simpson Oklahoma City

    • Tarheel says


      I’m sorry that happened to your daughter. My goodness!

      However, Adam’s point that life begins at conception and we don’t have a right t arbitrarily snuff out that life….that fact is not changed by the circumstances of the conception, no matter how unfortunate.

      Let me just say that “unfortunate” seems such a weak word for the situation you described….please don’t think I’m dismissing it.

      If circumstances of conception do change our values on this issue, then we have no valid legs on which to stand. If we say it’s ok, no matter the circumstances, to intentionally and with medical procedure or drugs kill that which we assert is a human being after conception….then we’ve entered the relativistic realm and left behind the realm of principled defense of human life.

    • says

      Roger, Thanks for being willing to share your story in this very public forum. I can’t imagine the unspeakable pain that comes with realizing someone has done something like this to your daughter.

      Certainly life, as you put it, is not “neat,” and any situation like this is one which, as a pastor, I want to hear people out, and become as familiar as I can with their story, weep with them, and walk with them. It should go without saying that the most obvious issue to talk through is the impossible situation of a mentally handicapped young lady facing an unexpected pregnancy through no choice of her own. At the same time, your own admission of the complexity of a situation like this means that said complexity exists at many different levels, which would require a venue different from this one to explore. I bring this up to point out that if I were to respond by saying “in this situation, an abortion is permissible,” I too would be offering an oversimplified solution to a complex problem, and for precisely the reasons Adam and Tarheel allude to above. As such, these types of situations are those in which I would much rather seek to handle together in the confidential confines of a pastoral counseling room.

      And even with all of this in view, your daughter’s situation represents less than 1% of all abortions since 1973. 99+% of these cases don’t involve anything that begins to approach your family’s situation. 55 million dead is, overwhelmingly, not about these “exceptional cases.” By and large, we are killing for the sake of convenience.

    • says

      Thanks for sharing your daughter’s story Roger! I can’t even imagine. How horrible.

      And then to have the chance of running into the guy someplace, freely out on the streets. Ugh–I’m so sorry!

    • Adam Blosser says

      Roger, I am so very sorry for the tragedy that happened to your daughter and your family. I cannot imagine.

      I was not suggesting that your daughter is somehow responsible for the sin that took place. Rape victims are sinned against. It is not sinful to be a victim of someone else’s evil.

      I was merely stating that abortion is never a legitimate for the believer regardless of the circumstances surrounding conception. You are right that real life situations do not fit into nice little boxes. However, that does not mean that there are not absolute truths that have to be applied compassionately and faithfully in messy situations.

      It is difficult to show adequate care and compassion in a forum like this. I certainly would not give such a trite response in a counseling scenario.

  4. cb scott says

    Good post, Joel Rainey.

    Some things have changed in the years since R v. W passed. For over 40 years preachers have “wrestled with how to, when to, and whether to preach against the nation-wide, day-to-day murder of babies in abortion mills not even a jog away from church steeples.”
    ——————WORLD MAGAZINE, 01-2014——————————–

    Randy Alcorn stated, “We shake our heads in disgust at the German church’s tolerance of one holocaust while ignoring our own tolerance of another.”

    “One of our great frustrations has been the silence of the evangelical pastors . . . many evangelical pastors are dropping the ball.” “In addition, some pastors worry that preaching on abortion might dry up collection plates.”

    ———————–Family Research Council—————————————-

    “Some preachers lack the biblical manhood and moral character to speak against the murder of the innocents, but I intend to just do it and let the devil take the hindmost parts with the rest of it.”

    ——————————–cb, last Sunday morning in an East Dublin, GA Baptist church————-

  5. cb scott says

    R.C. Sproul has produced materials to help pastors address abortion for years. However, he has publicly stated that:

    “I heard the same thing. It was like a broken record. Pastors said, ‘I can’t use this material. It’ll split our church.'”

    Mike Huckabee has been quoted as stating, “How can you claim to proclaim a gospel that turns its back on the slaughter of innocent babies.”

  6. cb scott says

    A WORLD MAGAZINE survey of pastors revealed several reasons why pastors are not addressing the murder of babies in America from the pulpit.

    * Preaching on the issue might discomfort church members or hurt women in congregations who’ve had abortions.

    * Preaching on the issue should not be done as a one-note tune or “hobby horse,” especially if the pastor emphasizes expository preaching.

    *Preaching on the issue might politically stigmatize the pastor or politicize the pulpit, scaring seekers off.

    *Preaching on the issue might seem uncool or anti-intellectual.

    cb stated, “All the above excuses stink to high heaven like an old dead skunk on I-10 on a hot July Saturday morning.”

    • says

      I do think it’s wise to be pastoral and considerate of the congregation when sharing tough teaching. Of course we need to share it, but there are ways to do so that don’t involve smacking them in the face with it.

      • Tarheel says

        Agreed, comassion is always called fir…no matter tge topic, but sometimes reality needs to smack people in the face.

        It’s like preaching on lostness and hell….candy coating it too much is more destructive.

        • cb scott says

          Matt Horan,

          If one is actually a gospel preacher, then he will always, and especially so, when he is addressing “tough teachings,” be careful to make sure the truth of grace in Christ is presented.

          Those of us who address the horrible sin of abortion must also present the unlimited and all sufficient grace and mercy of the Savior for any and all who repent and believe the biblical gospel.

          Abortion is murder. It is something that is unacceptable. However, it is never unforgivable by a Savior whose grace is totally sufficient to save even a wretch and pagan like me. . . . and if His grace is sufficient to save such as me, then He is overly sufficient and beyond measure to give mercy and grace to a young woman who was used by a low-life man, leaving her believing her only way out was to kill her baby.

