Powerful Argument Against Abortion for Rape Victims

Abortion has been an area of controversy ever since its inception.  Many like myself, believe that life begins at conception and that aborting the unborn child at any stage of development is murder.  Others advocate that women should have the right over their bodies and to choose whether or not to murder their unborn child and you may never convince them otherwise.

It is an issue of religion, morality and ethics.  Because we are sinful beings, this is an issue that will never be resolved unless we become a unified nation of godly people, and I don’t see that happening anytime soon.

When the question of rape comes up, many pro-lifers succumb to their emotions and the counsel of world and give in to allow for the murder of the unborn child.  Rape is a horrible and violent assault on a woman.  It violates her not only physically, but emotionally as well.  The trauma of rape is so horrendous that some women never recover from it and even commit suicide, killing both themselves and their child.

Advocates of allowing abortion in the case of rape often use the argument that having a child that was conceived by rape only serves to remind the mother of her violation.  Having a child from a rape makes it harder for a mother and father to give them the same kind of love they would give to a child conceived in a loving relationship.

If those are your arguments for aborting a child of rape, my answer would be to give the child up for adoption so you don’t have to look at it every day and remind yourself of what happened to you.  But why murder an innocent and defenseless child for a crime it didn’t commit?  It was the father who should be punished, not the child.

Do you punish the child of a murderer because of their parent’s crime?  No!  Then why approve of doing so in one case but not the other?  Isn’t that being hypocritical?  Murder affects the lives of all those around perhaps more so than rape.

I want you to listen to Pam Stenzel in the video below.  Her mother was raped at age 15.  Instead of murdering the child, her mother gave the child up for adoption.  The child went to a family that wanted a child and raised the child with love.  That child is Pam and she is so thankful that she wasn’t punished for the crime of her biological father.

What has Pam accomplished in her life as a child of rape?


  • Degree in Psychology from Liberty University
  • Served as member, National Abstinence Clearinghouse Advisory Board
  • Served as Director of the Alpha Women’s Center, a crisis pregnancy center in Prior lake, MN
  • Developed numerous abstinence education products. "Sex Has a Price Tag- the Original" video is distributed worldwide and has been translated in 11 different languages.
  • Received the Charleston International Film Festival Gold Award in 1997 for her video "Sex Has a Price Tag- the Original"
  • Pam Stenzel’s public school curriculum "Abstinence by choice" and "Building Healthy Relationships" is used worldwide in North and South America, Australia,
  • Hong Kong, Singapore, Africa and Ireland
  • Video curriculum, "Sex, Love and Relationships", received the Crown Award for Curriculum of the Year, in 1999
  • Pam participated in President Bush’s Faith-Based and Community Initiatives meeting held at The White House, May 2001
  • Featured speaker at the United Nations for "The Summit on Children Conference", June 2001
  • Guest appearances on national television and radio programs include: Fox News Networks, "Hannity & Colmes Show", "The Dr. Laura Show", CBN’s "The 700 Club", and ABC Televisions "Politically Incorrect with Bill Maher".

Her short two minute testimony is probably the most powerful argument against abortion in the case of rape I’ve ever heard.  You can read about Pam Stenzel on her website.  If you are touched by this video as much as I was, then I pray that you pass it on to everyone that you know and ask them to pass it on to everyone they know.  With a lot of prayer, this video will spread to millions of others, and just may help to save the life of one innocent victim of a violent crime.  Just one life saved is worth praising God for, isn’t it?



  • Nathan

    Libtards will always want to reward the guilty, leave the victim alone, and punish the innocent.

  • Screeminmeeme

    Fantastic testimony.
    Too bad this can't be broadcast to all of America.

    • Doodlebug

      You are so right Screemin - what a different world this might be if this were broadcast from sea to shining sea!

      • Evermyrtle

        America know a plenty to sink his ship but nothing is done. The election was rigged.

  • DooM

    I no longer want to support the welfare people, the handicapped, or the elderly.
    Can I grab a chainsaw and legally "abort" them?

  • A reasonable, sensible person.

    Are you serious...? How can you be? When will you figure it out?! This is a fundamental reason why the republicans just lost. Akin! Murdock! Sound familiar..? Way to kill the election for an idiotic/dark age-ish social view.

    I personally don't agree with abortion, but that's MY life. I wouldn't for a second, especially as a man, pass judgement on any woman for a choice such as this. How is it different from someone turning a starving person at their doorstep? Both people are requiring someone else to live. Is it the Christian thing to do? No! Should it be illegal and should we bring violence i.e. pointing a gun at a young pregnant girl to force her to carry her baby to term? NO!

