Abortion: America’s Holocaust

I have been reeling over the trial of Dr. Kermit Gosnell, abortion doctor and racist butcher of women.  Haven’t heard about it?  Only a precious few news outlets have had the balls to cover the story.  Read it here, please, in all its grizzly detail.  The blood of beheaded children, and that of dead and damaged women demands your attention.

I posted this Atlantic article on my Facebook page.  One pro-choice friend retorted, after citing the 16 million children who live in poverty, that within the US we “have not proven ourselves able of sustaining and nurturing all our children, collectively, after they’re born.   It seems irresponsible to demand that people have children that our country cannot afford or support.”

Do you hear the smack of Nazism in this statement?  “The State” cannot afford to keep these unborn children alive.  Just like the Nazi’s felt it inefficient to keep the disabled, the Jew, or otherwise undesirables alive.  So we have come to the same conclusion as the Nazi’s.  We dehumanize people, so that we can exterminate them.

We are the German town that sees the steam engine pulling into the station dragging car after car of degraded Jews.  We watch as the cargo is unloaded and then see the train chug away with only empty cars in tow.  We smell the stench.  We see the smoke rising from the furnace chimney.  And then we go off to the grocer and complain about the price of gas.  We erect mental and emotional walls so that we don’t have to confront the unthinkable-and-completely-legal crime that is playing itself out just down the road.   Or we believe the lie that those dirty Jews aren’t really people anyway, so we can do with them as we wish.

But then we read a story like Dr. Gosnell’s, and we are forced to walk to the outskirts of our tidy lives and look into a mass grave of decaying, mutilated bodies. We see the expressions of anguish on the faces of the victims- real, precious, unique people, each with the stamp of individual design on them.  None exactly like another, but all sharing the vacant eyes of one whose life was taken violently, unable to escape, for they were caged.  They were burned, dismembered, or beheaded.  Then naked and unwhole, they are discarded, while state-funded aides prep the next room.

The gruesome images from Dr. Gosnell’s trial shock us- because they happened on the outside, where the snuffing out of life could be seen and the tormented cries could be heard.  The truth is, infanticide within the womb is equally as horrifying.  We can just more easily dehumanize the victims on the inside because we can’t see the dismemberment as it happens, or hear the wailing.

But that baby in the picture, the one that pro-abortion advocates call a “fetus” looks a lot like a real baby.  A lot like my babies, as a matter of fact.   And we come to the honest conclusion that those “fetuses” are actually people.  And abortion is murder.

And this is a holocaust.

We see that we have tried to soften that reality by using language like “choice” or “procedure” or “ensuring fetal demise.”  And the media encouraged those delusions, so that we could continue to live in our comfortable world, undisturbed by the inconvenience of suffering innocents.

But after peering into the mass grave, we can no longer medicate our souls against this raw evil by using sanitized terms.  The media’s silence on the true nature of the death camp now shouts to our conscience that we have been pro-(our own)-life at the expense of the lives of others. We can no longer deny that the victims of these crimes were children.  And they are being murdered by the thousands, every day of every year, year after year after year after year.

And the trains roll in and the trains roll out.

Advertisements

53 thoughts on “Abortion: America’s Holocaust

    • Graaaagh! This whole thing is beyond reasonable explanation. We have to first separate sex from its procreative aspects (easy-peasy- already pervasive within culture and greatly bolstered by the porn industry). Then we have to tell people that they have a “right” to sexual pleasure- Planned Parenthood is on that one. So why would we saddle someone with lifelong consequences (babies) for something that shouldn’t have life-long consequences (sexual pleasure)? So we must have abortion on demand, or else we would have to reserve sex for situations where we are prepared to parent- and for our culture, that is the greatest affront to personal freedom we can image.

      • Precisely. Which is why it is so difficult, in one sense, for prolifers and pro natural marriage advocates to disassemble the cultural webs we’ve allowed to be weaved. This is something ‘progressives’ don’t fuss over too much. It’s part of their label that they never look back, only forward. And it’s that mentality that says: Look. This is where we are now. Here’s a new problem. Here’s the next (logical) step.

        Someone much smarter than me once remarked: What was unthinkable yesterday, is thinkable today and ordinary and common place tomorrow.

        We call that a slippery-slope. Liberals call it progression and laugh at us for being too dramatic and yet … here we are. Go figure.

  1. I could not agree more. Our hearts should be aching at the brutality of it all, for the children and for their mothers. The picture painted by the abortion industry – of caring, familiar doctors treating well-informed, liberated women in safe, sanitary clinics – is largely a lie. The pro-choice mantra of “safe, legal and rare” is not what the main players in the abortion industry really want. Just “legal”, thank you – and safe enough that we don’t raise too many eyebrows.