          Grace is sufficient. Never should we leave that “high” truth out when we are addressing “low” sin.

          That includes the sin of homosexuality, Mr. Horan. Grace is sufficient to save the homosexual, the harlot, the whore-monger, the murder, the drunkard, the doper, the dealer, and even the pimp, white slaver, man-burner, and baby-raper. Grace is sufficient to save the lost, self-righteous church-lady and the sanctimonious, hypocrite deacon, the wolf-in-sheep’s-clothing preacher. Grace is sufficient to save the hard man, mercenary and thief. Praise His Holy Name! Grace is sufficient to save the panty-waisted sissy. Grace is sufficient to save the chief of sinners. Grace is sufficient to save all men, women, boys, and girls.

          Grace is wonderful and beyond our comprehension, but not beyond our having if we recognize ourselves as sinners in the sight of a just and righteous God, repent and believe the biblical gospel of Jesus Christ. Amen and Amen!!

  7. says

    Thanks C.B. for your comments. Hopefully, the post by itself should communicate that I’ve never been shy about speaking on this issue. :)

    • cb scott says


      I have never had a doubt about your grit and steel as a man of God. I know you are the real deal and I wish every DOM in the SBC had your sand and intellectual understanding of what it means to undergird and be a support resource to local churches as they seek to fulfill the Great Commission.

      When it comes to being on the “cutting edge” of social issues that affect the Christian community, Joel Rainey is a Randall Made Knife.

      • says

        btw C.B., I never congratulated you on your recent promotion. I’m happy that the new administration sees your value to the BPC community, and pray for your continued success.

  8. cb scott says

    RE: “Preaching on the issue might seem uncool or anti-intellectual”

    John Piper referenced many millennial generation pastors about the above excuse for not preaching against abortion in an interview with WORLD MAGAZINE.

    “Many millennial generation pastors share this last belief . . . such young pastors often understand pro-life issues better than their elders, having enjoyed the benefit of decades of intellectual and spiritual ferment on the matter. Some, however, worry of being typecast as a 1980s picketer or rescuer, or as a far-right, unloving loon.” Piper went on to state, “There are a lot of courageous young pastors who don’t have any problem . . . On the other hand, a lot of younger pastors don’t like seeming uncool.”

  9. Roger Simpson says


    I agree that there are difficult situations in life.

    I believe a robust argument can be made to repeal Roe vs. Wade and allow states to enact laws themselves regarding abortion. Most states, including Oklahoma, would likely outlaw most, but not all abortions. Exclusions would be rape, incest, and if the life of the mother was at stake.

    I don’t think that all issues regarding life are easy for Christians.

    (a) Some Christians notify their family to “do not resuscitate” if they have a serious medical condition. Others may choose to prolong life, like the prime minister of Israel, who was in a comma for years before dying.
    (b) Some Christians are against capital punishment and others say it is OK.
    (c) I don’t know where I am with the “stand your ground” laws. But some could say these laws tilt the scale of justice toward making the taking of another’s life more justifiable.

    Rather than argue about 0.01% of cases would you guys support rolling back Roe v. Wade and allowing states to setup their own laws? If abortions were only performed in rare cases (such as the examples I stipulated) then probably 99% of the abortions would stop — or at least they would be illegal.

    I think it is over the top to compare abortion on demand with “the day after pill” for victims of rape — especially if the victim is mentally disabled.

    I admit there is some slippery slope when you consider that we are beginning to see the advent of genetic tests that indicate that a baby may have certain conditions — such as Down Syndrome.

    I think we as Baptists probably will have to agree to disagree on some of these items while moving forward together to address 99% of the problem.

    Roger Simpson Oklahoma City

    • Tarheel says

      I agree with you Roger, that Politically and constitutionally it’s a states right to set these laws, IMO.

      I’m not arguing about the 1%, I’m arguing for the defense of all babies in the womb….all of them.

      But with that said….it’s bigger than those earthy forums. It’s a spiritual and moral issue that can’t be watered down.

      As to your bringing in of the death penalty (for murder only), I think God has spoken on that one….back in Genesis, Paul connected to it in Romans 13.

      The stand your ground, when rightfully practiced and enforced, (which is no small feat given humanity’s depraved condition) is rooted in th right to life in that it’s self defense.

      Medical directives are typically, well at least in my case, worded in such a way that when death has actually occurred then artificial life sustainment by machinery is out…but starving/dehydrating someone to death is as immoral and murderous as abortion.

      Also, as is playing out on the news right now, removing the artificial life support of a mother who is carrying a 20wk old baby without first delivering or striving to preserve the life of the baby is murderous of the child as well. (this woman’s family wants the machines turned off, effectively killing the baby…because the baby is reportedly deformed. Not dead, deformed. (shocker, a judge has agreed)

      We live in a sick, sick world.

  10. cb scott says

    Randy Alcorn stated, “Americans are just too used to abortion now: it’s not outrageous anymore.”

    cb states, “I know they are in a far better place, but I miss Jerry Falwell, D. James Kennedy, C. Everett Koop, and Francis Schaeffer. I pray the Lord raises up from the present generation young men who take up their mantles. I know they are out there. I just know it.”

    • Bennett Willis says

      You need to check the report that Dr. Koop generated regarding the long term effects of abortion on the woman involved.

  11. Greg Harvey says

    I was tempted to post–with sadness and the sarcasm that accompanied a certain kind of weariness–that Democrats have created a category that if you like it, then you actually CAN keep it: immorality.

    But the text of the Bible affirms that immorality is punishable by eternal assignment to a lake of fire that was NOT DESIGNED FOR HUMANITY. Because God made a plan before the foundation of the earth to provide deliverance and liberty from sin to those–which would be all humans–who have sinned.