    • StephenFR

      First, while the subject of abortion did come up during the election, neither Romney nor Ryan advocated changing current law. You have to listen. Obama wants to make it part of his national health plan, which means that, regardless of the cause of pregnancy, the tax payer pays for the abortion. Obama managed to twist it around by declaring that Romney would make all abortion unlawful. Romney never said that.
      Second, the author never advocated in this article changing the laws either. He stated that the video makes a very strong case for not aborting a child due to rape. Not at all the same thing.
      Third and lastly, you obviously did not watch the video. It is in fact a very eloquent and forceful argument for bringing the child to term and putting it up for adoption. Also has nothing to do with changing the law.
      So please, read the material presented, gather your facts and then give an argument on the subject, not on a misconstrued conclusion of what you think they were saying, but one what they actually said.
      This is a very strong message and one which should have a much larger audience if for no other reason, it makes you think.

      • Reasonable and Sensible

        Mike T, It's an individual moral choice, not one we need to make
        together as a nation. I completely believe in providing good
        information, but coercing, manipulating, and criminalizing a women for abortion is out of the question.

        Stephen FR,
        Ryan I quote, "I'm as pro-life as you can
        get." Romney was pro-life, and guess what? They were all associated
        with the idiots like Akin and Murdock, whom by the way have distorted
        and screwed the message of the tea party to fit christian right values.
        Yeah, none of this including the war on women had anything to do with Romney losing. Keep lying to yourself buddy...

        Also given that the only reason rape-abortion is at the forefront of the media attention is because of the aforementioned senatorial candidates both decreeing abortion should be ILLEGAL even in the case of rape. Listen to
        yourself... Yep, this author isn't backing up the senate candidates
        statement on the legal standing of abortion at all, he is just picking
        this moment to right about how awesome rape with no abortion is. Are you insane or just illogical? Of course this pertains to the legal standing on abortion!

        • StephenFR

          The following would be a statement to change the law. "I intend to overturn Row v Wade." Or "I think we need to change the law and criminalize abortion." Those are statements to change laws. Statements such as I am pro life mean exactly what they say. THE INDIVIDUAL is pro life, meaning that they would not support someone giving ANOTHER INDIVIDUAL ADVISE TO GET AN ABORTION. You are dealing with highly intelligent people who know the exact meanings of their words. If they have a shortcoming it is their not realizing people such as yourself will try to interpret what they say to fit your own agenda and do not know the true and specific meaning of the words that they use.
          To use myself as an example, I am Right To Life. I would never recommend to a woman that she get an abortion under any circumstances. Would I in any way prevent her from getting one if she so chose? The answer is no I would not.
          There was a clip from a Romney studio interview I saw the other day where the radio host was trying desperately to "catch" Romney on this very issue. The radio host was trying to use Romneys previous statements and his understanding of LDS to try to corner Romney. While O can not quote his exact words, what Romney finally said is that if you are a member of the Church of Latter Day Saints (Mormon) abortion is against your religion. However, while it is also a duty of your religious belief to spread the word and to evangelize, it is also against your religion to force anyone to conform to your religious beliefs. Lets dissect that. What he said is that if you are a Mormon and following your faith, you are by definition Right to Life. However, while you should tell other people this and why, it is also your religious responsibility NOT to deny others that choice. If I run across that clip, which as I recall I ran across while not looking on YouTube, I'll post it. However, don't hold your breath as I have other things to get done and as I said, I just happened across it.
          So listen to what people actually say and if you are not certain, look up the definitions of the words, and do not read things into the statements.

        • Tout

          STEPHENFR. You are pro-life, but allow mothers to kill their developing children. You would only protect a child if you were pregnant !!

        • StephenFR

          Here is my position. I disagree with anyone getting an abortion, I would council against it. However it is my position that as my religion would state that I should evangelize (I'm a Christian) it also states that it is up to the other person to accept or reject. Further, as my beliefs on this is based on my religion and in this country law is not supposed to be based on religious argument, it is up to the person contemplating that position to make that decision. I guess I would sum it up as salvation is a personal decision. It is not up to me to force a behavior on someone else.

