This woman exercised her right to abort her infants, and now she’s being unjustly persecuted


Someone get this printed on a t-shirt:

“Free Megan Huntsman!”

Slap it on a bumper sticker. Start the campaign.

Megan Huntsman — every bit the same sort of feminist hero as Planned Parenthood CEO Cecile Richards or Abortion Martyr George Tiller — is being persecuted. Prosecuted and persecuted before our very eyes (in the year 2014!) all for allegedly making a choice. A difficult choice, mind you. An alleged choice that she must have grappled with torturously.

She considered her options and, in the end, came to the conclusion that she wasn’t ready to be a mother. So she terminated her post-birth fetuses — six of them — and put them in boxes in her garage, according to the charges.

Police say that Ms. Huntsman has admitted to conducting this medical procedure, and why shouldn’t she admit to it? Why shouldn’t she have the freedom to make decisions about her life and her body, and why shouldn’t society herald her bravery in doing so?

Now, it’s true that I am a man and so I have no right to form an opinion on whether a fetus ought to be suffocated, either in its pre or post-birth stage of development. We know that one cannot reach an objective conclusion unless one is emotionally tied to the issue at hand, which is why, according to the dictates of jurisprudence, every jury is stacked with people who’ve been personally victimized by whatever type of crime the defendant stands accused.

Be that as it may, I am also a modern, progressive, American (in the year 2014, for God’s sake!) and so I have dutifully formulated my ideology through the passive absorption of popular culture. This process can only bring one to the inescapable realization that the worth of a fetus, or “human being” as right wing propagandists and biologists might call it, really depends on the feelings of the unwilling host, or “mother” as rabid Republican loons might refer to her.

Melissa Harris-Perry said as much a few months ago, confidently declaring that life begins when the woman feels like it. Cecile Richards has, for her part, insisted that the issue of life is irrelevant to the matter entirely, and Obama famously professed that, although he has taken a position on abortion, the job of formulating a theory that would justify that position is really quite above his pay grade.

So if the definition of ‘life’ hinges on the mother’s emotional willingness to call it life, and if the whole subject is irrelevant and impossible to quantify anyway, then who are you to tell Megan Hunstman that her post-birth fetuses were ‘people’ and had ‘human rights’?

You can’t. We can’t. And it is a travesty of justice that the criminal courts would even try. Look, it’s not the 1950s; it’s 2014! Time to move out of the Stone Age. Only a Neanderthal would think that the God given right to an abortion somehow ends at the moment of natural birth.

We’ve drawn this line in the sand, but the line is arbitrary. Indeed, whatever argument you make for abortion can easily be made by Ms. Hunstman.

Let’s go down the list:

Pregnancy is an incredible burden on a woman; who are we to tell her what to do with her own body?

This is the most trusty and commonly cited reason to support abortion, and the argument is important because it clearly defines the fetus as an extension of a woman’s body, or else negates the rights of the fetus by using its dependence on the woman’s body against it.

If the fetus is a part of the mother’s body, why should it not be considered as such once it is born? If it was literally a body part, then that is its nature, and if that is its nature, then how could its nature change upon birth? My thumb, my arm, my bladder, these are all pieces and parts of me. If I were to have one removed, would I suddenly lose jurisdiction over it? Surely, my thumb has no legal rights, no protections outside of the laws that protect me — the person to whom my thumb is a mere member. If I chopped off my thumb and threw it in the garbage, could I be accused of ‘murder’?

But if the fetus is a person, or a human, or at least some entity distinct from the mother, then, our argument goes, its DEPENDENCE on the mother’s body means that it cannot claim any rights which would supersede her own.

Alright, so what of a post-birth fetus? Is it now somehow able to exist independent of the woman? Of course not. In fact, it becomes all the more demanding. It needs not only its mother’s body, but almost all of her time, her energy, her money, everything. A pre-birth fetus ONLY needs a woman’s body, a post-birth fetus needs her body AND everything else. So how does the post-birth fetus get off the hook? It makes no sense.

