Concerning the murder of his unborn grandchildren, President Obama is just like everyone else...

One commenter thinks it's unfair to say that President Obama wants his daughters to be able to murder his grandchildren... He points out that one statement commonly cited in support of this conclusion is a 2008 Johnstown, PA appearance where Obama says the following:

President Obama: When it comes to... when it comes specifically to HIV/AIDS, the most important prevention is education... which should include... which should include abstinence only educa... should include abstinence education ...teaching children... teaching children that, you know, sex is not something casual.

But it should also include... it should also include other--you know--information about contraception because, look: I've got two daughters--nine years old and six years old-- I'm going to teach them, first of all, about values and morals. But, if they make a mistake? I don't want them punished with a baby! I don't want them punished with... ah STD at the age of sixteen. You know? So it doesn't make sense to not give them information. You still want to teach them the morals and values to make good decisions.

So keep your eye on the ball here: President Obama wants his daughters to have sex education that provides options--options he wants his daughters to take if they get in trouble.

He wants them to be told about contraceptive choices which knowledge will empower them to make those choices in such a way as to keep from being punished with a child--President Obama's grandchild, that is. If President Obama's daughter gets pregnant (out of wedlock, we can assume from the context), he wants her to use contraception to escape the punishment of a child.

Then too, on a page of transcripts of President Obama's habitual use of "I want (this) and I want (that)" in his campaign speeches for the coming election, the New York Times includes these two statements:

President Obama: "Romney wants to get rid of funding for Planned Parenthood. I think that is a bad idea. I’ve got two daughters. I want them to control their own health care choices.

Here's a longer transcript from the White House:

Mr. Romney wants to get rid of funding for Planned Parenthood. I think that is a bad idea. I’ve got two daughters. I want them to control their own health care choices. We’re not going backwards, we’re going forwards. (Applause.)

Planned Parenthood is our nation's slaughterhouse where babies are murdered by the hundreds of thousands per year. Planned Parenthood also provides contraception--both non-abortifacient and abortifacient contraception. President Obama speaks both of "Planned Parenthood" and "choice." It would be unreasonable not to conclude that President Obama wants Planned Parenthood funded so his daughters have the freedom, not simply to use a spermicide and diaphragm, but to abort his grandchildren very early (ECPs and chemical abortions) and very late (surgical abortions).

But what is "contraception" to President Obama?

President Obama does not distinguish between abortion and contraception. His Obamacare regulations force Christian and Roman Catholic companies and non-profits alike to fund the killing of unborn children through what his administration calls "contraception," but in reality is abortion.  He wants Planned Parenthood funded so that his daughers have a "choice." He wants his daughters' sex education to include abortifacient contraceptive choices so they won't be punished with a baby.

If President Obama had to choose between becoming a grandfather through his daughter accepting the punishment of a child or having that grandchild aborted so his daughter wouldn't be "punished with a child," a reasonable person would conclude that President Obama would make the same choice most Americans have been making for decades, now: to encourage his daughter to murder her unborn child through ECPs, chemical, or surgical abortions so that she (and he) could escape the consequences of her mistake.

Tim Bayly

Tim serves Clearnote Church, Bloomington, Indiana. He and Mary Lee have five children and fifteen grandchildren.


I don't disagree that Obama would almost certainly encourage the abortion of his own grandchildren. But he is a very slick talker, and to my knowledge he has never said as much explicitly. I agree entirely that such can be easily inferred from all of the quotes provided above. All I intended to point out is that there is dishonesty in interpretation on both sides (Mourdock's comment being interpreted as "rape is intended by God," and Obama's comment being interpreted as "I would want my grandchild aborted"), and that as Christians we should be honest, especially when dealing with wicked men. It is clear from other evidence that Mr. Mourdock is not a rape-mongerer, and it is equally clear from other evidence that President Obama is an abortion-mongerer, and to his own daughters. But the Youngstown, PA quote in 2008 was widely used to whip the voters into a frenzy over something that was not said there, the same way Mourdock's quote is being used to whip the voters into a frenzy over something that was not said there. That's all I'm getting at.

Maybe I'm splitting hairs. But we reap what we sow, and it looks to me like in 2008 we sowed for Obama what we are now reaping for Mourdock--voters whipped into a frenzy over something they thought they heard in a sound bite, but wasn't actually there.

In any event, my front yard has the only Mourdock sign on our block, and I won't be voting for Obama, nor encouraging anyone else to.

^^And I think that whipping people into a frenzy is a terrible way to select leaders, and is largely what got us into this mess in the first place.