        • Matt

          @ "Reasonable etc...." You should get your facts straight before you start slapping people around. The only reason rape-abortion is at the forefront of the media attention is because rape-abortion has been a very vocal and visible issue ever since the 1970's, and if one legitimately traces the inductry backward in time in America, you would go back to the racist-motivated population control by abortion and sterilization preached and extensively written about by Margaret Sanger from at least the year 1920. And for certain, all of the presidential elections at least since Carter's reelection bid in 1980 saw abortion as more than just a side issue. And it was not revived in the public's view THIS time simply because two U.S. Senate candidates put their feet in their mouths. (An inexcusable act of "hatred" if you're a Republican, but excused and obfuscated in the propagandist press if you're a bigmouth racist liberal Democrat with both feet in your mouth at all times---like Joe Biden, and sometimes Barack Obama.)
          In this race, George Stephanopoulos threw the question out at a primary debate in early 2012 (January, I think). The national media jumped on it (which was George's goal) and ran with it for weeks. After the initial spark, activist Sandra Fluke came from nowhere and pretended to be an ordinary person testifying before a Congressional committee---which was untrue---it was actually a staged press conference designed to LOOK like a Congressional committee. She was an activist plant at a Catholic college, attempting to crowbar them into providing contraceptives and birth control---something ANYONE can get for free in this country via a number of other sponsored venues (or---here's a radical idea---pay for them herself!). This long-term strategy was orchestrated by pro-abortion forces, and Fluke's publicity debut was aided and abetted by radical feminists in Congress, which pushed the rape-abortion issue further to the fore---long before Akin or Murdoch's slip-ups. Then Rush Limbaugh basically asked: if Fluke's premise is this and this, then what, by modern parlance in our pop culture, would she be called? and in this illustration what role would then be played by the taxpayer? and what would that make Congress for brokering the exchange of funds? That pushed the issue to a fevered pitch in the public forum and the media. ALL in January and February 2012. This is the invented "Republican War on Women" (when in fact Democrats are the ones who seem to assume every woman thinks about every issue from below the belt). Akin and Murdoch didn't goof up until basically the beginning and end of Summer---literally four to six months later. The issue was a hot campaign issue from January 2012. It has latently always been one since 1973. So for a number of reasons, you're neither reasonable or sensible. But I'm glad you have a life to live, and that no one chose to abort you.

  • wildbill

    If you want an abortion just take your oldest child and kill him or her that will solve the problem because murder is murder

  • MikeT

    @ "a reasonable, sensible person" - you just don't get it. The point is not political at all - it's a moral issue. One shouldn't waiver on their moral stances to gain political points. Social views will deteriorate and change with time as they do in all societies. That doesn't mean that moral laws change however - just man's morality (or lack thereof). I am all for being compassionate to the women contemplating abortion, especially to those with extreme circumstances such as is laid out here. Only compassion can change their minds, not condemnation. Judgment is left up to God and God alone. Real, truthful education about abortion and the alternatives needs to continue. I'm all for proactive pro-choice when it comes to using abortion as a form of birth control. Make better choices BEFORE you have sex - there are many options available.

    • CARLjr

      Choose not to get raped.

      • SouthernLadyNC

        What a stupid response.

        • CARLjr

          The article/discussion is about rape. There are not many choices you get to make in that scenario.

  • Terry

    This woman is terrible. Nobody should listen to what she has to say. God is not with this fool. She has been praying for her mother since she was Four?? What kind of nonsense is that. That is a lie. Remember, very few women that get raped get pregnant. 2 out of 3 rape cases today are thrown out of court for lack of sufficient evidence, and because to many women yell rape when they weren't. This girls mother wasn't raped. She gave it up willingly because her mother was a whore. That is why this girl has never seen her mother.

    • Matt

      Terry, YOU are terrible. Nobody should listen to what you have to say. God is not with you, you "fool" (as you say...like you would have any idea what God thinks). What kind of nonsense do you spout by railing on this woman? It sounds like you are conducting your own war on women by calling this woman and her mother foul names. You sound EXACTLY like a nasty Obama supporter. Congratulations.

    • cordeg

      You must have misspelled something in your post, because as you typed it your comment actually means, "I can tell other people are lying because they don't think like I do and don't react to things as I do, and there's no way they aren't deep down inside really the same miserable SOB that I am." Anyway, I'm thinking perhaps that wasn't what you meant to type, but that's what got posted. You might want to have that PC looked at -- could be a virus.

  • diverjimk

    It's not the baby's fault he was conceived. After looking at her list of accomplishments, I have to wonder which trash can the cure for cancer was dumped or toilet it was flushed down,

  • Reasonable and Sensible

    StephenFR, one last thing on Obamacare, that hunk of crap was going down if Romney was elected regardless on where it stood on abortion funding, because it's an atrocious piece of legislation. So thanks to you and others for believing in so blindly in the Pro-Life cause. Seriously without all of you, we wouldn't be paying for any of obamacare let alone the abortions. Hope you appreciate your hard earned dollars paying for thousands of abortions :) I actually find it funny, kind of like just deserts for forcing your views, on how to live a "good" and "satisfying," life on others.

