Atheists, agnostics, pagans, and more: do they have a place in the pro-life movement?

Lately I’ve been noticing a new pro-life trend. Quite active on Facebook are groups and individuals who condemn any attempt to convert an abortion advocate without taking a religious approach.

What I can glean of their message from social media and blog posts is that unless you lead with Jesus, you are denying His power to change that person’s mind. In other words, taking any approach other than “here’s what the Bible has to say about abortion” is irreligious folly.

I have several issues with this, but let’s start with my own personal experience.

I’ve shared my conversion story with Live Action readers and in The American Feminist, the magazine of Feminists for Life of America, so I won’t rehash it again. But allow me to reiterate that had my lovely friend, with whom I chose to debate abortion one fateful night, used religion as a basis for her argument, I not only would not have been convinced, I would have dismissed her entire thesis outright and probably ended the conversation.

Would I have been, frankly, an idiot for doing so? That is debatable. (By which I mean: yeah, kind of.) But I would also not have become, that very night, a pro-life advocate.

I was converted on the basis of human rights, science, and reason. Was God behind it? In my opinion, yes, He was. He is always behind Truth. I believe God created human rights, science, and reason. So using these to argue is not terribly different from mentioning Him by name.

Because my friend was, to get Biblical, “wise as serpents,” I became pro-life that night. A year later, I was no longer an agnostic but a Catholic. Coincidence? I guess. If you believe in that sort of thing.

I spent the first few months of my uncomfortable pro-lifeness (after initially trying desperately to become pro-choice again, and failing) splashing around in the shallow but welcoming online pool of the non-religious pro-life. There were pro-life pagans, agnostics, atheists, humanists, homosexuals, and so on. They, like I, had found the argument for the sanctity of unborn human life compelling enough without believing in a Christian God.

For me, this new belief in the unborn led me directly – eventually – to that same Christian God. I doubt I am the only one for whom this has been the case. It has given me an even deeper love for the fetal among us: they saved my soul.

So not only does a Bible-first approach to explaining the evil of abortion not work on everyone, it outright excludes a small but important faction of the pro-life community, whom I believe we should welcome.

Craig Gross, pastor of XXXchurch, devotes his ministry to helping porn stars leave the sex industry. In explaining his controversial personal friendship with porno legend Ron Jeremy, he explained to “Nightline:” “To me, the message of Jesus unites and doesn’t divide. You know what we’re all against, but you never know what we’re all for. Like, to me, I’m for Ron.”

There might be a very profound message in that simple statement.

If I care deeply about the soul of a pro-life pagan – and I do! – is it for me to tell her she has no place in our movement? Will that endear her to my religion? Will it go any way at all towards bringing her to understand the love of Christ?

No, of course not.

My goal as a Christian should be to bring Christ to everyone I meet. How best should I do that? By yelling Bible verses through a megaphone? By handing out pamphlets? By excluding them from the Godly work of protecting Life?

I recall encountering, for the first time, the priest who would become my first pastor. I attended a tragic funeral for a young man at his parish. It was the second time in my life I had been in a Catholic church, and this happened one month after I became pro-life. (Again, “coincidence.”) Normally quite hostile to Christianity, I felt peace and – indeed – holiness in the sanctuary. I also felt what I would later come to know as the Holy Spirit emanating from Monsignor Donald Fischer. I would feel it every time I was in his presence. I would feel it in that same sanctuary when he confirmed me a Catholic, one year later.

All this – all this Godliness – because my friend didn’t mention God.

God has His ways. I believe they have been called “mysterious.” Perhaps we should be humble enough to accept they don’t always involve us being loudly right at everyone’s face. Are you right to say God is the number one reason to oppose abortion? In my opinion, yes. But being right is not always how you win an advocate for Life – or a soul for Jesus.

It is a difficult thing to humbly submit to the will of God when nothing makes sense. Maybe pro-life paganism or agnosticism or atheism or homosexuality don’t make sense to you. Maybe they are an affront to you. But just like Craig Gross and his friend Ron Jeremy are both “for Ron,” aren’t we all working towards the same goal? Don’t we all want to protect life in the womb? Does God frown on you when you embrace a pro-life atheist or does He say, in the immortal words of Dire Straits, “That’s the way you do it”?

I’m thinking it’s (something like) the latter, and I personally welcome – and rejoice in – all the pro-lifers. We may disagree about graphic signs, the death penalty, politics, and more, but any friend of the unborn deserves a seat at our table.

  • Alex Hunter

    What does homosexuality have to do with the abortion debate?

    • Cassandra

      For starters here are three things homosexuality and abortion have in common:

      1) Both are intrinsically disordered.
      2) Both are intrinsically closed to life.
      3) Both attempt to separate the natural end of sex from the act.

      • Mary Lee

        As a gay-rights advocate and a pro-lifer, I have to say, this is untrue. I support the gay community, and I love the unborn. Homosexuality has no place in the abortion debate. At all. This kind of thinking is incredibly alienating to many, many potential allies and friends. I think that protecting the unborn babies is far more important than someone’s sexual orientation. I am so, SO sick of this.

        • Cassandra

          @Stormii and @MaryLee,

          Someone asked a question, and I answered it. Certainly, homosexuals are free to rally for life–I never said they weren’t.

          Kristen, in her article, makes the point: God is Truth. What she presents as an approach in dealing with those not ready to accept God, is that one can begin with easier truths to accept. Once you have someone beginning on the path of seeking truth, you have them on the path to God. So, in that context, Kristen is right that one need not begin with God as creator to lead people to accept that babies should not be killed in the womb.

          However, to be faithful to the truth is crucial. One cannot deny truth to tell truth. It’s contradictory. One can be silent on a matter to some extent, but one cannot deny it to make something else more appealing.

          Contrary, to what the two of you wish to believe, though, is that homosexual acts and abortion are far more closely tied than you have apparently been willing to admit. The fundamental philosophical justifications are the same: “The individual gets to decide what is right and wrong.” Once you concede that within the gay debate, you are left with no defense in the abortion debate other than showing cute pictures of babies and hoping for an emotional response.

          Abortion advocates like to hide the reality of abortion and keep the discussion on an abstract level of a woman’s choice for her future. Gay activists do the same thing and keep the conversation at the level of “love” and “relationships”. So let’s look at one of the concrete acts involved and see where we get.

          Offer me a proper, logical defense of the *reasonableness* of inserting a penis in a rectum. Some might try the “consenting adults” approach, but that is just an argument that they should not be harassed for private acts. Abortionists say abortion is a private decision between doctor and patient. Some might try to justify the penis in the rectum because they desire the effects. A woman having an abortion is seeking the effect of not having a child. No, go right to the act itself and discuss how shoving a penis in a rectum is *reasonable*.

          So why do you try to save babies? Because they are cute? Or because they are human persons? In order to defend on the basis of personhood, you’re going to have to be able to describe what that is, and why persons have rights as well as what acts are proper to human nature. That discussion leads right in to whether homosexual acts are proper to a human person. Abortion is not just a violation of the baby’s personhood, it is an contrary to the woman’s personhood which is why she will suffer such devastating remorse. We act to stop abortion because it is not *good* for her (or her baby). So why criticize someone for pointing out that homosexual acts are not *good* for the person?

          Let me point out something else. Kristen belongs to an organization called New Wave Feminism. That is rather odd. Feminism (which is distinct from women’s rights) is also opposed to a proper understanding of personhood. It started out by immediately denigrating “stay at home” mothers as somehow inferior to the career woman. Now, feminists are advancing the argument that even just having a baby is bad for women because they might become attached to it and no longer value the pursuits of power, money, and fame. Think what difference it would make if the organization were called New Wave Femininity. Then it could talk about how authentic femininity contributes to the *good* of a woman’s personhood.

          As for Stormii’s criticism that comparing homosexual *acts* with abortion is not very Christian, Christianity is centered on Christ who came to redeem men so that they can be saved. It’s all about saving souls. Both homosexual acts and abortion kill the soul and require repentance to be saved. Nothing is *more* Christian than trying to shine light in the darkness to bring souls to Christ so they can be saved.

          • Marauder

            No, the “fundamental philosophical justification” for homosexuality is that attraction is a natural part of being a human being and different people have different attractions, for reasons science has yet to fully understand. Homosexuality is something inherent in a person, not a school of thought or a philosophy. You might as well talk about “the fundamental philosophical justification for liking peppermint ice cream.” Nobody asked to like peppermint ice cream. Their tastebuds either thing it’s delicious or they think it’s gross. If someone’s religion stated that eating peppermint ice cream was a sin, would that mean that there would suddenly be a clear secular reason that eating peppermint ice cream is bad for people? No.

            Abortion kills an innocent person. The entire point of it is to destroy an unborn human being. No matter what any religion says about it, that’s still what it does. “Homosexuality is a sin” is an opinion that may or may not be true, whereas “abortion kills a human being” is factually true regardless of anyone’s belief.

          • Mary Lee

            Yes, yes, thank you. I am so tired of this argument. It’s ludicrous.

          • Cassandra

            If it is so ludicrous, just offer that thoughtful defense of the act of shoving a penis into a rectum. The fact that you can’t shows the question that it is not ludicrous, but rather your defense of the lifestyle.

          • Cassandra

            If it is so ludicrous, just offer that thoughtful defense of the act of shoving a penis into a rectum. The fact that you can’t shows the question that it is not ludicrous, but rather your defense of the lifestyle.

          • Dolce

            You know, there is much more to intimate relationships than just having sex. It is very offensive, regardless of what your views are on homosexuality, to equate real, feeling, passionate relationships to just what goes on in the bedroom.

          • Cassandra

            I concur that there is much more to intimacy than sex. In fact, intimacy is distinct from sex.

            However, the gay community is hardly arguing for celibate relationships, are they? No one has ever criticized platonic, intimate relationships among the same sex–except the gay community.

          • Cassandra


            You’re babbling. If homosexual attraction is “a natural part of being a human being”, then why is the act of sodomy so UNnatural? What possible justification can you give for inserting a penis into a rectum? It harms the rectal tissues. The rectum isn’t designed to have things shoved into it.

            While you might justly argue that male homosexual attraction need not lead to sodomy, you will find that argument to be soundly rejected by the gay community.

            No, Marauder, it is merely your opinion that SSA is natural. It remains disordered whether you believe it or not.

          • johno

            Maybe some women are not attracted to a man and vice-versa. Another question(s), is fellatio and cunnilingus unnatural acts? Is the missionary position the only natural act? What these sex acts have to do with abortion?

          • Cassandra

            As I posted above, when sexual pleasure is separated from the procreative act, this leads to the call for abortion to cleanup the “oopsies”. A culture that begins to accept one category of separation is going to move toward accepting any separation–just as our culture has.

            In their essence, fellatio and cunnilingus are merely assisted masturbation. For the one performing it, how does this not denigrate their human dignity? An argument from “human dignity” is real tough sell in a culture that can not even accept the humanity of a fetus.