>>And I think that whipping people into a frenzy is a terrible way to select leaders

Actually, Abram, when you consider the ghoulish commitments of President Obama on many levels, but particularly his support of the slaughter of viable babies, it's my own conviction that the electorate would be well-commended to God by being whipped into considerable more of a frenzy than anything I've seen or heard. As a matter of fact, I don't think I've ever seen anything approximating even one single member of the electorate in these United States ever whipped at all about the slaughter of the unborn, whether our own unborn or someone else's. And a "frenzy?"

It's laughable.

The Colonial fathers were in a frenzy about taxation without representation, and did something about it.

Today, no one is in any frenzy at all...

About the slaughter of 1.3 million babies per year, year after year.

Let alone that our ghoulish bloodthirsty President Obama, supports even viable babies being subject to this wholesale slaughter.

Love you, dear brother.

PS: I've changed a couple of my posts to more accurately reflect the context of President Obama's 2008 statement. Thanks for your leg work on this.

Well, ok, in 2008 the Youngstown, PA quote was used to TRY to whip voters into a frenzy, to no avail. But the man I spoke to on Friday--if he hadn't been whipped into a frenzy over what Mourdock said, he was definitely in a tizzy about it...

How sad that our President thinks the child, a fellow human, is a punishment. What a society we live in! As if sex has no connection with procreation at all; it's just about experimenting and getting to know your body.

Apparently, Obama's view of humanity is "that which is an inconvenience is not human". And how about the tepid line "I'm going to teach them morals and values and stuff" as a preamble to his more college-articulated way of saying "But I mean, come on, if they get pregnant, its not like I want that embarrassment around their neck...or mine. I mean, I want them to be able to get an abortion, reset the clock, and try again. After all, they have an important career to look out for. They have the rest of their life to have kids. This particular pregnancy, well, sadly, it just came at the wrong time." And that is morals to this man.

I am so indignant at this point when I hear politicians who want to keep the murder of unborn children legal refer to this by the code phrases "women's health issues" or "contraception". I think the time is long overdue when Christians need to take this rhetoric head on with pointed rhetoric of our own. We are not against health care for women; we are against conspiratorial murder for hire by mother and obstetrician.

And the next time someone says "So you want to put your laws on my body", just say "You betcha. In our town, we don't allow women to kill their children."

If Obama doesn't want his children to be "punished with an STD," there is only one way to do it.  STDs have a nasty way of getting around a latex barrier--a CDC or NIH study about a decade back found that latex reduced STD infections only for AIDS, with a hint (but not statistically significant) for one other disease, I think genhorrhea. (sp?)

Really, same thing for having kids.  But far be it from Mr. Obama to trouble himself with facts.

Obama is saying that he wants to open his daughters up to the possibilities and what he sees as solutions to what happens if one of them gets pregnant. He believes in teaching his daughters to have morals and values, just because they are different from your own does not mean they are not morals and values.

I also think that Obama is aware of how basic family lines work, so when you continually hint that “Obama doesn’t realize he wants his daughters to murder his innocent little grandbabies -- but he’ll figure it out and realize his mistake and THEN we’ll see what he thinks!”
Being snarky has no place here except to belittle the president, and for someone who is so big on on obeying higher authority, I would recommend that you practice what you preach and at least treat him like a fellow human being, he is still a child of God and he is still a follower of God, regardless of how much his convictions contradict your own.

The only thing you are succeeding in doing by explicitly stating that Planned Parenthood is the nation’s slaughter house is appealing to people who already agree with you, as opposed to using rational arguments that do not involve emotionally-charged statements such as “murdering innocent, sweet babies” or the “ghoulish slaughterhouse” and so on.

Abortion and contraception both accomplish the same thing: prevent unwanted pregnancies, so it makes sense in context for Obama to not distinguish the two.

He is not encouraging anything, I re-state, he only wants to provide his daughters with multiple options of how to take responsibility if they end up pregnant. Providing them with education that teaches about abstinence, STD’s, and so on is not encouraging his daughters to have abortions, he wants them to be able to control what they do with their bodies. And yes, an unwanted pregnancy *is* a punishment.  