    Terry your an idiot, and with your androgynous name I can't tell if you make such terrible comments out of fear of your own femininity or if your a dude pissed that he can't join in on the fun everyone else around him is having. Either way, get over you're hate of sexuality.

  • CARLjr

    Both Todd Akin and Richard Murdock - the senate candidates that tried to make this an issue - LOST. Republicans need to re-examine their strategy. If these are the types of candidates you put up, be prepared for a Democrat to take that seat.

    • Reasonable and Sensible

      Amen Brother, someone with some sense

  • Shermer

    From the article: "Do you punish the child of a murderer because of their parent’s crime?"
    Do you punish the entire human race for eternity because of Adam and Eve's crime?

    • Matt

      Very clever Shermer (not really). But I ask you, which of us did not also CHOOSE to sin when given opportunities? All of us have. We demonstrate by our own behavior that we would have all done the same thing as Adam and Eve. Your philosophical query in no way negates the moral and ethical obligation that WE have to protect innocent life. NOTHING is the fault of the baby.

      • Shermer

        No, it's a blatant double-standard. We aren't given the chance to show how good we can be - we're condemned from the moment we're born. You may speak for yourself of what you'd have done. If God told me don't eat the apple, I'd not have eaten the apple.

        • Matt

          Shermer, I admire your efforts and your supernatural willpower. However supernatural you may be, unfortunately you are neither divine nor holy (neither is Obama or other pro-abortionists---which will be discussed.)

          Shermer, you have chosen a perfect example in your original posting of the profound difference in the perspective and prerogatives of God as compared to that of man. It absolutely IS a double-standard, but not an unjust one, as we humans are most capable of. In my mind, IT IS ALL A QUESTION OF AUTHORITY. Other issues are tangent to and interlocked with authority, but in the end, it is an authority issue.

          Shermer, I am going to assume for the sake of argument that you actually do believe in God, since you appeal to the model argument of creation and the first created human beings, ancestors of the human race. If you do not, that is between you and the One you choose to disbelieve. Nonetheless, you established the points of discussion, so we will take if from there. The problem of abortion will come into play if you read further along. However, please let me attempt to answer the question of divine authority.

          Now through a genuine relationship with God via faith in His Son Jesus, we can personally KNOW God, yet in our mortal limitations of both mental and logical capacity and prowess, we cannot know all ABOUT God---especially of His ways or purposes---in many of the deepest mysteries of the universe, many of which are expressed in Scripture but not really explained.

          For example, we are told that God is NOT the author (or source/originator) of sin, yet one of the beings in His highest created order---Lucifer---originated sin. This probably first came about by coveting the worship due to God alone, and then by the development of pride in believing that he himself---Lucifer---DESERVED that very worship...due to God alone! After all, Lucifer was a magnificent and powerful being, was he not?

          So the philosophical questions of cause and effect come into our minds and we naturally ask "How could a perfect God create a perfect creation---angelic beings and all---and yet one of them be flawed, insomuch that, as the Bible says, 'Sin was found in him' (Lucifer)?" And our brilliant minds then pose a dichotomy: "Either God was not perfect, which would make Him NOT 'God', or else His creation was not perfect, which would mean that God erred, which would also make Him NOT 'God'." Or perhaps we go one step further and acknowledge the origin of sin was not God's doing, but if there IS a God and He is Him, then why allow sin to continue? Why not destroy the existence of Lucifer the moment sin was "found" in Lucifer, or at least isolate him and stop his capacity to influence others? Would not a God of love do that?

          Eh? Very clever, aren't we? Now this is the point that college professors and philosophy majors and agnostics stop with their discussion of the existence or credibility of God---except perhaps to attempt to show other areas that they, in their perfect understanding of all things, can demonstrate that God does not exist or how he goofed or whatever.

          The problem is that these spiritual and metaphysical conundrums are laid out in ways that are essentially false dichotomies. The seeking of answers is commendable---God commends us for it. But often the pride of man assumes that if the answer is not forthcoming, or straightforward, or by our own judgment is insufficient or deficient in some way, then we are justified in rejecting God altogether.

          The assumption that we are prone to make (because we are sinners, by the way) is that we have it all figured out. It really is arrogant of us to think this way, and we actually lie to ourselves when we tell ourselves that we are serious contenders for being masters of the universe.

