America After 50 Years of the Pill

Geoff Botkin writes on the societal implications of 50 years on birth control…buckle up.

“Fifty-nine modern nations are plagued by the high-tech benefits of birth-control pills. Each of them have waged a cultural war against babies. Each of them suffer below-replacement birthrates. Each of them face potential extinction. But concerns such as national suffering, dangerous international geopolitics and the disappearance of entire nations are matters that would require mature thinking – something that was successfully bred-out of the American people when they accepted the pill as, in the words of Hugh Hefner, the greatest invention of the 20th century.”

Read How ‘The Pill’ Led to Societal Infantilism

__________________________________________________________________

**Buy 2 Save $2!**

298 Responses to “America After 50 Years of the Pill”

  1. I agree wholeheartedly that mature thinking has been successfully bred out of the American people.

  2. Valerie says:

    I always wonder why people keep thinking the world is over populated! Where do they get that from when we can actually see that there are less children. In our area schools are noting fewer students and it is hard to get a teaching position, with less students we need less teachers.

  3. Flory says:

    While I agree with many of the premises of his article and abhor not only the pill, but its societal consequences, this is a breathtakingly poorly written piece. He had the chance to make articulate, well-documented points, and dropped the ball in favor of half-formed arguments and incomplete thoughts. What a shame.

  4. Jane says:

    I think he makes his point very well.

  5. wordwarrior says:

    Flory,

    I’d be interested to hear you expound on specific examples of the “poorly written” part; also the thought occurred to me that supposing you perceive the article to be poorly written, perhaps the “infantilism” of Americans of which Botkins describes requires him to write thus.

  6. Tyler says:

    Valerie: good point – I think most people who believe in overpopulation also have never left their city 😉 Drive for hours and hours around our place and you might not even see one of those dreaded ‘humans’ 🙂

  7. dawn says:

    “Below-replacement birthrates” ?? Um, no. Not in the US . . . the most recent numbers I could find were for 2007, but that shows 4,317,119 births and 2,426,264 deaths.

    I’m not going to debate your large family — that’s your choice. Just as it was my choice (along with my husband, of course), to stop at three. We didn’t choose to use ‘the pill’, we opted for a more permanent option. And you can all have your opinions on that.

    Interesting point about the hormones in the water affecting the fish, tho . . . I do wonder how accurate that is, given the other misinformation in the article.

  8. wordwarrior says:

    Dawn,

    “Fifty-nine modern nations are plagued by the high-tech benefits of birth-control pills. Each of them have waged a cultural war against babies. Each of them suffer below-replacement birthrates.”

    …it’s doubtful this statement refers to America, though demographers predict that we are following in the footsteps of many other countries and are on the verge of below-replacement population. We are “teetering” at best.

  9. Stephanie says:

    I agree for the most part, but the world death rate is 8.23 deaths/1,000 population. The birth rate is 20.18 births/1,000 population. Below-replacement birth rates, dangerous to individual countries… but I find it hard to swallow that population lack of growth is threatening the world as a whole.

    Dawn – just plug ‘estrogen and water’ into google. There has been much written about it.

  10. Stephanie says:

    Also, the current birth rate in the United States is the death rate is 8.27/1000. The birth rate is 14.18/1000. We’re not teetering, but that’s not the point – we’re not there *yet* and may not be for years and years, but if we continue on this road we will be.

  11. Birth replacement level is not measured by number of births per year vs. number of deaths.It is measured by number of births vs. numbers of people. If, in my case (hypothetical since we are the parents of 6) my husband and I had chosen to have 2 kids and stop, we would have JUST replaced ourselves. If we had birthed one child, we would have fallen short of replacement level.

    Given that most people these days either stop at two children, or never marry and have none, the world has dropped to below replacement levels. If not for the Hispanic and immigrant community, America would be in the same boat.

    Given that we have built an entitlement society where karge numbers of people depend on the tax dollars others pay to provide everything from childcare to education to elder care and everything in between, this is no small matter. Economies are collapsing and our own hangs in the balance.

    This particular subject both amuses and saddens me as it showcases the lunacy of the liberal worldview. On the one hand, they want to raise taxes, make more choices for individuals, and provide a wider and wider safety net to shelterpeople fromthe risks inherit in life itself. On the other hand, they fail to realize that someone has to pay for it all, and the last thing they should are fewer future taxpayers being born.

    The world is upside down!

  12. Word Warrior says:

    Thank you Terry. I was just about to correct the misunderstanding about “replacement levels” but you did so very nicely.

  13. Jennifer says:

    Typical of Botkin. The pill has had great effects as well; it’s not the fault of the invention if people mistreat it. After-morning pills for rape victims are especially essential, though I wouldn’t expect uber-conservatives, especially men, to understand that. There’s lunacy at both severe ends of the spectrum; shame more people can’t find a normal middle.

  14. Rachel Falaschi says:

    Jennifer,

    What are these “great effects” of the pill? How are people mistreating it? Is it not the intent of the pill to prevent a child? That is how it was intended, that is how it is used. That is the problem…

  15. Word Warrior says:

    Jennifer,

    Not sure if you’re just attempting to elicit a knee-jerk reaction…but for a Christian, the morning-after pill would be unacceptable, just the same as some birth control pills should be, if we knew what they did. Rape is horrible, but using it as a reason to kill another human is lunacy at its best.

    (I’d also be willing to bed that the MA pill is almost always used after recreational sex and was not invented for the minuscule occurrence of rape.)

    The MA pill works one of three ways:

    * It could kill all of the sperm after ejaculation.
    * It could prevent the fertilized egg from implanting in the uterus.
    * It could either prevent or delay the release of the egg. Levonorgestrel takes this third path.

    The second method is the one that should unequivocally seal our opposition. It kills a fertilized egg, which in God’s economy, is a human baby.

    If you consider that “lunacy at the severe end”, then count me in. I feel sure a “normal middle” is not where our Savior would have fallen concerning the issue of life.

  16. Jennifer says:

    Actually Kelly, I think equating a mass of cells just fertilized with a baby is lunacy at best. Such a thing is NOT a baby nor to be compared to a full grown and developed traumatized woman. The occurence of rape is not miniscule, sadly, at least not to those who endure it. You wanna talk to me how horrific partial birth is? I’m your girl. But comparing a baby to a mass of cells, touched by a man’s seed? I’m not budging on that.

  17. Jennifer says:

    A normal middle is familiar with science and knows the difference between even a half-formed baby and a group of sperm-kissed cells. I’m quite positive God knows the difference.

  18. Jennifer says:

    I should have FOUR replies posted right now. Stupid system.

  19. Jennifer says:

    Not everyone’s meant to have a child, Rachel, and preventing a pregnancy is hardly a tragedy for everyone, is it? The idea that all people should be all welcoming to the idea of having babies in all circumstances has never made a mite of sense to me. Sure, we can pile emotional fixes on the issue by speaking of cuddly babies alone, but it hardly makes sense to damn the pill in every circumstance because of babies who do not and will not exist. The pill has prevented many inconvenient, even harmful pregnancies and, more than anything, the PRINCIPAL of its legality officially gave women and not the government the right to govern their bodies. I’ll never forget Doug Phillips’ horrendous and ridiculous criticism of the pill’s legality and the very clear principal of privacy it offers. I’ll also never forget the perspective one of my friends gave me; she was very Christian and humble. When I asked her about early abortion, she said she was totally against it, but didn’t think it should be illegal. I asked why, surprised, and she said because even though she thought it was the wrong choice, it wasn’t HER choice to make and should be allowed to the individual. A rare person she was, apparently; the person who doesn’t believe their convictions should be made into laws.

  20. Jennifer says:

    I don’t want a knee-jerk reaction; I hate debates. I’d be satisfied if my words were overlooked, I just felt a burning need to say them. I can’t stay quiet in the face of man-rule ignorance like that of the Botkin family.

  21. Karrie says:

    Here is where I stand and I would love to hear what other think is right, or Christianly! :)Ok, here is my situation. I have 3 children. I would love more. My husband says no. This is why he says no…He is unemployed. Trying despritly to find a job and using grants and financial aid to pay to go to school and get a better career. With him being unemployed, we have had to use welfare/food stamps to buy food. I have also gone to work part time to help pay our bills. We have no insurance, and can’t afford to buy it for ourselves. If I were to get pregnant, I would have to go on a welfare health insurance program to pay for my medical pills because there is no way we could afford to pay them. We still end up minus every month after getting help with the state welfare programs. So tell me, how would having another baby help this situation? Like I said, I would love to have more, but it seams like our situation may be wores off if we had another child! I know that sometime in the future we will be financial stable and could have more but in the meantime. We are stuck with this hard reality!