            You’re going pretty far afield in asking about positions. But the same two criteria are going to apply. 1) is the unitive and procreative aspects preserved? 2) is the human dignity of each person preserved?

          • Marauder

            It doesn’t denigrate their human dignity if they enjoy doing it, anymore than any other sex act people enjoy denigrates their human dignity.

          • Cassandra


            You’re going to use pleasure as a measuring stick of human dignity?

            So every submissive sex slave submitting to a dominate master is not denigrating their human dignity as long as they take pleasure in their humiliation?

          • Cassandra

            A down vote, but no counter argument offered.
            Mere voting doesn’t make the truth go away.

          • Mary Lee

            Why do down votes bother you so much? I see them as a badge of honor, like the small patch of stretch marks I got when I had my little girl.

          • Cassandra

            When someone votes down a correct argument or statement, especially on a site that is supposed to dedicated to pro-life, it shows someone who is ultimately rejecting truth. That shows that the fight is ultimately doomed to fail. I’m not looking for “badges of honor” for myself. I’m out to save souls. Souls that reject truth can’t be saved, and I mourn the lost soul.

          • JDC

            Honestly, the down votes (and up votes) are like the points on Whose Line is it Anyway? They don’t matter.

          • johno

            Just curious are you a member of the Constitution Party? They have in their platform the Lord Jesus Christ. This party is open to Christians, and doesn’t really seem open to Pro-Life “others” (if Pro-Life Lesbian, atheist, agnostic, pagan, gay, jew, hindu, buddhist, etc oh well). I would think the other parties would be to “moderate” for you. Like the Republicans for example.

          • Cassandra

            I’m independent while waiting for the Pro-Life movement to realize they should form their own party with one single mission and objective to put a practical end to abortion in this country. I’m not going to go any further on that as I’m not going to get dragged into politics on a forum where self-evident truths are not accepted.

          • johno

            Ever heard of Dr. Don Grundmann of the Constitution Party in California. He believe in self-evident truths as well. No abortion, but also man+women in marriage. Sexual intercourse, of course, in marriage. He is also fighting a bathroom bill in California that is allowing transgenders to choose a Man or Women’s restroom. He is all about black or white no gray. Check him out. Of course these have little to help the unborn.

          • JDC

            If people are not accepting them, it may be the case that they are not all that “self-evident”.

          • Marauder

            I’m not using pleasure as a measuring stick of human dignity. I’m saying that every human has inherent dignity, and if they don’t consider a sex act degrading, and neither does their partner, there’s no (non-religious) reason to say that it’s degrading.

            This whole exchange is reminding me of the part in the movie “Gandhi” where Gandhi wants his wife to clean the toilet and she gets insulted and freaked out because “it is the work of an untouchable!” Her beliefs said there was something inherently degrading about a woman in her social caste cleaning the toilet. That doesn’t mean it really IS inherently degrading to clean the toilet.

            Do you think people who engage in sex acts you disapprove of have less dignity than those who don’t? Because I’m pretty sure that all human beings have inherent equal human dignity in the eyes of God.

          • Cassandra

            >Do you think people who engage in sex acts you disapprove of have less dignity than those who don’t?
            Not what I said at all. All human beings have objective human dignity. But not all human beings are treated in accord with that human dignity by others or even by themselves.

          • Marauder

            If I ask you a question, it’s because I genuinely want to know, not because I’m claiming to already know the answer to it.

          • Deege


            This is a fifth-grade arguing tactic you are using. “I’m right whether you believe it or not” has no credibility. Since there is endless scientific debate about whether SSA is “disordered” as you say, you cannot unilaterally decide your belief is a fact, no matter how many times you post it.

          • Cassandra

            The natural sciences are not the authority in determining whether something is disordered according to human nature. Those sciences tell us that we are nothing but evolved pond scum and have no souls.

            The irony is that while you attempt to refute what I have posted, you are doing exactly what you condemn me for: just reposting your opinion and expecting it to be accepted.

          • Deege

            Sorry, Cassandra (and Drew, because the same response is for him), but claiming under moral universalism that the Catholic doctrine is universal truth is only applicable to the less than 18% of the world population that is Catholic — “whether you want to believe it or not.” Anyone of any religion or externally formulated belief system can claim theirs as the ultimate truth under the philosophy you are using, and be just as credible. In no case do these beliefs become facts.. Your language about “intrinsic disorder” and “fallen human beings” is religious doctrine that much of the world is justifiably nonplussed by This is a fact, not an opinion. Your attempts to present doctrinaire and religiously-based formulations as reason-based arguments is a failure unless one agrees that Catholic doctrine is universal truth, which most people do not. You are mistaking philosophy for fact.
            This does not, by the way, make everyone else moral relativists, as many Catholics claim and it seems Drew was getting ready to do. Moral relativists believe that man decides what is right or wrong. Most human beings believe in moral absolutes in one form or another, it’s just that the majority of human beings are not Catholics, so the Pope’s “intrinsically disordered” narrative does not apply. Some religions consider homosexual feelings a sin in and of themselves, which Catholicism doesn’t seem to. Native American religions use moral universalism the same way you are using it but honor same sex marriages. Claiming your doctrine as universal truth does not magically make it factual. What you should have said from the start is that “I believe it is intrinsically disordered.” Because that is all that you can show. No matter how tightly you cling to your philosophy of universal truth, it will never turn into facts. Ever.
            This is an insoluble problem, which is why you see so much disagreement here. I’m sure you are comforted in your belief that you have the inside track on universal truth, as are many others with moral codes that don’t comport with yours. I don’t expect you to “accept” my views, only to accept that you are not dealing in facts and have been continuously disingenuous about that.

          • Cassandra

            >Catholic doctrine is universal truth is only applicable to the less than 18% of the world population that is Catholic

            First of all, I haven’t mentioned Catholicism at all. Everything I’ve posted can be drawn from reason and the Natural Moral Law (which is accessible by reason).

            However, since you assert that truth is only applicable to those that believe it, you are left with having to admit that abortion as a moral wrong is only binding on those that believe so.

            >Most human beings believe in moral absolutes in one form or another

            Having personal moral absolutes that one will or will not do does not mean that person is not a moral relativist. Either the moral absolute applies to all, or it isn’t really absolute.

            >No matter how tightly you cling to your philosophy of universal truth, it will never turn into facts. Ever.

            Unless it actually is true.

            >I don’t expect you to “accept” my views, only to accept that you are not dealing in facts and have been continuously disingenuous about that.

            If that is what you need to sleep at night, enjoy it, but all you get is a good night’s sleep.

            With this I am done here. You’re posting moral relativism without admitting it for what it is. No one else has offered reasonable objections to what I’ve posted. Take it or leave, but I’m done on this thread.

          • patriciacarrasco

            “Identical twin studies prove homosexuality is not genetic”

            OrthodoxNetblog, June 24, 2013

            Identical twins have the same genes or DNA. They are nurtured in equal prenatal conditions. If homosexuality is caused by genetics or prenatal conditions and one twin is gay, the co-twin should also be gay.

            “Because they have identical DNA, it ought to be 100%,” Dr. Whitehead notes. But the studies reveal something else. “If an identical twin has same-sex attraction the chances the co-twin has it are only about 11% for men and 14% for women.”

            Because identical twins are always genetically identical,
            homosexuality cannot be genetically dictated. “No-one is born gay,” he notes. “The predominant things that create homosexuality in one identical twin and not in the other have to be post-birth factors.”

            Dr. Whitehead believes same-sex attraction (SSA) is caused by
            “non-shared factors,” things happening to one twin but not the other, or a personal response to an event by one of the twins and not the other.

            For example, one twin might have exposure to pornography or sexual abuse, but not the other. One twin may interpret and respond to their family or classroom environment differently than the other. “These individual and idiosyncratic responses to random events and to common environmental factors predominate,” he says.

          • Marauder

            I agree that not 100% of gay identical twins have a twin who’s also gay, but I want a link to a scientific source for the 11%-14% claims, and I want to see the data used to reach that conclusion.

            Personally, I think sexual orientation might be influenced by the hormones people are exposed to in the womb, rather than genes.

          • sarah5775

            You really seem obsessed with gay sex. I wonder why. There is so much more to relationships than sex, as people have said. Having someone to come home to after a hard day, waiting with a nice cup of tea and a kiss to greet you. Having a companion in your old age. Having someone sleeping beside you in bed so you don’t feel alone. All these things are part of what gay relationships are. You can’t see past the sex, and that is very sad.

          • sarah5775

            You seem more obsessed with gay sex than most gay people I know.

          • johno

            She’s interested in saving souls. This has happened throughout history. Different beliefs say they have the “truth” and try and “force” others to conform. This is playing out in Egypt and Syria right now. Civil War between sunni and shia (with christians , atheists and others in the middle). Saving others souls can have obvious deadly intentions. Again, all of this has nothing to help the unborn. Sexuality is complex for sexual beings (unless celibate) what is normal for one is abnormal (sinful) to other. This is where she is trying save a person when the person has to decide to stop or continue act/deed.etc

          • patriciacarrasco

            u dont think homosexuality kills people? homosexuals have a shorter life span, 20 years or so less, have more incidences of diseases such as rectal cancer for example, more suicides, more mental disturbances…..this is got from a book from a former Hollywood gay male prostitute, david kyle foster who has wonderful compassion for gays as he was one of them of course, but who truly LOVES them enough to tell them theyre harming themselves in many ways, and not just saying “live and let live”. its called tough love

          • Marauder

            Wow. Why on earth would people who are constantly told they’re disgusting and going to hell EVER feel suicidal or mentally disturbed?

            I want a scientific source about the life span and cancer claims, and I want access to the data that led the source to this conclusion.

          • Cassandra

            That’s what Google is for. Do your own research if you really care. The truth is out there.

          • Marauder

            Nope. Whoever claims to state something as an absolute truth has the burden of proof.

          • Mary Lee

            The weird fixation on homosexual sex is mind-boggling to me. All the gay couples I know are devoted, happy, generous, loving people. It’s not my business what they do in their bedroom. Abortion and homosexuality are NOT linked.

            Pro-aborts think that pro-lifers just “don’t like” abortion. That’s not true. We find it to be an egregious assault on human beings. Someone DIES in an abortion, always. Someone’s baby dies.

            But those who insist that homosexuality is evil and the gay community is somehow “less than” **IS**really just about a preference. I’m not completely godless, but I have a hard time believing that God really cares about who we love, and less about our being decent, generous, compassionate people. Ew, gay people are ooky, and sinful! Being gay is as bad as having your own baby ripped apart and thrown in the trash!

            To say, “Oh, well, I deign to permit you to be a part of the pro-life movement” is condescending. Well, how big of you. This subject has no business being part of the abortion argument. They are not related. It is quite a stretch, and it makes the pro-life movement look bigoted, judgmental, and narrow-minded. You don’t have to love and support the gay community the way I do, but please, BACK OFF. Just back off, okay? You don’t know these people and what they do, and how they suffer. That’s not Christian at all. That’s just plain arrogance.