On the topic of Romney, if we do as wants, and make abortion illegal and cut Planned Parenthood’s funding, abortion is not going to stop. It will continue, it will only become less safe (due to it becoming an underground industry), or they will go to countries where it is legal (where it is also less safe to undergo abortions) to have abortions. It will not stop, it will continue but it will open up more dangers and complications than it did before. If you want to handle the abortion issue, I would recommend getting to the source of it like Obama does: encourage sex education backed up with science as opposed to religious and/or emotionally-charged opinions and teach them about abstinence, abortion, adoption, and other forms of alternatives to merely “You got pregnant? Too bad, you gotta have it because its a gift from God, regardless of how you got pregnant."

Abortion has been around since practically the beginning of time, I believe that we should stop behaving as though it is the biggest issue of the century, and focus on things we can change.

Sorry for making this comment so long....

Dear Gail,

The fact that abortion has been a part of society for a long time really does not bear relevance as to to its importance in terms of personal or societal ethics. It may have a psychological impact, in the same manner that familiarity might breed contempt (or acceptance), but though it might dull the sickening feeling we should all have toward this kind of aggravated violence, it does not tell us a thing about what our response should be.

I think most of the people who read and comment on this site feel that the unborn is a human, no less human than postnatal humans. Therefore, the death of a child who has yet to be passed from his/her mother's body must be justified if it is to be undertaken by the hand of man, just as the taking of any other human life at a later time in the human life cycle must be justified. This issue is not in the same category as simply removing tissue, such as performing an appendectomy or a hysterectomy or removing some other unwanted or potentially harmful non-human tissue. At least that is the bone of contention, and remains to be debated.

If the unborn is human, then its life being taken from it, and the circumstances surrounding that death such as the child's complete judicial innocence in terms of human affairs, its complete defenselessness in the killing, and the brutal way in which it is killed (in many cases, being burned alive, or quite literally butchered and dismembered) would have to be taken into consideration in terms of how emotional of a response is warranted.

There are a lot of horrible acts, which are both sinful and criminal, that are "politically correct" to get upset about. I would argue that most, if not all, of them pale in comparison to the atrocity of abortion, due to the innocence and defenselessness of the unborn person.

God's law provided special protection for the unborn in such places as Ex. 21:22-25. In this case-law, God says that if two men are fighting, and a pregnant woman's child (this is what God calls it by the way, a child) is killed, even unintentionally based on the motives of the two quarreling men, the responsible party is to be executed by the civil magistrate. This is a degree of protection for innocent life that is much stricter than for those of us who have already been delivered. It demonstrates the degree to which God values the innocent life of the unborn. There was no city of refuge for the offender here. My, how times have changed.

Whether the President of the United States, or an average Joe, God's Word does not allow for the option of killing an unwanted child. If you can demonstrate where it does, then I and every other Christian man and women is obligated to hear you on this. However, using euphemisms about health care choices is just a form of rationalizing. It is no more ethically commendable than a racist slave owner who says to you, "Okay, you may see these slaves as people, but I see them as subhuman property, and given my premises, my conclusions and my actions are completely understandable and logically consistent." Would that comfort any decent person, that someone's rights are being violated because someone else has unBiblical views of their personhood, but that at least the sinner and antagonist in this case is logically consistent? Or would the time honored tradition of that act offer us any respite?

Abortion simply adds an even worse offense to the string of offenses that lead to the conception of the child. The mother and or father might be lousy people in some cases, but the child deserves to live.


You wrote "I also think that Obama is aware of how basic family lines work, so when you continually hint that “Obama doesn’t realize he wants his daughters to murder his innocent little grandbabies -- but he’ll figure it out and realize his mistake and THEN we’ll see what he thinks!” "

Forgive me if I'm misunderstanding, but I think that here you're critiquing what I wrote. I did not at all mean to imply that "Obama doesn't realize he wants his daughters to murder his innocent little grandbabies..." He certainly, definitely realizes it (and will be held accountable by God for it); but he's also sharp enough to realize that if he said that much explicitly, it would scandalize the electorate. He's a slick guy, and masquerades everything that he says in euphemism and rhetoric. His position is clear, but he won't own it publicly because it would hurt his reelection.

And Gail, I don't refer to baby-slaughter because I think it will change anyone's opinion who has been consumed with bloodlust for little babies. I use these words to try to restore the horror of those of us who claim to be opposed to this slaughter.

Parents' sacrifice of the their children to the gods is so very evil that Scripture says it never entered the mind of God. Until those of us who claim to be anti-abortion come to see abortion's full wickedness, we'll never declare "no union with baby-slaughterers."


Gail, you said that abortion prevents to clarify that?

Hello everybody, and peace in the name of Christ!