    Some would argue that Gosnell’s actions were criminal, he is on trial, and he will likely spend the rest of his life in prison – and therefore the system worked and what do we really need to change? What they do not realize – in part because the media have chosen not to cover this story in any real depth – is that the very regulations and ongoing scrutiny that would have put Gosnell out of business a long time ago are fought against hardest of all by the abortion providers themselves. This is a money-making industry, and under the banners of “choice” and “privacy”, it seeks to regulate itself – and government authorities are often happy to oblige. Friends, I’d be willing to bet that your local Subway sandwich shop gets more frequent visits from the health department than your local abortion clinic.

    Snipping a baby’s spinal cord after birth is illegal anywhere and everywhere – but tearing a child limb-from-limb and extracting him through his mother’s dilated cervix (dilation and evacuation) is an accepted abortion procedure that is legal throughout our country and is routinely used from the 12th to 24th week of pregnancy. Because by that time, you can’t just scrape the baby out. Too much bone, tendon, muscle – you know, human stuff. The ability to feel pain? Almost certainly, probably well before 24 weeks. Imagine the agony of that. If they were doing it to puppies there would be a nationwide outcry.

    The legitimacy of killing convicted murderers by means of a single lethal injection (as opposed to a combination of injections designed to render the procedure painless) has been challenged in court by groups that oppose the death penalty – yet it is legal to stop an unborn child’s heart – through the chest cavity – with a single injection of digoxin and potassium chloride (or just air) prior to inducing labor, thus guaranteeing the delivery of a dead baby. This is typically done in third trimester pregnancies, almost always due to fetal anomaly – and yet, these children are viable outside the womb (hence the purpose of the lethal injection prior to delivery). “Compassion” arguments aside (which I think are misguided anyway, to say the least…) since when did it become acceptable to euthanize a person because of a disability? Why would anti-discrimination laws not apply to disabled children who are developmentally viable outside the womb?

    We truly have so much soul-searching to do. I hope those who identify as “pro-choice” will at least take the time to read the grand jury report on Gosnell, learn about various abortion procedures, question the circumstances under which abortions are performed… Take a REAL look at what (and whom) you’re supporting when you wave the banner of “choice”, and when you accuse those who oppose abortion – or even simply suggest some reasonable limits or regulations – of being “anti-woman”. Part of what finally turned me around on this issue was the closure of a local abortion clinic due to numerous, repeated health violations and sworn testimony regarding the mistreatment of patients – and the people fighting to keep it open were the ones claiming to be “pro-woman”. The ones fighting to close it? Those crazy, misogynistic, pro-life extremists.

  2. Tbe opposite of a hero isn’t a villain…it’s a bystander. Evil thrives amongst us and we stand by…

  3. What has regularly broken my heart most is the vitriol a nominal Christian can (and have) attack me with when I support the right to life. Particularly Christian women….

    My wife and I lost a child on December 24th several years ago. S/He was still in utero, had stopped developing at three months, no hearbeat, etc. When we received the bill, the procedure was called an abortion. On the one hand, we know our child was already gone. On the other, that wounded us in a way that was very slow to heal.

    I did not understand unconditional love until I had a child. Having experienced it, I find it so very hard to understand or sympathize with the viewpoint that a child has no standing unless and until they transit a space of a few inches from inside to outside. And now we see some Planned Parenthood people advocating for post birth abortion, or saying that an accidental survival of abortion should not have a right to life either. I have a hard time dealing with the rage this inspires.

    I’m rambling, but this has reached the point where I had to say something. God bless. Thanks for posting.

    • Water Rat, there are a great deal of issues in this life that we should just let go and not make a fuss over. This is not one of them. The only satisfactory response to seeing abortion for what it truly is, is rage, anguish, and a cry for justice for these innocent children. Your ramblings are welcome here anytime.

    • Water Rat,

      I am not trying to pick an argument with you, but I cannot help but notice that in your first sentence you suggest that someone who supports a woman’s right to choose is a “nominal” Christian. That might explain why you perceive a backlash. Either you are purposefully judging another person’s level of Christianity or you are doing it without realizing you are. I bring it to your attention in hopes that you will take it as constructive criticism.

      • Cindy…
        I’m sorry to disagree with you, but a person who supports abortion can hardly be a sold out follower of Jesus Christ.And that is what Christianity is about. Therefore making them a nominal christian. Christ told us to lay down our lives for others, not kill them so that in our selfishness we might live.

      • Yolanda,

        Why is it that we can disagree on how we interpret the Bible, but you get to decide that I am not a Christian? The definition of nominal is “in name only”; therefore not a true Christian. What if I said to you that your judgment of me goes against Jesus’ direct (his own words) teachings to not judge and, therefore, you cannot be a true Christian?

        My response to Water Rat was simply trying to point out that telling someone they are NOT a Christian is a) not a very good foundation for a productive conversation and b) is not rooted in Jesus’ teachings. If you believe that abortion is wrong because you have come to that decision through prayerful study of God’s Word, then live out your beliefs and be a light unto the world and allow The Holy Spirit to convict others in the same manner if that is His decision. Don’t try and win others to your belief through browbeating and name calling (I realize that is acceptable among certain Christians today, but it is not winning ANYONE to Christ).

