« Bones on Faith | Main | Some Encouragement from History »

January 23, 2009


And now (as of today) Obama is taking our money and funding abortions overseas. But I thought that was supposed to be above his pay grade?!?!

From an older study,
The statistics show that
"1% of all abortions occur because of rape or incest; 6% of abortions occur because of potential health problems regarding either the mother or child, and 93% of all abortions occur for social reasons (i.e. the child is unwanted or inconvenient)."

93% are because the child is unwanted or inconvenient?!

His pay grade just increased.

How can a 94% decrease be attained?

In a country whose citizens increasingly see "economic justice" as the highest form of justice, I think we are all going to go without justice for quite a while. I don't think the overseas-abortion-industry-bailout is going to be a very good economic stimulus plan.

I always like to ask pro-lifers what they think should be done to women who abort their fetuses, and then sit back and watch the cognitive dissonance set in. Many of them stammer and can't answer this simple question.

I say, "Well, if abortion is murder, then shouldn't we lock them up or give them the death penalty?" But of course not, pro-lifers find that ridiculous and offensive to their sensibilities, which is to be expected.

What should we do with anyone who takes an innocent life?

Another question, why do many states allow murderers to be tried and sentenced for two lives when the murder is that of a mother and her unborn baby, in effect the state calls it a double homicide?

No stammering here.


So Judd, what does a pro-deather think should be done? A party given in their honor?, A medal for increasing the death toll?

I say if abortion isn't murder, then why stop at the womb? But of course the pro-deather objects to this unreasonable thinking, unless he's like Peter Singer--a consistent albeit mistaken thinker.

Judd, I'm not sure why you would assume that is ridiculous. Are you aware that we already lock up people for murder who intentionally kill fetuses (at least, we do here in California)? Are you against that? If you're not--that is, if you're for these kinds of laws and punishments that we currently have on the books against the murder of unborn children, why should some unborn children get this protection and not others? Why is it ridiculous to think they're all equally deserving of these laws? What is it about the different fetuses that makes some deserving and some not?

Do you believe there should be a class of people (in this case, mothers) who can give and take away rights and protections for another class of people (in this case, very small humans)? Because that is the only difference between what is prosecuted and what isn't. And if you're going to affirm the principle that one class of humans can give and take rights away from a weaker/minority class, there are a lot of implications that will come with that.

Secondly, how were people punished before when abortion was illegal? We managed to find appropriate punishments then, so I don't know why it would be a problem now.

Ah, Bill, you beat me to it while I was writing! :)


You've met someone who "stammers" at a "simple question" and think that you've proven your point? The measure of your argument should be the best counter-argument, not the worst.

With respect to your (baseless) assertion that "pro-lifers find that ridiculous and offensive to their sensibilities", did you take a poll or is this purely anecdotal? Why is punishing someone for taking the life of another "ridiculous"? The law punishes children for committing crimes--is that categorically "ridiculous"?

Just because someone causes the death of another doesn't mean he/she deserves the exact same punishment as all other persons who cause such a death. The law recognizes all sorts of degrees of guilt, takes conscience (mens rea) into account, and often permits prosecutors, judges and juries to lessen a sentence based on circumstances of the crime. For instance, there's murder, voluntary manslaughter, involuntary manslaughter, etc. etc. There are also factors that excuse homicide in certain situations (self-defense being the most obvious example, but there are others). Without a more specific set of facts, your "simple" question is exactly that--simplistic.

Sorry :). I was actually holding my 4 month old and typing one-handed. BTW, you said it more eloquently anyway.

Where I find the cognitive dissonance is when we lock people up (or fine them) for disturbing an eagle's nest or an eagle's egg but we call the termination of what is distinctly human life (that blob has human DNA; a heart beat at 3 weeks) "a right."


Judd is pointing out one of the inconsistencies of the Pro Life position. Another I have pointed out for some time now is this. The same government that promotes the taking of innocent life in abortion, also creates wars of aggression, provoking terrorism and then retaliates by carpet bombing innocents. But for some reason this is OK and the pro lifers will defend it mightily. Recently one of our pals, Israel herded a bunch of women and children into a Gaza safe house and then bombed it. More of your tax dollars at work.

Pro Life: You are sorely mistaken. When the US went to war against Iraq, we went to remove Saddam's regime. No one says Saddam was innocent. Saddam could have voluntarily stepped down. The terrorists could have given up their attacks. The 9/11 attackers could have walked away from boarding the planes.