          • Cassandra

            I pointed out 3 common points, and showed that the underlying justification is the same. It is you, in your emotional knee-jerk reaction, that is saying: “Being gay is as bad as having your own baby ripped apart and thrown in the trash”.

            But as predicted, you avoided examining the act of sodomy, to rant about “love”. That “love” killed millions of young men in the 80s and 90s, and continues to kill especially men. Guess you don’t care about those dead human persons.

            I’m not going to turn away from truly loving gays enough to tell them the truth, just because you can’t deal with it.

          • Marauder

            Do you believe that same-sex couples love each other?

          • Cassandra

            In our culture “love” is conflated with many other terms such as lust, infatuation, attraction, and affection. Classically defined, “to love” is to desire the good of the other.

            Being fallen human beings, it is extraordinarily rare to have pure love. Instead, our relations with others are mixed with love and selfishness. In addition our very understanding of what is authentically good for someone is confused with what they may simply desire or find pleasurable.

            That said, the degree to which one loves another is measured in the degree to which that one seeks the true good of that other. As homosexual acts are intrinsically evil, when same-sex couples have sex, they are not engaged in a loving act. Living with another homosexual and creating a temptation to engage in homosexual acts is not a loving act.

          • Marauder

            Well, if you don’t believe same-sex couples love each other, then we’re pretty much speaking two different languages and we’re not going to get anywhere. If I believed that homosexuality is what you believe homosexuality is, I’d be against it too, but I’m bisexual, I know what it’s like to be in love with someone of the same sex, and I know that it’s completely emotionally different from what you believe it is.

          • Cassandra

            Ah, but you played a word switch, didn’t you? I didn’t say “SS couples don’t love each other.” You slipped that in, despite a very careful distinction on my part in pointing out non-loving acts.

            The definition of love that I gave has been accepted for centuries if not millenia. If you’re going to reject it, then be intellectually honest enough to present your definition of it. Can you really defend that inserting a penis into someone’s rectum is upholding their dignity as a human person? That misusing their orifice is really a loving act?

          • patriciacarrasco

            ur totally right about how how the world views love nowadays, its sickening

          • Michael McCleary

            Love is sacrifice, and desiring the best for the other.
            As sex outside of marriage and/or homosexual acts, are mortal sins, one can not truly be loving the other and at the same time they are opening the door to hell.

            The thing that is often forgotten is that the greater the sacrifice the greater the grace. A person with same sex attraction who sacrifices that desire for the other, and for God and His church, is much closer to being a saint than most of us.

          • patriciacarrasco

            do u know that gay people are really confused and are never gonna be truly happy being the way they are? i heard of a testimony of a former Hollywood gay male prostitute, david kyle foster, and he’s now a minister who ministers to gays and totally understands them. he says its not loving to just “live and let live” when most gays live a terrible destructive lifestyle and have a shortened life span among other horrible things…
            i know u love them as people and of course thats right, but does that mean u have to condone everything they do…well this may be over ur head cuz u probably think its ok to be gay, so maybe im reaching….

          • sarah5775

            Mary Lee, I’d love to get in touch with you. Look me up on facebook, if you would be wiling. Sarah L Terzo

          • Michael McCleary

            Your view of what you think God thinks has no basis in reality or natural law’ and is clearly un-Biblical.

            Perhaps you might study a bit more before you perpetuate anti-religion bromides that you would call bigotry if aimed at folks with same-sex attraction.

            This was yesterday’s daily reading, and might give you a bit of incite into Christ’s teaching on marriage.

            Matthew 19:3-12
            Some Pharisees approached Jesus, and tested him, saying,
            “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any cause whatever?”
            He said in reply, “Have you not read that from the beginning
            the Creator made them male and female and said,
            For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother
            and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh?
            So they are no longer two, but one flesh.
            Therefore, what God has joined together, man must not separate.”
            They said to him, “Then why did Moses command
            that the man give the woman a bill of divorce and dismiss her?”
            He said to them, “Because of the hardness of your hearts
            Moses allowed you to divorce your wives,
            but from the beginning it was not so.
            I say to you, whoever divorces his wife
            (unless the marriage is unlawful)
            and marries another commits adultery.”
            His disciples said to him,
            “If that is the case of a man with his wife,
            it is better not to marry.”
            He answered, “Not all can accept this word,
            but only those to whom that is granted.
            Some are incapable of marriage because they were born so;
            some, because they were made so by others;
            some, because they have renounced marriage
            for the sake of the Kingdom of heaven.
            Whoever can accept this ought to accept it.”

          • trueWorldview
          • Stormii

            “The individual gets to decide what is right and wrong.” Once you
            concede that within the gay debate, you are left with no defense in the
            abortion debate other than showing cute pictures of babies and hoping
            for an emotional response. ”

            – This argument works, unless there are two people. With gays there is one person who decides if he’s gay or not with abortion the woman decides and the person to suffer the most consequences, the child, doesn’t have a say and it’s the one being killed.

            Onto your second point about reasonableness. Sex doesn’t always have to have a reason. Some people just use it for pleasure. If God intent was for sex just to be for reproduction it wouldn’t be pleasurable and no one would do it. They might like it for the desired response and that’s fine as long as no one’s dying – like in abortion.

            I try to save babies because all humans have the right to life. I’m not to knowledgeable on the personhood thing, don’t worry I’m working on it, but all I know is the basics is that every human deserves the right to life. Also you said that women will suffer from remorse after an abortion. Don’t be to sure about that. Some women walk out of those clinics relieved and happy. I’m not going to tell women how they’d feel after an abortion – I’m not going to play their conscience.

            I’m not to sure about your argument on feminism. I truly hate it when a feminist down women who are stay at home mom’s. Ever heard the saying “the hand that rocks the cradle is the hand that rules world” I truly think being a stay at home mom is one of the best things one can do – same for dad’s. I wish one of my parents were stay at home, but for a middle class family they do alright.

            I still stand by my comment on saying how comparing the acts isn’t very Christian. But I want no confusion – I’m not condemning you for having your views on homosexuality. That’s your religion and you have the freedom to express it. However comparing the two, a murder to a harmless (if done safely) lifestyle. God might frown upon homosexuality but I think he loves all his people and I truthfully think that at the end of the day God is the only one who can judge us and by comparing the two your judging which isn’t very christian. By the way, I have a question about the soul thing. Who soul dies, the child’s or the mothers?

          • Cassandra

            Uh, you’ve overlooked a few things.

            >With gays there is one person

            In a gay relationship there is at least two. The gay community isn’t advocating for acceptance of SSA. They’re advocating for affirmation of gay relationships.

            >Sex doesn’t always have to have a reason. Some people just use it for pleasure. If God intent was for sex just to be for reproduction it wouldn’t be pleasurable

            Actually, your argument doesn’t stand. It is precisely because some do it solely for pleasure–separated from the procreative aspect–that we have the abortion problem. Abortion is just the cleanup operation to what was supposed to be just for pleasure. The following is a tough argument to sell in our jaded age, but having sex without at least the intention of procreating is contrary to reason. However, due to our fallen nature and the temptations of concupiscence, it is moral to have sex if one is at least open to receiving any child. To use reproductive organs and to engage in a reproductive act while *intentionally* trying to avoid the proper end of the act (a child), in order to enjoy the “high” from an orgasm is unreasonable. Such a person is seeking a biochemical drug fix, at the expense of using another person.

            >as long as no one’s dying

            This is looking at it from a purely natural level, ignoring the supernatural realities.
            >Who soul dies, the child’s or the mothers?

            When I said the soul is killed, I was referring to the soul being placed in mortal sin and in opposition to God. I did not mean the actual destruction of the soul. In this case, I was referring to the soul of the mother and the abortionist that engage in abortion.

            >God is the only one who can judge us
            He is the only one that can judge internal intentions. But objective acts can be judged according to objective truth. I didn’t actually compare homosexuality and abortion—I pointed out similarities. Homosexual acts intrinsically separate sexual pleasure from the procreative end. Accepting or advocating for that, leaves one unable to condemn the same separation among heterosexuals. And, as I said, it is precisely this separation that has led to the call for abortion to cleanup the “oopsies”. This is what led Obama to say he wouldn’t want his daughters to be *punished* by a child. Both debates are part of the whole of human sexual morality and they can’t be separated cleanly.

          • patriciacarrasco

            God WANTS people to procreate which is why he made it pleasurable! just like eating, its pleasurable so we’ll wanna eat and we’ll survive….

          • Marauder

            God also made sexual organs that generate pleasure but have no reproductive function. Personally, I think that if God wanted sexual pleasure to exist solely so people would want to procreate, he would have put the clitoris inside the vagina.

          • patriciacarrasco

            i totally agree w/ u…however maybe ur putting too much on people who are already very confused as it is,….let them digest a little at a time!! reading ur comments makes me think that i probably do the same thing, cuz i care deeply for people and wish to make them aware of everything at once w/out realizing its too overwhelming…God works w/ us one step at a time, and when it comes to abortion, u shouldnt try to alienate people who are coming closer to the truth. dont blind them w/ too much light and bash them over the head! i gotta take my own advice too, so im not judging u. God bless

          • Cassandra

            Yes, I understand what you are saying.
            But if you look at the progression of the comments, I started with a little, and as objections were raised, I just added more substance.

            Typically, I don’t post on blogs at all, precisely because of this problem. So one is left with few options: remain completely silent; say something incomplete that is rebutted by false arguments that leave people even more confused than before; or lay it all out there as the rebuttals require.

            In the end, it isn’t what one says, it is whether a person cooperates with the grace that God gives them.

      • Stormii

        Homosexual – a person with different sexual desires.

        Abortion – the killing of a innocent human being.
        Just don’t compare the two, one is a murder the other is just something you don’t like. Preach this at your church, not here. Homosexuals are free to rally for life like the rest of us. Their not going to feel welcome if their sexual orientation is being compared to abortion. Not very Christian if you ask me.

        • Marauder

          Even if someone believes homosexuality is a sin, I think they should at least be able to recognize that killing an innocent human being is a worse sin.

          • Cassandra

            Yes. Admitted. I did not deny it.

      • Marauder

        If sex that’s “intrinsically closed to life” is a sin, then should infertile couples never have sex?

        • Mary Lee

          No, because straight people are better than gay people! *eye roll*

          • Cassandra

            You are emoting again, Mary Lee, and in that emotion attributing to me things I did not say.

        • Drew Belsky

          The keyword here is “intrinsically.” Even completely sterile people having vaginal sex are still performing the act meant to create children. The folks who wrote “What Is Marriage?” have a good analogy in the baseball team that doesn’t win any games.

          To Mary Lee below: Cassandra posted three facts in a neutral tone, and your response is to argue against a point she didn’t make. Over and over again, in debates on homosexuality, I notice the pro-homosexuality side resorting to arguments against straw men in this way. It’s a shock to see this tactic from you, whom I’ve agreed with on pretty much every comment I’ve read.