        If you want a ribbon for being a better or “real” Christian, accept it with my blessings. I, on the other hand, choose to take Jesus at His whole Word.

      • Hi Cindy,
        Nominal also means minimal, being trifling with the actual value. I suppose all of us hit that point at times in our lives ,esp. compared to Jesus Christ. I do not believe myself to be superior or better than you. I do believe that we as the body of Christ fall into the category of the church in Revelation that is neither cold or hot, but lukewarm. It blows my mind how we can worship Him fully, and in truth, thanking Him for the miracles that He has done, and still does today, and yet say it’s okay and acceptable in our modern day culture to slaughter and butcher the very life He is so beautifully designing in the womb.
        That said I do think you and I should part civilly and agree to disagree. Neither one of is likely to change our minds. And guess what? We aren’t each other’s judge and that is good 🙂 We both get to stand before the only Judge one day soon.

    • Water rat ….
      I’m so sorry for your loss. Having a child does change you forever. It is a miracle! It’s a sad day in any country when we choose to end innocent lives because of our own selfish choices. We prove daily in America that we as a country no longer believe in, or reverence, the God that created us all.He will be the judge.
      I have become more and more convicted that I as a christian must be willing to speak out against the plague of abortion that is so widely accepted in our land.
      I pray that we can all stand up together and change , with God’s help , one heart at a time.

      • Id just like to challenge the idea that Christians have no business critiquing each other’s beliefs/actions. Christians are not supposed to judge non-christians, but in a sense, Christians are actually required to judge each other. Christians are supposed to “judge correctly” (John 7:24) and to encourage other Christians to be holy (Gal 6:1-5, James 5:19-20, Titus 1:13) rather than ignoring their sin. 1 Corinthians chapter 5 indicates that sincere Christians should not even associate with those who call themselves Christians but who are seriously corrupted by sin, specifically those in sexual sin (note this does not apply to associating with non-Christians). Certainly forms of judging which are hypocritical or mean-spirited are sinful, but judging for the sake of encouragement towards better things, is a Biblically compliant act. Some cite Matthew 7:1-4 to claim that Christians should not point out others’ sins, but those who cite this passage tend to ignore verse 5, which encourages us to help others avoid sin.

  4. I’m so glad I found these few blogs that I really, really like. You capture my feelings so eloquently. Thank you. This may indeed be a pivotal case that FINALLY garners the media coverage, although its take five weeks of trial so far. Perhaps these children have not died in vain.

    • I truly hope that those few media outlets who chose to cover this story see that there is a large segment of the population that is hungry for news that actually reports news. Regardless of the political cost. And I pray that you are right, that we will not be able to turn away from these children and women who suffered at the hands of the abortion industry and this “doctor.” May the heart of our nation turn…

  5. It does not matter what side of the abortion issue you fall, this is wrong, both morally and legally. There is no justifying it. And I believe with all my heart that if these women and babies had had less color, this man would have been stopped a long time ago. And to top it off, they found out about it by accident because they raided the clinic because the doctor was writing illegal prescriptions.

    • Thanks for your comments, Cindy. Always good to have you involved in the discussion. I guess if all the parties that should have reported/responded to these botched and butchered people would have operated within their self-generated guidelines then we would have a better picture of whether or not race played a large role in his practice going undisturbed for a couple decades. But I think it’s likely that many abortion providers are similarly under-regulated so it’s hard to make a judgement about whether or not a “whiter” clientele would have brought the doctor down sooner.

      • I see many things that go unreported or under-reported when it affects only minorities. I believe that “intellectually” we know this to be true. Sometimes it is hard to “want” to bring light to bad behavior because we think it might undermine that upon which we otherwise agree.

        For example, I believe that pro-choice people are as outraged at this atrocity as you are yet are likely not racing to spotlight it because they are afraid it will somehow lead to a backlash against legal abortions; especially in light of what we see happening at the individual state level right now. And keep in mind that the man was arrested. It is hard to work up a furor when the right thing happens. But let’s face it, the NRA doesn’t like to hear about mass shootings either.

        I guess what has me befuddled right now is why the conservative outlets did not highlight this case either (until now). I suspect that given the recent attention to this case, more and more information will be coming out and I also suspect that there will be embarrassment for a lot of officials that should have done something sooner. This may be another reason why it was swept under the rug and managed to stay there for so long.

        As you know (or maybe you don’t) I support a woman’s right to choose even though I would never advise a woman to get an abortion. I would do everything in my power to help a woman struggling with that decision, but I also realize that I, personally, cannot reach everyone in that predicament. I feel like a broken record, but until such time as the citizens of the United States collectively care for the children who are actually born as they say they do about the unborn, I will continue to support a woman’s right to choose. Add to that list making the fathers at least equally responsible in terms of sacrifice and shame, and I will gladly work to eliminate abortion except for those cases where the woman’s life is in danger and the fetus has no chance of survival (it is cruel to force a woman who desperately wants to be a mother to have a baby that will die as soon as it is born).