          God spoke to Job with questions that He might well pose to us: "Where were you when I created the universe?" In other words, for all of our lofty, high-minded, even arrogant thoughts and discourses, not one of us have ever truly created anything. You or I cannot materially create one rose or rose petal, not one grain of pollen, not one cell or any of its [unbelievably intricate] particles or amino acids or molecules or atoms or electrons or photons or quarks. We cannot create so-called inanimate matter, much less living organisms or organic material. We cannot create---by even means of moving or shifting already-created matter, a true moon or planetary body, much less a star----some of which are bigger in diameter than whole solar systems. We certainly cannot create even one cubic nanometer of the space that the universe occupies, nor can we create energy, synergy, laws of physics, elemental properties, co-efficients, stratification, orbital dynamics, etc. (Heck, most of us don't even have a daily grasp of how electricity or plumbing works...and we're fairly hard-pressed to explain how hundreds of workers with small skilled hands can properly assemble an i-Phone!)

          In truth, we do great injustice to God in simplifying Him down to become really the product of our own vain imaginations; the foil of our boring and arrogant philosophical ramblings. Yet He is the inventor of mathematics, physics, science, and truly of all things. He is absolutely awesome and is infinitely beyond our scope or capacity to comprehend. He condescends to us, and for mysterious reasons outside our understanding, the affections that we are told that He has---such as love and compassion and mercy---are directed toward us, His created beings.

          Who He truly is gives Him absolute authority over all He has created. If we could really understand everything about Him----if our own logic could grasp the Divine as much as we think it does---then I propose that God is NOT God. But I submit that it is our own logic that is limited by every aspect of our own mortality, and that God's ways are truly beyond our full understanding.

          The end of my argument may not satisfy you, but I submit that God is holy, and that He has all authority in the universe. The mysteries that are presented to us are paradoxes---that is, they may APPEAR to be contradictions but are really not. The false dichotomies we invent to try to excuse ourselves from answering to our Creator's authority, ARE in fact FALSE. The third option to any of these false proposals which denigrate God is simple: We mortals simply cannot fully understand. Period. Is it so hard for man to admit that something is beyond our understanding? In philosophical matters, the answer is typically "Yes."

          Therefore, in establishing God's supreme authority, we establish that He has the right---based on HIS standards of righteousness and holiness, not ours---to judge with justice and clarity. He has chosen to temper His justice with an offer of mercy and forgiveness through the voluntary loving payment of our just penalty by His own perfect and innocent Son, Jesus. But God sits in the seat of judgment because He is perfect, just and holy, as well as being our Creator----He has the RIGHT to sit there. We do not have the right to sit there, nor to act as if we did. What human authority we have is derived from God at His behest, and is to be exercised according to His instruction. He takes into account our flaws, and while not excusing them, He commands us to be merciful to each other because we humans are all flawed.

          Can God condemn every descendant of Adam and Eve because of THEIR sin? Yes. (Although we are told that we are condemned because of our OWN sins.) We sin because we are born sinners. We do not BECOME sinners when we sin, but we DEMONSTRATE that we are descendants of Adam when we sin. The question is, could God have prevented Adam and Eve's offspring from being conceived and born as natural sinners, ready to demonstrate their capacity as soon as possible? The answer is Yes. DID HE prevent them from being born sinners? No. Then we ask "Why?" And the answer is not satisfactory. In essence, we are not told why, and this is part of what is referred to in Scripture as part of "the mystery of iniquity".

          We must then ask ourselves---can we trust a God that we don't fully understand? Are His standards for us too high, but His standard for Himself is not high enough? Can we be condemned for murdering an innocent life---an infant in the womb---and God Himself not be condemned for condemning the whole race of sinners when He could have prevented us each from becoming sinners? Yet we are told "God is just". Who tell us that? He does.

          Now look around and ask yourself "Who designed and made all the beautiful and awesome things in the universe?" If the answer is not you yourself or some other human being, then you must ask "Was there a God that made this or did it make itself?" If you think it made itself, then you should study the origins of original information in design---it exists at the molecular level and its complexity cannot be reduced no matter how far back in time you care to go. Can it really be that it all just happened? If your informed answer says that all around you speaks clearly of a Designer and Maker, then you may also conclude that it was God who made us, and further, you may recognize that we are answerable to Him.

          So you're faced with a choice, Shermer. You can reject God or at least ignore His authority, simply because you don't fully understand Him. Or, you can recognize that if He really is God, then there are bound to be aspects of His character, His dealings with His own creation, and even the history of His own creation, that very expectedly will be mysterious to us. If you recognize that God really does exist and that we can't fully comprehend Him, then your choice is this: Are you willing to trust Him in the areas you can't comprehend? Are you willing to rhetorically conclude the same thing Abraham did when he said "Shall not the judge of all the earth do right?"

          If you are willing to trust Him, then know that when He judges or declares something, He is right and just in doing so, and furthermore, He has the right to pass such judgment. On the other hand, when we as a society of non-gods---of mortals---of sinners---judges that violating His principles is right, then it does not matter whether we say it is right or not. If God says killing an innocent life is murder, then He has the right to say so---and He has said so---and we do not ever have the right to violate those principles.