  22. Stephanie says:

    Ahhhh I see. Thanks for clearing that up for me.

  23. Jennifer says:

    Thanks Karrie, that was the sort of situation I was referring to (in a comment that got stuck).

  24. Ashley says:

    Overpopulation isn’t about space- it is about resources.

    People need to have enough clean water to drink, food to eat, and the ability to heat their homes. And there isn’t enough of that. In Africa not having clean water is the core reason why children don’t survive. They get diarrea and get dehydrated. It is as simple as that. Having clean water to drink is something we take for granted here in America.

  25. Word Warrior says:

    Jennifer,

    You said:

    “the PRINCIPAL of its legality officially gave women and not the government the right to govern their bodies.”

    Here’s where the argument is contrary to the logic.

    It’s not that pro-lifers want their “convictions made into laws” (I’ll be the first to argue against government interference.)

    It’s the misunderstanding about the one being intruded upon. The legal prohibition of abortion doesn’t prevent a woman from having control over her body; it prevents someone from taking control of another’s body–the baby without a voice. All the scientific jargon doesn’t change the fact that no human should be given authority to take another human’s life–even if that human happens to be carrying the said “other human”. This one is black and white and I’ll stand by that eternally.

    Regarding this statement you made:

    “knows the difference between even a half-formed baby and a group of sperm-kissed cells. I’m quite positive God knows the difference.”

    God doesn’t talk in terms of “sperm-kissed cells”. He speaks in several places of knowing and loving people before they are formed in the womb.

    It may be easier to think of killing a baby before it looks like one, but it doesn’t change the fact that a human life was taken.

  26. Word Warrior says:

    Ashley,
    Too many people has nothing to do with clean water in Africa.

  27. Word Warrior says:

    Karrie,

    That is a difficult situation. Let me say that the article Botkin wrote is aimed at a general mindset of what the birth control culture has done to us. It’s not a micro-look at every family, ruling against someone who delayed children in an extreme circumstance. I don’t have an answer (and don’t want to be responsible for giving specific answers to so many specific situations).

    I do know that for centuries, babies have been born into the poorest of circumstances and ultimately had amazing endings (famous people, for example, who have contributed remarkably to society). I know that babies have been born into situations that seemed hopeless (sickness, rape, etc.) and God has used them in powerful ways to show forth His glory.

    If your husband says no, I would rest with that. Ultimately I think the heart is the center of the issue and only God can know that.

  28. Word Warrior says:

    Jennifer,

    Re: “baby is not a mass of cells”

    For that argument to hold water, you have to define the exact point in time when the “mass of cells” becomes human.

    If it’s growing, it’s alive. If it’s alive, what is it if not human?

  29. Mrs. Santos says:

    Kelly: Very clear answers to the arguments. Standing with you in prayer.

  30. Mrs. Price says:

    I thought the piece was very well written. I also am saddened by the attitude regarding “mistake” children. I was one of those “mistakes”. I do not know the circumstances regarding my conception and I do no want to know. All I know was after I was born I was placed in the loving arms of my mother. My mother did not give physical birth to me, but she has been with me since I was a few hours old. The woman who gave birth to me was told to have one of those “convenient procedures” done, there was no morning after pill available. She refused and let me grow inside her. She made the decision to give me a home with a family who was unable to have any children. The pill robs women of the joy of giving a child to another individual. There are many children who never live past a few days, the clump of cells you refer to. God has a plan when EVERY child is conceived. Remember you were once that “clump of cells”. God knew the woman you would become. Gad gave us the miracle of life and also the miracle of science. He did not give us science to snuff out the miracle of life. Unfortunately that is what the pill does. It takes a miracle and turns it into a destruction.

  31. Word Warrior says:

    Mrs. Price,

    “Gad gave us the miracle of life and also the miracle of science. He did not give us science to snuff out the miracle of life. Unfortunately that is what the pill does. It takes a miracle and turns it into a destruction.”

    Profound thoughts…and I’m so glad you’re here to share them with us 😉

  32. b says:

    “All the scientific jargon doesn’t change the fact that no human should be given authority to take another human’s life . . . This one is black and white and I’ll stand by that eternally.”

    I’ll assume you’re a pacifist and anti-death penalty, then? 😉

  33. Word Warrior says:

    B,

    Didn’t think it was necessary to qualify “deliberate taking of innocent life” to such an intelligent audience.

  34. elizabeth says:

    “The idea that all people should be all welcoming to the idea of having babies in all circumstances has never made a mite of sense to me.”

    I am always amazed by people who bring up hypothetical difficult situations as a reason why people shouldn’t have children. There is an easy way to prevent children if your circumstances are so dire: it’s a method called not having sex. Yes, even married people can be chaste for a season of their lives or engage in other activities that don’t come close to procreation. I have a serious medical problem and at times I have been told that getting pregnant would be dangerous. It is very possible to go without sex for a period of time, until you get on your feet, recover from illness, or whatever. It’s called self-control.

    I think we see families on television who seem to be almost trying to get pregnant every time they ovulate, to have record #’s of children – and on the other hand we have people who would do anything to NOT get pregnant. IMHO, both are unnatural (although one moreso than the other). People can go without the contraception and still not end up with a super-sized family. BTW I love big families- just saying not every person going natural ends up with one. 🙂

  35. Jennifer says:

    Elizabeth-there is absolutely no reason why couples should go without sex when they have an alternative method. That sounds foolish to me: how long? Ten years? Twenty, until things improve? What if a woman has a heart condition that will NEVER improve? The Bible speaks of the dangers of deprivation. Your answer is quite incomplete. And those hypothetical situations you brush off with amazing easiness are REAL CONCERNS and occurences; I’m sorry they don’t concern you, and that you’re actually able to use the “never, always” approach without thinking it through, by all appearances.

    Yes Mrs. Price, I know I was just a clump of cells. What about pregnancies that naturally abort? Was that God failing His “children”? Did He have plans for those clumps? You cannot argue with me that those cells-yes cells-have equal rights as human beings and that we should use emotion-filled, what-if reasoning to determine this matter. You’re a human NOW; you were not a human the hour after conception.

    “For that argument to hold water, you have to define the exact point in time when the “mass of cells” becomes human”

    When it has a beating heart. Kelly, there are LIVING human cells everywhere, this doesn’t make them equal to a human being. That scientific jargon as you call it makes and breaks the argument by definition of a human being. Millions of people don’t AGREE that it’s a baby right after conception, based on biological knowledge, yet you still show a clear desire to make a law which would force them to legally uphold YOUR definition of what a baby is; do you not see this? Calling it “the baby without a voice”, as though it’s a being with a brain and heart like its mother who’s sitting in the womb, fearfully knowing what will happen to it, is nothing more than emotional subjection to push a point. It is not a baby at this point and no amount of emotional jargon will change this.

  36. Word Warrior says:

    Jennifer,

    I suppose it is not productive to argue with someone determined in her mind about this, but the fact that you claim to be a Christian is what keeps gripping me.

    I’m assuming, based on your explanations, that you don’t have a problem with birth control or the morning-after pill because the pregnancy would be terminated so soon (while the baby was still a “clump of cells”)…but based even on your definition of a baby, you could hardly support abortion. Very few women even know they’re pregnant before the 5th or 6th week; a baby’s heart starts beating in the 4th week. Without proof of statistics, I would guess that less than 1% of abortions are performed before a baby has a heart beat. That matters if your argument remains “it’s OK to remove a fetus before a heartbeat”.

    And thinking of your reference to the atrocities of partial birth abortion, you must realize that such a thing is the logical conclusion of the very ideas you espouse about life. It’s all a slippery slope. You say a baby isn’t a baby before a heart beat; one says it’s something else, and the others say not until it’s cut from the umbilical cord.

    The clump of cells that are the result of conception are different than the “living cells everywhere” in that they contain DNA of a person and are, every nanosecond after conception growing rapidly into that person.

    A heartbeat doesn’t make a human; a God who knows us before we were yet formed does.

  37. Jennifer says:

    “Very few women even know they’re pregnant before the 5th or 6th week; a baby’s heart starts beating in the 4th week”

    Yes Kelly, and I am against such women getting abortions!