Sure, a woman can find other people to fill those roles, and she can buy formula rather than breastfeed, but SHE is still LEGALLY REQUIRED to go out and seek those replacements, which is not only a hassle, and possibly financially cumbersome, but emotionally taxing. Who are we to FORCE her to do that? If the technology existed for a woman to transfer her pre-birth fetus from her uterus to someone else’s, or to a machine of some sort, I can’t imagine that any self respecting pro-choice feminist would throw up her hands and say, “Alright, no more abortion — now all women who don’t want their fetuses need to undergo a fetal transfer!”

Obviously abortion rights would still be protected even if pregnant women had an option in between giving birth and having an abortion. To relent would be to tolerate yet another imposition on women, brought upon by a paternalistic society dominated by white male Christians.

Yes, Utah is a Safe Haven state, which means a baby can be abandoned at a hospital, no questions asked. But, again, that is only one way to deal with a post-birth fetus. Who are we to say it is the RIGHT way? And who are we to hoist that opinion onto anyone, least of all a woman in the midst of such a difficult moment in her life?

A fetus isn’t fully developed, so it isn’t a person.

Tying ‘personhood’ to physical development — where would the abortion rights movement be without this essential argument? A fetus, remember, is only a clump of cells. It can’t even breathe through its lungs or use an iPhone yet. What about a post-birth fetus? Sure, it has attained a few more developmental milestones, but it’s far from fully developed. A fetus doesn’t become rational and reasonable until it’s about 93 or 94 months old. Scientists believe the brain itself isn’t finished forming until it hits about 309 months of development.

The point is this: if the abortion rights camp rejects, as it should, the inane idea that this mysterious entity with its own DNA and genetic makeup should be considered a person at conception — or, in other words, at the moment in which its unique DNA and genetic makeup come into existence — and if we reject the idea that it should be considered a person at any other random gestational point thereafter, why should we automatically concede the matter once the fetus emerges from the birth canal? If a lack of physical development makes the creature/body part/whatever-it-is undeserving of personhood, then we must see that logic all the way through.

Full physical development — i.e. personhood — does not occur, for most fetuses, until they are 26 or 27 years old. And then physical deterioration immediately begins, but we can have the forced euthanasia debate some other time. If incomplete physical development contributes in any way, shape, or form to our pro-abortion position, then we have universally tied development to human rights. We have said that, to some degree, the fullness of our rights rests on the fullness of our physiological formation. Think of the glorious implications if we only possessed the courage to apply this reasoning consistently!

Don’t like abortion? Don’t have one.

In other words, butt out. None of your business. It doesn’t concern you. Ms. Hunstman could say all of these things, and I’m sure she has.  Anyone who has ever done anything to any other person could also say this to every person to whom he or she didn’t do it. This means we really shouldn’t have an opinion about almost everything that’s happening, has happened, or will happen — including, for instance, the Holocaust and the Manson killings — as the vast majority of the world’s events will not directly and immediately impact us in any obvious way. Once we’ve more roundly adopted this slogan, we will be free from much of the onerousness of having a moral compass, because we will have defined ‘morality’ as simply ‘a distaste for that which inconveniences oneself.’

Women will have abortions anyway, we need to make sure they are done safely.

The appeal to inevitability. Well, as long as there are women who wish to have pre-birth abortions, there will also be women who wish to have post-birth abortions. The only question is whether they will be able to do them in a safe and sterile environment. Infanticide has been around for as long as abortion — probably longer. No law against it will ever stop it from happening.

Without abortion, there will be a lot of unwanted children, who Republicans will refuse to provide with food stamps and welfare.

In my research, to be honest, I’ve yet to find very many Republicans who categorically oppose welfare. This appears to be more of a Libertarian position, but don’t tell that to the progressive college kids who fancy themselves Libertarian because they like drugs and booze.

In any case, as we have established, once a fetus is ‘unwanted,’ it will be destined to a pointless life of misery and sadness. Why should we, as a society, only have the opportunity to alleviate them of that burden while they are in the womb? If they are unwanted in the womb, they will be unwanted out of it. This was a point on which Margaret Sanger — the founder of Planned Parenthood — was very clear. Those who might be a drain on society must be exterminated.