          Yes it is a double standard, but not the way we typically mean. When we say that, we mean that something is not just or not "fair". But when we really see this as two standards---God's just laws and our unjust corruption of them---then we see that there really is only one standard---God's standard. And when we violate God's standards to establish our own standards which further violate His standards, then we are violating God's standards in multiple ways, NOT establishing a new legitimate standard to go by.

          Why are we not allowed to establish our own standards in preference to God's standards? It is a matter of AUTHORITY. We have no real authority to establish our own standards.

          From an anthropological viewpoint, we see truth in the concept that God's basic standards are at the root of human conscience---every society in the history of the world has had some form of moral, ethical or legal standards. The fact that they had to HAVE standards to govern one another recognizes the idea that man is a sinner and needs defined parameters of acceptable behavior. The standards set vary, as would be expected by flawed creatures, but in so many basic respects they are the same, prohibiting violence to or violations of other people's personhood or property, including prohibitions on theft, rape, murder, undue assault, and often even slander or bearing false testimony.

          But these basic standards only point to a common origin of deeply-held thought or feeling. The ultimate standard has always been God's own, and His perfect authority has always been behind it.

          You and I and our society has no ultimate authority to say that it is okay for people to murder their children, especially the most helpless and humanly innocent children. We have no right to murder anyone else's children either. We have no authority to violate standards that God set for us---and even built into our own hearts by way of conscience. And when someone's conscience is seared and unfeeling, it is not any excuse for attempting to discard God's standards.

          I will also freely admit that, while God is certainly just, that is most decidedly not "fair". We do not want Him to be "fair" with us, we want His MERCY. He is very merciful to us, in that He allows us to trust Him and seek Him, and to find Him as a loving Father and Savior. If He were strictly fair, then we would all get our just due for our sins. But "while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us."

          Shermer, I may not have convinced you of anything, except that I am crazy enough to sit here on my day off and type you a reply, which in LENGTH may be worthy of Plato, but in STRENGTH may be worthy of Moe Howard! But contrary to your claim, we ARE given a chance to show how "good" we can be, by trusting Him in a way similar to the way Adam and Eve were told to. We are told to trust His character and His command to have faith in Him, in spite of doubts brought on by whispered self-indulgent philosophies and promises from other sources to bestow all knowledge.

          I'm glad you are confident that you wouldn't have eaten the fruit. Because of that, I am confident that you will consider and receive God's offer of forgiveness and salvation by grace, provided through the sacrifice of His Son Jesus. He commands us to repent and believe on Him, trusting Him for everlasting life. Will you trust Him?

        • Shermer

          No, I don't think so.

        • Matt

          Sorry you feel that way. I guess people who know everything tend to feel that way. Well, at least you mother didn't murder you and deny the world your existence.

        • Shermer

          I don't claim to know everything, Matt.