    There is such a huge difference between partial birth and after-morning abortions; I understand your views about month-old fetuses being aborted, but how can one compare after-morning aborts (the literal washing out of an egg) to the atrocious removal of a baby, complete with piercing of the skull and causing horrendous pain?? There’s no comparison; I almost vomit thinking of it.

    “Thinking of your reference to the atrocities of partial birth abortion, you must realize that such a thing is the logical conclusion of the very ideas you espouse about life”

    No, they aren’t. My arguments are backed by biology; this is what, where, and how my convictions here were formed. The Bible does not say WHEN an embryo is a baby, so I look to the biological law of His creation to know. God says He knew those of us who LIVED through our time in the womb; He does not speak of those embryos which don’t. He doesn’t speak of whether He knew them as humans (since they would never be), whether He wished them to be born, or anything, so there’s a shadowy blank here. While I don’t think we should hijack such mysteries to do whatever we like with every situation, I also don’t believe we should make laws condemning every outcome which ends in abortion. I don’t hope to change your mind and respect you, a great deal; I just hope my own reasons are clear here.

    Some of it’s a matter of opinion, but only facts declare the painful difference between a baby and an early embryo. I am not pro-abortion, but I am very much for the remaining legality of it; the idea that some people wish to outlaw it because their opinion of when life begins differs from others’, even if sometimes not backed by science or even a rock-solid Biblical answer, horrifies me.

  38. Word Warrior says:

    Jennifer,

    I can only pray that through conversing, thinking about it and especially God’s opening of your eyes that your heart would be changed. (I have a “full-quiver” friend who used to work at an abortion clinic–miracles do happen.)

    There were two other interesting things I wanted to mention:

    First, when the doctor tells a woman she is “4 weeks pregnant” it means she actually conceived 2 weeks prior. (Which means that a “fetus becomes human” 2 weeks earlier than you may have realized.) For info on that: http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/prenatal-care/PR00112

    Secondly, I challenge you to think very decidedly about what you said:

    “I am very much for the remaining legality of it [abortion]; the idea that some people wish to outlaw it …horrifies me.”

    We DON’T want laws that force us to do something (like the forced sterilization in some countries…that is horrifying.) We aren’t even lobbying for a “law”. Just to overturn a law that doesn’t regard all life. That overturning only protects, prevents, insulates–not intrudes. It doesn’t force a woman to do anything. The “doing” part has been done. All that’s left is to not give her the legal permission to take a life and give her alternatives for taking care of that life.

    You assume here that the silence of God regarding “how he feels about a fetus” permits us to utilize science for our convenience. What then of the clear knowledge that, “It is He who has made us, and not we ourselves”? Or, the whole chapter of Ps. 139?

    You *say* those verses refer to God’s thoughts about those of us who live. But those verses tell us clearly who is responsible for life and therefore do not, at all, leave us with a “shadowy blank”. If God made us, he also made “the clump of cells” that will become a person. His authority has been clearly established. If He is the author of life, on what authority do we just snuff it out?

    The Bible speaks ONCE of a “fetus”; it is in Deut. (I think) and gives the death penalty to any man who harms a pregnant woman and causes a miscarriage. HE HAS SPOKEN.

  39. Jennifer says:

    “The Bible speaks ONCE of a “fetus”; it is in Deut. (I think) and gives the death penalty to any man who harms a pregnant woman and causes a miscarriage”

    A fetus, as I have said before, is different from an embryo; it is the equivalent of a baby. If the Bible really calls it plainly a fetus, this only supports my ideas, not contradicts them. I have already explained to you the difference and my solid reasons for acknowledging them.

    “What then of the clear knowledge that, “It is He who has made us, and not we ourselves”? Or, the whole chapter of Ps. 139?”

    And WHEN does He make us? What, again, of the embryos who DON’T SURVIVE? I am not subjecting anything more here than you are, and I have already said I don’t believe science can be used to take over every situation. It does, however, very clearly define LIFE.

    “That overturning only protects, prevents, insulates–not intrudes. It doesn’t force a woman to do anything.”

    This is what concerns me most: you people really don’t get it. This forces a woman to live with a pregnancy SHE DOESN’T WANT and which could even be spiritually, emotionally, or physically harmful to her; we don’t know every circumstance, do we? And your idea of law doesn’t allow for differences of situation either, which God does. What divine right do we have to deliver judgement, then? NONE. The idea that such a law would be protecting is bull, pure emotional subjection from those who wish it to be a black and white matter. This intrudes on privacy and medical matters and for no other reason than that some believe it should be so. Ultimately, we all must come to our own conclusions on this, but the idea that we are entitled to make, abolish, and even break laws based on these individual convictions is foolhardy, and a slippery slope at that. You are quite secure in your beliefs Kelly, believing them to be Biblical, but what do you say to the woman who isn’t a Christian, who you wish to see legally forced to abide by your own convictions? The Bible does not give Christians a supreme right to dominate the governmental system based on beliefs and nothing more. This is the bottom line.

    I’ve been studying this matter from the age of 13 and have changed many of my ideas of it. In the end, though, the principals of what defines life and liberty are still what seals my convictions on this.

  40. Jennifer says:

    If anyone wishes to ask me any more questions about my beliefs on early abortion, I’m open, but I don’t wish in general to discuss it anymore; I think I’ve made my overall convictions and reasons as clear as is possible. I’d prefer, rather, to return to the original subject.

  41. Ashley says:

    “Ashley,
    Too many people has nothing to do with clean water in Africa.”

    Yes it does. They do not have the water resources to provide for the number of people they have. Having more people won’t solve the problem.

  42. Word Warrior says:

    Ashley,

    Nooooo…I have friends who work IN Africa, specifically addressing the water problem and it’s not number of people (there is water, it’s just not drinkable). I probably don’t understand specifics enough to give a full answer, but it has much more to do with a lack of technology and a people who, in my opinion, have reaped the long-standing consequences of turning away from God.

  43. jen in AL says:

    Kelly, thank you posting this and being willing to stand for truth. Praying for you as you graciously respond to so many different comments.

    Mrs. Price–I too share your thankfulness for a birth mother who chose not to kill me but to give me life and then give me over a loving family. God bless you:)

    Jennifer- i hardly know where to begin. first i am praying for you. second your position on this subject seems to be rooted in a misunderstanding of God’s sovereignty, justice and grace as Creator of all things including science. Do you believe God makes mistakes and is unjust?

    Blessings, jen in al

  44. kc in AL says:

    WOOT! The Road warrior!!!!

  45. Jennifer says:

    I never spoke of GOD making mistakes and being unjust, Jen; I spoke of man doing these things in His Name. God does not define the second life begins in the Bible, so we look for other areas to find His answers, and they are everywhere, including science. I am not a Calvinist, but it would interest me if you were, since this would most likely dictate that you believe EVERY occurance is His will, including abortions, would it not? I think God designed nature to work often on its own, which would explain birth deformities, retardation, and pregnancies from rape. On the contrary: I am quite aware of His role in science and everything else. The fact that it clashes with your own is no need for a despairing tone when you speak to me, which I find rather amusing; I suppose I’m used to it. I’ve ample reason for all my convictions, and I’m used to everyone questioning them, from my use of nude art and films above the PG rating to my beliefs on abortion, birth control, and homosexuality. Trust me dear sister, I’ve had EVERYONE throw doubts at me, from patriarchals challenging my egalitarian beliefs to pro homo-marriage liberals who call me simply awful for not believing in homosexual marriage. And all these criticisms carry a note of despair, frusteration, anger or doubt concerning my position as a Christian or a loving human being:

    “Jennifer, think of what you’re doing when you collect nude art! Don’t you know what this DOES to men??”

    “Jennifer, you are promoting HATE when you speak against homosexual rights to marriage! You are not normal, sister.”

    “Jennifer, people have had only male pastors for CENTURIES! Therefore it’s the ONLY right way! And who are you to disagree with older women anyway??”

    “Look miss, wives have to obey their husbands; you have a SERIOUS problem with GOD, not man, if you disagree. I’ll pray for you, less you burn in hell for committing a sin equal to witchcraft!”

    “Jennifer, you’re so hateful! Wanting abortion for a raped woman? She was preordained to be raped since before the beginning of time! How dare you question this?”

    “Dear Jennifer, women shouldn’t be missionaries or go to college; the Bible says so, not me! Sure Elisabeth Elliot did both these things, but even the wisest get it wrong sometimes.”