While I will admit that online blogging, and commenting on online blogs, seems like a less than ideal means of communication to this no-doubt unenlightened philistine, I confess that it provides great entertainment.  I am however, disappointed in you, my fellow Christians, for your disrespectful comments on the topic of the President.  Whether or not you like or agree with the man, the office should be respected. 

Now, before I begin my rebuttal, I want to point out that none of us are in the absolute right, as we are all sinners in some form.  Similarly, none of us can hope to comprehend what is truly correct, as none of us are God, who alone can see the true path of the universe.  That said, I will now address my opponent's points.

I think that the whole topic of abortion moves into some fairly shaky waters, both morally and theologically.  Is it right to allow someone to make an informed choice, even when it has harmful impacts on other organisms?  What exactly is life, and what rights do we have over it?  When Jesus said, "Blessed are the children, for theirs is the Kingdom of the Lord", did he imply that all else is subservient to the needs of those same children?  What is the will of God in these matters?

Before all else, I want to adopt the criterion of personal freedom, and also utilitarianism, defined as the greatest good for the greatest many.  While these two criteria may seem contradictory, I assure you that they mesh quite well. 

First, I want to point out that there are currently a minimum of 925 million people on Earth who are beneath the starvation line, while another 500 million teeters at the brink, according to  The Earth is rapidly reaching the point where further population is untenable, and where tough sacrifices must be made for the good of all.  In another words, the population growth must stop.  Condoms and birth control pills help greatly, as do, to a lesser extent, government population controls, the downside of those being the political fallout, the shadows of authoritarianism, and the problems with enforcing such rules.  Sadly for all, abortion has become a necessary evil, where the foe of overpopulation is held at bay by the removal of embryoes.  For this reason, it is in the interests of the greatest possible good for the greatest number of people to limit population growth by employing abortions on a wide scale, and to make them cheap and easily accessible by dint of government underwriting.  In this way, utilitarianism is satisfied.

In regards to the supremacy of personal choice (notice that this was the first criteria, coming before utilitarianism, the good of all), none of us can truly arbitrate the difference between a good choice and a bad choice.  In fact, it is not within our rights as citizens of a nation or citizens of the Kingdom of Heaven to judge any.  "Judgement is mine, saith the Lord", and judgement is that of the government and its justices.  We cannot, and must not judge, lest we be judged as well.  For this reason, I do not think that we can constrain a woman's right to choose based on moral grounds, as any moral decision on the topic of someone else's choices is by definition a judgement.  Ethically, I feel that abortion is a sad necessity, one that should only be employed with a sense of sadness and pain.  However, it is still necessary, and while my soul may cry for it, we must do what must be done.  If in some cases the pregnancy must be terminated, than it will be terminated. 

Beyond the moral imperative, and the command of Our Father not to judge, o my brothers, who are we to truly know someone else?  Who knows what thoughts, what heartrendingly painful decisions went into the making of that painful choice?  Not a one of us knows, except for the parents and for God himself.  It is not ours to know, and thus we must not judge that which we do not know. 

Finally, as the last part of my case concerned with personal freedom, a woman's body is her own possession, one that nobody else save God has a claim to, unless she commits a crime warranting incarceration.  As such, a woman should be free to do whatever she wishes to and with her body, without fear of impediment.  As such, any attempts to constrain such liberation is akin to attempting to conquer her body, a shameful pursuit, and one that reeks of slavery.  Slavery is the possession of another's body, and one of the few things that virtually all agree to be morally and legally wrong.  Think whatever you may about the woman in question, but attempting to enslave her in any way makes you the one in the wrong.

In regards to the points raised by other people earlier in this thread, specifically where certain comments regarding rape were defended, I admit that I am rather discouraged to hear any follower of Christ say anything in the defense of such hateful language.  On this point, I wholeheartedly agree with Gail, who, by the way, I notice is the only woman to have posted thus far, where she points out that an unwanted pregnancy is a punishment.  She is correct, and it thus follows that since such a punishment is completely unwarranted to be placed upon the victim of such a heinous crime, that abortion in the case of rape is fully justified.

In regards to the various smears upon the President's reputation, I shall not deign to respond, as they are unworthy of you, my brothers in Christ, and of the man himself, or at least the office he holds. 

In regards to the description of the President as "a very slick man", I ask you, my brother, to give me an example of a successful politician of any democratic republic who was anything but "a very slick man".  This slickness is the hallmark of all successful politicians, up to and including Candidate Mitt Romney, the President, and every other American President all the way back to George Washington himself.  This slickness is to be encouraged, not discouraged!