  • Matt from Louisville

    @ "A Reasonable Sensible Person" --- I just want you to know that the precious value of each person's life is NOT a concept from the Dark Ages, it's as up to date as the breath you're breathing.
    UNDENIABLE FACT #1: History demonstrates that every society in every era of known human history who devalued human life to the point of justifying the murder of innocent people of any life-stage---was a society that was not long for this Earth. They collapsed into the rubble of history due to moral corruption exemplified by their ambiguousness about the most basic thing in life, which is life itself.
    UNDENIABLE FACT #2: It is unnatural and damaging to both the mind and body for a woman to kill her own child in the womb. Physiological changes and emotional scarring can haunt a woman for years and even a lifetime.
    abortion should be legal because having a child is emotionally troubling and physically inconvenient to the life of the mother, then why not make it legal up to the child's 18th birthday? RELATED UNDENAIBLE FACT OF RECORD: Obama wanted to make it legal for the subject of an attempted but botched abortion (i.e. the helpless infant that adults in the room are trying to kill)---that another doctor be called in and kill the baby after it has been born alive, because that was the original intent of the mother. (This was Illinois State Senator Barack H. Obama's apparent view of "Original Intent".)
    UNDENIABLE FACT #3: Abortion is neither safe, nor is it rare. What it IS, however, is a multi-billion dollar industry of heartless greedy adults trying to satisfy each other's needs: The mother needs to get rid of the baby growing in her womb, and the abortion UNDENIABLE PARENTHETICAL TONGUE-IN-CHEEK SMARTALEK INAPPROPRIATE REMARK #1: If industry such as the doctors, nurses, staff, and employees of groups like Planned Parenthood need to have plenty of customers to keep their paychecks and funds on time and "on the money".
    UNDENIABLE FACT #4: Murdering babies is actually the "Dark Ages" revisited, not the determination to save babies' lives.
    UNDENIABLE FACT #5: With advanced medicine today, it is almost NEVER necessary to abort a baby to save the life of the mother. If a birth event goes into trauma over a period of several minutes, usually a C-Section can be rapidly performed. If the C-Section will be high risk to the mother at that stage, then aborting the baby will likely not assist in any way to the saving of the mother's life because she is already slipping away, and birth canal or C-Section stresses and blood loss will be secondary to whatever the main problem is. The baby may also die in the process by this point, but intentionally killing it will almost never save the mother's life. On the other hand, if a birth event goes into trauma rapidly and unexpectedly, and if for some rare reason (these days) it becomes necessary to forfeit one life to save the other---mother OR baby, but not both---then essentially a TRIAGE situation has developed which requires an immediate decision to save the life of the person most likely to survive. Legal ramifications notwithstanding (and there are some considerable ones), the choice may well be another family member's, and chances are, they will tearfully choose the mother because they have known her. The mother would likely choose the baby's life to be saved, because that's usually what mothers do---try to protect their children. But the doctor may have to choose based on odds of survival. In that case, a legal codification defining abortion needn't exist, but rather a triage codification which covers mother/baby situations. In other words, it is UNNECESSARY to legalize abortion simply to cover the rare case of saving the life of the mother---that would or could be covered under existing laws concerning triage and orderly treatment of the most serious cases in preference to less serious ones, with the exception of passing over treatment of cases so serious as judged to be fatal upon arrival at the treating facility. In other words, doctors can only do so much to save a life, and after all efforts to do so are expended or considered in emergency cases, any ensuing loss of life would be tragic, but the medical people could not be held legally cuplable. Hence, no need for legalizing abortion in any case.

    UNDENIABLE PARENTHETICAL TONGUE-IN-CHEEK SMARTALEK INAPPROPRIATE REMARK #2: Are you really "A Reasonable and Sensible Person"? Because from your cold-hearted comments, it appears that your parents may not have had any children that lived.
    UNDENAIBLE FACT #6: It is never morally or ethically right or just to intentionally kill an innocent human life, for any reason, including and especially because that life is inconvenient, or a reminder of a crime committed by someone else. Hence, it is WRONG to legalize abortion in the case of rape or incest.
    UNDENIABLE EMPHATIC AND PROBABLY INAPPROPRIATE REMARK: It is probably morally and ethically right and just to sterilize rapists, both of the incestuous and of the non-incestuous type. In fact, that is my opinion and position on the matter.
    UNDENIABLE FACT #7: I really am sincerely glad, "A Reasonable and Sensible Person", that your parents did not abort you. In spite of my teasing you in a tacky way---which is my way of saying that I hope you're not in charge of anything important in this world, like the inordinate and illegitimate power of life and death over someone else's life and existence on Earth---I still am glad that you were able to watch the video of Pam Stenzel. By the way, I believe that the Hollywood actress and champion swimmer Esther Williams was an actual survivor of an abortion attempt. Glad Obama was not around then to give some doctor the legal "all clear" on a "post-birth" abortion (my term), or she would have ended up as tiny pieces of little person in a trash bag. Wish Obama would go away now....but alas....he is indeed "our National crisis" like never before.
    CONCLUSION: God is sovereign, and He must be chastising us---probably for the national sin of 40 years of legalized abortion.

    • Matt from Louisville

      Sorry, somehow, part of a paragraph from the top part of my posting showed up at the beginning of a different paragraph in the middle of the posting. Can't figure that one out. Sorry.

    • Tout

      I must thank you for presenting it so clearly. God bless you.

  • cordeg

    I find the most effective way to win a race against a political opponent is to have them killed. Sure, there are "moral complications", but after all, the most important thing is winning political office, no? Wait. You mean to say it isn't? Wow. Maybe I'm going to have to re-think killing my next opponent. Gee, who thought this politics things could be so complicated? Anyway, that pro-life thing is another matter altogether, no? I mean, why would you want to let a small thing like moral qualms about abortion get in the way of your political career? I mean, It's not like killing your opponent or anything. Not too much like it anyway.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1659263671 Barb Goss

    I don't how many women are on this blog, by the looks the majority our men. Let me say I am a victim of rape and ended up pregnant. I chose to carry the baby to term and put him up for adoption. I hear from the parents from time to time - and I don't want to interfere or interrupt his life but I do know at age 25 he has a wonderful life a good job and is married. I am not sorry for my decision, I do know I would have never been able to live with aborting the baby. What is sad is that people can't share their belief without being judged and criticized because you don't believe the same way. People go on a rampage what a sad group of American's we have become. This campaign of war on women as the Obama group called it was noting short of really treating women that they are only good for reproductive parts and we are brainless.