    “Jennifer, partial birth is not murder! What’s wrong with you? You’re just being emotional when you describe the process of cutting and emptying a baby’s brain!”

    “Geez, why can’t you see that bra-burning was an artistic expression of FREEDOM? I think you want the old days of patriarchy back!”

    “Hey b*tch, porn is just adult entertainement and YOU are a close-minded idiot to oppose it.”

    Get the picture? I’m used to it, and finally learned to sharpen my beliefs all the more so. I used to absorb doubt, and being a person of anxiety disorders, Aspergers and OCD, trust me, I go over matters ad nauseum. Finally, my skin is toughening. Thanks so much for your prayers, Jen, and do not despair for me.

  46. Jennifer says:

    Heavens, Leslie. Kelly wasn’t condemning African babies at all. Most likely, rather, the actions of brutal ADULT Africans over the years; female genital mutilation, for one.

  47. Niki says:

    Wow Jennifer! It sounds like you have had some serious issues. It is hard to read some of your comments since you say you are a Christian. It seems odd that you could hold some of the opinions you have shared with us. The Bible does say that each of us have to work out our own salvation with fear and trembling. I guess if “pro-lifers” are wrong then there’s not too much to worry about in the Judgement; but if those who have chosen to abort for whatever reason and at anytime in the pregnancy are wrong, then it would end a little differently. I stand firm in my convictions as we all should, including you. But no matter if someone believes in the Bible or not, we know that there will be a Judgement Day and we will ALL stand before God and be accountable for every idle word and deed. That is what matters at the end of the day.

  48. Jennifer says:

    If you’re at all open to science, biology, and simple nature and logic, Niki, it shouldn’t shock you in the LEAST that I’m a Christian and believe what I do. Not all of us insert commands into the Bible where there are none and assume this is Biblically and morally sound.

    “If those who have chosen to abort for whatever reason and at anytime in the pregnancy are wrong”

    I have never ONCE okayed this; please read more carefully if you think I have. No, what I have said is that the clump of cells HOURS after conception don’t compare to even half-formed babies (scientifically proven) that the Bible doesn’t say WHEN life begins (also proven) and that I think there is, in fact, a very slim window of opportunity for women to get abortions in good conscience; these are hardly the words of a rebellious liberal. I can’t imagine what “serious issues” you think I’ve had, and if you’re trying to more or less scare me into changing my mind by using words of Judgement Day, I’m used to this; see my above examples of the words I’ve received from others.

    “I guess if “pro-lifers” are wrong then there’s not too much to worry about in the Judgement”

    Oh but there is, dear one. Those “pro-lifers” who block abortion clinics or break laws in any other way, use fear and manipulation, judge or harass strangers, or any similar behavior have a great deal to answer for. You missed this, but your interesting play of logic to get me to think I have more to lose if I’m wrong than you do was rather creative.

  49. Jennifer says:

    I apologize in advance, Niki (since my comment isn’t up yet) for misunderstanding you. I thought you were indicating I could go to hell if I’m wrong, when you in fact only specifically mentioned people who abort carelessly having to answer for this on Judgement Day. Trust me when I say I hold nothing idle in this matter, nor do I believe God does; every thought, every motive, every life, every heartstring is counted in every situation. I do pray mercy, even before Judgement Day, for any who abort needlessly; most are already in a hell of their own making.

  50. mari says:

    In America at least, most abortions take place before the 6th week gestation. This means that most women who abort see the plus sign and rush out to abort ASAP. The dropoff in the abortion rate after the first trimester is massive.

    So the heartbeat argument is not really relevant because what these women are responding to is a visceral fear of fertility and femalehood indoctrinated into them by the larger society. It’s the idea of the baby that is their ‘issue’, not whether it’s human or a ‘clump of cells’.

    Pregnancy is portrayed as a disease, as a failure entirely of the woman’s (if she turns up pregnant out of wedlock), and so forth. The Pill created a false reality where women were told it would make them like men (and by extension, like unto gods, the classic idol-goal). It allowed women to pretend their icky femalehood could be set aside and ignored in favor of living as they believed men (the superior, better sex) were living.

    The consequences are women rushing to let some man (and abortion doctors remain overwhelmingly male) have control over their body by killing the life inside it so that they can get back to pretending to be men.

    It is a bitter irony that much of feminism pretty much is a sort of bizarre notion that men and maleness is better and that anything women can do to disregard their femaleness is ‘what women want’.

  51. jen in AL says:

    Jennifer-hey, going to attempt to respond to your comment later (time constraints) but i did want you to know that there was no anger, despair or anything like what you mentioned in my comment. only true sadness and concern for you. I can see from the quick read of your comment that there is a lot going on in your heart. Thanks for responding although i wish it hadn’t been laced with so much bitterness. not for my sake but for yours. blessings, jen in al

  52. Heidi says:

    Kelly-Praying for wisdom for you…I appreciate all you write on your blog. You are a very wise women…God Bless you, Heidi

  53. Niki says:

    Jennifer,

    Just out of curiosity, when do YOU think life begins?

  54. Amber says:

    In the film “Come What May” I remember a line that goes something like this…. “Is a baby still a human the day before it’s born? How about the day before that? Or the day before that? or the month before that?” Where can you draw the line?
    You can’t! Lord help us if we as a nation continue to compromise on life!

  55. Wow, mari – great points.

    To those who would offer the starving children in Africa as an argument for population control, I would invite you to consider that the contemporary culture’s devaluing of human life is exactly why there are starving people anywhere. There is a philosophy that value of life should only be determined by external pressures, whether economic or technological or convenience. By that reasoning, destruction of every distressed community would solve all the worlds problems. It doesn’t work like that, and smacks of genocide.

    In the Bible, even the ill and the ill-behaved among children were considered blessings. I cannot reconcile the claims of those who say they are followers of Jesus Christ while advocating the destruction of innocent life, at any stage. I can’t help but ask myself if birth-control requires the devaluing of human life – while I myself will have to account for using it, my arguments continue to sound weak in the face of God’s.

  56. Jennifer says:

    “It’s the idea of the baby that is their ‘issue’, not whether it’s human or a ‘clump of cells’”

    I’m aware of the issues facing many women and their perspectives; never denied that. And yes, the attitude of manipulation and number of male doctors are not good factors at all. Interesting points, Mari. Oh, and the heartbeat argument is quite relevant; the problem is that more women don’t heed the progress of their pregnancies.

    “By that reasoning, destruction of every distressed community would solve all the worlds problems”

    You’re very good at grand leaps of logic, cottage child. There’s a world of difference between preventing births before conception even begins and KILLING everyone already there. Seriously.

    “I cannot reconcile the claims of those who say they are followers of Jesus Christ while advocating the destruction of innocent life, at any stage”

    You, like so many, need to really consider what life is. It’s a shame you can’t accept anyone who doesn’t share your perception of this matter as a Christian, but ultimately it’s your loss.

    “Where can you draw the line?”

    Easily, Amber.

  57. Jennifer says:

    When there’s a heart/heartbeat, Niki. I said this a little earlier.

    “i did want you to know that there was no anger, despair or anything like what you mentioned in my comment. only true sadness and concern for you”

    Oh, I’m quite used to that too, Jen; many have given me the sad, pitying face when they promise they’ll generously pray for me to change my mind to fit theirs. And btw, there was no bitterness whatsoever in my post, just dry amusement; you think I’d be bitter at the fact that I’m come into the presence of such overblown tomfoolery? Misreading of the heart seems to be a common reaction to me. Thanks.

  58. Jennifer, I know exactly what life is. No grand leaps of logic required. It’s a conclusion supported by science and by God, and simple evaluation based on the observation of history – all subjugation requires dehumanization.

    One adult to another, no pitying face or snarky baiting, just an invitation to consider why your staunch position requires you to be so angry as to belittle – devalue – those who disagree with you.

  59. Jasmine says:

    I really appreciated this post, Mrs. Kelly, and have appreciated your articulate defenses of your position. I read this article a while ago and loved it; as Mrs. Terry said, mature thinking has been successfully bred out of American people.

    A little off the subject of the original post, but in line with the tone the comments have taken, whenever I hear the “clump of cells” argument applied to justify abortions for rape victims, I think about my little brother Elijah’s birth mother. The Lord spared Elijah’s life three times before he came to our home: 1) his birth mother was taking depo provera when she was assaulted, 2) his birth mother refused the morning after pill because she was already on birth control, and 3) she waited in Planned Parenthood for 2 hours for an appointment before being pricked in her heart and deciding to give her son -my brother -life and putting him up for adoption.