    The price? It’s a free gift to those who will deal honestly with God regarding immorality and acknowledge that they can’t create righteousness and can’t pay the required price for sin. You see: God has a plan so you would give up your immorality in order to wear white clothes that can’t be stained.

    The only question left is whether you will game your sin in his presence–there is no place he can’t see–or if you will let God rescue you, free you, and conform you to the image of Christ Jesus.

    We sometimes speak as if the problem of immorality is eternal. It isn’t: there will be a time and a place where there is no longer sin. Those who choose immorality will no longer be able to interact with those surrounding the throne of heaven worshipping Jesus.

    The time is short. You get a tiny thimble full of time to reverse course and return to God. And then your eternity is assured by the faithful promises of the Bible and by the Spirit that breathed those promises to those that recorded them.

    We are commended to love our enemies because their enmity–like ours once was–is with God. We don’t know a better way to express that love than to do what God did with each of us: confront visible sin. If even one reads this piece and acknowledges the need for sin to be replaced by righteousness, then this piece will serve an eternal purpose.

    Even if it is merely a temporal reminder to those who reject salvation of the consequences of that rejection, there remains hope: that they will still turn while there is still time. Today is the day and now is the time for repentance, salvation, and to put on the righteousness not of man–certainly not from ME–but of Jesus Christ. Don’t wait until God determines you have run out of time.

  12. Roger Simpson says

    As all of you know, last week we studied a “pro life” lesson in our Bible Studies — at least you did if you use Lifeway curriculum — as we do at our church here in Del City.

    Each January, a number of people in the SBC speak out regarding abortion. Recently Dr. Mohler wrote “Their abortions: What do these testimonies really reveal?”

    Dr. Mohler comments on the recent cover story in the NEW YORK magazine. The takeaway is that Roe vs. Wade has not “solved the abortion problem” in our nation. Dr. Mohler, picks up quotes on various women mentioned in the NEW YORK story who have had abortions. These stories reveal that for most of the women involved abortion is not just a scientific abstraction.

    My reading of Dr. Mohler’s comments is that his takeaway from the NEW YORK story is that abortion leaves deep scars for many people. This Roe v. Wade decision is now being seen in a bigger context than the “pro choice” advocates would have predicted:

    (1) It has served to marshal pro life forces as never before,
    (2) It has not solved the “abortion problem” for many of those that had an abortion.

    For the first time in decades the time may be ripe to move forward with some type of movement to ratchet up advocacy for the “pro life” movement. To quote Dr. Mohler, ” . . . we should see this cover article as proof of the urgency and the enormity of our challenge in the defense of life — and as evidence of our opportunity as well.”

  13. says

    I am especially saddened for the millions of people who would make phenomenal parents, yet for whatever reason have been unable to conceive. Adoptive parents go through a daunting and costly gauntlet of steps to become eligible to then wait, sometimes years, to be chosen–if ever.

    55 million families that could have started, but didn’t.

    I hope that the church might someday soon find a way to create loving and compassionate connections between parents with unwanted pregnancies and these potential parents who absolutely do want them. Maybe efforts to sway the courts might not even be needed anymore–perhaps the abortion services industry might just go out of business. Come Holy Spirit and work your miracles!

    • Dave Miller says

      The churches that I know of have been very active in adoption. Most churches have a family or two who have built large families through adoption.

      I don’t know about 55 million, but there are a lot of families looking to adopt. Unfortunately, adoption in America is difficult and expensive.

      • cb scott says

        1). “Most churches have a family or two who have built large families through adoption.”

        “. . . there are a lot of families looking to adopt.”

        “Unfortunately, adoption in America is difficult and expensive.”

        Double Yep!! Trust me on this one. I know I am right.

  14. Christiane says

    For adoption to be ‘so expensive’ is a mystery. There are so very many ‘unwanted’ children in foster care, and many of those foster situations are wholesome and caring,
    but many are NOT . . . people do it for the money, and the less spent on the child’s care, the more there is to be made . . . I know this having seen some tragic situations in the inner city public schools as a teacher (sixteen years there) . . .

    another thought is that while the ‘morning after’ a rape, the pill can be an abortifacient, yes,
    but it CAN be medically determined through a urine test whether or not the victim of the rape has ovulated . . . if she has NOT ovulated yet, then the pill can prevent ovulation, which is her defense against conception at the hands of her rapist,
    and medical science can defend this victim morally by preventing ovulation through the intervention of the ‘Plan B’ pill.

    So there is some use of that pill that IS considered ethical and moral in the sense that it stops the tragedy before there is conception by preventing ovulation.

    The Church is not, should not be a party to abortion;
    but it also should be aware of the medical implications of the morning after pill that ARE allowed to be morally acceptable in the prevention of ovulation AS as means of defending the woman from further victimization of a possible conception which is NOT ‘as God intended’, but the results of a terrible crime against this woman. If the Church ignores the science, and pushes to force a woman to go ahead and ovulate AFTER a rape, then the Church is also complicit in the crime if conception then occurs. It is the moral thing to do for the Church to comprehend the medical science and permit what IS morally allowed in defending the victim.

    some thoughts . . .

    • says

      I have friends who have a ten year old daughter who are still making payments on the cost of adopting her. It’s easily $20,000 when all is said and done. Ludicrous. Good point here by Christiane–what is the cost of our overburdened foster care system? Surely something can be done to create a way to make adoption a more accessible option without compromising the vetting process to make sure kids are being put into homes where they will be loved.

      I know that some of the cost usually goes to cover the cost of the mother’s pre-natal care, some to the vetting process, and some to the lawyers facilitating the process. I’m not saying that a child isn’t worth it, but we’re pricing people out of the possibility.