Tell me one thing that the fetus could have done to prevent it from being torn apart limb from limb, have its cranium crushed and its brain sucked out? Just one thing ...

The govt does not cause reckless war. There is a just war doctrine and the Pentagon does follow that.

And you have to defend how the US "provokes terrorism." Are you claiming that the US provoked the 9/11 attacks?

Lots of places to go with what you've said but you are equivocating that which shouldn't be. Saddam had the means to defend himself, babies in the womb do not. Btw, where's your rage about Saddam's gassing of whole villages that contained women and children?

As for the Gaza strip, when Israel won the territory in 67, it was occupied by Egyptians, Palestine has always been a region, just like say SW US. We don't call them SW Americans. In a very dumb moved motivated by good intentions they gave up land for peace and have been paying for it ever since. Take it to a personal level, if your next door neighbor consitently threw rocks and bottles at your house you'd be mad and would do something wouldn't you. Let's say you daughter lost an eye from one of those bottles, you be furious. Well, the so-called Palestinians have lobbing rockets (thousands of rockets actually) day after day killing innocents yet you shed not one tear for them but attack Israel for being a bully. Before you do so again, think about the carnage that precipitated the self defense campaign. I also invite you to check out one of those maps that show support Israel has in the region, no democracies and 100% Muslim. Don't quote Lebanon either, hardly a bastion of love for Israel.

Now, about the topic at hand. When a woman is pregnant, is something living and growing inside her womb (uterus)? If nothing is growing, let it alone, it doesn't exist. If something is growing, what is it? A tumor? A long dormant extra foot? A lump of tissue? If we have people fighting radically to save trees by spiking them so that loggers get injured or killed when felling them why are people so upset at fellow humans who try to save lumps of tissue? Could it be it is more than just a lump of tissue? If your answer is yes or even maybe, ought not we err on the side of caution and not kill it? If you answer it is nothing but a lump of tissue, on what basis do you make that call? Name another human lump of tissue that has a heart beat at 4 days past missed menses? That's three weeks old for those confused. Anyhow, equivocation is an easy, but dangerous game to be played.


Father God; Creator of all things living and inanimate – forgive us Lord.

Forgive us Lord for turning from you when we need you most and instead relying on our own thinking, our own strength, and our own ways.

Lord, we have turned from you in so many ways that seem so subtle – but have resulted in so much tragedy, so much pain, so much despair. Yet still, we do not turn to you. We treat symptoms of our sin and disobedience as if they are the root cause of our problem; abortion – is our answer to the problem of our unwanted pregnancy; war – is our answer to evil; laws of man – is our answer to social injustice; blowing up buildings – is our answer to discontent; money – is our answer to unfulfillment.

We fail to see Lord that the root cause to all this is one simple thing – we have turned from you. We have taken our eyes off of you and instead turned them to ourselves. We have stopped listening to you. We have chosen to walk out from under the wing of your protection and instead turned to our own ways, our own strength, our own thinking, and our own desires. And now Lord, we are so immersed in the mud and muck of our own making that we cannot see what is good, what is righteous, what is holy.

We stand in our own arrogance making arguments to one another and fail to see Lord that one day – one day Lord we will stand before you, the Creator of all things – the Alpha and the Omega. Then Lord, how weak will our arguments sound, how empty our words will be, how we will tremble. We have forgotten Lord that you have told us that one day EVERY knew will bow to You Lord – will we bow because we have made you the Lord of our lives or will we bow because of the gut-wrenching realization of what we have become.

Lord forgive us, as we stand before you with our faces turned from you. Gently take our face in the palms of your wounded hands and turn our gaze to you as a loving father does to his child. Help us Lord turn our eyes to you. Teach us Lord how to walk in your ways – because we have forgotten how to do that Lord.

Save us Lord from ourselves! Come Lord Jesus! Come and save us!

Well I hope this doesn't end up being a double post. I tried once on my IPod and the post didn't show up. :o)

Pro-Life: I would respectfully offer that the discussion is about whether or not a fetus is a person deserving of the right to life. Whether or not Christians are inconsistent in policies or opinions has no bearing on the outcome of that question. In reality, there is a fact of the matter: either a fetus *does* deserve the right to life, or the fetus *doesn't* deserve the right to life. There is already a truth that exists about this topic, and what we are doing as a society is trying to determine what that truth is. What Christians or non-Christians say or do will in no way change the truth that already exists, waiting for discovery.