In regards to the use of God's Law, specifically the books of the Hebrew Tor'ah, to determine the correct path for this nation to follow, I wish to remind all of my brothers and sisters in Christ that the books of Leviticus and Deuteronomy were specific to the Priests of the Temple, and to the people of the old kingdoms of Judea and Israel.  For better or worse, we live in a democratic republic, not a theocratic monarchy.  For this reason, so as to preserve our individual liberties, it would be the height of folly to incorporate the commands of God via Leviticus into the structure of our government.  By all means, live the Old Law in your daily lives!  But, keep in mind, that the Oath was sworn after the Law was created, and takes precedence over the Law, and that the Oath washes away all sins.  Since ritual impurity doesn't enter into it, the entirety of the Old Testament prohibitions can, and should, be removed from the passageways of government. 

Having made my case as best I can in this limited time, I thank you, my brothers in God, for your forbearance.  God's blessings go with you.


There was nothing unChristian about the comments posted above, unless by disrespectful you include any critical language of any politician. This demand not only goes far beyond what the Bible demands in terms of pure speech, but in fact is anti-Biblical. John the Baptist was beheaded by Herod, not because he was a mealy-mouthed man who softly murmured, but because he told the king that it was unlawful for him to have his brother's wife. Jesus referred to the same king as "a vixen", which all commentators acknowledge was a reference to Herod being domineered by his wicked and over-bearing wife, the same wife that John the Baptist had said was immoral for him to have married. These men had harsh, but godly, things to say about the wicked and shameful acts of a man who was dishonoring the office he occupied. Keep in mind, they spoke out against a king; we are speaking of an elected leader by contrast.

Your arguments about a women's right to do with her body what she wishes are nothing new, and they have been answered by competent Christians repeatedly in the public debate on abortion. First off, can you show any of us in the Bible where any woman, or man, has the right to do whatever they want with their body? I thought we, as Christians at least, were bought with a price? I thought the earth was the Lord's and the fullness thereof? This fullness does not include the people He placed here?

But even if this silly proposition were true, that a woman can do whatever she wants with her own body, then fine - I'll bite. She can do what she wants with her body, but she cannot do whatever she wants with another person's body. This is what abortion involves.

I cannot even begin to follow your comments about the law. First, your statement that the books of Leviticus and Deuteronomy were, in total, addressed to the priestly class alone is just simply not true. There were portions of those books directed to the priests, and portions directed to all the people. Hey, this is why Moses, in Deuteronomy, read the law to the whole people! Secondly, Jesus said in Matt. 5:17-20 that He did not come to abrogate the law or the prophets, but to fulfill them. Whatever you wish to make of the term "fulfill", the upshot of his teaching in verse 20 is that any man who breaks even the least of these commandments and teaches men to do likewise, will be least in the kingdom of God. It doesn't sound to me like Jesus had the same view of God's law that you are espousing.

To try to argue that because Jesus' death is the fulfillment of the redemptive-historical (i.e. ceremonial) law, that therefore all of the law is irrelevant today proves far too much. Should we not punish murderers, rapists, or thieves today because Jesus made the blood of bulls and goats obsolete?Now, how those laws fit into society today, I think is a topic that the church corporate has neglected, and which needs some careful discussion. Of course, the church has neglected this topic because it has bought into the lie that separation of church and state as institutions, a Biblical concept, means a different set of morals for church and state, which is rebellion against God.

Aleksai, God ordains all things according to the counsel of His will (Eph. 1:11). Rape is not the will of God. However, even in that dark, despicable act, when God so chooses, for His own, morally sufficient and sovereign reasons, to bring a child into the world through that act, this is not a punishment. God is not punishing the women who was violated, and the child certainly is punishing no one. The unborn child has done nothing deserving of death. At least in the Christian framework, we pray and work toward a civilized society, one where righteousness rules. A civilized society does not take human life, made in the image of God, without justification as provided by the only righteous Giver and Taker of life. So, make your case as to why the child deserves to die, or else stop defending something even more brutal and despicable than rape.


In addition to David's rebuttal, I'll note that the overpopulation worries are based on myths and fables. The earth is nowhere near "carrying capacity" as some put it. In this country alone we are paying farmers NOT to till good, productive land. The vast majority of those who are starving are starving because their governments are corrupt. Many in Africa are forfced into IDP camps and then the food supply is controlled or they are unable to produce their own as they had before being forced off their land.

Finally, birth control is not only devastating to women's physical health (the IARC has designated them Class I carcinogens), it is devastating to marriages and our physical environment.