      It would be encouraging to hear that there were legislators at work on making the process more affordable and less arduous, but I haven’t heard anything lately.

    • cb scott says

      “For adoption to be ‘so expensive’ is a mystery. There are so very many ‘unwanted’ children in foster care, and many of those foster situations are wholesome and caring,
      but many are NOT . . . people do it for the money, and the less spent on the child’s care, the more there is to be made.”


      In the history of blogging this may be the first statement you have ever made of which I can whole-heartedly agree.

      The cost of adoption is a mystery even greater than the mystery of anyone with a sound mind thinking that Obamacare could possibly help with the needs of healthcare in America. Both are of a greater degree of mystery than is the location of Jimmy Hoffa’s body or the disappearance of planes and boats in the Bermuda Triangle.

      As far as the foster system in the United States is concerned. It is a train wreck.

      The victims are children. The perpetrators are men. Men have failed to fulfill the mandates of biblical manhood to protect the weak, the infirm, and women and children who find themselves alone in this world. Men use them and abuse them, rather than to care for and protect them.

      • says

        The cost is incredible–and there are, because of some of the abuses done by people out to make money off the system, so many reasons for government agencies to deny willing parents that one wrong word to the local DHS person, and you’ll never be allowed to adopt. Or being in the wrong employment–in their opinion, not based on any aspect of the law.

        And children are the victims in it all.

        • says

          Doug, you are so right. The two most tense moments of our interview with the Social Worker when we were adopting came when she discovered 1. That I own firearms. 2. That we believe in spanking.

          No one can convince me that a narrow worldview doesn’t rule in this world. This is yet another area we have to change so that more willing parents are able to adopt children. By and large, DHS filters out the wrong things.

    • says

      One significant way churches can help alleviate the cost barrier is for us to put out $$ where our mouths are. We simply must allocate $$ in our budgets to help our families who have hearts for fostering and adoption to be able financially do so without incurring enormous debt.

      • Tarheel says

        That type of “gift” as the IRS would call it probably would bring on tax liabilities on the recipient.

        It might even throw them in a higher tax bracket on top of the “gift taxes”.

      • says


        You may be right. But I think that some orgs promoting this idea may have found a way around any tax liability to the prospective parents. It’s worth checking into.

        • says

          Tarheel, not necessarily. There are wise, and legal, ways to “shelter” such gifts from tax liability. This isn’t he venue to get into those details, and I’m not a tax attorney, but I can tell you that there is a way.

          • Tarheel says

            Thanks, I admit I haven’t researched it much relating to the church helping prospective adopters, except to ask my personal accountant …. He indicated what I said above – and cautioned that we’d have to check with someone beyond his expertise especially with regard to the church tax exempt status and “gifts” to members.

            It’s on our long term list of ministry ideas so I expect at some point I’ll research and learn more.

            But our uncle Sam is creative in finding ways to confiscate money from us….so there’s that….lol.


  15. Roger Simpson says

    Do any of you think it is appropriate to work with other “pro life” forces to try to enact a national policy (or maybe it would have to be state by state) that would only allow abortion and/or the “day after pill” for rare cases — such (as rape, incest, and if health of the mother is at stake)?

    Extrapolating from what I’m reading here on this blog, I’m getting the sense that most of you are 100% opposed to any use of the day after pill and/or abortion regardless of the circumstances.

    This puts many of you so far out on the fringe that you have probably marginalized yourselves from working with most groups that are trying to end the abortion factories. I think that many of your responses, while ostensibly “showing compassion” for conditions where women are victimized by sex crimes, don’t really interact with the total picture.

    Roger Simpson Oklahoma City OK

    • William Thornton says

      I believe that is appropriate and would think that whatever statutes reduce the number of abortions are a positive development even if such does not expressly codify our total values on abortion.

    • Adam Blosser says

      You are right that I am 100% opposed to all abortion. With that being said, limiting legal abortion to the cases you mention would be an improvement, so yes I would support working with other groups to do so. However, after making progress in that regard, I would continue to fight for ending all legal abortion.

      I realize that my views are only held by a very small minority of people, especially among evangelicals. That doesn’t make them wrong.

  16. cb scott says

    Roger Simpson,

    If you have noticed, I have not entered into some of this dialogue. There are reasons as to why I have not. My cause is to seek the end of abortion on demand (convenience abortions for continuance of life-style, willful intent, etc.) in the United States, my homeland. The murder of an identifiable fetus (a human being) has always been my goal when addressing abortion issues.

    It is my contention that some of the issues that have been discussed here are of a secondary nature. I firmly believe that if we stop abortion on demand, many of these issues that have been addressed here will then be more open to serious discussion and true resolution can be sought.

    Of course, I must admit that it is my nature and environmental conditioning to seek the removal and complete annihilation of an “immediate threat” before discussing future resolutions for maintaining the peace. So I am not the best source for the dialogue you guys are having about morning after pills and various contraceptive measures.

    It is my

  17. cb scott says

    continuing . . . . . .

    It is my predisposition to be a deliberate man rather than an affable man. Therefore, some of these issues are of little importance to me at this present time. My goal is to stop that which is evident and plainly definable as murder in accord with Scripture and of which should be easily recognized by even a pagan with a sane mind.

  18. Dwight McKissic says

    Joel, CB, or whoever cares to address my question,

    Why us it that we don’t hold the politicians that we vote for accountable to stop these atrocious, barbaric, and unnecessary abortions? Since Ronald Reagan in the ’80’s, many of us have voted for Republican candidates with the view & hope that they would stop abortions. Are we being used? When a Republucan is president & the majority of the house or Senate is Republican–as I believe it was a few years ago if my memory served me correctly–could they have not put an end to abortion?