It’s unfortunate that Ms. Sanger was photographed at KKK rallies and such, but that doesn’t mean we should dismiss her ideas. Her ideas are the cornerstone of the abortion rights movement, after all.

It’s clear what must be done: free Megan Hunstman. If we aren’t disgusted by terminating a fetus in the womb (and we shouldn’t be — in the year 2014, for goodness sake!) then why are we pretending to be disgusted by the termination of a thing merely moments after it, according to popular notions, stops being a fetus? How could one be a right and the other reprehensible, when the acts are the same, the motivations are the same, and the results are the same?

I’ve even seen pro-choice people wonder aloud about why she didn’t “just go get an abortion.” How absurd is that? So if she had gone to some building and asked some man to do it for her, it would be fine, but instead she waits a few days and does it herself and now she’s suddenly Satan Incarnate? She terminated them seconds after they emerged from her body, and so she’s a serial killer, but if she’d killed them as they emerged, she’d be a role model for the pro-choice cause? This is insanity.

Why are we selling ourselves short? The ideology of abortion allows for so much more, yet we limit ourselves because — why? Because we fear the Christians? This is understandable — those monsters regularly resort to militant tactics, like sign-holding and prayer — but we shouldn’t let them bully us around. If Ms. Huntsman is charged with anything, it should be for practicing medicine without a license. But, really, she’s guilt of nothing more than being an empowered woman.

What a shameful lack of conviction my pro-choice brothers and sisters have demonstrated. Come, let us take our beliefs to their logical conclusions, and then toast to the Land of Freedom and Peace we will have finally forged for ourselves!









This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

1,224 Responses to This woman exercised her right to abort her infants, and now she’s being unjustly persecuted

  1. deelilynn says:

    Kris, do you think what you just wrote here is Christian and any less hate mongering, judgmental, morbid or twisted?? Just wondering …

    • Kris says:

      I purposely matched the tone of his post, so yes, my comment was hateful and judgmental, even demeaning. I could however, easily see someone like him going WAY too far, just as the former pastor and followers of Westboro Baptist Church did/do in the name of Christ. He has already gone too far with this post and several others. I am a sinner and can admit that my comment was made in a moment of pure disgust and anger, but also intelligent enough to know that this article is a disgusting representation of Christ. I hope he will read all these comments and know that he needs to change his heart, or at the very least his tone, and not think: “Wow look at all of the people I pissed off, must be doing my part in the service of the Lord”, as so many do when trying to justify something like this. He might have had a better case had he not painted it so morbidly, in stark black and white, with no shades of grey. I choose to show Jesus’ love and compassion to women whose lives are in such a bleak place that they feel the need to consider an abortion, I guess I still need to work on showing compassion to another Christian who I feel, should have known better.

      • BRD says:

        Oh, honey… Matt has already addressed your attitude.

        Read it. Think about it. Actually read the Holy text that you claim to believe in. There is no grey. There is right and there is wrong. Killing children is wrong. End of story.

        • Kris says:

          Oh, sweetie… (glad we’re already using pet names!) I’m sorry my opinion bothers you so, but to me there is a lot of grey, especially when you dig deep into your Bible. Ever heard of The Ordeal of the Bitter Waters? Here is a post to address your attitude. 😉

          I still don’t know what to make of it at all, but I do know it sure isn’t black and white.

          Read it.Think About it. I won’t go so far as to imply you are some sort of hypocritical heathen who has never read the Bible though, thanks for that. O.o

          About the post you asked me to read: I did, twice, and just, wow. Don’t even have the time to go into everything I disagree with, but I will say this, it paints a very ugly, very inaccurate picture of my Jesus, in fact, I had a very hard time not vomming in my mouth over it. I do believe in the Bible, but I don’t just read it, I try my best to live it, and that includes doing as I think the Messiah would do. If He is capable of loving these women, right down to (metaphorically speaking) washing their feet, then I need to be too. Now I just really need to work on loving my fellow Christians, some of whom I feel, are painting us all in a very bad, fire and brimstone hued light.
          We are all sinners, how are the sins of an abortionist, or a member of the LGBT community for that matter, any different from our sins? Are they unforgivable? No! Sin is sin. And please don’t tell me you’re not a sinner. We all are, and all sins are equal in the eyes of God. We are fortunate to have had our sins forgiven, and it is my wish to help these women and any other lost soul I come across find that same forgiveness in Jesus. Name calling, judgmental finger pointing, and hatred are just a few of the ways I could ensure they all run the other way.