That anyone claiming the name of Christ would hold your views is shameful.

Yo, (sorry this reply was so late in coming, high school SUCKS. I HATE being 16 xD) I guess I'll take a slightly different perspective than Alexai did on this, but I agree with Alexai's argument for the most part. Let's look into what Obama is trying to accomplish (what I am saying is not to defend Obamacare, even though I do support Obamacare, I do not want this to turn into an Obama vs. Constitution argument or what not but I am bringing it up). Obamacare will provide birth control for people who are sexually active and it will provide abortion to lower class people from disadvantaged neighborhoods and backgrounds who would otherwise, be unable to afford it. From a Pro-Life and Conservative perspective, this looks horrible (everything you say in this post sums up what a lot of people feel towards Obama and his opinions on abortion . Let's take a closer look however at all this. Studies have been done on countries that legalize abortion and countries that do not. The results showed that where abortion was legal, women were also more protected by the law, had fewer health problems, fewer botched abortions and the number of abortions decreased. In places where abortion was made illegal, and those laws were enforced, there was an increase in the number of abortions (they were, however, unsafe and had many risks due to the people who carried out the procedure were ill-trained, etc.). What Obama is seeking to do is not encourage people to have sex and then murder their helpless children like some serial killer, he is seeking to provide women with other options, and that includes safe, supervised abortions done by well-trained people. So no, I am not criticizing you for criticizing Obama, I am merely pointing out that Obama has decreased abortion rates more than any other president in history, including Bush and the potential Romney. I would also like to point out that the Bible never does explicitly state that abortion is wrong. Yes, it does say "Thou shalt not kill", and has a lot to say about things like murder and children. For conservative Christians who are pro-life, this may be enough. But it is not enough for me and many other Christians (and yeah, you can be pro-life and a Christian at the same time). The Bible verse brought up about about two men fighting, actually states that the men are to be fined if the child (I'll even use the word child) is killed, the death sentence is if the woman dies. Even if I was wrong (and there is a VERY high chance that I am wrong, due to not being a Bible scholar and not even an avid reader of the Old Testament). The Old Testament is filled with laws that cannot be applied to modern day America. This is when I would like to point out that religion should not be forced into legislation when our country is based off of freedom of religion and later was added, the right for a woman to have control over her own body. You may say that we should return to the laws of the Old Testament/the Bible, but I am telling you that is not so. We are moving forward, not backward. I am not saying abortion is even right (though I am pro choice), I am saying that making abortion illegal along with birth control is not right for this country. "You put your hand on the bible and swore to uphold the constitution, you didn't put your hand on the constitution and swear to uphold the bible". Despite overpopulation not being an issue, the millions upon millions of children dying of starvation and other preventable diseases is the world, millions of children are forced into the human trafficking industry. These are an issues. A very large ones in my opinion.Also for someone who cares so much about women's health, making abortion illegal is going to harm women's health a lot more than a few birth control pills (ask anyone who is on birth control pills vs. someone who had a painful, botched abortion due to lack of proper equipment and someone who was ill-trained). MANY things harm the environment, we harm the environment every single day in many ways, yet I don't think you're ready to give up your car or stop using paper for that reason alone. Same goes for birth control. I am not trying to make anyone pro-choice like I am, I would like you to re-evaluate what is the best way to accomplish your goals. Voting for Romney isn't one of them when it comes to saving babies. (Wish I was old enough to vote.....) P.S. Sorry if I didn't address everyone's points, I tried to cover everyone.

(Oh and sorry about how "smushed" the format is...."


I'd like to know what studies you've been reading that tell you this about the wonders of free birth control and abortion because nothing could be further from the truth. For instance, if we look at two countries that don't (or didnt) have abortion, Chile and Ireland, we find that maternal health is better than in the countries where abortion is legal. Then there are the long term consequences to a woman's health when she has an abortion - including risks in any future pregnancies and the increased risk of breast cancer. Then let's talk about hormonal contraception which has the same cancer-causing status as tobacco. It is devastating to women's health - increases her risk of breast cancer, serious blood clots leading to stroke or death as well as the newer evidence that women on contraception are more likely to choose a partner who is a poor genetic match for her which leads to the increased risk of birth defects in their children.

Gail, I would be happy to talk with you further about this.