In the 1960's Americans were trying to determine whether black Americans deserved to have the same rights as white Americans. There was a truth that already existed: segregation and discrimination was wrong all along. If it could be shown that some civil rights leaders were inconsistent and actually supported discrimination in other areas of policy or of the world, that would not have changed the existing fact that it was wrong to discriminate.

What I'm saying is that your assertion is a non-sequitur. It doesn't follow that the anti-abortion position is incorrect just because Christians may be inconsistent on the application of the right to life.

That said, I think you are making a broad generalization that isn't borne out by reality. There are many Christians who are pacifists and don't believe in war at all. Others, as you've read above, find a justifiable reason for some wars. But I think that your comments just divert attention away from the true issue: whether abortion is right or wrong.

To my Christian brothers and sisters: Might I suggest that our manner affects our message?

Maybe it has already been said above in a more eloquent way but I'm trying to understand how the failure of a pro-life advocate to describe a justifiable punishment for those who commit abortion is in any way relevant to the position that abortion itself is a moral wrong. What does one have to do with the other?

Is it being claimed that a moral position is stronger, as a whole, when one who advances said position also has a justifiable punishment in mind when that moral rule is broken? How does that follow?

It seems reasonable to me that one can maintain that an action is morally wrong without having to know an appropriate way to punish the violator.

What is truly amazing is the way people try to link the casualties in the Iraq war with this issue of abortion. This is done to blame the Bush administration for the deaths in Iraq and that the Obama administration will avoid this kind of loss of life. What is amazing is that Obama and possibly his administration supports over 40 million deaths of the unborn over the decades that Roe v. Wade has made it possible to murder the unborn. It seems odd to me that no mention is made that the soldiers have many means of defending themselves against those who would kill them and have in fact been trained to do so. They are given every advantage possible to protect their lives, including some of the latest technological marvels. Yet no notice is made, by those hawking the terrible loss of life in Iraq, of the fact that the unborn have no such advantages offered to them for self protection. Nor is any mention made that, while any loss of life is regrettable, the numbers favor the unborn as being the more numerous victims. If we are to champion the greater good, should we not try to reduce the greatest number of casualties possible? It is the thoughtlessness with which people come to the defense of someone like Obama that is the most disturbing to me. The reason that I find it troubling is that it seems to be fueled by emotion that has performed a coup-de-gras on reason itself. How can anyone celebrate the death of reason that this administration is ushering in.


Please name the two propositions that Judd pointed out were "inconsistent." I am sure that either (a) one of them will simply be false (meaning pro-lifers don't hold that view or it is simply incorrect) or (b) the two statements will be reconcilable. Which is why the post didn't set forth "proposition a" in one sentence and "proposition b" in another. If the two statements are: "pro lifers think abortion is murder" and "pro lifers don't want women who have abortions to go to jail", there is simply no evidence for the latter. And as has been stated above, inconsistency is irrelevant anyway.

Arguments like "you say abortion is wrong but you ignore the war" (or the raped mothers, or the poor neglected children, or the fathers, or poverty, or capital punishment...) are problematic for a number of reasons:
(1) they are absolutely, positively irrelevant to the question of whether abortion is immoral and/or should be illegal, and in fact simply distract from the issue up for debate by throwing other side-debates on top of it, which just causes confusion and wastes everyone's time;
(2) they rest on a baseless assumption that people in the opposing group all, or even mostly, do in fact ignore the war/raped mothers/children etc.; and
(3) assume that members of the opposing group really don't care about those other issues, which is demonstrably false (and maybe, in their view, they just care about the killing of defenseless unborn humans a little more than those other issues, even if you don't consider them unborn babies to be persons/souls/humans).

Really, it's just a "poisoning the well" fallacy. Something akin to saying "all you abortionists are wrong about abortion for the same reasons you are wrong for supporting all forms of sexual promiscuity".

Hows about you stop distracting people from the point: is abortion immoral, and/or should it be illegal? Two separate questions. Whether a punishment can be prescribed admittedly flows out of #2, and I think it's been answered fully here, but the war and other social issues are irrelevant to the question at hand.

Just so everyone knows, Judd is just parroting the question found here:


or just go to www.wordpress.com and look for "Hot Community Posts". I think AaronSTL in a previous post did the same thing.

What if we were continually bombarded by the media, that all abortions occur as a result of the mother's life being in danger. They do not occur for any other reason.

The abortionist are heroes since they protect mothers from certain death.