    Life begins at conception. The Lord had a plan for my brother’s life even before he had a heartbeat.

  60. Word Warrior says:

    Jennifer,

    It may be a slight change of words, but I think very important ones as this issue is discussed. You said:

    “It’s a shame you can’t accept anyone who doesn’t share your perception of this matter…”

    I don’t think it’s a matter of “acceptance” of a fellow believer with differing views; I think it’s a matter of the fact that most Christians fully agree that abortion is a black and white issue, and that the removal of *whatever you call it* after conception is wrong.

    And even by your logic, you must admit that it’s still hard to justify.

    “Day 13 after conception, woman has clump of cells removed. Day 14, STOP…now it’s human.”

    Your logic *feels* to us the same as a partial-birth advocate feels to you…just so you can understand the passion involved in some of our debates. It’s not a personal attack at a person, it’s a vehement belief that abortion, at any point, is the taking of a life, and as such, something we have no authority to do.

    I would like to add, not as a “jab” at all at you, Jennifer, but your stance is the perfect example (to those reading) of how the birth control mindset within the church slips and slides. (One may note that you are “the next generation” and see how logical this step is for your age group after 5 decades of birth control propaganda.) You represent the “missing link”, for lack of a better word, of the next logical step for a believer who decides that life is ours to “control”. It’s why I’ve always said that most Christians are not “pro-life”, only “anti-abortion”. The next generation after you will be far more likely to embrace partial birth abortion. That’s the logical next step.

  61. Jennifer says:

    I hope I’m not being un-generous to you, Jen; the song of the broken record just hurts my ears after a while. While I’m used to having doubts, the onslaught of them from others does get tiring. On top of this, I’m in a little pain right now from recovering from a sickness, and the inevitable anxiety over debating has hit me like a sock punch; this, mixed with my weariness of barbing doubts, makes my patience short and my ire deep. Because of this, I thought I might as well let you know that, along with not wishing to carry the topic of abortion much further (explained this earlier), I will also not have ears or a mind for your next response if it consists of the same elements I described earlier. Thank you.

  62. Jennifer says:

    “Life begins at conception”

    You’re basing this on emotion, not fact. If your brother was removed before he was a brother, neither you nor anyone else would be in place to judge the woman who did so.

  63. Word Warrior says:

    Jasmine,

    Wow…deeply moving (which abortion proponents hate) but anyone who has seen God’s hand work (and felt it personally) like you have, cannot deny the very real emotion that should be a part of the debate.

  64. Jasmine says:

    This isn’t about judging women who take the morning after pill, Jennifer -you seem very hung up on feeling judged or being misunderstood. And, can I just say that this sentiment: “Misreading of the heart seems to be a common reaction to me” is very telling. If *most people* react this way to you, perhaps the problem isn’t with *most people.* The problem may be with your tone.

    My aim in taking part in any abortion debate is to educate women and to show them that there is a biblical way to view life, and a secular humanist way -that there is a selfish option for women with “unwanted” children, and there is an unselfish option. My brother’s birth mom (all four of my younger brothers’ birth mothers) made unselfish choices based on a belief that the “mass of cells” in their wombs were human beings. It saddens me that so many sweet lives -like my brothers -are snuffed out so early because of a mistaken understanding of human life -a discussion about what I believe to be murder will never be devoid of emotion on my part.

    The only person I’ve seen taking a judgmental tone here is you.

  65. Jennifer says:

    “It’s not a personal attack at a person, it’s a vehement belief that abortion, at any point, is the taking of a life”

    Based on no biological evidence, Kelly. My beliefs on partial birth are based on biological fact and science. It isn’t in the least hard for me to justify.

    ““Day 13 after conception, woman has clump of cells removed. Day 14, STOP…now it’s human.””

    Yup, that’s how age works. Bria was still 15 a mere three hours before she turned 16. I’d say waiting until the day before it has a heartbeat is cutting it too close for my comfort, though. Again, after-morning pills are essential.

    “the next logical step for a believer who decides that life is ours to “control””

    Once again, though, it comes to a difference of belief in when life begins; it certainly doesn’t begin BEFORE conception, which many anti-pill people seem to think, as though there’s a floating soul around waiting for a womb that just got jipped. Most Christians who see this as black and white don’t do so on any real evidence whatsoever.

    “That’s the logical next step”

    It’s not logical whatsoever. If the next generation sinks to such cruel lunacy, it won’t be because of logic.

    Here’s my problem, Kelly: if you believe what you do because you personally think God ordains every occurence and plans every pregnancy, that’s fine; I can understand. But from a biological standpoint, people cannot rationally argue with me that the fertilized cells immediately following conception compare, in any way, to the brutal destroying of a more than half-formed baby! It doesn’t compare in method, science, or morals.

    I do sincerely appreciate your motives here Kelly and your gracious way of explaining them. Thank you.

  66. Jennifer says:

    “Anyone who has seen God’s hand work (and felt it personally) like you have, cannot deny the very real emotion that should be a part of the debate”

    The same can be said for rape survivors who would experience pregnancy as a horrendous set of flashbacks; their emotions are very much a consideration of great weight. And if they wash out the fertilized cells immediately, they have fact as well as entitled emotion on their side.

  67. Jennifer says:

    In fact, I think their emotions should count much more than those of strangers wholly unconnected with them.

  68. Jennifer says:

    “If *most people* react this way to you, perhaps the problem isn’t with *most people.*

    I only take a judgemental tone when I see others doing the same, Jasmine, or using empty arguments based on nothing BUT emotion.

    “you seem very hung up on feeling judged or being misunderstood”

    No, I’m hung up on the women in question being treated this way. You speak of nothing as much as the cells in question, always caling them human and rarely regarding the mere vessels that carry them. It’s your opinion that your views are Biblical and every other view is secular; sharing these feelings is not education.

  69. Jasmine says:

    Jennifer,

    “In fact, I think their emotions should count much more than those of strangers wholly unconnected with them.”

    It wasn’t easy for my brother’s birth mom to carry him to term -I hope I didn’t say anything that made it sound like I thought it was. But sometimes, it isn’t easy to do the right thing -which she, and I, and many other Christians -are fully convinced that *not* aborting her unborn baby (the “mass of cells”) was. When it all comes down to it, God’s Word is the most important measure for these issues -and I believe passages like Psalm 139 and others point to the fact that life begins at conception. The belief is solidified by the testimonies of my brothers, but it isn’t grounded in it (my brother Elijah is only 5 and I believed that life began at conception long before that).

  70. Jennifer says:

    “Your staunch position requires you to be so angry as to belittle – devalue – those who disagree with you”

    I’m not angry, Cottage, not about anything said to me personally; just exasperated with it. Perhaps I’m simply prepared for the inevitable, which is always deep doubt as to my character. And this doubt has to do with my beliefs, not my tone, as Jasmine suggests. I’ve not once questioned whether any of you are sincere believers, but this has been returned to me. And I’m not sure why you women think I’m furious or raging at this fact; I was quite calm when I made note of it. Like I said, I more or less expected it. This is not about ME, or you, or anyone unconnected with every situation which occurs. It’s strange that I can’t feel very strong indignation, even anger, for the true humans often overlooked here without it being assumed that such indignation is about myself, when it’s not.

  71. Jasmine says:

    “I only take a judgemental tone when I see others doing the same, Jasmine, or using empty arguments based on nothing BUT emotion.”

    Arguments about life should be based on the words of the Creator of life –based on His Word, I believe life begins at conception. You disagree. I don’t see that as me “judging” you or looking down on you -I don’t know you to judge you. I am passionate about this subject because I have a little brother who’s birth mom was a rape victim. She unselfishly toned out the rhetoric of people who told her that he was not a human life worth protecting and carried my brother to term -I have a high view of that woman, and so will my brother when he understands her sacrifice. So, on the one hand, I am *very* emotional about this topic.

    On the other hand, yes, I believe that biblically, human life begins at conception. It’s not something that I can be debated out of, just like it seems that you cannot be debated out of believing that it does not. So we’re at an impasse here. I don’t consider your opinion invalid, and haven’t said that. I don’t consider you less of a Christian than I am, and haven’t said that. You are making assumptions, your tone *is* incredibly defensive, and you don’t seem to respect those who disagree with you.