        That said, this case brings to light how this right can be abused and how “fear” of losing a right or being accused of trying to take away a right can actually lead to the worst case scenario. This is something we should all keep in mind as we approach the gun control issue.

    • I think you are a bit misinformed about the abortion industry as a whole. Margret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood saw abortion as a means to eliminate blacks. This is why Planned Paernthood has alwasy targeted black communities.

  6. Several years ago, I heard a news byte in which the current Australian Prime Minister, Julia Gillard (who wasn’t PM then), spoke against the idea that all women considering termination should receive a full 3D color ultrasound before making their final decision. The news byte said, if I recall correctly, that when women had seen such an ultrasound, 80% of them decided to carry the pregnancy to full term. She said (again if my memory serves), that such ultrasounds would be playing on women’s emotions.
    What about giving people the best information possible to make an informed decision?

    I can empathise with Water Rat about being the recipient of vitriol. It seems that men aren’t allowed to have an opinion on a topic like this, although about 50% of children are males. I suppose it’s because people who are pro-choice place their support more behind the mother than behind the developing child. I guess that’s why the argument, “It’s my choice what I do with my body” carries the weight it does. But what about the argument that the one who will be most affected is the one who will, one day, become an independent human person? Certainly no one, no matter which position they take, is in any danger themselves of being terminated.

    (Whatever our position regarding male involvement in the pro-choice/pro-life debate, shouldn’t we have a similar view about female involvement in the argument about outlawing male (infant/child) circumcision?)

    Keep up the excellent work, B.

    • Troy, thanks for your comments. I saw this video (part 2 below) of Gianna Jessen, abortion survivor, speaking in the Australian Parliament building in 2008. The entire speech is worth watching. But I believe that it is in this clip that she admonishes men to take on the role of protector of women and the unborn. So she would be delighted to hear your and Water Rat’s comments.

  7. I have to agree with another commentator that the actions of this man were horrible and wrong, and I can’t imagine anyone arguing with that. I feel kind of disgusted that you use it as a platform to package all abortion together. While I agree that sex and abortion are often taken far too lightly, the best way to challenge this is to provide better sex education for young people – so they properly understand their responsibilities towards others and themselves. Accusing women who are desperate enough to consider abortion of killing children is cruel, judgemental and unjustified. If science cannot agree when life starts, your holy book gives no guidance, and every person on the planet has their own view (be it a human egg or sperm, conception, implantation, embryo, fetus and everywhere in between) – it is arrogant in the extreme to suggest you have the correct answer. It is insulting in the extreme to suggest that women who have abortions take it lightly, cruel to judge their difficult decision, and naive to think that removing access to safe and legal abortion facilities will do anything other than lead to more horrendous stories of butchery by unscrupulous people.

    • Thanks for your comments, Violetwisp. There certainly is disagreement on when life begins, but it seems that the conclusion one reaches has more to do with their motivations (do I want this responsibility?) than on a linear line of reasoning. And yes, my holy book does give guidance on the matter but I suspect that you may write off whatever I present as one of “millions of interpretations” of scripture. But no matter, this was not a religious piece, nor a piece singling out a woman for her “choice” but an indictment on our entire society for dehumanizing the most vulnerable among us because we cannot “afford or support” them.

      So I will put the question to you, if you don’t mind: When does life begin? And how do you know? And as a result of your answer, what kind of abortions do you approve of?

      • If I might stick my oar in the water again..? In the dialogue of the previous two commenters (B and Violetwisp), my attention was arrested particularly by the question both mentioned: “when does life begin?” I think Violetwisp is correct that neither science nor the Bible gives explicit, definitive, precise, scientific, biological answers about when life begins (from what I recall, which certainly isn’t a reliable authority). It depends, of course, on how we define life, biologically and/or spiritually.

        One of the best pieces of advice I’ve ever heard is, “Allow yourself to be curious”. So I cannot help but play devil’s advocate. I don’t recall when I first thought of this – or much more probably, heard someone say – about this question, doesn’t it matter less when life starts, as much as that it will become life? Whenever we think life starts – before conception (“every sperm is sacred” #loveMontyPython), at conception, in gestation, post natally, et cetera – what about going to the other end: that bunch of cells will, all things going as they should – become an independent human being?

        As for being harsh and judgmental, it brought to my mind situational ethics; morality relativity: the question of whether something is right or wrong depending on the circumstances. To give a simple example, It’s like a man who steals bread to feed his family. Some people would say it isn’t wrong, because he’d doing it for a noble purpose. I think it still is wrong, but it would be worse – more wrong – to allow his family to starve. Should we punish the man? I say no; even though we might still say that what he did was wrong, we show compassion. An actual example of this happened in New York when, I think, Guiliani was Mayor. He would occasionally sit in as a court judge. An elderly woman was brought in accused of stealing a loaf of bread to feed her and her granddaughter. The store owner refused to drop the charges, saying that if she got away with it, other people would steal from him.