    • 1_Eddie_1

      May the Lord bless you, and lift HIS countenance upon you. You shall have treasures in heaven for your choice to pick life. I wish more women had your courage. I feel bad for you having to suffer through your ordeal. I will pray for you.

      • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1659263671 Barb Goss

        Thank you for you comment. I know God's hand gave me the strength to do what I did and I know their is a wonderful young man out their who is well loved.

  • Michael

    Yes, that's all liberals want. Punish the innocent and give the villains a cookie and a pat on the back for a job well done. May The Good Lord burn ALL of the liberals/libtards in the fires of hell for eternity.

  • Think About It

    Help me to understand why the unborn child should be given the death sentence while the sperm donor usually walks free. Try this one on for size. The s.d. stays in prison for as long as the child is alive.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Frank-Hurley/100000867242212 Frank Hurley

    It is extremely stupid of flaming pro-lifers to insist on "purity" and to attack the exceptions (rape, incest, life of mother) that are part of the (pro-life!) consensus in this country. Yesterday, you gifted the U S Senate to the Democrats. Again.

  • DrJuan

    There are clear legitimate arguments that life begins at conception and will potentially develop into a wonderful human being. Alternatively, there is the possibility that the fetus will naturally abort. There is also the possibility there could be deformities, illness or mental deficiency, a drain on the mother and society. And there is also a real possibility of that life developing into another rapist just as brown cows tend to beget brown cows. The statistics for an Einstein, on the other hand, are very low.

    In Christian religion life begins at conception. In law the murderer of a pregnant woman is charged with two counts of murder, not one. So when a mother seeks abortion she is ending a life. However it is a potential life, not a fully developed coherent human. It has not tasted life and is unaware of itself. It is unaware of its mother, father, siblings, air and earth. It is not a functional brain-active human. At sufficiently early term, the argument can be made that it is at a lesser stage of life with a lesser actual value and will not lose any awareness since it had none.

    In religion, the soul of the innocently murdered go to heaven. So this sacred loss of life actually results in the same ultimate outcome or perhaps actually a more favorable outcome when the possibility of hell and purgatory are considered. One might actually be doing the fetus a favor saving it from a possibility of painful eternal hell. So abort baby abort!

    This is the cold logic. But not the feelings - and not my feelings. The gut tells you life is sacred, particularly human life. So I leave this decision to the mother. And it should not be taken lightly. The mother should not be cajoled or denied. The mother has sole execution rights over her fetus. It is her complete love or complete lack of commitment that will make the decision. And the Republican party should not intervene in any way.

    Disclaimer: I have nothing to do with this subject, read at your own peril.

  • 1_Eddie_1

    Luke 9:23 And HE said to all: If any man will come after ME, let him deny himself, and take up his cross daily, and follow ME.
    When Jesus spoke to all, he meant everyone, not one rule for the disciples, and another for the masses, it was ALL inclusive. So, HE is saying that if you want to follow ME, you have to give up your own desires, and what society is telling you (if it is contradictory to HIM), and (figuratively) die every day to yourself. He picked the symbol of the cross for a reason. Crucifixion was for the lowest of the low, you were despised and reviled. HE wants you to follow HIS lead. We must be the salt of the earth and a shining beacon of light. We must love our neighbors as we love ourselves. How can we murder the unborn, and say that we follow HIM, or that we love our neighbor as we love ourselves? Is not the unborn child our neighbor? Just watch some of the ugly comments that may follow.

  • 1_Eddie_1

    In today's day and age, a pregnacy can be terminated WITHOUT the death of the baby. So, if it is for health reasons that a woman is getting an abortion, I say that argument is not valid. A medical doctor had recently testified to congress about being a former abortion provider, and that is his opinion. I don't remember his name as I was trying to forget about the extremely graphic horrors of which he spoke. Frankly, I didn't know if I had wanted to vomit, or cry.
    Speaking of a war on women, how many of the unborn murder victims were female?

  • RuQu

    You say "But why murder an innocent and defenseless child for a crime it didn’t commit? It was the father who should be punished, not the child.
    Do you punish the child of a murderer because of their parent’s crime? No! "

    Yet, God punished everyone for the sins of Adam and Eve. How many generations of suffering is sufficient to atone for eating an apple? Jesus' death paid the price for those sins, yet we've had 2000 more years of suffering.

    That's a lot of punishing the offspring for sins of the ancestors.

    Where's the justice in that?

    When the US Government is more just than your God, you might want to sit your God down for a talk.