Late term and partial birth abortions are the result of doctors giving hope for a good delivery a chance.

The late term babies are mercifully put to sleep in their suffering, having no chance for survival on their own.

We then encourage the abortionists to stand in recognition on Sunday morning in our churches.

We set aside one day each year to honor those who abort protecting the freedom of womankind.

Is *anyone* interested in compromise on abortion?

How about weighing the interests of John, the fetus/child/baby, vs the interests of Jane, the woman/mother?

Toward the beginning of pregnancy the interests of John are pretty small. No memories. No friends. No relationships of any kind. No property. No dreams, hopes, or desires. No emotions of any kind. And no pain. But John's interests grow as the pregnancy proceeds.

Simultaneously, what Jane has to gain through abortion over birth diminishes. Usually, she has very little to gain in choosing abortion over birth at, say 8 months.

We can't really do the sums and come up with a firm date like 5.53 months where John's interests outweigh Jane's. Yet this *is* how we usually try to proceed when the interests of two parties come into conflict.


What if we were continually bombarded by the media, that all abortions occur as a result of the mother's life being in danger. They do not occur for any other reason.

Since the pregnancy-related mortality rate is .000118%, I don't think your "what if" game scenario is worth considering.

Is *anyone* interested in compromise on abortion?

Hi Ron,
A serious question: would you be interested in a compromise on the issue of slavery or spousal abuse? I would guess you'd want to completely outlaw those things, right? No compromise sounds interesting on abortion either. Only abolishing it.


Both a slave and an abused spouse have HUGE interests in the dispute so the analogy fails.



Are you arguing that a baby doesn't have an interest in the dispute simply because it can't communicate?


Just because you're not cognizant of your interests, that doesn't mean that they can be thwarted with impunity.

I've got a great idea for socialized medicine. We'll find all the people who are costing the government big bucks in health care costs, and euthanize them as they sleep. They'll never know any better, and it will save the rest of us a bunch of money.

Actually, it makes sense to euthanize the elderly instead of newborns anyway. The elderly only have a few months of life left, as opposed to potentially many years of life.

Of course, this standard is just as bad as the one that you gave. Neither your awareness of your interests nor the number of years of life you have left has any bearing on what you are. Cluelessness is not a capital offense. :-)

"John's interests grow as the pregnancy proceeds."
Explain, exactly, how this happens. Since you tie the interests to memories, friends, property, dreams, etc., I'm confused as to why a later-term unborn child has greater interests. Perhaps pain, but I would think the interest in living is far greater than the interest in avoiding pain (otherwise we wouldn't go to a doctor). Explain how an early-term child has less of an interest in living than a later-term child. Putting the abortion issue aside for one second, does a two year old have a greater interest in living than a one year old? I think you may have an incoherent concept of natural rights.

Compromise always sounds attactive in a society such as ours that values neutrality and loathes extremism. However, when MLK was labeled an extremist (for not compromising), he responded:

But though I was initially disappointed at being categorized as an extremist, as I continued to think about the matter I gradually gained a measure of satisfaction from the label. Was not Jesus an extremist for love: “Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you.” Was not Amos an extremist for justice: “Let justice roll down like waters and righteousness like an ever-flowing stream.” Was not Paul an extremist for the Christian gospel: “I bear in my body the marks of the Lord Jesus.” Was not Martin Luther an extremist: “Here I stand; I cannot do otherwise, so help me God.” And John Bunyan: “I will stay in jail to the end of my days before I make a butchery of my conscience.” And Abraham Lincoln: “This nation cannot survive half slave and half free.” And Thomas Jefferson: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that an men are created equal …” So the question is not whether we will be extremists, but what kind of extremists we will be.

Thus, compromise is sometimes evil, and "extremism" sometimes necessary to bring about positive social change. You can't think yourself uber-reasonable just because you are in favor of compromise.

As one who was brainwashed and indoctrinated into the Catholic church position on this for over 12 years on this issue, I know I will never change your mind - not matter how ridiculous your concepts of biology are. The one thing I hope you know though, since you are a self described "Evangelist" is that NOBODY - except people in your own group think religions have anything to do with spirituality anymore. They are now political organizations - pure and simple. The only difference between them and more secular political organizations is that the religious ones are FAR less honest, and MUCH more nasty. As I understand it, people on the religious right think it is ok to lie and twist the truth because they believe they are following a higher truth. Sorry, I don't buy it - I think many religions- but essentially the evangelicals are suffering from dangerous levels of "group think" and it has become what can only be described as a nation-wide cult.