        Guiliani said that because she was guilty, there was a fine. As he was passing judgement, he brought out his own wallet, and said, “The fine is $50 which I now remit”, putting $50 in a hat (or something). Then he fined everyone in the court 50 cents for living in a city where a widow had to steal bread to feed her granddaughter. Everyone, including the other people waiting to be tried, stood up and applauded him, even as they all put their money in, and Guiliani gave the money to the grandmother.

        The point of the ramble is that saying that an action is wrong doesn’t determine our attitude to the person. We can be right and arrogant, right and humble, wrong and arrogant, or wrong and humble. It’s the difference between fact and attitude. If we’re right, we’re right; if we’re wrong, we’re wrong. Our attitude is something else entirely. Even if we passionately disagree, there is no excuse for condemning or being harsh to other people; since we ourselves do things we could be condemned for.

      • Askthebigot,

        Until Violet responds, will you indulge me? I totally respect your belief and I think you do an awesome job of remaining polite and respectful in response to the topics at hand (including this one). However, I take exception to your one-sided premise that the motivations for anyone saying life begins later than conception are the sole domain of those who do not want to have a child so choose to have an abortion. There have been plenty of fundamentalist (more strict traditional) Christians who have supported their daughters in having an abortion despite their belief that it is against God’s laws. And however they decide to live with that decision, it is just that – a decision. A personal choice. A hard, gut-wrenching, soul-searching, personal choice.

        On the flip side, there are people who believe that life – life that should be protected by society – starts later than conception (around the time that a fetus is viable outside of its mother’s womb) but who would never choose to have an abortion and who are just as disgusted as you are with the visions of a Dr. Jekyll snipping fully formed babies’ spinal cords. The world just doesn’t operate in the black and white manner to which you allude.

        If you had wanted to be more balanced, you might have said that the conclusions one reaches regarding when life begins seem to coincide with their motivations, whether that be trying to avoid taking personal responsibility for their actions (unwanted pregnancy) or whether that be trying to force a strict (perhaps wrong) interpretation of the Bible on an otherwise Democratic society (not a theocracy). That would have been more balanced, but it still wouldn’t have covered it all.

        There are only two places in the Bible that I have found that even remotely seem to address a fetus. And I know that you say that your blog post was not a religious piece, but many of the comments have aligned with that interpretation.

        The first is Exodus 21:22 (NIV): “If people are fighting and hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the woman’s husband demands and the court allows.” Some people will interpret this to mean that the “no mischief follows” indicates that the baby survives, but most critical thinking scholars of the Bible agree that this means that the woman lives and the baby likely does not.

        The second is Numbers 5:22 (NIV): “May this water that brings a curse enter your body so that your abdomen swells or your womb miscarries.”. The ERV (Easy-to-Read) translation even says, “Any baby you have will die before it is born.” For those unfamiliar with this passage, a woman who was accused of adultery (presumably she is pregnant) is given an herbed water that causes miscarriage. If she does not miscarry, she did not commit adultery, if she does, then she did.

        Both of these verses would seem to suggest that there is a lower value placed on the life of an unborn child even lower than that of a woman. I’m not one for dwelling on Old Testament passages to prove or disprove anything, however. I just put it out there in the context of the Bible overall. I do know that even God’s most loved servants (i.e., David) did horrible, immoral things that most of us wouldn’t even consider. Again, this shows us that the world is not black and white even though we long for this to be so. All I can say is that I have to let God be God. He knows our hearts, yet he shows mercy and extends grace.

        • Cindy, thank you for your comments. And thank you especially for the biblical references. I do not major on this topic so I was totally unaware of those verses and will spend some time looking at them. The verse that seems to seal the deal, biblically speaking, is this one, from psalm 139:

          13 For you created my inmost being;
          you knit me together in my mother’s womb.
          14 I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made;
          your works are wonderful,
          I know that full well.
          15 My frame was not hidden from you
          when I was made in the secret place…

          I understand what you are saying about people coming to different conclusions about when life begins. But the amazing thing to me is around election time, some of my pro-choice friends proudly declare that they are voting for candidate X because they want to keep their “right to have an abortion”. But when they have a planned pregnancy, they talk about their “baby” when they are only 4 or 5 weeks pregnant. Also, when a mother is 12, 15, 30 weeks pregnant and desperately wants the child and there is a risk to the pregnancy, doctors will do everything medically possible to save the child. But when a child is unwanted, it is legal to terminate that child’s life. There is no difference in the viability of the child, just a difference in whether or not they are wanted. Being wanted seems to be the measure of whether or not the child is a “life.”

          I am also one of God’s beloved servants and have done horrible, immoral things as well. We are people who fall short. But obviously that doesn’t mean that we don’t call a spade a spade. David was confronted for his murder and adultery (and repented) and had to suffer gut-wrenching consequences for his actions. And God showed him grace, first by sparing his life because he deserved death for his actions, and by allowing him to remain on the throne.

          And yes, we have to allow God to be God. He know the heart, and he does give mercy (don’t I know it), but we also have to stand for truth even as we walk alongside those who find themselves in all manner of heartache.