    It appears to me the only way this battle is going to be one is spiritually. The demand & need for abortion will have to dramatically decrease because unwanted pregnancies have dramatically decreased. In order for that to happen, fornication and adultery has to decrease. And for that to happen discipleship & holiness will have to increase. May God help us to focus on Christ and His Word. I have lost all faith in politicians resolving this problem. I even appreciate & respect those who don’t allow where a politician stand on the abortion question to be the sole determining factor in how they vote. It is quite obvious to me that many politicians merely pay lip service to the pro-life position to get the vote, but they really lack the backbone to do what’s necessary to prevent abortions once elected. Our only hope is revival.

    • volfan007 says


      You are right. The ONLY hope for our country is revival in our Churches, and an awakening in our land. It seems that most politicians are just interested in getting votes, and a lot of people in our land either just don’t care, or else they’ve swallowed the liberal, culture of death philosophy of abortion being a choice of the woman. And, a lot of people seem to be voting for whoever promises to give them something.

      The USA should apologize for every single word of condemnation of Nazi Germany, because our country is very hypocritical to condemn Hitler for his killing of Jews, whenever we’ve killed far more, innocent babies. The USA is worse than Nazi Germany, and our people just follow the liberal abortion leaders and promoters in our land like sheep. And, they don’t seem to really care, as long as the Big Brother Govt. is handing out more and more “help” to it’s sheep.

      It is a sad day for the USA. It really is. May the Lord bring revival to our Churches, because judgment begins in the House of God. And, may the Lord blow a fresh wind across our land….and another awakening break out.


    • says


      Great question. Candidly, as this issue is one that is primarily for the judiciary, I’m not sure if Republican control could have had the effect you describe. That said, I believe you are correct that to a large extent we have been “used” on this issue. In many ways, I believe evangelicals have in the past become pawns of the Republican party as a result (and for the record, I’m a registered Republican, so I think I can make that statement in an unbiased way). Over the past 3 decades, we have tended to be “prophets” to power only when Democrats hold that power, while to a large extent warming up to Republican leaders.

      To a large extent, I believe this is because the party has done an excellent job of using the abortion issue to control evangelicals, even though they have actually done very little to solve the problem. I don’t share your pessimism regarding what can be done in the political realm to stop this, but I do agree with you that this is first and foremost a spiritual battle, and that should inform how the church responds to the issue, including how we deal with the political aspects of it. The practical outcome, as I see it, would be for us to dislodge ourselves from our long-standing alignment with the Republicans, and have both Republicans and Democrats in our churches raised up and discipled to be prophets to their own respective parties.

    • Bill Mac says

      The answer is that we have absolutely been used by the Republican party. It is extremely frustrating to know that a candidate only has to “say” that he is pro-life and evangelicals are honor bound to vote for him/her, even if we know in our hearts they are lying to us.

      I really believe in my politically-cynical heart that one of the reasons so many “prolife” politicians vote for legislation that makes no exceptions (such as for rape) is that they know it will not be upheld, thereby allowing them to appear prolife without actually changing the abortion landscape, leaving abortion as a political platform that they can exploit forever.

      • says

        So…the alternative are most democrats whose ideas on abortion are in the main iconoclastic. The reason there has been no change in the abortion landscape is gridlocked government, and an opposing party that is lockstep into being the death party – who claim that they are for the “little people” and hand out goodies the taxpayers can longer afford to pay – all the while taking blood money from the harbingers of death. So next time you want to talk about exploitation Bill – remember to talk about both sides not just one :-) – don’t worry, I will remind you.


        • Bill Mac says

          My frustration is because there is no alternative. I wouldn’t vote for a pro-choice democrat to save my life. I don’t talk about democrats because let’s face it, who on here is going to vote for them?

          It is far more constructive to be critical of our own than to rail against the opposition. We should expect more. We should demand more. I expect nothing from Democrats.

          • says

            If there *were* truly pro-life Democrats, there’s several of us that would vote for them after considering the rest of their views–pro-life is the top-level issue. After that eliminates the absolutely nots, then I decide based on other issues.

            Given that signing on as a Democrat involves supporting the national party leadership, there’s no way you can sell a card-carrying “D” as pro-life. They’ve committed themselves to support the pro-death platform and leadership of their party, whatever their personal views.

            It would be like finding an anti-Pope Catholic. If you’re really anti-Pope, you’re going to be something else. (Not one particular Pope, but the idea of the office itself.)

          • says

            Perhaps the reason for this is because we were encouraged to abandon the Democratic party years ago and jump into bed with Republicans? The consumate relationship of church and state has always resulted in a bizzare, freak-show child named Constantinianism. Perhaps instead of alligning ourselves we should have encouraged good, godly, Democrats to stay within their party and play the role of prophet.

            Perhaps we should do so now. Over time, the result would probably be more diversity on this issue within that party, and a broader playing field in which to press this issue.

          • says

            By that logic, should we also encourage good Baptist pastors to become ministers in other groups in hopes of prophetic action to fix them?

            The two-party system allows for diversity of opinion within parties if there is more than a yes/no answer to a question. Otherwise, it polarizes along that division: yes or no?

            The Democratic Party decided decades back that their answer to whether or not children deserve to live is “No.” I know that in many states, to run for office as a party member, the party requires you to sign your agreement with the party platform. If a pro-life person wanted to run, they would either have to lie and claim to be okay with the party policy, or they would be rejected by the party.

            There’s not really a method to go back and fix that–to gain influence with Democrats, you have to approve of abortion. Now, you have to approve abortion and same-sex marriage, because that’s also in the party platform.