          • Mary Lee

            I’m sorry to be frustrating, but I am frustrated with this topic, too. My love for the unborn babies is incredibly strong and fierce–my love for the gay community is almost as strong (but not quite). The only way I can explain this is….When I hear comments or “explanations” as to why homosexuality is wrong, or a sin, and how the gay community is somehow flawed, or “less than” straight people, the same fire I feel in defending the unborn is awakened, and I feel the need to defend the gay community. I see arguments that belittle and judge and even dehumanize the gay community as being similar to pro-abortion arguments against the humanity of unborn babies. I understand that some may feel homosexuality is a sin; I do not understand why it is linked to the slaughter of unborn children. The thread that might connect them is slight, and flimsy. Perhaps I feel saddened that an entire population of people are considered inherently flawed and in need of reform–when we are all inherently flawed and in need of reform. I cannot explain why I love the gay community so, but I suppose it is because, in my life, they have rescued me, nurtured me, loved me, accepted me, and I have seen their trials and their sufferings and feel protective of them, the way I feel protective of the unborn. That is the only way I can explain it.

            I do apologize for losing my temper. And I do wish the pro-life community would embrace the pro-life gay community, and the pro-life atheist community as well, not as “novelties” or…side-players designated to just play the tambourine, but real, true voices of the movement. I think it would make a world of difference.

          • Marauder


          • Drew Belsky

            Any Christian worth his salt does not dehumanize homosexuals; we all sin, so if anything, their sin makes it all the clearer that they’re human beings. Yet at the same time, we’re commanded by Christ to call out sin in our neighbors – with love, and as discreetly as possible. Advocating against sin, homosexuality included, is a labor of love.

            That said, the bottom line is that there’s always going to be tension between Christians (at least the ones who still follow tradition on homosexuality) and the “pro-life gay community,” because as much as the former is delighted to embrace the latter’s pro-life half, the gay half is never going to gel. So asking for an “embrace” is unreasonable; you can’t expect Catholics in good standing, for example, to “embrace” a group that casts a grave sin as anything but requiring expiation.

          • Mary Lee

            I wouldn’t suggest that pro-life Christians abandon their beliefs, and march in a Gay Pride parade, but when I say “embrace” them, I mean, really look beyond, in this instance, for the sake of the unborn babies. If the pro-life community–Christian, atheist, straight, gay–was united on this issue, if we could present ourselves with the message that this issue is so urgent and so important, that we have formed unlikely allies, and appreciate what they can offer….we could change the world. The fact that the pro-life gay community will be continually marginalized, because their voices are seen as being less true–even if their hearts are pure in this critical issue, if they are approaching it with love–than pro-life Christians who condemn them. I find abortion to be so abhorrent that no other sin can come close; it is an act of hatred, destruction, death, and selfishness. Though I understand why some would feel the same way about homosexuality, it cannot blur our message and put a blemish on our cause. There are times to try to save souls, but there are times, like this, when we must choose the greater good—the greater good is that all life, the lives of these unborn babies, are precious and worth saving and protecting. The issue is that precious life, our own children, are being slaughtered. I should hope that the pro-life Christian community can see the pro-life gay community as a way to bring the truth of this issue, this issue of blood, of life and death.

            I might be a vegetarian, say, and believe that eating animals is abhorrent and terribly sad. (In this scenario, the vegetarian would take the place of the Christian.) I have, indeed, met a pro-life vegetarian who believes that meat-eating pro-lifers are hypocrites. I do not see it that way. The fact that human babies are killed every day, in the name of “choice,” the fact that these little ones are ripped to pieces….this is the bigger issue, to me. I will not use this time to try to convert others to vegetarianism. I must put that on hold, for the sake of these babies.

          • Drew Belsky

            I don’t have a problem with much of what you’ve said. I’ll press you, though, on my conviction that there’s a huge difference between “embrace” and “go beyond,” which I consider a lot closer to “tolerate.”

            Also, it’s not a matter of homosexual pro-lifers’ voice on abortion being “less true.” Any person, regardless of his sexual orientation, who is pro-life is correct on the life issue. But like I said previously, it’s the fact of their endorsing homosexuality that will necessarily “marginalize” them among Christians, if by “marginalize” you mean it’s going to be a sticking point. In other words, having the right position on one sin does not give anyone a pass to indulge a different sin, even if the former is worse than the latter. Nothing gives any of us a pass when it comes to indulging in sin.

            I’ll never have a problem with someone who identifies as homosexual joining my pro-life rally. I will have trouble with a self-identified group of “gay pro-lifers” marketing their sexual orientation side by side with their pro-life position.

          • Mary Lee

            But that’s the thing, gay pro-lifers don’t want to market anything, they are simply pro-lifers who happen to be gay. I have never met a gay pro-lifer who had an “agenda” or a marketing ploy. They were pro-life, and they were gay. They didn’t try to change people’s opinions about gay marriage–and they didn’t bring up any gay rights issues at all; they merely fought for the lives of the unborn, and they happened to be part of the gay community.

            I suppose it is a form of tolerance, but I think tolerance is called for at times, especially when the issue is as serious as abortion.

          • Drew Belsky

            I have no problem with tolerance, provided it’s not being used as a front for “embrace” – which, among militant “gay rights” groups, it very often is.

            What I want to make clear is that any GROUP marketing itself as gay and pro-life would present a problem, just as a group marketing itself as cohabiting and pro-life would be. The situation you’re describing – “they merely fought for the lives of the unborn” – should be perfectly fine for any Christian.

          • Mary Lee

            But I don’t understand why pro-life Christians have designated themselves the “Deciders” of who gets to be the voice of the pro-life movement. The assumption that anyone who identifies as a gay person has some sort of ‘militant gay rights’ agenda is just as bad as pro-aborts believing that pro-life Christians are only against abortion because of religion. Do you see what I mean?

            If one is pro-life, and one believes that saving the lives of these babies is the most important cause of all, then it should not matter to them if their comrades are gay or straight. It simply doesn’t matter. It is not relevant, and does nothing to help the pro-life movement at all.

          • Cassandra

            I can’t speak to whether Christians have “designated themselves” the sole voice.

            However, fundamentally you have to confront *why* murder is wrong. If we are all just evolved pond scum, then there is no right or wrong involved, there is only legal and not legal. If, instead, we have souls created by God, then we can speak about right and wrong. Furthermore, if we have souls, then as great as the good of human life is, it still takes a second place to the eternal good of the soul.

            Agendas that advocate against the existence of the soul or against objective norms of morality, ultimately advocate for the ability of the Court to decide on the issue of the legality of abortion.

          • Cassandra

            What you’re failing to see is that any position that advocates that the individual determines what is moral and is not, undermines the abortion fight. Abortion has been legalized because it has been given (by the Court) to the mother to determine the morality of killing the child. Either there is an objective morality that all must conform to, or there isn’t. Picking and choosing only undermines the cry against abortion.

          • Mary Lee

            I’m not picking and choosing morality, and, if you read my past posts, I argue against moral relavitism and sophistry and solipsism, because this is what the pro-abortion community uses to “justify” abortion, which cannot be justified.

            In abortion, a baby human being is brutally killed. That is the worst thing I can think of. If homosexuality is a sin, then there is no way it could be worse than having your own child dismembered in the name of “choice.” The abortion debate is about abortion. Not homosexuality, not vegetarianism, not Buddhism, not humanism; it is about abortion. Is it okay to kill another human being? No. Does every human being have the right to live? Yes. This is what being pro-life means. It should make no difference to you if someone is gay and fights for the lives of these babies. You should, in fact, be thankful that they want to fight for them.

            I understand sins are sins. Whatever religious leanings I might have, or whatever conversion might be awakened in me is dwindling the more I engage with you. If I remember correctly, C.S. Lewis said: “A self-righteous prig who goes regularly to church may be far nearer to hell than a prostitute.” (He added: “But, of course, it is better to be neither.”)

          • Cassandra

            >no difference to you if someone is gay and fights for the lives of these babies.

            This is something that you have brought to the conversation. I have never said anyone should be excluded from fighting for the unborn.

            In fact you’ve been bringing quite a lot of your own preconceived opinions of me and my statements that simply aren’t there. Perhaps it is because of your gay advocacy that you simply don’t want to look at how the sexual license there contributes to the overall attack on sexual morality. It’s you that brought in the statement that
            >”When I hear comments or “explanations” as to why homosexuality is wrong, or a sin, and how the gay community is somehow flawed, or “less than” straight people”

            I didn’t say that. Is that what you’re afraid of? That you might look at gays as flawed? That’s a false dichotomy advanced by the gay community to try to bully people into being silent. You’ve heard the mantra when someone voices a legitimate objection: “You’re a bigot, hateful, hurtful….” (you know the rest).

            I’m sorry that my raising of the obvious connection between sexual license and abortion has raised questions you’d rather not think about. But as long as sexual license is the norm in our society, abortion is here to stay. Have you caught some of the latest abortionist arguments? One woman acknowledges that the fetus is a person–but so what? The attachment to sexual license is so strong, too many will just not care. They’d rather kill than give it up.

            At any rate, don’t be so childish and irresponsible as to try to put on me any turning away from religious leanings on your part. That is completely your choice.

          • Cassandra

            There are certainly those out there that move from the homosexual act to dehumanizing the person who does it. I have not. I have directed comments toward the act and agendas, not toward persons.

          • Deege

            Drew, you have confused belief with fact in stating that Cassandra stated three facts. Her first “fact” is a component of a belief system. Whether homosexual acts are “intrinsically disordered” is a subject of continued scientific debate, and it cannot be stated as a fact that they are. They are not procreative, but not-procreative is not a synonym for disordered. There is a wide range of sexual activities, heterosexual and homosexual, that are non-procreative.

            Cassandra has equated homosexual acts with “inserting a penis in a rectum,” which demonstrates the shallowness of her analysis. First of all, inserting a penis in a rectum is not by definition a homosexual act. It is an act that many homosexuals engage in but many do not (especially lesbians) and that many heterosexuals engage in. It is certainly not procreative, but it can’t be used as the reason why homosexual activities are “intrinsically disordered” because it is not the definition of homosexual activity. If she believes that any sexual activity other than heterosexual intercourse is disordered overall, that is a different argument and a very suspect one in my opinion (which I take pains to point out is my opinion).

            If the point is that homosexuals can’t procreate, then there is no pregnancy or abortion to worry about. So the two are not linked except under a belief system about what is proper and what is not. Belief systems are not facts. They do not exist unless they are taught and accepted, whereas facts don’t have this limitation. Whether someone decides to accept any particular belief system as “absolute truth” is immaterial to whether it is factual.

          • Drew Belsky

            I’m not interested in debating against moral relativism. Considering the fact that sex is biologically designed for procreation, homosexual behavior is intrinsically disordered. This is a fact, no matter how much it might bother you.