      • I think this goes to the heart of the problem. I don’t ‘approve’ of any abortions. I don’t want women to be in the position where they have unwanted pregnancies. And I think the only way to cut down on the number of abortions is through education for both sexes. I don’t want more people like Gosnell to have the opportunity to set up businesses that take advantage of a market of desperate women: the more decent and legal facilities that are shut down by the pro-life movement, the more women will take later-term options, and options with unscrupulous people. You have to think logically about these issues, and not get carried away with the emotionally rousing and atypical horror stories.

      • Askthebigot,

        I very much enjoy your blog. And at the risk of repeating myself, it is a safe place to have these discussions. Even your commenters are polite. Just felt like I needed to say that.

        The title of Psalm 139 in the KJV is “The prayer of a believing heart” and in the NAV is “God’s Omnipresence and Omniscience”. The NIV does not place a title on it.

        Warning: I am going to digress a little here. My mother, rest her soul, was a cantankerous woman who insisted that the KJV was the only “true” bible. I would smile and nod my head because you could not reason with her (I tried a few times). My saintly father-in-law, who is a Baptist minister (97-years-old), also does not read from the NIV, but I have, for many years, enjoyed my NIV study Bible. However, about 10 years ago, I purchased a Comparative Study Bible which has (side-by-side) the KJV, the Amplified version, the NAS and the NIV. The more and more I have studied my Bible and specific passages that I sometimes refer to as “clobber” passages, the more I am starting to see some wisdom in my mother’s words (EGADS!). Not so much that the KJV has it all nailed down, but that different interpretations take the same source material and, in some cases, present different meanings (some slight and some rather more weighty).

        So, back to Psalm 139. When I read that passage in its entirety, it evokes in me a mood (feeling, interpretation) in line with the NAS heading; that being “God’s Omnipresence and Omniscience”. It is a song of praise outlining how awesomely powerful and unknown to us is our God and how we are so insignificant compared to Him yet he still knows us and cares for and protects us. That passage, to me, does not suggest anything about abortion (if it does to you, that is fine, and does not make you wrong nor does it make my interpretation wrong). Here is the KJV of the same verses of the chapter you quoted:

        “13. For thou hast possessed my reins: thou hast covered me in my mother’s womb. 14. I will praise thee; for I am fearfully and wonderfully made: marvelous are thy works; and that my soul knoweth right well. 15. My substance was not hid from thee, when I was made in secret, and curiously wrought in the lowest parts of the earth.”

        Here is the NIV version you quoted: “13 For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother’s womb. 14 I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made; your works are wonderful, I know that full well.15 My frame was not hidden from you when I was made in the secret place (when I was woven together in the depths of the earth)”.

        When I read these two passages, verses 13 and 14 are interpreted by ME differently depending on which version I read. The KJV seems to be saying in verse 13 that God has control over us and protects us even in our mother’s womb. In the NIV, this verse seems more about creating us and shaping us. Verse 14 in the KJV seems to end with a praise that God imprints on our hearts what is right (i.e., we know what is right because we have God in our heart leading us in His light). The NIV seems to be saying the equivalent of “can I get an AMEN?”. Interestingly, the Amplified version is more similar to the KJV and the NAS version is more similar to the NIV (with regard to these verses).

        As far as the last election went, I think abortion and gay issues were of utmost concern, not only to your pro-choice friends, but to your pro-life friends, as well. Abortion is legal. Even before Roe vs. Wade, it was legal in some states. That is why we still see so many abortions in NY, because it was one of those pre-Roe vs. Wade states allowing abortions and women still go there from other states to have abortions.
        In my opinion, we spend so much time on these two issues (as a country) that we get very little done for the overall good of our country. And while it may gall you that some people would vote for a person that they feel will be more inclined to protect that particular right, I am galled that so many people feel such hate for the President that they have lost all civility. Sadly, I have lost respect and a feeling of connectedness with many people who I love and have admired because they practice “hate” in this one area, and because everyone else around them is doing it, they feel comfortable clothed in their hate. There are many more scriptures in the Bible urging us to submit and respect our leaders than there are about gays and abortion, yet we totally (and I mean TOTALLY) ignore them.

        As for the contradictions you see in women who support the right to an abortion but who can talk about a fetus as a baby when they want it, I totally get it. I do not condemn you for not understanding it. I think it is important to look at issues from all sides. I think it is healthy to weigh everything when considering these issues. I just do not think that these issues should guide the laws of the U.S. And when I say “these” issues, I distinguish between those things that people do that directly harm others like murder (obviously I don’t consider abortion murder), theft, slander, etc. vs. “personal choices” that do not necessarily directly affect our nation overall (or even most individuals) like gay marriage or abortion. I really wish that we would try and work these things out through our walk with Christ rather than trying to legislate an environment that makes us more comfortable as Christians; it has really set back the Kingdom of God.