            In short, the party platform is rotten to the core at this point. What was once a party that stood for the needs of small against the powerful. Now it is one-half of the powerful, joining hands with the other half (the Republican side) to oppress everyone.

            Neither party is worth supporting blindly–but there is more hope for a viable 3rd party than there is to push the platform of the Democrats back from the stands they have taken.

            And I’d be for a great 3rd party that wasn’t enamored of big business, big wars, and big abortion.

          • Tarheel says

            And I’d be for a great 3rd party that wasn’t enamored of big business, big wars, and big abortion.

            Me too! Except I’d add the word viable.

            Rand Paul seems to be a candidate, while republican, who seems to walk a good line with the three ‘bigs’ you named.

            Another biggie for me is that is he’s also for correctly interpreting the fourth amendment, which many in both parties seem to be all to ready to cast aside in the name of security. (of course “right” to abortion is not there).

            The more I look at him, the more I like him.

  19. Roger Simpson says

    Bill Mac:

    It could be that people don’t address the difference between “convenience” abortions and abortions due to sex crimes because they find taking an impossibly hard line stance and appeasing one side or the other without actually moving the ball forward to at least an incremental solution. I don’t know.

    However, in any case, I think thoughtful people have to engage these “nuances” to move the abortion issue forward in the public square.

    I’d like to illuminate my argument that exceptions (such as for rape) to abortions are part of the domain of what is at issue.

    It could be that Republicans hide behind this for political cover but there is a difference between “convenience” abortions and abortions due to sex crimes.

    Consider this analogy — I admit that is not perfect.

    Example #1 –A guy backs out his car and he doesn’t see his toddler riding a trike in the driveway. He runs over him and kills him.

    Example #2 — Some thugs get into a fight over turf. One of them contacts some friends. They come back in a car with an assault weapon and blow a couple of guys from the rival gang away.

    Both of these involve death caused by another. Are they the same in terms of moral or legal culpability?

    We are not going to get any place on the abortion question unless we can in a similar way address the various reasons for abortion.

    Roger Simpson Oklahoma City

    • Bill Mac says


      For truly pro-life people, it is odious to think of any exceptions to banning abortion, but in real life allowing the perfect to defeat the good simply means that no infants are saved.

    • Tarheel says

      Sorry Roger, but your first example does not work on any level relating to abortion. We are contending that abortion is murder….the intentional and unjustifiable ending of a human life at the hand and will of another.

      Unintentional/unforeseeable accidents or legit self defense that results in death is not the same as intentionally ending a life. ‘thou shalt not murder” is referring to a sin of intent.

      The second one though is more analogous to abortion than the first in that the killing/reckless act is foreseeable to end in injury or death – if not the intentional infliction of it.

      Let me say here that I realize that for many years people were so lied to by the abortion/”women’s rights” lobby’s that many, many of the 55 million abortions were done in ignorance and therefore pose, IMO, less culpability on the mothers who knowingly chose to end a life…and places much more on the lobbyist liars and the providers who at the very least were not up front and honest with their patients regarding the life in her womb. I think a compassionate understanding of the pervasive deception that has taken place over the years is called for here.

      However, in many of those past abortions, and, dare I say most today, the ignorance defense is not applicable. With the coming along of more and more advanced medical and scientific understanding (ie. 3 and 4 D ultrasounds)….and many state laws now require ultrasounds and some sort of informed consent…in fact any abortion factory (even PP) require some sort of ultrasound be done prior to an abortion so that the location and gestational period of the child can ascertained. They may or may not share that with the mother though, unless the state law requires it.

      Anyone, be they a physician, or a patient who knowingly and intentionally chooses to end a pregnancy through medicinal or procedural elective means given knowledge that human life is being snuffed out is in fact guilty of intentional killing…or as the author of this OP put it, has violated the “thou shalt not murder” command of our Lord.

      Like has been said before, sure for practical reasons I would “sign on” to bills that would ban all abortions except for the caveats of life of the mother, rape or incest…which statistically would ban the vast, vast majority of abortions….but after such legislation was passed, I would then work to ban those as well. I believe that all human life is worthy of the right to life.

      I know this is unpopular, but I can stand no other place….Logically and medically…if we are going to argue (and it seems most, if not all here on this comment stream would) that a woman who uses abortion as means of birth control or sex selection or simply because a baby is “unplanned and inconvenient” is killing a CHILD/BABY in the womb…then it is also has to be true that a woman/physician who meets one the above caveats and chooses abortion over life is also killing a BABY/CHILD in the womb.

      The only questions that remain is why is one is “murder” and the other is not? Why is one baby in the womb is worthy of protection and the right to life and the other is not because of circumstances that pull deeply at our emotional heart strings.

      Even in the most tragic of circumstances…truth is still truth, and life is still life…is it not?

  20. Roger Simpson says


    Who do you speak for when you say “we” contend that abortion is murder?

    I’ll stipulate to you that abortion is taking a life. As regards to “taking the morning after pill” it is more ambiguous since absent a determination that conception / fertilization / implantation (use your own term) has taken place there is not necessarily any evidence that “taking a life” has taken place.

    I think you are on to something when you say “knowingly and intentionally . . . .” This clause would be a beginning point to where we can come together. Your equating “intentional volition” with “abortion” is a step in the right direction.

    People like my daughter, who has a mental age of 12 and was raped by a guy who was equally mentally disabled after a Special Olympics basketball practice, obviously does not meet your “intentional volition” benchmark.

    I don’t think moral questions can totally be addressed by pragmatism However, your argument would have greater persuasion if you address the the situation of a mentally retarded girl trying to raise a (likely mentally retarded) baby. I think you should at least have some cogent comments on outcomes to show that you have thoughtfully considered the ramifications of your view.