            The act Cassandra focused on is indeed a homosexual act. At the risk of mischaracterizing her position, whether there are also others is immaterial to her point.

          • Deege

            As I’ve said to Cassandra, continuing to state that your belief is a fact doesn’t make it one, no matter how many times you do it. I suspect you will do it again, and continue to fail.

            “This is a fact, no matter how much it might bother you” is utter nonsense. The word fact has a definition, which I encourage you to become familiar with. Its definition has nothing to do with morality, so moral relativism is beside the point.

          • Drew Belsky

            “They are not procreative, but not-procreative is not a synonym for disordered. There is a wide range of sexual activities, heterosexual and homosexual, that are non-procreative.”

            It’s ironic that you’re accusing me of proof by assertion when you yourself are begging the question here. You’ll have to demonstrate that the biological purpose of sex is in fact NOT procreation; demonstrating that lots of sex acts are not procreative doesn’t actually prove anything. Lots of cell phones are not activated and therefore can’t initiate communication, but that doesn’t change the fact that a cell phone is designed to facilitate communication among people.

            Based on your own deficient logic, anything one might think is “a belief system,” and therefore any deduction from such fails the test of being a fact.

          • Deege

            Sorry Drew, no points. I addressed this above because I saw it coming. There is no question that heterosexual intercourse is the mechanism for procreation. That does not make it a fact that all other sexuality and sexual expression is disordered. This is a doctrinaire position you maintain under the moral universalism through which you treat Catholic doctrine as universal truth. That does not make people who do not agree with you moral relativists, although it might make them part of the vast majority of the world that is not Catholic (from which doctrine “intrinsically disordered” is taken) or who recognize other universal truths. For deficient logic, look at your own posts. It is clear to me this debate will not resolve.

          • Cassandra

            I picked anal sodomy because of its obviousness and I did not limit it to gay men. There is no point in discussing other acts done by gays and lesbians (as well as heterosexuals) when the most obvious depraved act is not recognized as such.

            I have posted elsewhere the link between abortion and rejection of sexual morality.

            Your contention about “belief systems” is little more than moral relativism, and you undermine any argument against abortion by resorting to it.

          • Marauder

            If something’s so obviously depraved, shouldn’t you be able to easily prove that to us without bringing religion into it?

          • Deege

            This is completely false. Moral universalism is used by many faiths, and universal truths in some form or other are accepted by most humans. Moral relativism is when humans decide for themselves what is right or wrong, without moral absolutes. Your version of moral universalism is that your particular doctrine is the universal truth. Every instance of moral universalism displays this, and none of them are moral relativism. In short, you don’t know what you’re talking about. Moral universalism does not, however, create facts.

      • Michael McCleary

        abortion, contraception, and homsexuality are the anti-life trinity

    • Mary Lee

      I agree with you wholeheartedly. It’s something that makes me very sad, especially as a pro-lifer. It is irrelevant.

      • Alex Hunter


      • Beverly Harlton

        It’s completely irrelevant. I am a devout Catholic, yet I follow groups like PLAGAL (Pro-Life Alliance of Gays and Lesbians), Pro-Life Pagans, and Secular Pro-Life. Who am I that I should be bothered by my fellows’ beliefs or activities if we are joining together to protect the weakest among us?

        • Cassandra

          Guess it depends on whether as a “devout Catholic” you care about their souls.

          • Beverly Harlton

            I don’t really appreciate your putting “devout Catholic” in quotes, since it appears that you doubt the sincerity of my claim. I do care about the souls of my gay, atheist, pagan, and agnostic friends. I pray for them. I share many articles online about Catholicism, the evils of abortion and contraception, and the values of traditional marriage, and I am always available and willing to explain misconceptions about Catholicism to them. I have recently moved, and the only friends I have here are also Catholic, so there is little opportunity for me to have the same presence in real life as I did in my previous town (I once interrupted choir rehearsal in grad school to explain the validity of the Hail Mary to a Protestant friend, for starters). I’m also not of the breed of Catholic who thinks everyone just gets to go to heaven by being a good guy, no matter what their religion. I wouldn’t pray for the conversion of souls otherwise.

            Despite all this, if I’m at a pro-life function and someone’s willing to join us that isn’t just like my friends and me, who am I to tell them they aren’t welcome because their faith is different? 1) It’s unkind and disingenuous, 2) our movement needs all the support it gets even from secular folks, since it’s easy for the mainstream media to dismiss us as a mob of crazy religious people, and 3) this might be, like Kristen said, a great way for them to be introduced to the faith. They’re free to ignore me, and I won’t push, since that drives people away in my experience (I once saw my future mother-in-law try to re-convert my fiancé’s friend by ensuring that he had a pink cup at dinner for “the Sacred Heart of Jesus.” It wasn’t exactly successful).

            Maybe my original post was misleading or unclear, and I apologize for that. I did try to word it carefully but concisely, but concision has never been my strong point. I hope I have been clearer in this lengthier post, but if I’m still not devout enough of a Catholic because I think there should be more unity in the pro-life movement (let’s not forget Abolish Human Abortion, a Protestant group who condemns Catholics), then so be it, though I will work harder to ensure that my conscience is formed correctly.

          • Cassandra

            I have not posting anything here suggesting that anyone who’s crying out for the rights of the child should be tossed out of a pro-life rally or the movement. People here are bringing their own interpretation to what I’m objectively posting.

            However, you need to realize that the gay activism is supporting the very mentality that is driving abortion. It is advocating that sex can and *should* be divorced from sex’s proper end–procreation. It culminates in lesbians (and heterosexual women) resorting to artificial insemination to manufacture a child to satisfy their maternal yearnings while *intentionally* depriving a child of a father. It culminates in gay men hiring women to be “baby-making machines” to give them a child deprived of a mother.

            A child that can be manufactured to suit the whims of an adult can be just as easily be destroyed.

            In California now, gays have successfully lobbied their State to expunge all references in school texts to “mother” and “father” in favor of “parent”, not truly for the child’s sake, but so that the gay couples don’t have to face uncomfortable questions from their child coming home from school.

            As long as we allow children to treated as property and possessions, we’ll never win the abortion fight.

          • Beverly Harlton

            I am aware of all of that, trust me! Maybe I just think differently from others, but I feel that in speaking solely about abortion, bringing up homosexuality distracts from the cause, since gays themselves have little do do with abortion directly; however, when discussing the broader issue of the culture of death, abortion, contraception, homosexuality, and divorce need to be presented as equal factors in the degradation and destruction of the family unit and through it, society.

          • Tess208

            Great points, Cassandra. Very often we find evil lumped with evil. It is a very fine line for us.

          • I’m straight and a political liberal. Your arguments that LGBT activism supports the very mentality that is driving abortion, because it separates sex from its proper end — procreation — could be just as easily used to oppose masturbation, oral sex, contraception, anal sex, etc. among heterosexuals! How many “devout Catholics” refrain from contraception (what to speak of fornication, divorce, etc.)?

          • patriciacarrasco

            hi, i would just like to hear what u told the Protestants about the validity of the Hail Mary? do u read a catholic bible or what type of Bible do u read? i think if u read the right one like the King James version for example, it could change ur heart….

          • Beverly Harlton

            Patricia, I am Catholic, so I read a Catholic bible. I have the New American edition. The text of the Hail Mary is as follows:

            Hail Mary, full of grace, the Lord is with thee. Blessed art thou among women and blessed is the fruit of thy womb, Jesus. Holy Mary, Mother of God, pray for us sinners, now and at the hour of our death. Amen.

            In Luke 1:28, the angel Gabriel visits Mary and says to her, “Hail, full of grace: the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women.” That is in the Douay Rheims version. The New American version says, “Hail, favoured one! The Lord is with you.”

            In Luke 1:42, Mary is greeted by Elizabeth with “Most blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb,” in both versions. As Mary gave birth to Jesus, we can extrapolate that the “fruit of her womb” is Jesus.

            The third sentence rehashes what we already know: Mary is holy, having been called “blessed” or “favoured” by an angel of the Lord, and she is the Mother of God, having given birth to Jesus Christ. Next is a simple request for her to pray for us: “pray for us sinners, now and at the hour of our death.” Just as you might ask a friend to pray for you, we ask Mary to pray for us. Protestants claim that we worship her, but that could not be farther from the truth. We honor her, yes, as we are instructed to “honor our father and mother,” and ask her to pray for us, but nowhere in the Hail Mary is indicated any form of worship.

            I respectfully disagree that the King James Version is the “right” Bible, as it was originally translated for a church that severed from the Catholic church because Henry VIII wanted a divorce. You could argue that all Bibles, even Catholic Bibles, are translated by mere men, and that the “right one” would be one in the original Hebrew and Greek, completely unaltered.

          • expat711

            Beverly, That was a beautiful explanation of the Hail Mary. I’m so pleased to see someone take the time to defend Our Holy Mother so eloquently. I can never understand how people don’t see how logical it is to ask Jesus’ mother to intercede for us. If Jesus’ own mother doesn’t hold sway to her Son’s heart, who does?

          • DianaG2

            Yes, I’m a little disturbed about this. I put the “twibbon” of AHA on my profile pages. How do I get it out of there?

            I am also Catholic, but did not investigate carefully before using the “twibbon” on my Twitter page. DOH!!

          • Beverly Harlton

            I wish I could help. I don’t really use Twitter much; I pretty much just linked it to my Facebook sculpting page and update it that way. Maybe if you Google how to remove a “twibbon” from your page, you can find some info.

            I know how you feel about AHA. I was following them on Facebook for a while, and I had to remove them when I saw all of the anti-Catholic and other hateful material they posted. So much for “Love the Least!” As far as I’m concerned, there’s no room for divisiveness and hate in this movement!

          • DianaG2

            Yes, I agree completely.

            Thanks for the information about removal. I’ll check it out.

          • expat711

            LOL I have AHA on my facebook (I’m Catholic) i have to admit, I love some of the stuff they post. I ignore the anti Catholic stuff. (I wonder if they realize there are many denominations of Catholic LOL!!) Anyway, I think if there is an Anti Catholic way of getting people pro-life, so be it.

          • Tess208

            nope. We should always correct anti-Catholic messages whenever we see them.

          • Tess208

            You are so right Bev. Whenever we see hatred, we know satan is involved. But, he never uses an outright lie, he twists the truth into one. We have to remember who we are dealing with, and I am convinced he hates us.

          • Tess208

            The important thing is that we all try, and all of us make mistakes, but God knows our intentions, and that should be good enough for us. He will guide us.

          • Cassandra

            Really? 3 down votes over caring about souls.

            That really casts into doubt whether people here are fighting abortion for the right reasons. Saving the soul is more important than saving the body. The soul is eternal; the body dies eventually.

          • Mary Lee

            Perhaps it’s your tone. It reeks of sanctimony. It might be better to put this argument away for a while. I don’t think the babies who are being saved will care if their champions were straight, or gay.