          I believe with all of my heart in living Matthew 5:43-48 which says “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven. For he makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust. For if you love those who love you, what reward do you have? Do not even the tax collectors do the same? And if you greet only your brothers, what more are you doing than others? Do not even the Gentiles do the same?”. I could quote the second Great Commandment, or one of the other hundreds of verses about love, but I think it’ll suffice to say the the Holy Spirit definitely led me down a much less divisive path when it comes to interpreting what Jesus called us to do in the New Testament. I think I’ll just keep on witnessing through love and example… You, Matt, and Friends can keep your approach and see how many people flock to Jesus after being subjected to your narrow minded verbal assaults. And keeping that in mind, I’ll bow out of this little exchange before I am party to anymore of this animosity.

      • Cmann says:

        There is nothing hateful or judgmental about this blog. There is no grey here, murdering babys is wrong, end of story. You talk about the love and compassionate of Jesus but forget that He to did not play around with grey areas. He didn’t beat around the bush with the Pharisees saying things like ” Oh I don’t agree with you guys but I shouldn’t judge you”. No, he called them white washed tombs, he was told the truth. showing love is important but sometimes that means being painfully honest. Matt is telling the truth plane and simple. If you don’t like it then you may need to reconsider your own views.

  2. deelilynn says:

    “Completely disgusted by this hateful article. Christians like you make us all look like hate mongering, judgmental, small minded idiots. And yes, I AM AWARE IT IS SATIRE. Very morbid, twisted, and inappropriate satire. Perhaps you should consider putting in an application to be the pastor of Westboro Baptist Church, I heard they recently had the position open up.

    Not certain why my original reply to you isn’t posting directly under your comment so am making sure your comment is sited with my reply …………..
    Kris, do you think what you just wrote here is Christian and any less hate mongering, judgmental, morbid or twisted?? Just wondering …

    • Yes, because people who commit murder and support murder shouldn’t be judged? Aren’t you judging the article by calling it hateful? Here’s a clue…There isn’t one person in the entire world that doesn’t go about their daily business without judging someone or some idea. Get off your high horse! Having an opinion is human nature.

  3. KJC says:

    Unwilling host…? Then she should not have gotten pregnant 6 times! That is not a woman having a choice about her body. That was another human being long before she murdered them. That is not the same as chopping your thumb off, although you should so you stop writing garbage like this. What she did was murder and disgusting.

    • SAE says:

      You do realise that this article was entirely satire right…? As in, he is stating that he believes choosing to have an abortion is no different from what this woman did, in an attempt to undermine the arguments of pro-abortionists. He doesn’t believe what this woman did was anything less than murder, he was just using satire to point out that he believes abortion is just as much murder as what this woman did, and so that if you believe abortion is morally correct than you should also believe murder before the age of 26 is morally correct. Basically, this guys is just saying that abortion is horrifically wrong, and that pro-abortionists are extremely hypocritical if they believe that what this woman did was wrong but still hold that abortion is fine.
      Not going to get into a debate here, so none of the above was my opinion on the correctness or incorrectness of this article in any way, just explaining what he was doing.

  4. Pingback: THE 25 BEST BLOGS RIGHT NOW? | I'm a Man! I'm 41!

  5. Diane says:

    The whole “privacy” thing, upon which the constitutionality of abortion is based, should be relevant for Ms. Huntsman’s situation also.

    • deelilynn says:

      “The whole “privacy” thing, upon which the constitutionality of abortion is based, should be relevant for Ms. Huntsman’s situation also.”