    My stand is also unpopular. So don’t feel alone in being marginalized. We both have principled stands and based upon your comments I think that we can agree to disagree on some stuff and still move forward.

    As it relates to women using abortion for birth control for sex selection we agree. My narrow topic is related to “health of the mother”, “rape”, and “incest”.

    We agree on the major job before us. If you are going to go one step further, as you say you are, and continue to seek to ban all abortions — including those relating to the life of the mother, rape, and incest — then that will be the time that we diverge in our views.

    Right now we are in sync.

    You can have the last word on this if you want. Any further conversation would probably involve us talking past one another so this is my last comment.

    • Tarheel says

      You contend my position relating to abortion ignores the “real life” implications and circumstances of the pregnancy….I’m not sure I woukd concede that, but I admit I’m trying to seperate the two in this discussion as I think they are seperate issues.

      I contend that your position ignores answering the all important question; “what is happening in the womb after conception”?

      If we agree that it is human life happening ….then i would contend that defending that human life is the “trump card”.

      If we disagree that human life is happening there from the moment of conception, then you’re right, then we’re likely not gonna find final agreement.

      As for a retarded girl raising, a potentially retarded baby, I’d say that I doubt she’d be alone. I’d bet her caring father would certainly be more than a mere bystander. That comment is not meant in any way to be coy or dismissive.

      • Tarheel says

        Oh, and the “we” was refering to myself and several others who have indicated that on this comment stream, and of course the author of the OP.

    • Bennett Willis says

      Roger, this web site has never been known for empathy. They seem convinced that the only reason that women have abortions is to kill babies.

      I appreciate your comments.

      • says

        Correction: the only thing that happens in an abortion is the killing of a baby. Regardless how or what the “intentions” are, that is the end result. Finis. We, through the grace and mercy of God, offer hope and healing to the perpetrators and the living victims of abortion. But let us NOT soften the results Mr. Willis. They are what they are. We already have a multi-billion dollar industry that attempts to soften what abortion really and truly is. They do not need any more willing voices to rationalize what they do.


        • Bennett Willis says

          Rob, why do you think it is a “multi-billion dollar industry?” Where did you come upon those numbers? Maybe you just made them up?

          • says

            First of all, you failed to take on my correction. It must of hit you between the eyes. Good.

            Second, in answer to your obfuscation: “you have got to be kidding me.” Any perusal of Google will get a plethora of articles documenting the billion(s) that abortion practitioners and their willing accomplices have racked in – PP alone become a billion dollar entity in 2007. An example of research done by one Vicki Evans documents some of my “made up” numbers here:


          • John Wylie says


            I haven’t checked it in a while but the numbers I have come across several times say that the abortion industry is about a 2 billion dollar a year business in America.

          • John Wylie says


            If you go back and look I think that a number of people on this blog showed great empathy to Roger’s comment. And I have personally seen a number of very kind and encouraging comments over the years on here.

          • Bennett Willis says

            While you can drag in all the associated medical issues (contraception, HIV, STD, etc.) and reach the $1B threshold, I don’t see any evidence that abortion (itself or items associated with or resulting from abortion) is anything like a $1B industry.

            I looked through Rob’s link (all 70+ pages) and found nothing there that would contradict my conclusions. While that paper did have some interesting numbers (which seem to support my opinion), it also had many items which seemed to be extrapolation, speculation and opinion on the part of the author.

            My personal position on abortion discussion is that when some empathy is shown for the woman’s situation, then there can be discussion. Until then, any discussion is simply a rant by those who are opposed to it.

            Being opposed to abortion is a simple position and one that can hardly be disagreed with. Having any empathy regarding the situation of the woman is much more difficult to explain. I can understand why absolute opposition has been chosen by most of the people who read or comment on this site.

          • cb scott says

            OK Bennett Willis,

            Let’s say a a low-life thug was paid $100.00 to murder your daughter because she was a witness to a crime. And let’s say he was not even very good at his trade, so he botched the job and your daughter suffered terribly before she finally bled out and died.

            Tell me, Bennett Willis, would it still be murder, even though the cost was not what a life taken should be worth?

            Your hang up on the financial intake of the industry as to whether it is a billion dollars or a hundred bucks is not the issue here. Murder is murder, no matter the financial gain. Abortion is murder no matter the financial gain.

          • says


            Either you did not read my post, or you have no understanding of “empathy.” Beyond this, I honestly don’t know what else to say. I have acknowledged the vast number of moral complexities that accompany this issue, admitted that I don’t have all the answers, and stated that my first move is always to hear the woman’s story, cry with her, pray with her, and walk with her and other, godly women in the church through the issue.

            As best as I understand “empathy,” I have practiced it. So I don’t know what you mean by “empathy” unless you are suggesting that only those who are “pro-choice” can demonstrate such–in which case, it is you who are the absolutist and the ideologue.

          • says

            My empathy for the women involved is informed by more than 20 years experience that has confirmed the statistics I cite in the post. I know what having an abortion does to the psyche of most women. And, I certainly know what it does to their babies.

          • John Wylie says

            You’re right Bennett it’s not a 1 billion dollar per year industry. Abortion is a 2 billion dollar per year industry.

          • Bennett Willis says

            I know that data do not mean much on this site, but give me a credible link on the size of the abortion industry in the US. If you are going to say $1B (now up to $2B–your numbers, not mine), you should have data. I suffered through Rob’s link and found it wanting. I’ll happily suffer through yours also. But I would encourage you to read it first and look at the numbers.