            Any abortion advocate would use your arguments as to why pro-lifers are judgmental and self-righteous. In addition, it alienates those of us who aren’t trying to convert anyone to a particular religion, but merely want others to see that all life should be protected. You are only giving the pro-aborts more ammunition. You may want to try the “wise as serpents” approach, and not the Pharisee approach.

          • Cassandra

            All along you’ve been bringing a lot of “interpretive baggage” into your replies of my comments. Who’s really being judgmental and self-righteous?

          • Mary Lee

            We both are. We are both human, after all.

          • Cassandra

            Try speaking for yourself.

          • Mary Lee
          • Tess208


          • Beverly Harlton

            I could be wrong, so please forgive me if I am, but I think it’s less your caring for souls and more your implying that I *don’t.* I apologize for any confusion I have caused you.

          • Cassandra

            Your praying for the souls of others is most commendable and most often all one can do.

          • DianaG2

            Our point is not to judge whether anyone is “fighting abortion for the right reasons.” We’re not the thought police.

            The point is to fight abortion, period. The issue has to be cut very finely and very closely. These other issues are off-topic.

            Many activist groups go astray over details and start in-fighting and then lose focus on the issue. It’s very counter-productive.

            As they say in every AA meeting, “AA has no opinion on outside issues.”

          • Tess208

            Great Answer, Cassandra. That really is the bottom line. You have to at least try. But I understand that there are people who will walk right away. Sometimes (and I have not figured this out yet) you need to just lead by example. The rub is that you are never really sure when to do this, at least I’m not. I kind of leave it to my Guardian Angel to lead me. His stats are impressive!!

        • patriciacarrasco

          i think ur right. its a step in the right direction for them to choose life, and w/ that light shining into their hearts and minds, they may be open to even more light in the future, more truth….

        • I don’t dispute your words, but would merely add that animals are among the weakest and most vulnerable among us, too. I would refer you to the writings of Anglican priest Reverend Andrew Linzey along these lines.

    • Isabel

      It doesn’t really have anything to do with killing babies. Most pro-lifers happen to be christians.

    • Beverly Harlton

      After reading all the comments, I feel like I’m coming totally out of left field. The only connection I saw from the get-go is that gays generally tend to support abortion as it’s part and parcel of the Democratic Party’s platform, along with gay rights. It’s not usual for gays to support life, but when they do, we of the pro-life movement should accept them, not shun them because they’re different, even if we might think some of their activities are immoral. Most people that belong to the other groups Kristen mentioned tend to support abortion, and I’d imagine that a Catholic or an Evangelical who’s never even met a pagan or an atheist might not know how to react. Some might respond by shunning them, which is a shame. People are people. That’s what the pro-life movement’s about.

    • ElbethL

      I don’t think it does. And I’m not exactly on the gay rights train, either, but it’s two separate debates. False equivalency is always sloppy logic.

    • princessjasmine45

      I think pigs are flying right now. I never thought I’d agree with one of your comments Alex. I agree with you on this one 100%. It’s good to find common ground.

      • Alex Hunter


        • princessjasmine45

          you are most welcome.

    • Flayer

      The homosexual “lobby” will become radically pro-life if a gay gene is ever discovered. Women all over the world will start exercising their “choice” not to have gay children.

      • Alex Hunter

        I’m pretty sure sexuality isn’t a genetic trait. It’s like writing with your left hand: a random element.

    • Richard Loveday

      All she was doing was showing the many differing factions that have pro-life people in them. In that, we should be unified. It’s just like when you get multiple denominations of Protestants together; as long as we all believe the basic tenets of the faith (the Trinity, the virgin birth, Jesus is ALL Man & ALL God, He was crucified, dead, buried & rose again on the third day), we can agree to disagree over the other, less important “grey areas”. They’re not worth causing division in the family of God!

    • Arimathean

      Some homosexuals fear that eventually a prenatal test might be developed for homosexual tendencies, and potentially homosexual babies might be aborted by parents who don’t want a gay kid. It sounds far-fetched, but it is a sincere concern of some pro-life homosexuals.

      • Alex Hunter

        But society has become much more accepting of homosexuals and since sexual attraction doesn’t manifest until puberty, how can it be detected in the womb?

        • johno

          Vladimir Putin doesn’t want them. No homosexuals in Russia. They are trying to get asylum in the United States. He just made it illegal. Not all societies are welcome of their sexuality.

        • Arimathean

          Some people (not I) believe there is a genetic component to determination of homosexuality. With genetic sequencing becoming cheaper every month, it might not be long before such tests could be available if they were possible.

          Acceptance of homosexuality is not well established even in Western culture, and it is absent elsewhere. The same Asian cultures that abort baby girls in large numbers just because they prefer boys would also be likely to abort homosexual babies if they could identify them.

    • Tess208

      Hi Alex,
      I think it is usually included when Catholics state that abortion is one of the “nonnegotiable” along with women priests, artificial contraception and several other issues. I agree that it is not wise to introduce this in the conversations. Sometimes when you are involved in this fight you are backed in a corner. When this happens, the best thing to do is tell the truth.

    • Clinton

      It actually has something to do with the abortion debate, but indirectly. The modern acceptance of abortion is partially the result of becoming more liberal with “sexual freedom.”

  • Lilian Stoltzfus

    Well said, Kristen!

  • Stormii

    I don’t think God is mysterious. I just think we’re to dumb to understand it. Sometimes I question if we are really able to understand God himself, let alone his actions. It’s great you found such a calling when you went pro-life yet I can’t say all those who join the ranks will sooner or later be Christians.

  • Kristin

    This seems like you mean well and you do at least try to welcome us, but no, not nearly that many people are going to turn religious after being pro-life. Some may and have, as it would be a coincidence and statistically some would change, but there are tons of us pro-life Atheists that stay that way. I have always been a pro-life Atheist. I was never pro-choice, and yet I have never been religious, and I promise you, I never will be. I could just as easily say it was a “coincidence” like you did, implying that it wasn’t one, yet supporting human rights has nothing to do with whether or not one is religious. There are many life-long Atheists. Atheism keeps rising and religion keeps dwindling. That wouldn’t happen if what you believe were true.

    I’m really getting tired of the “yeah sure let’s let in the non-religious pro-lifers because they will find god in time, or hey then we will have the opportunity to bring Christ to them.” Please don’t do that. Especially if you think of it as an opportunity to turn people religious. Letting us in yet thinking we will turn religious may be better than saying we can’t be pro-life at all and arguing with us and shouting stereotypes and making us feel unwelcome, but it’s incredibly rude to think we will just change our minds (like that one pro-choice saying that goes something like “I yelled at her when she had an abortion, and she still held my hand when I had one” implying that pro-lifers will end up pro-choice) or that it is inevitable that we all be religious. What if we told you that everyone will end up Atheist and you will be “saved” or “see the light” eventually? Wouldn’t you consider that rude and like people don’t care about your beliefs but just want to turn everyone into them and think people are destined to be like them anyway?

    • Cassandra

      I think Penn Gillette said quite well when he said:

      I’ve always said, you know, that I don’t respect people who don’t
      proselytize. I don’t respect that at all. If you believe that there’s a
      heaven and hell, and people could be going to hell, or not getting
      eternal life or whatever, and you think that, well it’s not really worth
      telling them this because it would make it socially awkward…How much do
      you have to hate somebody to not proselytize? How much do you have to
      hate somebody to believe that everlasting life is possible and not tell
      them that? If I believed beyond a shadow of a doubt that a truck was
      coming at you and you didn’t believe it, and that truck was bearing
      down on you, there’s a certain point where I tackle you. And this is
      more important than that.

      • Kristin

        I agree with standing up for your beliefs, but not shoving them down people’s throats. I guarantee you religious people wouldn’t like it if we were to go around telling them how wrong they are and how they are wasting their lives thinking there is a god, and how they really should be Atheist and all of that. Live and let live.

        • Cassandra

          We face that *everyday* in increasing amounts. Where have you been?

          • Drew Belsky

            Seriously. I wonder what Kristin’s definition of “shoving them down people’s throats” is.

          • Beverly Harlton

            I’d have to assume it’s the same as many people’s these days: having the guts to voice your beliefs. Far be it from me to claim that I know what’s in another person’s heart, so I apologise if that’s not the case, Kristin.

          • Kristin

            Well we face the same, and I’d bet you don’t like facing that, so please don’t do that to us. I don’t do that to you guys because I know how much that sucks. You say you face it yet you post a quote supporting it. Please think of how it makes you feel before doing that to someone else or advocating for it.

          • Cassandra

            I’m not actually concerned about “how it makes me feel.” I’m concerned about saving souls. I expect to be ridiculed, spit on, and insulted. One isn’t going to last long in the pro-life movement either if one isn’t.

            As far as “shoving it down one’s throat”, I’m just posting here. You don’t have to read it. You voluntarily swallow it down.

          • Denver

            Well, for some people, religion is the biggest poison on the planet and ruins everything good. I wouldn’t like it if those people kept constantly telling me that my religion is destructive and backward. Same way, I don’t think that religious people should go around zealously evangelising when its unwanted. They think they’re saving mankind from religion, evangelists think they’re saving souls from irreligion. It works both ways: if you don’t like it then, don’t do the same thing to others.

          • Angela

            If one really cares and loves people, one must share to try and save them. However, I do find that words aren’t usually the most effective way. Just being a friend to someone can be a really effective way to share!

  • Diana

    I was shocked when I first heard that some non-religious pro-lifers are made to feel unwelcome.

    First, although I am religious, I never use a religious argument against abortion anyway. It’s too easy for people to say, “Okay, well, I don’t believe in that. So, it can’t apply to me.”

    We have to stick with the secular arguments. I saw one sign from the pro-life march: “Secularists for life. —- Because the embryology textbook tells me so.”

    There’s never a conflict between true faith and true reason. Science is based on reason.

    • Flayer

      Love it: “because the embryologist textbook tells me so.” I just recently had that argument with someone who said something about a six week fetus not being life and I said, then when does it happen? When exactly can you point to with certitude when life begins except at conception? He had no answer.

  • Sasha Kwapinski

    When it comes to affirming and defending the right to life, I will stand with whomever is standing there. If we are praying, I will pray with whomever is praying there. I am LDS (Mormon) and have sometimes mentioned my religious affiliation, mainly just so people would know one reason why I am pro life. More than once, however, some right wing fundamentalist yahoos would start trying to “turn” me into a “christian.” They definitely did not make me feel welcome! Fundamentalist Protestants need to realize that they do not “own” the pro life perspective. I, for one, am proud to join with liberals, atheists and agnostics, feminists, gays and lesbians, or little green men from Mars in standing for the right to life.

  • JW

    Thanks very much for this lovely article. I am all in favor of people, whatever their religious beliefs, joining in good work to protect the unborn. It is a shame when faith or absence of faith becomes a source of division or hurt in the pro-life movement: we should all be on the same side!