        As more background, I had three miscarriages before I was finally able to have my daughter. Yes, there was mourning the loss of those particular lives at those particular times, but it was WAY more than that. My mourning was for the possibility that I might never be a mother; at least in the biological sense. That was a huge loss in its own right. And I can tell you that whatever I felt at losing those potential lives at 10, 8 and 6 weeks, it was but a microscopic speck to what I would feel if something happened to my 9-year-old daughter. But if I were to follow the logic of pro-life individuals, I should feel some sort of self-loathing or even be seeking repentance because I do not value the one more than the other.

        While you see a disconnect between doctors doing everything in their power to save lives in utero and performing abortions on the other, I see a profession trying to provide the best care for their individual patients. I am in awe at the things we can do to help couples become parents from in vitro fertilization to heart surgery on a fetus. But let me be clear: A doctor or nurse who does not agree with abortion should not be forced to perform or assist in them, but they should also not create unnatural barriers for women who legally can have these procedures.

        I agree that God punished David; the operative word being GOD -not Uriah’s relatives and not religious leaders. Jesus says more than once that in the same measure we judge, so shall we be judged. So, I am always very careful when calling a spade a spade while using the Bible as my soapbox. We are called to approach our brothers and sisters in Christ one-on-one when they stray from God’s path. Do we believe that Jesus would expect us to show unbelievers (or believers who hold different views) to a different level of respect?

        Personally, I believe that we are to minister to individuals as much as possible as opposed to these “movements” designed to single out for condemnation entire groups of people and at the same time trying to forcefully impose our Biblical beliefs on the masses. We are to win people to Christ by being an example of His love and grace, and allow Him to draw them in further through the Holy Spirit, and if necessary, He will be the one to mete out punishments if they are deserved. We have to be careful how we “stand” for the truth.

        • Cindy, I am so grateful that you feel comfortable sharing your thoughts and your heart on this blog even though we disagree with one another.

          I agree with you completely that “we are to minister to individuals as much as possible” but at the same time we can be objective about the social cost that these “movements” enact on us all. I agree with you that we are not to “forcefully impose our Biblical beliefs on the masses” and yet our Biblical beliefs are powerful because they have a truth that speaks to or physical (not just spiritual) reality. It is based on that evidence (supported by scripture but evident even without it) that we are to argue our case for civil policy. And we can do this without attacking people. We must do this without attacking people.

          “We are to win people to Christ by being an example of His love and grace”. I totally agree!!! But love “rejoices with the truth” so I don’t think that means that we have to shy away from speaking the difficult truths that accompany these “movements”. We do, however, have to show compassion for all, no matter where they land on these difficult issues.

          Thank you for commenting, friend.

    • Just exactly what would you call abortion other than the killing of their children? This is why abortion is permitted to continue in this country, because pro-choice supporters refuse to face the facts. As long as people are not forced to see the aftermath of aborted babies (as gruesome as it is) they will continue to ignore the reality of the viable life of the child.

      We are talking about over 3000 abortions each and every day, adding up to over 50 million since Roe-vs Wade. It is obvious that abortion is being used as birth control.
      Rather than espousing better birth control education let’s offering better education about the sanctity of ALL human life. As long as unborn babies are relegated to the status of nonviable, or not even human, abortion will continue full steam ahead.

      I do agree with your comment about holding fathers more responsible. I would start with a mandatory vasectomy of any man who is responsible for more than one unwed pregnancy.

  8. Thanks again for the excellent post. I recently read an article about one woman who worked in this clinic and reported that she actually heard one born alive baby scream as it was fighting to survive. This was one of the most disturbing things that I have ever read. This is the type of stuff that went on in Hitler’s Nazi Germany.

    • Thanks for your comments. I find myself mentally avoiding this issue because the magnitude of the suffering is overwhelming to me. I feel the same way about the holocaust, the whole thing wrecks me. And it needs to wreck all of us, or we really are not being honest about what is happening.

  9. Pingback: Abortion: America’s Holocaust | Know the Truth

  10. Life can seem tricky to define, but from a scientific point of view there certainly is life in the womb before “viability”… Just a quick glance at Wikipedia (not an academic source, to be sure, but this article is succinct and well-written)…
    “Since there is no unequivocal definition of life, the current understanding is descriptive. Life is considered a characteristic of organisms that exhibit ALL OR MOST OF THE FOLLOWING:[27][29]
    -Homeostasis: Regulation of the internal environment to maintain a constant state; for example, electrolyte concentration or sweating to reduce temperature.
    -Organization: Being structurally composed of one or more cells — the basic units of life.
    -Metabolism: Transformation of energy by converting chemicals and energy into cellular components (anabolism) and decomposing organic matter (catabolism). Living things require energy to maintain internal organization (homeostasis) and to produce the other phenomena associated with life.
    -Growth: Maintenance of a higher rate of anabolism than catabolism. A growing organism increases in size in all of its parts, rather than simply accumulating matter.
    -Adaptation: The ability to change over time in response to the environment. This ability is fundamental to the process of evolution and is determined by the organism’s heredity, diet, and external factors.
    -Response to stimuli: A response can take many forms, from the contraction of a unicellular organism to external chemicals, to complex reactions involving all the senses of multicellular organisms. A response is often expressed by motion; for example, the leaves of a plant turning toward the sun (phototropism), and chemotaxis.
    -Reproduction: The ability to produce new individual organisms, either asexually from a single parent organism, or sexually from two parent organisms.”