          • John Wylie says

            That’s okay Bennett liberals aren’t interested in facts they like to use the junior high debate club tactic of dismissal.

          • cb scott says

            Bennett Willis,

            When you have dealt with the carnage that abortion on demand has brought upon humanity as some of us have, looking at the “numbers” really don’t mean much.

          • Dave Miller says

            Bennett, is there a reason why you keep on lobbing insults at this site? I am not sure that you have grounds for such insults.

          • Bennett Willis says

            Dave, I have been reading (and occasionally commenting) on this site for several years. Just as you (as a group) have drawn conclusions about me, I have drawn conclusions about you (as a group).

            As C.B. says, the numbers don’t mean much. And I agree with him on that. But if you are going to use numbers to support your point of view, the numbers should have some basis in reality. If Rob had said $350M (a number that is large enough to make his point), I would have had no issue but that would not have been nearly so impressive as $1B (or $2B). An ad I saw many years ago that used Custer’s Last Stand as an example said, “Numbers do make a difference.” Either they do, or they don’t. We should not get to have it both ways.

          • Bennett Willis says

            That’s okay Bennett liberals aren’t interested in facts they like to use the junior high debate club tactic of dismissal. – See more at:

            John, does this mean that I should not keep dropping by looking for a link? Rob gave me a link to a paper that was submitted to Father —— for an academic purpose. It was not a good paper from a data point of view (despite having 100+ footnotes). It simply did not support Rob’s contention about the size of the US abortion industry and seemed to me to contradict it. The reference was not casually dismissed.

          • says

            Again you seem Mr. Willis to be hung up on my contention that the abortion industry is a multibillion dollar industry or not. The link I referenced was an academic paper that dealt with some of the periphery industries that cash in on human carnage such as the cosmetic industry. There are other papers and other sites that deal with the abortion industry that can be found. The problem with evaluating this particular industry is their secrecy on financial matters, and the lack of record keeping. Dr. Gosnell in Philadelphia ran a cash business of which it is estimated he racked by himself over 3 million dollars per year for many years – but even that is uncertain because of the nature of his business. Such is the business of human carnage.

            Again you go off on the minutia of my argument and do not tackle the correction – and have gone off in a tangent in order not to deal with the main issue. Can we then believe that you have nothing to say about the main argument and agree that abortion kills a baby regardless of the intent and circumstances of the mother?


        • Bennett Willis says

          Mr. Ayres, either you have a reference or you don’t. If you have a reference, I’d like to see it because I might need to change my opinion about some things.

          I readily agree that abortion results in the death of a baby. Now, do you have a link or not? If you don’t have a link, I’ll even give you the last word if you want to take it. If you do have a link, put it up and let me read it. We are all tired of this and want to move on.

          • Bennett Willis says

            The links I found when I looked were way short of $1B. But I thought that there might be others that I had missed. I come from a numbers culture where you support your contentions with information–or you identify your contention as an opinion. Actually, I am open to either, but I don’t think you should support a statement with numbers that have no credible basis.

            Also, I don’t think that I should be accused of lobbing insults when I have been subjected to the harshest insult this web site has to offer–the “L” word. :)

          • says

            From a link [given below]:
            In an article on the website of Forbes magazine, Baltimore Planned Parenthood CEO John Nugent disclosed that a first trimester abortion costs somewhere between “$300 to $450? and that many health insurance executives are now realizing that it will cost them a whole lot less to pay for an early abortion than to have to pay for a live birth….

            from that same link:
            n fact, it has been estimated that approximately 50 million babies have been aborted in America since 1973

            50 million times 300$ equals 150 billion.
            50 million x $450 = 225 billion.


          • says

            From another web site [below]

            The Alan Guttmacher Institute (AGI), the research arm of Planned Parenthood, estimates that there were 1.21 million abortions performed in the U.S. in the year 2005. Of the 1.21 million annual abortions, approximately 88% (1.06 million) are performed during the first trimester. The other 12% (150,000) are performed during the second and third trimester. In 2005, the average cost of a nonhospital abortion with local anesthesia at 10 weeks of gestation was $413. The Women’s Medical Center estimates that a 2nd trimester abortion costs up to $3000 (with the price increasing the further along the pregnancy goes). If we take the $413 average for 1st trimester abortions and use a $3000 average for 2nd and 3rd trimester abortions, here’s what we get: $438 million is spent each year on first trimester abortions and $393 million is spent on late term abortions. That means that each year in the U.S., the abortion industry brings in approximately $831 million through their abortion services alone. If you add in the $337 million (or more) that Planned Parenthood (America’s largest abortion provider) receives annually in government grants and contracts for, the annual dollar amount moves well past 1 billion.

            That would be 1 billion in one year.

          • says

            The name is “Ayers” – at least have the courtesy to get the name right.

            What parsonsmike said. He went through the trouble for me.


          • says

            And those numbers were from 2005, nine years ago. I imagine costs have gone up since then.

            And someone help me with math….
            The number totals should be 15 to 22.5 billion.

            Of course these costs are only with the actual abortion and cover none of the peripheral costs associated with those murders.

      • Tarheel says

        Really? Your comnt is; “they’re just meanies!”

        Compassion, empathy, and sympathy do not spercede truth.

        It’s not mutually exclusive to be compassionately truthful…in fact it’s required….

        But divorcing yourself from truth and principle in effort to be compassionate and loving is neither compassionate nor loving.

        I’ve tried to stay on principle while not dismissing heart wrenching circumstances.

        My consistent point has been that no matter how conception happens….from that point forward we are dealing with a human being. Therefore we should be very deliberate and thoughtful as to what actions toward that human life we condone or justify as moral.

        If we believe life begins at conception….then it does for every conception. Every one.