  • DrJeffKoloze

    Thank you for your commentary. It is good to know that the pro-life community is open to those who have no religious views or doubt or deny the existence of God. It is terrible to think that these pro-lifers are being shunned because they don’t fit the worldview of some religious persons (who, while not as extreme in their intolerance as Obama and his minions, are not open to working with people as they are).

  • Brian F Hudon

    If there is no God, than man has no rights and he is a competitor only, subject to the law of the jungle and the arbitrary laws of physics and biology. Without God, rights are merely an illusion granted or withdrawn at the behest of mob rule.

  • Michael McCleary

    I have always been Pro-life – as an atheist, as an evangelical, and now as a Catholic – because no Pro-abortion argument ever had any real logic, or could ever take away the fact that a child was being killed.

    It was all of the wonderful Christians I met that helped me to see that I was missing something (well, Someone) ; and it was the high percentage of Catholics at
    the annual March for Life that showed me that my own Evangelical church was missing something too.

    I must admit that I do miss being an atheist Pro-lifer, only in that more folks would listen to me because I was coming from, what they thought, a unique view point.

    • Flayer

      I often argue from a secular position. It is a compelling argument and not that difficult. When you start with the “scientific” position that life begins at conception, then the argument follows logically that every citizen is guaranteed life. Abortion is not due process.

  • Hardcandy6386

    This article might have been good if it was more about not alienating “godless” people and less about how you can maybe JUST MAYBE convert them to religion. I don’t need a god to care about another human being.

  • dave a

    We all can learn a lot by just observing birds.
    Different species have different types of courtship, but always between a male and female. Difficult to argue against true fact.
    Construct different types of nests, and locations.
    Have yet to have someone explain to me how the female bird produces an egg.
    How the complexities of the chick mysteriously develops inside the egg without human intervention. Just like a human develops in the female womb.
    The answer for me is so simplistic.
    Just have to refer back to Genesis.
    In the beginning GOD created male and female.

  • Lauren

    What I personally would like to see more of is sites like this and others maintaining a more nondenominational approach to pro life matters. Don’t say you are, and then put up adverts for rosaries, and give only testimonies of Roman Catholics. Believe it or not, we Protestants are pro life too, as well as Eastern Orthodox, Coptics, etc. The Pro-Life movement is not a Catholic thing, it’s a Christian thing. So no favoring one denomination over the other.

  • Jeanne

    Being a pro-life woman who is a Christian, it does not matter to me who is pro-life. The end is the same- protecting the precious unborn. Christianity is at its foundation a relationship, inclusive and not exclusive. Our gay. lesbian, agnostic and unbelieving friends- and strangers- should be able to see that Light in our life. ANYONE who is for the saving of unborn life is -to me- welcome in the debate and fight.

    • Flayer

      Observant Jews are fiercely pro-life because in the Torah, G-d says to “always choose life.” Please do not think that a pro-life stand is a wholly owned subsidiary of Christianity. By the way, Christians, or self-proclaimed Christians have a whole lot of ‘splaining to do for giving us Obama – twice! – the most pro-abort senator and president in our history. What’s that about?

      • Jean-Marc

        It is interesting : I am not jew; can you say where in the Torah God say “always choose life” ?

        • Flayer

          It is from Devarim/Deuteronomy 30:15-19, the last days of Moses. He is admonishing his people. (The words are actually spoken by Moses):

          15. Behold, I have set before you today life and good, and death and evil,

          16. inasmuch as I command you this day to love
          the Lord, your God, to walk in His ways, and to observe His commandments, His statutes, and His ordinances, so that you will live and increase, and the Lord, your God, will bless you in the land to which you are coming to take possession of it.

          17. But if your heart deviates and you do not
          listen, and you will be drawn astray, and you will prostrate yourself to other deities and serve them,

          18. I declare to you this day, that you will surely perish, and that you will not live long days on the land, to which you are crossing the Jordan, to come and take possession thereof.

          19. This day, I call upon the heaven and the
          earth as witnesses [that I have warned] you: I have set before you life and death, the blessing and the curse. You shall choose life, so that you and your offspring will live;

          20. To love the Lord your God, to listen to His
          voice, and to cleave to Him. For that is your life and the length of your days, to dwell on the land which the Lord swore to your forefathers to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob to give to them.

          It is quite beautiful, don’t you think? If you’d like to read more in an interactive program with or without commentary, please see:

        • Flayer

          It is from Devarim/Deuteronomy when Moishe (Moses) is at the end of his days and he is poetically admonishing (the people of) Israel before entering the land G0d promised. It is so beautiful:

          Chapter 30

          15. Behold, I have set before you today life and good, and death and evil,

          16. inasmuch as I command you this day to love the Lord, your God, to walk in His
          ways, and to observe His commandments, His statutes, and His ordinances, so that you will live and increase, and the Lord, your God, will bless you in the land to which you are coming to take possession of it.

          17. But if your heart deviates and you do not listen, and you will be drawn astray, and you will prostrate yourself to other deities and serve them,

          18. I declare to you this day, that you will surely perish, and that you will not live long days on the land, to which you are crossing the Jordan, to come and take possession thereof.

          19. This day, I call upon the heaven and the earth as witnesses [that I have warned] you: I have set before you life and death, the blessing and the curse. You shall choose life, so that you and your offspring will live;

          20. To love the Lord your God, to listen to His voice, and to cleave to Him. For that is your life and the length of your days, to dwell on the land which the Lord swore to your forefathers to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob to give to them.

          Beautiful, no? Even if not a believer. Worth reading in whole at:


  • austinteltoe1978

    I completely disagree with your approach toward converting people to the pro life cause. How do you talk about abortion or any moral issue without mentioning God? What makes me right about abortion? What makes my position right is it’s against the sixth commandment. If you ignore God and the bible then it’s just your opinion. What about salvation? If you want to see people saved then
    you have to preach the gospel. The reason your priest didn’t mention God was probably because he doesn’t know Jesus. Most Catholics believe in works salvation. They don’t believe in salvation through grace. An unbeliever should be welcome at the pro life table but I’m still going to witness to them because that’s what Jesus commanded. I’m glad you’ve seen more pro- life people trying to convert people by mentioning God. The pro-life movement is to
    wishy washy in my opinion. Thanks for your time Kristen. God bless.

  • Flayer

    I have heard a very compelling anti-abortion statement from self-proclaimed atheist. He said that scientifically life begins at conception. There is no other event that can be pointed to with scientific certitude. Because he believes in the secular laws of the right of innocent citizens to life, he thus could not support abortion. Abortion to him was simply murder of an innocent citizen without benefit of trial.

  • Yucca

    What did God say about Christians. That others would know us (Christians) by our love. How we live our lives is a witness. Working like the devil for the Lord is an oxymoron. If we are working for the Lord we should reflect the Lord. We should love sinners while not participating in sin ourselves, we should love the lost, & not think it is okay to be mean to them. It’s isn’t okay to be mean to anyone, not the lost & not the body of Christ.

  • Jean-Marc

    “I’m a Pro-Life Atheist, But the Pro-Life Movement is Shutting Me Out”

    It’s interesting for me as I am a Christian who does not go to the mass, and a vegetarian.

    And also a prolifer.

  • 441019

    Anyone who is pro-life has a place in the pro-life movement; there should be no question about it. I personally do not approve of homosexuality, atheism, or paganism–but I approve of any defense of the unborn.
    As far as religion–I grew up as a Catholic, and I believe that I was taught the truth. But in a way, I can understand that people might be turned off by religion. If I turn on the radio and try to listen to preachers on radio programs, their sermons are so unintelligent, or at least sound so unintelligent, that they really turn me off. They talk a lot about the Bible, but don’t seem to address any real-life issues. If I go to Mass on Sunday, unfortunately, the priest doesn’t say anything that I can relate to. Anything that is controversial, such as abortion or homosexuality, is not mentioned. The subjects of sin and hell are never mentioned–as if they do not exist. The priest will say that God loves everyone and forgives everyone, which is nice–but talks about nothing that I can relate to my life or real life, unfortunately. Politics, also, which is a part of life, is never mentioned. I wonder if it is because churches are tax-exempt (501(c)) that the ministers are afraid to mention anything controversial, that the government may not approve of.

  • AFreeMan

    “Stand with anybody that stands right, stand with him while he is right and part with him when he goes wrong.” – Abraham Lincoln

  • Jim Freund

    If you want women to share the space of their bodies with their unborn children, you should be willing to share the space of the pro-life movement with everyone.

  • Lisa Magnooty


    you are correct; they are not necessarily tied together. I am sure there are many “Pro Life” people that are not “Christians” in any sense of the term. Nat Hentoff is one of millions that comes to mind. And there are many “Pro LIfe” people that may be termed “Christians”, but are not what the Bible refers to as “Born again” Christians. Then again, there are many “pro Life” people that are “Born Again” Christians.

    My goal with respect to abortion is to do my part to eliminate this holocaust that has taken place in this country, and all around the world. As someone that is Jewish, I am quite familiar with what that term means.

    As someone who is a Jewish believer in Messiah Jesus, my goal is to share the Biblical message (and plan of) salvation with those that do not have a relationship with God (and that comes through and only through Jesus Christ).

    So, I can stand with people from all walks of life in stopping this modern-day holocaust of baby murder! By the same token, if given the opportunity, i might want to chat with people on both sides of this issue, about their need for a Savior. It is the very things followers of Messiah (Jesus Christ) are specifically told we must do.

  • serferten

    Excellent piece. Something as basic as: Are you for or against life, for me cuts across gender orientation, race, religion you name it. For the question, what’s homosexuality got to do w/abortion–there was research vaguely showing there’s a gene that could predict it and that some parents might choose to abort fearing their unborn might turn out to be gay. I know sounds bizarre.

  • Lisa P

    I had a very telling and truthful conversation w/ an atheist one day. He shared w/ me that he was indeed an atheist, and yet he was pro-life. To him, the abortion debate is not a religious one, but a human rights one. I was so happy to agree w/ him even though we have very opposite views of God and religion. It is important to find a way to unify people on this issue, these are perfect moments to do so. There are times to use faith as an argument, but there are also times to leave it out.

  • grandmary42

    When someone puts his penis in someone’s anus I find that discussing besides being really unhealthy!

  • Acts238toBsaved

    EVERYONE has a part in saving a babies life. There should be no barriers to heroism in any fashion. I thank God that He has sent help, they probably would not agree that that is how it happened, but God works in mysterious ways PTL! :))

    • Jean-Marc

      Yes, sorry, there is no censorship, I have not seen my previous message, but it is published.