Dear Gail,

I want to be forthright with you that I am not convinced that you are who you say you are, a high school student of 16 years of age. I am not trying to bait you into an argument, but to be honest, it seems like the BaylyBlog is an unlikely place for the typical pro-choice teenager to electronically hang out. However, in the event that you are not an "internet troll", I would advise you that the internet is a very dangerous place, and that it would be better for your mind, and your time, if you spoke about abortion with a respected, Biblically minded Christian woman, if you know of one. If you do not have that luxury, I would advise you to seek a church that respects God's Word and to seek counsel there. The internet is full of misinformation, and worse, and it is not the place for a teenager to be taught about respect for human life.

Regarding the verse I quoted from Exodus - you may have moved your mouse cursor over the hyperlink, where only part of the verse is presented in a pop-up window. However, if you had actually read the verses in their entirety, you would have noted that, if the child was delivered but survived, a fine was levied on the offender. However, if the child died, the penalty was death, which is why God repeats the lex talionis here. Now, if two men fighting, who accidentally create an abortion (the Hebrew is y'lad yeyseh; literally, "the fruit exits"; it is not the Hebrew for miscarriage as there are other words for that), what do you suppose a fortiori the penalty should be, as meeted out, not by vigilantes but by the appointed civil authorities, for a doctor who takes cash or credit to perform the same act under the rubric of a medical procedure? At the very least, the act could not be supported by any Christian given what God's Word says here.

In terms of laws of God not being applicable to America today, who says that isn't practical? God is outdated now?

We have to let the Bible be the Bible if we are going to be disciples of Christ. The Bible says in 2 Tim. 3:16,17 that the Word of God is sufficient to prepare the Christian for every good work. This includes the Old Testament. Hebrews 2:2 says that in the Old Testament law, every disobedience was given a just punishment. If you are looking for God's view of social justice, you can find it nowhere else than in the Bible, and principally in the Old Testament. The fact that most Americans find the penology of the Old Testament so odious does not impugn God's Word, but rather it demonstrates how far we are from anything close to resembling a morally upright society.

It is true that children have a tough row to hoe in many cases, what with disease, famine, abuse, neglect, and other tribulations. However, the response of the Christian is not glibly and wickedly to say, "Well, I guess killing them before they're born is better than those fates." You and I are not God, we do not have His prerogatives, and we do not even know what he has in store for our futures, let alone someone else. The secret things, like the future, belong to God (Deuteronomy 29:29), but those things He has revealed belong to us, in order to do them.

Since you stated that a person can be Christian and pro-choice, then demonstrate it. Provide for the viewers of this blog where in God's Word abortion is either spoken of positively, or where the ground rules for the taking of an unborn child's life are provided with His approval. Or, provide the argument where, by good and necessary consequence, we can arrive at a conclusion where abortion would be an option for a believer. And please do not provide an answer like the ones you have been writing, which are auto-biographical, or which are emotional, being based on extreme counter-hypotheticals ("the earth is running out of food"). Show us from God's counsel where abortion is ever a choice for the Christian, please.

>>I am not convinced that you are who you say you are, a high school student of 16 years of age. I am not trying to bait you into an argument, but to be honest, it seems like the BaylyBlog is an unlikely place for the typical pro-choice teenager to electronically hang out.

Dear Mr. Stewart,

I fully understand your warning above. I've written to Gail and Aleksai, asking both of them to identify themselves to me by e-mail. So far, Aleksai has not done so, but Gail has and her real first name is Gail, she is sixteen years old, she is from a Biblical family, and she and her family regularly worship with us at Clearnote Church, Bloomington.

Those of you who have been responding to both of these women have been a great encouragement and help to me. Thank you, and keep up the good work. I join you in hoping both young women will, by the power of the Holy Spirit, arrive at the true wisdom which is from above; but also, that they will learn the basic objective facts about abortion which their arguments demonstrate they are almost completely ignorant of.

And yet, if youth is not a time when ignorance (that is not brash or cocksure) is of no shame and proves amenable to counsel by those who are older and wiser, then the entire enterprise of education is wrongheaded and hopeless. Let us pray it's not, here.


Well, this is Gail's mom. Thank you Tim for verifying Gail's name and age. Mr. Stewart, you are right, this is an unlikely place to find my daughter, yet she is an avid reader of Tim's blog. She often disagrees with what is written, but tries to read a wide range of opinions to get a better understanding of the reasoning behind different hot topics. She chooses to enter the dangerous world of the internet with the true idealism and spunk of a 16 year old girl wanting to change the world. She is still trying to figure out where she stands on many issues, but she is not afraid to play hardball. I sometimes wish she could be an "easy" child that just accepts everything I teach her, but God has given her a mind that must find answers for herself in her own way and in her own time. The road she travels might not be as smooth as we would wish for her, but God has great things in mind with this one. She chooses to play with the big boys, and she is tough, and will take all the criticism thrown at her, whether given in love or otherwise. But God is using it all to create in her a strong young woman that will be mighty for the Lord. I do pray that, especially on this blog, because of our family's deep love for the Bayly's, God will be honored by both our zeal for truth, and by our forbearance and patience with each other. So, Gail, it sounds like more research is in order. And I do look forward to talking with you more about this over a good cup of coffee. Good night, dear daughter.