      Diane, exactly why does she have the constitutional right to privacy when she committed the ‘crime of murder’ of ‘six live birth’ human beings?

  6. Amy says:

    Satire… in response to the actions of a most-likely mentally ill woman. Seriously? This is now the playing field for the whole pro-life debate? Maybe we can also conjure up a satirical response for other recent killings? If you up for it, I’m sure you could conjure up something very witty and morally provocative with a school shooting perhaps? So very sad to take someones pain and destruction and use it in this way. Shame on you.

    • Jim says:

      I think Matt is more concerned with the pain and destruction of millions of babies every year. Just what kind of playing field do you suggest for fighting an ongoing holocaust? Oh gee, we’d love to save a few million lives but we just can’t bring ourselves to offend anybody. How morally superior of you. Your self-righteous comments reek of trollness.

  7. Poe says:

    It bears pointing out that “post-birth fetus” is an oxymoron, and that is not according to “popular notions” as you so cutely suggest, it is according to medical science. It is certainly a novel way to attempt to blur the distinction between viable an unviable fetuses and newborns, but that is just your MO, isn’t it Matt? Selective acknowledgement of facts, purposefully misleading phraseology, and an undeservedly high sense of self-righteousness? Equating the termination of a pregnancy in the first trimester with the asphyxiation of a newborn is absurd – the latter is ending a life that could otherwise continue outside the mother’s womb – an independent life.

    As rabidly as you push your pro-life agenda, it appears that you have given little to no thought to the myriad problems that recognizing a life from the moment of conception forward would create. For example, say a woman who is 6 weeks pregnant is riding as a passenger in a vehicle with one of her girlfriends, and the girlfriend is following too closely to the car ahead of them, so that when the car in front stops short, they are unable to avoid a collision. Assume further that said passenger then miscarries the following day. If we are treating that embryo as a full human life from the moment of conception, then the driver could potentially be brought up on vehicular homicide charges, or face a civil suit for wrongful death. Hell, forget the accident, just consider your average, everyday spontaneous miscarriage that now becomes a potential homicide. What better way to add insult to the injury suffered by heartbroken couples who have struggled to carry a child to the point of viability than by investigating them for homicide? If that doesn’t just ooze love, compassion, and respect for human life, I don’t know what would….

    You know, as much as you like to puff out your chest and claim the moral high-ground as a Christian, you couldn’t be less Christ-like if you tried. Christ ministered to whores and lepers. The people who society (i.e., your ilk) shunned for violating the prevailing norms of what was considered good or wholesome were the people who Christ sought out. When he found them, he didn’t wag his finger at them, or mock them, or explain to them at great length or in great detail just how evil and abhorrent they were, and why they were not deserving of salvation. He showed them kindness, and the same dignity and respect he showed to everyone else. You are exactly the type of pious “christian” that Jesus warned against in his sermon on the mount. You make your living passing judgment on the sins of others in the public square for all to see, despite knowing full well that you have ample sins of your own that will have to be answered for when your day comes. You are doing someone’s work, but it definitely isn’t His.

    • Kelsey says:

      Your point about investigating miscarriages is the one big concern I have about personhood laws. While I do believe that the developing human is a person from day 1, and I do think that someone driving carelessly should be investigated if they cause a miscarriage just as if they caused the death of any other passenger, I worry about the power that personhood laws would give the government over pregnant women. I live an active lifestyle, and the last thing I want is lawmakers telling me I shouldn’t lift weight or ride my bike beyond so many weeks, regardless of what my own body tells me. I don’t want to face a hearing because I had half a glass of wine with dinner, or ate sushi, or any number of relatively normal activities that society bans for pregnant women–some for more valid reasons than others.