    “You speak of nothing as much as the cells in question, always caling them human and rarely regarding the mere vessels that carry them.”

    I have spoken about my brothers’ birth moms (all four of them) and how grateful I am for them.

    Jennifer, I think we’re around the same age (you might be a few years older than I am), and, from one sister to another, I have been known to let passion cause me to speak harshly to others, and conviction cause me to become defensive. I don’t know your heart, but I do caution you: you talk a lot about how you aren’t being loved and respected, but I don’t see a lot of love or respect in your tone towards those that you disagree with.

  72. Jennifer says:

    Thanks for you explanations, Jasmine; I’m sorry I assumed uncorrectly. Rather, I’ve seen disregard for such women before and feared you showed it as well.

    The thing is, there are pregnancies which don’t make it, and God speaks of knowing and knitting those of us who DID. So, whether He considered those embryos which naturally aborted themselves human or not is a mystery. I can understand if you believe that life begins at conception; I just don’t really agree, Biblically or biologically. God had a plan for your brother clearly, because he’s here. But if he were not, would that mean God didn’t? I think probably it would; we can’t turn a might-have-been pregnancy into a person. We also can’t know for sure, though. I don’t think that I, personally, could ever have an abortion (unless it was from rape, and terminated instantly by the MA pill). I just cannot make a mandate saying what the right thing would be for every woman to do.

  73. Jennifer says:

    Sorry Jasmine, my reply to you is pending.

  74. Liz says:

    Mari – you have excellent points.

    Ultimately, birth control and abortion are sold as “helpers” to women, but men indeed are the ones who benefit. Men can have their cake and eat it too; no babies mean less responsibilities for them.

  75. Word Warrior says:

    Jennifer,

    I keep thinking I will not comment anymore because I do know it’s a futile argument. Yet, because it’s such an important topic AND because so many are reading, I feel compelled to keep unraveling your logic.

    I *hear* what you are saying about Scripture refers only to humans who lived, and therefore, there is no Scripture to back up how God feels about an embryo.

    But for biblical reasoning, don’t we have to identify how God views any life, living or not? It makes no sense that God would have had to go beyond His stating His view of life and qualify (“oh yeah, and that goes for the babies who don’t make it full term”) There is a gaping difference between babies who abort naturally, and a deliberate abortion. If God says “I formed you in the womb, I love you, you are fearfully and wonderfully made, all the days for you are already written in my book” He doesn’t just recant if my mother decides to end my life and pretend I don’t exist anymore. There is NO logic in that whatsoever. (Yet I already know your answer…”he’s not talking to babies who didn’t live.”)

    And to get even a better feel for God’s consideration of “when a baby is a baby”, we must also look at this verse:

    “Even Levi, who receives tithes, paid tithes through Abraham, so to speak, for he was still in the loins of his father when Melchizedek met him.” Hebrews 7:9,10

    Yes, I know…Levi was going to be a person and God knew that. Still, had Levi’s mother just thought it too hard, and decided to abort him, then what? Would God just have marked him off the list and moved to the next “viable human”?

    This kind of logic, at best, seems to slap Him in the face, deny His involvement with new life as well as the authority He has clearly established in Scripture about “who” opens and closes a womb.

    I do appreciate your intent thought on the subject, and the fact that you certainly don’t hold a flippant opinion. I just adamantly disagree.

  76. Avaya says:

    Kelly, re Africa:”a people who, in my opinion, have reaped the long-standing consequences of turning away from God.”

    What about those from the outside who caused untold harm to the continent in the “scramble for Africa” and who continue to do so? If Africa had been left alone- free from the greed of others for its mineral and other wealth, it may have developed differently.

    A lot of the boundary disputes and ethnic tensions witnessed today are a consequence of the time European powers decided that various bits of the continent belonged to them, arbitrarily drawing boundary lines without regard to region, language or culture.

    The DRC continues to be a tragic example of a war torn country where people from all over the world have vested interests because of its enormous natural wealth.

    Industrialised countries heavily subsidise their own agricultural porduce while putting in place a system of tariff barriers that have a terrible effect on African farmers and producers. Western goods, produced at a much lower rate their actual cost are dumped in African markets (undermining local producers), however African producers seeking Western markets face high tariff barriers.

    Not that Africans themselves aren’t contributing to their own self-destruction-they are in a big way, but to say that they are reaping the consequences of turning away from God, is I think a little dangerous, because that sounds like it is putting a lot of the blame on the Africans themselves, whereas history and what continues to happen today paints a rather complicated picture-a picture that implicates a lot of countries as sinners as far as Africa is concerned.

    Anyway, this is off topic as far as your post is concerned, and I don’t wish to take the comment thread in another direction.

  77. KC in AL says:

    “I think God designed nature to work often on its own, which would explain birth deformities, retardation, and pregnancies from rape.”

    As and excuse to wash out those clump of cells? Am I reading you correctly?

    Anyway this makes me shake my head; first its smak’s with the full flavor and aroma of eugenic thought, secondly its self contradictory. (I will get to that later down the post)

    If you were a Calvinist you might understand why, and why your statement right below shows your ignorance with your half-baked retort toward my wife and calvinism – with a little “c”.

    “it would interest me if you were, since this would most likely dictate that you believe EVERY occurance is His will, including abortions, would it not? ”

    Your logic of what a calvinist IS in fact… “If God is in control of everything – then God will’s Evil”. Thats a weak charge I must say, because in your expert analysis, you forgot to include that calvinist do not believe that God can do evil, or anything contrary to his HOLY perfect nature, nor contradict His Word in the Bible…. I think we established that we find abortion in all forms and times repugnant and evil, don’t’cha’think?, well how do you think we came to that conclusion, I mean being calvinist’s and all?

    Back to your first statement…

    “I think God designed nature to work often on its own, which would explain birth deformities, retardation, and pregnancies from rape.”

    1. Your description is about the results of a fallen world, not nature. This further illuminates your misunderstanding of Gods revealed word and frankly his revealed character.
    2. Deformities and retardation in children requires compassion, love and care. How many deformities or retardations are really known of before the heart beats? Do you believe God would love them less?
    3. Your equivocation of deformities and retardation with the horrible act of rape sound more like trying to convince yourself that these are legitimate reasons for killing off these types of children – like I said eugenics.
    4. Doing evil in return for evil is what?. Taking an innocent life for the acts of evil men… sounds strangely familiar.
    5. At what point of the formation of a child does God love the child and take part? Is it at the cellular level? 4 weeks?
    6. We are all deformed and pitifully useless to God in our sin, yet he chooses to love his chosen anyway…

    The self contradiction there is rather interesting one… its the “nature” explanation toward “pregnancy” devoid of God providence in the case of rape. Nature is this machine set in motion outside of God presence then the child (mb you will feel better if I call it the proto-child) is unworthy of the life and flushed.

    The self-contradiction is…

    If God is absent, then do you believe that the woman will ever get her justice for the rape? By natures standards should we even call it rape now that its in the purview of nature – as often scientifically observed animal alfa males take ownership of the females “by force”, if you can even call it force b/c its nature. Now there is no rape, and by that standard, no reason to abort the child for the reason of rape and no reason at all to seek justice…

    I say the above by your own statements, because the bible did not say it specifically that animals rape each other… so we use observed science in this case because nature is acting on its own – and we observe the forced behavior is natural.

    I know it helps sanitize the act as if the abortion as a natural thing to do, and helps us sleep better at night. I personally would just hate to try and justify that position to God who’s attributes are more then just “God is love”.

    Now if we continue down the nature explanation devoid of God, in which your construct of this slippery slope leads… is the outcome of your logic.. I guess we could eat our babies because we find animals eating their babies and call it natural… and hey there are tribes in the Amazon who eat their neighbors.. I am sure we could find out the scientific nutritional properties our neighbors possess and make a case for it in support of the hungry. You may not agree, but “you can put lipstick on a pig; its still a pig”

    You might say I am being mean by challenging your position, I am not…. hopefully if you honestly follow your own logic you will find its natural conclusions I listed above. If you listen carefully, I think several of us are pointing this out, all in each our own way.
    BTW, I do understand some of your positions, I used to share many of them and in particular ^^^ this.

    God Bless you,

    KC

  78. Niki says:

    I don’t much care for the terminology “clump of cells” in reference to a human being. Putting that aside, and looking at it scientifically, what is a cell? It is either living or it’s dead. Right? If it’s dead, there is no life. If it is living then there is growth or maturity. Wouldn’t the morning after pill kill the living cells or “clump of cells”? You would still be killing life whether you see it as human life or not.