Hey Rob Gordon,

Now that we know what you think about religions, maybe you can tell us what you think about the topic at hand.

For example, you mentioned our concepts of biology. Tell us, perhaps, how you think biology relates (or doesn't) to the issue.

Mr. Gordon: pass the Kool-Aid. Your post, frankly, lacks any examples, support, or facts. Only unverifiable conclusions drawn in your mind.

You say evangelicals suffer from group think, then you say NOBODY (including you) thinks evangelicals have anything to do with spirituality. Group think?
In any event, this statement is obviously an embellishment contrary to the facts.

You say evangelicals are political organizations, which is well and good (many Christians don't believe there can/should be a difference between the sacred and the secular, which is a theological debate you probably are not interested in), but then you say that they are dishonest and "nasty." Please give at least one example of such a "lie." Not just a lie told by one evangelical, but a lie that all or most evangelicals tell (as part of their "group think"). As for nasty, pot meet kettle.

Your post evidences someone who has run out of arguments and resorted to name-calling. I would hope that no one mistakes your post for evidence or persuasive argument.

Rob Gordon,

Both Politics and Religion deal with what we ought to do.

Therefore it doesn't strike me as odd that religious people have a political agenda; Or that politics are grounded in religious ideology (however well defined).

As for "secular" politics (whatever *that* looks like), the only reason they seem more honest is because they tend not to stand for anything substantive. And when you try to get them to ground their political ideologies, all of a sudden no justification is required.

All governments make claims regarding how we ought to behave toward one another, so it is impossible for any form of government to be irreligious, despite any claims to the contrary.

The real political questions should explore the legitimacy of religious claims.

"Mystery Heart Ailment Strikes New Moms"
"Pregnant Women, New Mothers Should Watch for Signs of Peripartum Cardiomyopathy"


Will this provide blanket approval from the religious right for abortion? Will abortionists now be recognized as saviors of life in our churches along with the military?

Wow, what conclusive evidence you've presented. I'm curious, the lady in the article is fully recovered and the article doesn't mention abortion. She is seen happily holding her baby. I fail to see your point.

Consider this though:

So, having a baby carries risks (known and publicized for a long time) and abortion carries risks (downplayed or ignored; baby is killed outright and mother is at greater risk of death later on).


Rob G
You actually make some points. Let me suggest the following as a former Roman Catholic: read the Bible for yourself. Now, I don't wish to get into a discussion about interpretation, hermeneutics, et al but just read God's Word for yourself. No people, no religions; then you, Lord willing, will see things differently.


Thank you for your responses to my comment.


No, being unable to communicate would not imply having no interests.
Being unconscious does not destroy one's interests.
John, at conception, is not able to communicate AND has no interests to communicate.

This is a good place to bring up third-party interests.
I would not claim that just because John, at conception, only Jane's interests count.
If Jane got pregnant by Jim, he has an interest, for example.


I don't intend that we thwart John's interests with impunity.
I intend that John have someone represent his interests and weigh them with those of Jane and others. I do happen to think his interests are pretty much nonexistent at conception. But I don't propose that as a starting point; deciding that would be part of the process I am proposing.


As the pregnancy proceeds John's interest in avoiding pain grows, for example. The interests of third parties may grow too. I don't know if a two-year-old has more or fewer interests than a one-year-old in general - I suspect it depends on the situation and the individuals. I see a strong trend during pregnancy and less of a trend between 1 and 2 years.

I haven't mentioned natural rights explicitly. I have proposed affording John, Jane, Jim and others a right to have their interests weighed impartially. That's not incoherent as far as I can see. So where am I being incoherent?

I agree that "You can't think yourself uber-reasonable just because you are in favor of compromise." Maybe 'compromise' was the wrong word. I certainly don't mean an arbitrary 'split the difference' kind of compromise.

There are two camps here that aren't moving. I'm asking whether the two camps could talk - in these terms of interests - to see if one or both sides might develop a willingness to move as a result. I'm guessing some people in each camp and some between will move and some won't.

By the way, I don't claim that impartially weighing the interests of John, Jane, Jim, and others represents the ultimate good - just that it's a practice we frequently use in many contexts.

Thanks again,



I would not claim that just because John, at conception, has no interests only Jane's interests count.


That's a well thought-out response, which I appreciate amongst so many on the internet not thought-out.