    • rbpermar says:

      Christ did minister to the sinful but He didn’t condone their sin, he spoke against it. He specifically told sinners to ‘go and sin no more.’ Jesus loved sinners but hated sin. He warned believers and nonbelievers about it and the consequences of it. With that being the case, why is it wrong for Christians to also point out sin and speak in disgust of it? It is sad that people think Christ/God just loves and doesn’t get angry with sin – He does. Sin makes Him very angry and we as Christians should also be angry with sin and speak out against it. We should love God so fully that we should be angered by the sin we see and urge others to turn from it. That does not mean be unloving or unkind towards sinners but rather show them love while also showing the sin in their lives so they can repent and be reconciled with God.
      On a second note, It is sad to me that in disagreeing with another’s viewpoint, so many become angry, bitter and hateful. Commenters of this blog profess that Matt and other followers have no grasp of Christ and are bad Christians yet in the tone and words used to do this, you yourself are guilty of what you are accusing the other of. If you believe Christ’s message was love, also show love in your rebuttal to a view you don’t share. Not necessary for all of the name calling, you are wrong and I’m going to prove it, you suck at life comments that are on here. It is sad that those who profess to know Christ condemn and bicker with fellow Christians.

      • Bethyboos says:

        Very well said. You put words to the way I feel when I read all of the hateful comments.

  8. BRD says:

    Aww…. I love how you so cutely ignore basic biology. Geneticists everywhere would cringe at your assertion that it is not “an individual life,” unless it happens to be able to survive outside of the mother’s womb.

    Funny that you describe Matt as “rabid.” I’m guessing you’ve never heard of Peter Singer, have you? Or Francesca Minerva? The positions that Matt presents as satire have already been discussed by bioethicists. There are those who truly believe that “post-birth abortion” should be legal.

    Your argument regarding miscarriage is simply ridiculous. You know what’s even worse than potentially treating a miscarriage as an unsolved homicide? Asserting that the woman’s baby wasn’t actually human. That her child did not matter. That her baby “was just a fetus.” Women often beat themselves up, blame themselves, or second-guess themselves after a miscarriage. But, I’ve personally seen a woman snap after someone told her that her baby “was just a fetus,” and that she “could always try again.” Denying the child’s individuality does far more damage to the woman’s psyche, in my experience.

    And you know what? We DO charge people with the death of unborn children in some instances. If someone shoots a pregnant woman, he is charged with both deaths. If a drunk driver kills a pregnant driver, he can be charged with both deaths. If a woman smokes crack during her pregnancy she can be charged with child abuse.

    Your misuse of Scripture would be funny if it weren’t so common. “Go and sin no more,” Christ said to the prostitute. Here’s what he had to say to people who did not believe in him: “You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your father’s desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, not holding to the truth, for there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks his native language, for he is a liar and the father of lies.”

  9. Leif says:

    For those of you with limited intelligence -you know who you are (or not), – this blog was based on a little something called SATIRE.
    S. A. T. I. R. E.

  10. Bill Smith says:

    Please help us bring awareness to the atrocities of abortion. Who’s the true victim? The woman or the baby? Vote now at

  11. Katherine says:

    I read many of the comments and replies to comments. I have to say that I enjoyed the blog for what it is attempting to do. Shed light to a group of people who in my opinion have been blinded to the truth. However, I do not condone condemnation. It is not from God. Neither is guilt, fear, humiliation or hatred. So anyone who is trying to convince either side of the opposite position is NOT doing it in the Name of God, whether you think you are or not.
    God is loving and compassionate. He loves humans. He made us in HIS image. We are HIS children and He grieves with us when we are sad and rejoices with us when we are happy. And when we disobey Him, He will discipline us.
    I also want to point out that Satan is roaming this earth like a roaring lion looking for who he can devour. He comes to steal, KILL, and destroy…EVERYTHING GOOD…he hates God and he hates humans so he will skew and pervert and blind as much as possible to make humans turn away from God and cause them to sin in order to get them to turn as far away from their creator as possible. So of course there are going to be people who hurt, kill, steal and lie. And they will try to justify it anyway they think they can. But remember that they only answer to God. He is the only righteous Judge. And they will be judged one day and will have to answer for their actions. It is not our job to judge them.
    The hurt in the world is only going to get worse before it gets better and it does break God’s heart. But that is the consequence of sin. It causes hurt and sadness and seperation from our loving Father.
    So I encourage everyone to stop bashing and hurting with your words. In an argument none wins. Even if you think you win the argument. If you lose all your loved ones what area you left with…Nothing. And do you really think that by arguing you are going to convince whoever you are talking to, to see things the way you do or are you just trying to be right?
    For the record, I do not agree with abortion. but I do not condemn the women that choose to do it. They are the ones who have to live with that decision for the rest of their lives and then answer for their acting when hey meet the Lord. Why would I go stick my nose into the business that is between them and God? Just something to think about.
    We all have issues in our lives. Lets try some support and encouragement for each other rather than ripping each other apart!