I am very relieved to hear that Gail comes from a Christian family and church. We will pray for her.


Hi Gail,

Thanks for being open to disagreement and being considerate of the other commenters instead of lobbing out flaming attacks against their character. It's refreshing that you refrain from the name-calling that's so common online, especially when it comes to controversial subjects.

There are a lot of ideas mixed up in this debate such as women's health, reproductive rights, viability, quality of life, etc. The points you raise touch on many of them, but rather than try to go through and answer each point individually, I want to boil it down to a more simple concern:

Is the "fetus" a person or not?

Really, this is the crux of the issue. If the "fetus" is actually a person, the government has a duty (14th Amendment) to protect his or her rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. If not, the "fetus" is just another lump of cells or even, as some pro-choice advocates have said, a "parasite."

Our default assumption should be that the "fetus" is, in fact, a person. Think about it: if some demolitions workers are about to destroy a building, you wouldn't want them to blow up the building unless they are positive that there is no chance of them killing anyone. Even if that means clearing the building multiple times, they need to be absolutely certain that there is not a human life at stake.

In the same way, one shouldn't advocate for abortion unless he is absolutely certain that there is not a human life at stake. Granted, I could offer you arguments as to why the unborn child is a child and not just a lump of tissue, but the burden of proof is on you now: what makes an unborn child different than any other person whose rights we should protect? 

I'd love to hear your response to that question, but if you wish to treat it as a rhetorical question to ponder over, that's fine too.


Gail and Elliot,

In the field of Embryology (the study of life as it develops in its very earliest stages) it is simply understood that the life of an organism (an organism that reproduces sexually) begins at conception--at the union of a sperm and an egg. When embryologists study how life develops, they always measure development from the moment of conception, and refer to the developing organism as a new life. Scientifically this is the only thing that makes sense.

Of course, professors of embryology have to give the caveat that "this only applies biologically, not politically," but they're only fooling the students who wanted to be fooled in the first place.

When do we think that life begins? If we're going to take that away from God and make a ruling of our own, then we ought to at least be consistent. If not at conception, people generally say either "at implantation," "at the age of viability," or "at birth." But none of these make any sense.

Amphibians, reptiles, birds, fish--none of them have an "implantation" benchmark. In fact, only mammals do. To be consistent, then, saying "life begins at implantation" also implies that "only mammals are alive." This is obviously nonsense. The same holds for "life begins at birth," since only mammals (and a few weird reptiles and fish) give birth.

As for the age of viability--this implies an independence (or at least the capacity for independence) on the part of the infant apart from his mother. But if you've ever seen a newborn, you know that he's no less dependent outside the womb than he was in. In fact, many "independent" eight-month-olds can't even feed themselves. And most "independent" two-year-olds can't even take care of their own poop (that is, they're still in diapers). And most "independent" six-year-olds would starve without someone providing and preparing food for them. In fact (just to drive the point home) there are many thirty-something men who are living in their mom's basement, free-loading and playing video games all day, who are hardly any more independent than they were in the womb. Which is to say that a threshold of "viability" or "capacity for independence" is entirely arbitrary, and makes no sense.

And then some pro-abortionists will actually say that life doesn't begin until there is self-awareness, or awareness of the world--when one's consciousness "awakens." Gail, I hope that you'll grasp what is the monstrous horror of this position. This would permit the arbitrary killing of any child below the age of three-months, and possibly older, depending on how "awareness" is measured. Such a position, to be consistent, would also permit the murder of many mentally-handicapped persons, regardless of age; not to mention old men and women with senile dementia, and other psychological pathologies.

God has made it so obvious when life begins--so obvious that even radically left-winged embryology professors can't escape it. All of our attempts to redefine the beginning of life to some other time point are entirely untenable. God is the creator of life, and the creator of each new life. We are not wiser than God.

Sorry, I should have noted that embryology studies the beginnings of life in many different organisms, not just man. So it necessarily must have a definition of when life begins that can be consistently held for all different organisms.

Add new comment