      So, you say “God works in mysterious ways” : I think this is not only with christians, for instance with buddhists : any among the Buddha words are in the Dharani Sutra :

      “There are five kinds of Evil Karma which are difficult to extinguish, even if one were to repent of them. What are the five kinds of offences? The first one is killing the father, the second one is killing the mother, the third one is abortion, the fourth one is to injure The Buddha, the fifth one is to create disharmony among the Sangha assemblies [i.e. create division and schism]. These five types of evil and sinful karma are difficult to extinguish.” (The Dharani Sutra of the Buddha on Longevity, The Extinction of Offences, And the Protection of Young Children)

      interesting, Baha’is speak also about this :

      • Jean-Marc

        The problem for me as a christian vegetarian is that in buddhism we have :

        “Under Right Action is the principle of ahimsa : non violence to all living things”

        I think this ahimsa apply to unborn baby, but also to animals and I don’t find it in christianism : it is a big problem for me and certainly many christian vegetarians; we have a pope who choose St Francis or Assisi name … and he don’t speak any words about animals sufferings ! But St Francis said :

        “Not to hurt the creatures, brethren, is our first duty to them,
        but to stop there is not enough. We have a higher mission –
        to be of service to them wherever they require it.”

        “not to hurt the creatures, brethren is our first duty” : we don’t do that at all … we kill them, we eat them, we use them to try all sort of pharmaceutical products …

        • Jean-Marc

          “God works in mysterious ways”, yes, and why not in these words :

          ““Were it only to learn benevolence to humankind, we should be merciful to other creatures.”
          Plutarch (46 AD-120 AD)

          “”As long as man continues to be the ruthless destroyer of lower living beings he will never know health or peace. For as long as men massacre animals, they will kill each other.”
          Pythagoras ( born : about 569 BC in Samos, Ionia; died: about 475 BC )

          and also with Albert Schweitzer reverence for life (he was a philosopher and christian pastor) : as prolifers we have to think a lot about it .

          • Jean-Marc
          • Jean-Marc
          • Jean-Marc

            and :

            Daniel 1:8 But Daniel purposed in his heart that he would not defile himself with the portion of the king’s meat, nor with the wine which he drank: therefore he requested of the prince of the eunuchs that he might not defile himself.

            9 Now God had brought Daniel into favour and tender love with the prince of the eunuchs.

            10 And the prince of the eunuchs said unto Daniel, I fear my lord the king, who hath appointed your meat and your drink: for why should he see your faces worse liking than the children which are of your sort? then shall ye make me endanger my head to the king.

            11 Then said Daniel to Melzar, whom the prince of the eunuchs had set over Daniel, Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah,

            12 Prove thy servants, I beseech thee, ten days; and let them give us pulse to eat, and water to drink.

            13 Then let our countenances be looked upon before thee, and the countenance of the children that eat of the portion of the king’s meat: and as thou seest, deal with thy servants.

            14 So he consented to them in this matter, and proved them ten days.

            15 And at the end of ten days their countenances appeared fairer and fatter in flesh than all the children which did eat the portion of the king’s meat.

            16 Thus Melzar took away the portion of their meat, and the wine that they should drink; and gave them pulse.

            17 As for these four children, God gave them knowledge and skill in all learning and wisdom: and Daniel had understanding in all visions and dreams.

            18 Now at the end of the days that the king had said he should bring them in, then the prince of the eunuchs brought them in before Nebuchadnezzar.

            19 And the king communed with them; and among them all was found none like Daniel, Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah: therefore stood they before the king.

            20 And in all matters of wisdom and understanding, that the king enquired of them, he found them ten times better than all the magicians and astrologers that were in all his realm.

          • Jean-Marc
  • Jean-Marc

    “…any friend of the unborn deserves a seat at our table.”

    Are you sincere ? So why did you censor my message ? I have found no seat at your table; only censorship.

    It was like this :

    “I’m a Pro-Life Atheist, But the Pro-Life Movement is Shutting Me Out”

    This speak to me for I am a Christian who does not attend religious services.
    I am a vegetarian and a prolifer too.

    • AgentOrange5

      Your original post was posted 7 hours ago, sounds like it was a glitch that you didn’t see it, not censorship.

  • Robin Ann

    Romans 16:17-18.

  • tom721

    I was away from my faith for many years. Then, I came into the pro-life movement out of a sense of fairness. Later, I returned to my faith. So, yes. If you’re pro-life, you’re pro-life, no matter what.

  • td10

    A dear friend of mine joined a Catjolic pro-life group resigned to be, in her own words, the token feminist atheist who was pro- life based on reason. She was led to Catholicism this way and is one of the most sincerely devout Catholics I know. I cringe to imagine what might have happened had that initial group been exclusive. I had another friend, a family doctor, who was an atheist and a member of our parish pro-life group. His voice was among the most eloquent and informed. He was led to action after seeing such damage from abortions to many young girls that he had cared for since birth. And what about Dr Nathanson, a pioneer pro- abortion advocate, who was convinced by science that abortion is wrong. Faith in Christ came later. Protecting the unborn is holy work, and we need to trust God’s process and His timing. I heard a great sentiment- and this is paraohrased- ” Evangelize- but only speak if you have to.”

  • HeatherOss

    I am sorry, but I disagree with this agument.. This is and has to be a “God” thing.
    If you are a practicing homosexual, then you do not “KNOW” the bible and therefore your choice to be “pro-life” has nothing to do with God, but with your own beliefs. So… why do you believe it to be wrong to kill babies in the womb? Look into your heart and see where these beliefs come from and turn to your maker – our Lord, Jesus Christ. Without him… what is the point really???

  • Gen2Rev

    Yes you are so correct! In the arena of this world’s values we can all share in a common goal, such as the pursuit of life, freedom, free speech, etc. We can fight side by side. Many who believed in God fought along with those who didn’t in WW2 and in the American Civil war and both did it for what is good and right. As a Christian I recognize the importance of temporal goals, but I also recognize something more important and that is eternal goals. But we can fight together for the former, and I can hope for you to recognize the later. But to discount you, the one fighting for something good only in view of this life, seems to me to deny the essence of the eternal value as well. For I view them both from the same God and Creator even if you do not, therefore, I welcome you even if you only think it within human reason – which I think is a gift from God as well.

  • LeMayzing

    As Blessed Pope John Paul II said in “Evangelium Vitae”, in his prayer to Mary: “…the courage to bear witness to it (the Gospel of life), resolutely, in order to build, together with all people of good will, the civilization of truth and love…”

    ALL people of good will.

  • Liz Finch-Belcher

    I’m a pagan and a former Christian. I agree that a person’s background should have no relevance or de-value their pro-life stance. (Unless their actions contradict said stance.) Being a judgemental or pushy jerk will only turn people offand lose a valuable addition to your cause. Blessed be.

  • expat711

    I could not agree more! I am possibly a bit of an anomaly. I was raised Catholic, but I had an abortion when I was 19 and strayed from my upbringing. I was consumed with guilt, but returned to my faith and took a long time to accept forgiveness and really begin to live my faith. Once I finally became comfortable within myself again, I wanted to shout it from the rooftops and really tried to shove my views down peoples throats.
    I have found that with pro-life it is very easy to make a biological/medical ethics argument that is not so confronting to people. When I see pages that exclude those that are making a rational, rather than a religious argument for pro-life, it breaks my heart. I really like something the Dali Lama said which is something like the road to the to of the mountain depends on which side you start from, but destination is the same.

  • JoeAllen

    God bless Kristen and NEW WAVE FEMINISTS … !!!!!!

  • Tess208

    Great thoughts, Kristen. I think most Pro-Lifers have a hard time leaving God out of the equation. Your thoughts that the science, research, etc. rout could, in fact lead you to Him is profound. What I have noticed in my Pro-Life blogging is that those to whom we speak usually confront us with “are you religions, Catholic
    (I am), Evangelical, Republican, or just a one-issue voter.” I agree that there is enough evidence to convince without spewing our beliefs all over the place, but I will never deny Him.

    You have given me something to think about, however. Perhaps I can use the liberal trick of diversion, (read Bengasi). When they ask if I am religious, perhaps I could turn the tables and ask “are you a heathen?” Just kidding (sort of!). But, perhaps we could divert the question to “let’s leave our religious, or lack of religious beliefs out of the argument.” Couldn’t hurt!
    Thank you for your insight, and “Welcome Home.”

  • rgenini

    One way to look at Kristen’s conversion experience is to recognize that conversion is most often a gradual process. As it says in Isaiah, “A smoldering wick he will not put out.” God lavishly rewards even a little bit of obedience. Kristen responded to what she would come to know as the Holy Spirit calling her to protect unborn children. That obedience was rewarded far beyond anything she could have hoped for.

    I always love it when we pray in the Good Friday liturgy for atheists that they will find God by doing what is right. That is why atheists must always be invited to be a part of the pro-life movement.

  • Al Clerc

    God bless her for her wisdom.

  • Al Clerc

    Homosexuality does not have anything directly to do with the debate except that many gays are “pro-choice” or “pro-abort” out of a sense of solidarity with the Feminists misguided “reproductive rights'”position.

  • Mamabear

    A much needed message. Abortion is a moral issue, like murder and stealing. Yes, many of us are prolife because we believe God is against abortion, but if we see this as primarily a religious issue, we will lose because our society is becoming more and more secular. All people of good morals, whether they believe in God or not, whether they are Christian, Atheist, or Buddhist, will be needed to stand up against the culture of death (for many abortion supporters are also pro-assisted suicide and pro-euthanasia).
    And while I am on it, pro-life is not just a Catholic issue, the majority of other Christians, especially us Evangelicals, are also strongly pro-life.

    • Alex Hunter

      Christianity is full of death and pain. Jesus’ crucifixion is the most recognisable image and from what I’ve read in the Bible it’s a pretty accurate summary of every other story.
      So when you stand up against the “culture of death”, double check where you’re standing.

  • Bridget

    I went to the pro life march in Washington in 2011, and there was a LGBT pro life group.


    Kristen, Before I became a believer I worked in a Birmingham, Alabama ICU. where I encountered Christians of every stripe. I was seeing women in long skirts with hair almost as long, taping “prayer cloths” to their loved ones thighs and telling me “its in God’s hands”. They would also tell me “The Lord loves you”. I would sort of mumble and smile. They are being kind. Their intent is good. Its a language you don’t understand. Just be as gracious as you would be in a foreign country. They have a natural and First Amendment right to say whatever. And they are not much different from you. I worked with a nurse who fit the description of the above mentioned women. We shared the same kind of humor. Like me, she laughed, cried, got frustrated with the system and felt relieved that she had a friend to confide in.

    I choose to remain an alien after forty years in this country. I figure that I have saved Americans and washed their bodies, paid taxes and Medicare, helped keep the economy going, so I have a right to be here. Americans have tried to proselytize me into becoming a citizen but, since 2008, I have made the choice to remain as I am. I wouldn’t worry about whether you are accepted or not. Just do the work. Egos have to decrease. Babies need to be saved. Mom’s need real emotional and logistical help.

  • Angela

    I’m so glad to hear someone talking about this and taking this view point. Jesus’ ministry to dining with sinners was very controversial in his day. It’s the same sort of thing. These people should be treated with love and acceptance, just as Jesus would have. After all, they are correct about their view on life and just as much valuable as we are!