    Some of these things will not show themselves (at least not independently) in the unborn child. But, then again, children who’ve already been born can’t reproduce, for example, until they reach puberty. So, especially for complex organisms like human beings, there is a continuum here – what we know is that, if allowed to continue without disruption, the natural process that begins once fertilization is complete will result in a fully-developed organism capable of all these things and much more. All the necessary material is there from the start. A sperm alone won’t do it, nor will an egg. Clearly, the process of fertilization results in something unique and fundamentally different. As far as dependence on the mother is concerned, I don’t think in that case science lets us “off the hook” with regard to the humanity of the unborn child either. As humans, we are classified as placental mammals – meaning that, by our very nature, we spend the early part of our lives in utero, receiving protection and nourishment from the very well-adapted bodies of our mothers. Dependence upon the mother up to a certain point prior to a child’s birth does not diminish his/her humanity – that’s just what humans are like at that stage.

    We can argue over whether an unborn child deserves legal recognition as a person prior to birth, or prior to viability – but I think the issue of whether it is a living, human (what else would it be?) organism requires a pretty significant amount of mental gymnastics to deny. (And I am quite familiar with those mental gymnastics, because I used to perform them myself quite frequently. 🙂 During which time I would say that I was most definitely a “nominal” Catholic.) In any case, thinking back to the many time periods of history in which a more powerful group has sought to deny the dignity of personhood to a weaker class of human beings, I would say those are the times by which we are most outraged and ashamed. And rightfully so.

    Does the desperation which drives many women to seek an abortion – and the fact that some would find a way (and perhaps a less safe way) to “do it anyway” justify its liberal legalization? I believe there is a great deal of desperation involved, which is why more – not less – regulation is needed. But it is the abortion industry that fights such regulation and seems to wish to regulate itself – making plenty of profit along the way. It is a much dirtier business than many people realize. The fact that people are going to do illegal things anyway seems a poor justification for failing to enact laws. Perhaps the education we really need is the true empowerment of women to recognize the dignity of their bodies, to value (and for society to value) what women have ALWAYS contributed to the world, and an understanding of beauty, truth, responsibility and REAL love. Abortion diminishes and degrades women.

      • Thank *you* for taking the time to do this blog. So much easier just to toss in a comment every now and then. You are doing great work, and it is bearing fruit…

        I think as Christians we must reflect on the form of humanity in which our Savior chose to enter the world. Not that this has much (if any) bearing on the legal question of abortion, but just for those of us who call ourselves by Christ’s name – how will we stand before him and explain that we approved (on any level) of the killing of unborn children, when He Himself began His human life as an unborn child? There are plenty of Scripture verses that can be applied to the topic of abortion, but even beyond that we have the living witness of our very own Savior, who humbled himself to be conceived by and born of a Virgin. God became a fetus, helpless and vulnerable. And many years later he told us, “Whatever you did for one of these least brothers of mine, you did for me.” Mt 25:40 (Of course, by “brothers” he meant everyone. This is the translation familiar to me, but there are others – the point is the same. And it’s apparently President Obama’s favorite passage of Scripture, which I would love to discuss with him sometime over a beer in the Rose Garden. 🙂 ) When Jesus said, “Render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s”, I’m pretty sure he was talking about money, not human life. We can’t separate our political selves from our religious selves. We might have re-frame the arguments, but we can’t compartmentalize Christ. It only took me about thirty years to figure that out…

  11. Beth,
    Great job! I agree with you. Thanks for the very well done comments. My husband loved them as well.

  12. So well written. Thank you for this. It portrays the genocide perfectly and has finally put into words the my own disbelief that it continues.

  13. Pingback: Gosnell Guilty. But What About the Others? | asktheBigot

  14. I heard the other day, on the news, that people were inundating Scopes to find out if this macabre Gosnell story was for real. I did a post on this recently, not so much about abortion but where such a mindset comes from to think that babies born to unwed mothers/mothers who didn’t want the babies they were carrying (or, more precisely, the inconvenience of nine months pregnancy) would be a burden on society: Common Core Education. http://notablequotesnsuch.wordpress.com/2013/05/13/the-education-of-population-control/

    God bless you in all that you do for His Kingdom, by His power and for His glory, amen~

  15. Pingback: Gianna’s Story-A Message for the Men of America | quotes and notes and opinions

  16. Pingback: No go, Bro. (Texas Approves Sweeping Abortion Restrictions) | asktheBigot

  17. Pingback: Celebrate Roe vs. Wade with the End of Child Support! | asktheBigot

Comments are closed.