  79. Niki says:

    If life begins at a heartbeat, how did the heart start beating? There had to be a living cell that matured into the heartbeat.

  80. mari says:

    Jennifer, I dismiss the heartbeat aspect as relevant because women are aborting *as the norm* so early that even if you can detect a heartbeat, all you have is a blurry blob smaller than your finger to look at. There is no ability to be connected to that as a human except out of an already existing appreciation for what the blurry blob will turn into.

    I think getting hung up on ‘when life begins’ is a red herring. Life begins when the egg and sperm form the zygote. Most women don’t really start internalising that they have a baby in there until well into the first trimester.

    Abortion isn’t about when life begins and how it’s kinda sorta ok before you can detect the heartbeat. It’s not even about how it’s ok before six weeks gestation because so many miscarriages happen before six weeks gestation. It is a state of mind. Are we ok with women experiencing their fertility as a natural process or are we ok with telling them they can kill life growing in them because, you know, it’s easier to kill when you can’t see the face yet?

    No, my baby being a little clump of dividing cells was not as strong an attachment to me as when I could see a face and hands and wriggling body, but I knew the face could follow and hoped that it would.

    Anyway, abortion remains primarily the act of women who do it for convenience of themselves or their current guy and happens very early on. It would be a different discussion to me if most women aborted at 15 weeks or later, but about 90% of abortions happen before week 12, most of those before week 8 gestation.

    The fetus hasn’t had a chance to ‘wreck’ or even necessarily impinge on the woman’s life at that point.

  81. Jennifer says:

    “You are making assumptions, your tone *is* incredibly defensive, and you don’t seem to respect those who disagree with you”

    You should have waited for my response to you to be posted; many have shown disrespect and given me reason to be defensive. And no, I don’t respect some of the logical leaps or unkind words I’ve seen.

    “I believe life begins at conception. You disagree. I don’t see that as me “judging” you or looking down on you -I don’t know you to judge you.”

    I never said you did; I spoke of the women in question being judged by others.

  82. Jennifer says:

    KC, I’d say your post is full of half-baked ideas and ignorance, of both me and my knowledge; I didn’t even bother reading it all the way. Your charge of self-contradiction is hilarious, considering the ones RAMPANT in calvanism.

  83. Kelly L says:

    While reading all these, the quote that kept coming to mind, over and over again was from Oliver Wendell Holmes: “The right to swing my fist ends where the other man’s nose begins.” We love our rights, especially as Americans. In fact so many love their own rights, they neglect and tread on the rights of others. So it is in the case of abortion. Whether it is caused by a doctor, a pill promoted to abort, a pill promoted to give “freedom.” Freedom in chains is not freedom.
    If someone doesn’t want to have children (and they don’t want to leave it in God’s hands), there are many ways to do so that do not require the prevention of a fertilized egg to implant in the uterus. A diaphragm is one of them, so is a condom. But they take more time. This is about convenience. And while some are unaware that the pill causes abortions, most are, but the convenience of a one a day pill wins over the inconvenience of interrupting passion. What is most sad to me is that we Christians have stopped caring enough so that convenience wins. In more than just abortion.

  84. Jennifer says:

    “I think getting hung up on ‘when life begins’ is a red herring”

    Actually, it’s the CORE of this whole darn issue.

    “Wouldn’t the morning after pill kill the living cells or “clump of cells”?”

    Living cell does not = human being.

  85. Niki says:

    Mari,

    I like what you said!

  86. mari says:

    A zygote is human when it’s in the human womb, gestating into a future human. Women are not waiting until the fetus kicks them or until a sonogram shows them hands and feet to abort. They are getting on the phone to schedule an abortion shortly after they have a positive pregnancy result. That is a completely different mindset than a woman worried about whether she is killing a clump of cells or a human life.

    If you want women to abort less, the idea of being pregnant itself would have to stop being associated with disaster and horror (the attitudes modern society has towards labor and natural birth don’t help either). Right now women abort because they think a pregnancy will interfere with their master’s degree or because their current boyfriend ‘isn’t ready to commit yet’ or because they had trouble paying rent the month before.

    None of that has jack to do with when life begins. They all know when life begins. We all know when life begins. That’s not the part that is causing them trouble. It’s the changes after life begins in the womb, the hormonal shifts and physical changes that reveal that despite masking her fertility with the Pill or the Shot (depo-provera), she really is a female, different from the male of the human race and she is the one who stewards new life before it comes into the world.

    The Pill was supposed to have us all convinced that there wasn’t really any difference between women and men because now women could turn off the internal aspects of their physical being that differed from the male.

    Instead we get women aborting because the men will pay for that, but not to raise a child with them and marry them. And women declare a man ‘good enough’ to give themselves to if he says he’ll pay for that much.

    Helping women stop accepting so little from men will do more for lowering abortion rates than any number of fistfights about which week is ‘technically ok’ to abort on. (My personal answer is no week, unless the doctor is facing a life or death scenario with the mother and fetus, an extremely rare situation).

  87. Jennifer says:

    Well-said, Kelly L; I’m glad you’re open to possibilities!

    I do trust the pill I’m on, as it was prescribed by Christian doctors. I’ll probably stay on it after marriage, but not without advice.

  88. Jennifer says:

    “Your equivocation of deformities and retardation with the horrible act of rape sound more like trying to convince yourself that these are legitimate reasons for killing off these types of children”

    Ok, I will reply to this: I NEVER said aborting such babies (which have been babies long before their conditions are known) is moral or excusable. Your logic is poor and your choice of words very offensive. Your post does not even qualify to me as a challenge, and you say I might think it “mean”? I’m not a petty child for heavens’ sake, and have dealt with plenty of legitimate challenges for a while now; I don’t consider them mean for disagreement’s sake alone. For the record, don’t bother trying to justify or explain calvinism to me; dozens have already and it still doesn’t make sense or balance out its own contradictions. God isn’t evil, but He does ordain rape? Even before the beginning of time, like one lovely woman told me? “Don’t worry daughter, I meant for you to be violated and broken since before I created the world, but you will have justice; I’m a good God incapable of evil.” Yeah, WHAT a nice God. I’m not buying it, and not going there again.

  89. Jennifer says:

    “They all know when life begins. We all know when life begins”

    Clearly, we/they all don’t. For some women, it would be a legitimate disaster. For others, their mindset needs to change.

  90. Jennifer says:

    Hi, Kelly.

    “If God says “I formed you in the womb, I love you, you are fearfully and wonderfully made, all the days for you are already written in my book” He doesn’t just recant if my mother decides to end my life and pretend I don’t exist anymore. There is NO logic in that whatsoever”

    No indeed, there isn’t. There’s no “if” when God intends someone to be born; if He wants them, they’ll come. That’s what I think some have a problem with, the endless what-ifs regarding this issue.

    “I do appreciate your intent thought on the subject, and the fact that you certainly don’t hold a flippant opinion”

    Thank you, truly. That’s all I ask for: that people udnerstand why, that I do care, and that it’s taken a lot of thought and reflection. I’m glad you and Jasmine (and probably a few others now) realize this.

  91. Jennifer says:

    Exactly, Liz. I really wasn’t aware of the fact that men support abortion more than women until Ann Coulter pointed it out, actually.

    “Helping women stop accepting so little from men will do more for lowering abortion rates than any number of fistfights about which week is ‘technically ok’ to abort on”

    As a brief note: this is why I appreciate MA pills when needed. They don’t wait a week.

  92. mari says:

    Women shouldn’t be seeking morning after pills. Again, we’re back to ‘oh no, pregnancy!’ That’s a problem. Encouraging or tolerating acceptance of morning-after pills just continues the degradation of femaleness and shows an implicit acceptance that it’s ok to be casual about sex, just make sure you gulp that magic morning-after pill. I’m not comfortable with that line of reasoning.

  93. Niki says:

    Jennifer,
    It is becoming more clear that you have been deeply hurt. Since you are so defensive about your opinion, one wonders if you have experienced this more deeply than you’d like to let on. And speaking of how emotionally distraught a woman might feel that had to carry a baby that was conceived in rape, what about the evidence of how a woman feels after she has murdered the life inside her? I’ve never heard of a woman that is not negatively affected by this.