The reason I said that your concept of natural rights is incoherent is because you tie rights to an apparent arbitrary passing of time or other factors that I don't see as relevant to the existence of rights. Thus, tying rights to "interests", and your suggestion that two toddlers could have different interests in living "depending on the situation" suggests a scary willingness to pick and choose which person is more worthy of living. If we were back in slave times, would a black person have less of an interest in living because conditions were so bad?

I don't think the interests can necessarily be weighed "impartially." And I'd argue that it's certainly not impartial to say that one person's right to avoid inconvenience and pain is greater than another person's right to live. Unless you intended to restrict your argument to "threat to the life of the mother"...

As to the two camps talking, absolutely the two camps should talk. I believe that's happening between us. :-) And each side should be dedicated to following the truth no matter what it is, and to changing when all the evidence and arguments are against one's position. But that doesn't mean a party has to compromise with anyone. There was no compromising with the Nazis' position on Jews' right to life. We just had to go to war and stop them.

Thanks for the response. I'm still having trouble understanding what your "compromise" would be. You seem to be saying that the baby, at conception, has no interest in the matter of whether he is aborted or not. The parents, however, do have an interest. But that is all you have said.

At what point does the child have interests and how do you know? At what point is the child a human and how do you know? I have to agree with Greg Koukl when he said:

“If the unborn is not a human being, no justification for abortion is necessary. However, if the unborn is a human being, no justification for abortion is adequate.”

Please detail your compromise because your position seems convoluted to me at this point.


Does anyone have any comment on some 'contraception' methods, such as the IUD or pill, being abortifatient?


Ron, what I dont understand is how the mortality of a human being can be delegated by "interests". Who's interested in living? I do get what your saying, and it indeed *makes sense*. But whats the difference between the interests of someone in a comatic state and an unborn child? The coma patient had interests that are currently suspended, and the unborn has interests but doesnt have the capacity to communicate them. And if thats the case, well the coma patient doesnt have interests either, or atleast none that were currently aware of. By default a living entity has interests, unless you can demonstrate that somehow young children wish to be dead, or arent interested in living.

I realize thats probably not what your saying; and if anything, concerning mortality of innocent life, *interests* simply isint a justifiable reason.

P.S Olivia, a pastor out here in seattle (mark driscoll) spoke on the question you asked and it was very informative. IIRC its inconclusive wether or not the contraceptives you posted (or atleast i think the ones you posted) actually carry out abortions in some instances.


theres the sermon if your interested

I just read this thread for the first time. All of you are more articulate than I ever was. I just cannot understand how any thinking person can conclude that it is all right to kill an unborn child in its sancuary.

All this posturing, postulating, spologizing and argument is just a waste of good intellect.

"As one who was brainwashed and indoctrinated into the Catholic church position on this for over 12 years on this issue, I know I will never change your mind - not matter how ridiculous your concepts of biology are."

So you have surrendered your mind to years of 'brainwashing', and you are incapable of thinking otherwise? Are you purely a mechanical being? It saddens me to hear you say that, really

P.s, in light of abortion why do we have child support? Honest question. Shouldent men have the right to abandon their children?

"All this posturing, postulating, spologizing and argument is just a waste of good intellect."

Are you referring to this entire thread, including the original post, or only to certain people's responses?
I'd argue that this thread is anything but "a waste of good intellect." At least a few people here seem to be in search of truth, and perhaps are in need of better arguments to ground their beliefs, or to help them change their beliefs. How is that a waste of time?
I'm not sure what good an intellect is if not for sharing it with others. A good intellect is for relating to God and spreading the truth, both of which are acts of love.
To the extent someone is here just looking for a fight, I say welcome. Those who stand near a fountain are bound to get wet...


My feeble attempt at a summary:

The iud prevents an already fertilised egg from being implanted; and the pill, if it's first and second mechanisms of preventing ovulation and preventing sperm penetrating the womb fails, will also prevent an already fertilesed egg from being implanted.

I have a question:

A woman takes a pregnancy test and it is positive, goes to the doctor who performs a blood test which is positive, she then tells her husband that she is 5 weeks pregnant and they both tell a few friends and family members. Someone enters their home and kills the pregnant woman and her husband.

With how many murders should the killer be charged?

Aaron, the law allready recognizes that as a tripple murder according to The Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004

Here is a list of fetal homicide laws by state:


This should be considered a triple homicide as Samwise has mentioned above.

The comments to this entry are closed.