    • Kelsey says:

      I get what you’re trying to say, but by including statements like “So anyone who is trying to convince either side of the opposite position is NOT doing it in the Name of God, whether you think you are or not,” you make me wonder whether you would have anyone speak out against evil at all. We can have conversations with others and attempt to change their views without using fear, hatred, or humiliation. You also say that “In an argument none wins,” but “argument” can mean many different things, including making a point and supporting it in an effort to change someone’s mind. This is what I strive to do in these comments, and I have had many fruitful and enjoyable debates with people who support the pro-choice position.

      You say that condemnation is not from God, but that is only true in a certain measure. Jesus never condemned sinners, but he roundly condemned SIN, especially sin that was damaging to children. That is why I “stick my nose into the business that is between them and God.” If Satan is out to kill, steal, and destroy everything good, shouldn’t we try to stop him? Or should we just leave his works “between them and God”?

      • Katherine says:

        “So anyone who is trying to convince either side of the opposite position *USING THESE TACTICS* is NOT doing it in the Name of God, whether you think you are or not,”


        I am not saying we should not try to fight the devil. But when he is attacking someone else, God has given the power to fight back to that person. God will never give us more than we can handle. The point I was trying to make in my comment was that most of the world has been blinded by Satan and no amount of judgment or condemnation is going to open their eyes. It will only push them further away. That is why the Bible says to fight evil with good. If we can somehow get away from jumping to a judgment about things we think we are right about and learn to love the people unconditionally instead, don’t you think that would affect them more positively and in turn open their eyes to the truth.

        • deelilynn says:

          “…no amount of judgment or condemnation is going to open their eyes. It will only push them further away.”

          This may be true from what you have seen in your own personal experiences but I can tell you first hand that judgment and condemnation opened my eyes a few times and there are a couple of commenters here who said their eyes were opened by same type of comments made here on this comment section that you are condemning …

  12. What i don’t realize is actually how you are no longer actually a lot more well-preferred
    than you may be right now. You are very intelligent.

    You know thus considerably in terms of this topic, produced me in my opinion imagine it from
    numerous varied angles. Its like women and men are not fascinated until it’s something
    to do with Girl gaga! Your individual stuffs excellent.
    All the time deal with it up!

  13. We stumbled over here by a different page and thought I may as well check things
    out. I like what I see so now i am following you. Look forward
    to looking into your web page again.

  14. A Person says:

    Ahem, abortion is about terminating a pregnancy that involves a fetus which may or may not be viable for many reasons, all of which are personal and should remain private as deciding whether or not to get a legal, safe, medical procedure or take a pill, is a highly personal matter that should not be the business of any politicians, let alone strangers. Another point, current legislation says that abortion remains legal and private until the twenty-fourth week which is when a fetus is generally considered to be viable and after this week, it is up to each state to decide if they will allow exceptions for rape, incest, severe fetal abnormalities, and/or the life of the person who is pregnant. In addition, taxpayer money does not fund abortions, not even for people who are poor due to the Hyde Amendment and state laws vary on whether or not medicaid funding can be used to terminate a pregnancy, particularly if the reasons are for rape, incest, and/or the life of the person who is pregnant.

    • Joe says:

      Wow. Do you really believe that monologue justifies the killing of a human being?

    • Monte Harmon says:

      “…taxpayer money does not fund abortions, …”

      Maybe in some other universe.

      And as for the rest… well, it doesn’t add anything to the discussion, so it serves no purpose here.

Comments are closed.