  94. Jennifer says:

    “Women shouldn’t be seeking morning after pills”

    No, not as a general rule. But if it’s gonna happen, that’s better than waiting.

    “I’ve never heard of a woman that is not negatively affected by this”

    I have; a woman wrote an essay about her experience after a rape, in which her therapist advised she abort. She did so, and felt relief and a road to healing. NOT EVERY WOMAN is the same.

    You’re very nice Niki, though I haven’t seen where I’ve been defensive for the past several posts (other than kc’s). Some may laugh at this, but the truth is I’m simply very empathetic; I can’t imagine a woman going through rape and then a guilt trip, or some horrid people “peacefully” blocking her path to a clinic the way some horrid Christians have recommended others do. Breaking the law to support their own views; wickedly selfish and intrusive. If I knew a woman who went through that, I’d fight tooth and nail everyone who dared hurt her in any way.

  95. Kelly L says:

    Jennifer,
    I appreciate your compliment, but it is unwarranted. I do not have an open mind to abortion of ANY sort, whether from a Dr, a MA pill or THE PILL. I just re-read what I wrote and do not understand where you gleaned that perspective.
    The point of the quote was to say that the right of the mother ends at the right of the unborn child. Being this: she doesn’t have a right to deny that child, that fertilized egg, a chance to have the life.

    If a woman does not want to get pregnant there are non-abortive alternatives.

  96. Jennifer says:

    My whole point was your open-mindedness about BIRTH CONTROL, not abortion, Kelly. I’m not sure where you warranted THAT idea.

    “Being this: she doesn’t have a right to deny that child, that fertilized egg, a chance to have the life”

    An egg over a woman. Won’t bother arguing this point again.

  97. “An egg over a woman.” No one is suggesting one human life is more valuable than another, merely that they are of equal value, and the circumstance of the older doesn’t mitigate the legitimacy of the younger. Your flippant statement also reiterates the philosophy that children are first and foremost burdens, who might graduate to conditional blessing status based on their mother’s assigning them value. I think that’s a sad way to look at the world, and a dismal and incurious argument to cling to, particularly when it requires the setting aside of science AND God’s word. You have to go a good deal out of your way, intellectually, to do that. I lied, I do pity you, Jennifer. And I hope that does bother you a little. It should.

  98. WW _ I have a comment holding in the queue – will you just delete it for me…not interested in pounding my head against the wall, now that I think of it 🙂

  99. Jennifer says:

    Just briefly, Avaya-

    I agree that other countries have greatly harmed Africa. However, the worst tribes’ most brutal practices do not, to my knowledge, have anything to do with outside influences.

  100. Word Warrior says:

    cottage child…

    oh dear..I released the comment before reading the thread, then walked away, then came back later to read the thread. I will still delete if you would like me to. Sorry.

  101. Jennifer says:

    CC, is your second to last comment the one you wanted deleted? If so, it appears Kelly didn’t get your message. Unfortunately, I did; loud and clear.

    You were right, you’d be banging your head indeed if you expected such rudeness and paltry misrepresentation of my words to get me anywhere at all with you. I have explained, ad nauseum, the difference between an embryo and a fetus, the horror I find at partial birth, the fact that I do NOT, as a general rule, promote abortion, and my Scriptural reasons for thinking thus, yet all people like you hear is the part about how I dare not see some blood and cells as a human’s equal; you ignore the fact that for the most part, I actually agree with your positions. Had you approached me and disagreed in the manner of Niki and some others here, I wouldn’t change my mind but I would be more likely to listen to you in future. Instead, you write me off as a Christian and tell me I have a dismal view of the world because I don’t think an egg is equal to a woman.

    Your pity doesn’t bother me in the least, Cottage Child; pity born of ignorance means absolutely nothing to me.

    It does, however, sadden me that I’d lose a sister in Christ. Nevertheless, if this is your attitude and full view of me, if you don’t bother to look or see any further, maybe it would be best if we didn’t speak.

  102. It seems as though all sides of this argument have been presented – not always presented well, but presented. These are the discussions that Christians should be having simply because they are very much apart of the world in which we live.

    What has stood out to me in this conversation are these points:

    1. the original subject of overpopulation is unfounded – even in the Africa argument. Even if the population of Africa (or any 3rd world country) was cut by half, the corrupt governments of those lands would continue to ensure the base population did NOT receive the basic needs of life – even clean water.

    2. Even scientifically, that ‘clump of cells’ is a human. Given ‘clumps of cells’ from different forms of life (plant, dog, human) science is capable of knowing which is which. Never will we see a human zygote/baby become a geranuim.

    3. God doesd not soveriegnly ordain any act of violence that humans do to each other these days – meaning, it is not His will for any rape or abortion to occur – but He does *allow* it in order for His children to learn/understand the vast difference between His righteousness and our unrighteousness.

    4. convictions are important, even if we deem each other’s convictions as incorrect. It gives all of us (speaking to Christians) a perfect opportunity to go back to scripture and learn of His will.

    The comment thread is far too long to respond to each person individually that has caused my comment – but to Jennifer…those comments you have received (that you posted about) are perfect examples of those expounding the love of God while spouting hate. Ignore them – I am sure Kelly (WW) can empathize about that!

  103. Jennifer says:

    “He does *allow* it in order for His children to learn/understand the vast difference between His righteousness and our unrighteousness”

    I don’t think that’s it; I think it’s just a matter that the world sucks after the fall *shrugs* I know the world’s not righteous and don’t need to be raped to get this (I know you’re not saying that, but that line of reasoning would offer me no comfort). And you know why I feel the way I do about the cell-thing, so I don’t need to explain further.

    Thank you simply for understanding, Kim; I appreciate that.

  104. Jane says:

    Well, if a “clump of cells” isn’t really a human being, I suppose none of us are. After all, aren’t we made up of “clumps of cells”, just many, many more of them and much more specialized than when we were first formed?

    Who are you (Jennifer) to decide when a human life begins? Seriously. Your heartbeat argument is pointless. Then next person might say, “Well, I think it’s when there’s a spinal chord, or brain tissue, or (insert name of body part)”. Do you see how far this can be taken?

    Every cell in that clump is known and loved by the living God, whether just a few cells or millions that make up a fully developed human.

    Cottage child, I don’t find you rude, just truthful. I agree with your last comment, and sometimes the velvet gloves must come off.

  105. Jane says:

    BTW, I was a biology major in college, and know a bit about cells and development. I’m no doctor, but I’ll take the word of God over the knowledge of man any day.

  106. Jane says:

    Spouting hate? Yes, I hate the evil of rape and abortion, at any stage of development. If that’s the hate you mean, I’m guilty.

    I certainly don’t hate Jennifer because I disagree with her, I love her. Trying to reason with someone, when trying to help her see the truth (in love), is not hating.

    Before you start accusing a fellow believer of spouting hate, you’d better be sure that’s what they are doing.

  107. Ashley says:

    “the original subject of overpopulation is unfounded – even in the Africa argument. Even if the population of Africa (or any 3rd world country) was cut by half, the corrupt governments of those lands would continue to ensure the base population did NOT receive the basic needs of life – even clean water.”

    Perhaps in some countries, like the goverment-less Somalia. But no, most countries are just more poor than corrupt. They would benfit from having less mouths to feed. Keyna for example relies entirely on foreign aid to exisit.

  108. Ashley says:

    “Nooooo…I have friends who work IN Africa, specifically addressing the water problem and it’s not number of people (there is water, it’s just not drinkable). I probably don’t understand specifics enough to give a full answer, but it has much more to do with a lack of technology and a people who, in my opinion, have reaped the long-standing consequences of turning away from God.”

    Having more people doesn’t answer the problem of technology. If you have fewer people, then you will have more food to feed them, so they will be healthlier and you will have more funds to educate them with, so they can help bring technology to their countries.

    Havng more people doesn’t solve the problem of corruption either. Then you just have a lot of poor people prone to corruption.

  109. jen in AL says:

    Wow, so many thoughtful comments! Thank you Kelly for the time and prayerful energy you give to reading and answering comments some of them so unfounded and cruel.

    Jasmine-thank you for sharing the testimony of your younger brother’s lives. My husband and I are also adopted and feel the same way about God’s design and a thankfulness to our birthmothers.

    Really, so many have made such valid points that i would love to affirm. in situations such as this I always appreciate an affirmation especially when there may be a lot of slings and arrows being dodged.:)

    Jennifer-I appreciate so much your comment about what may be aggravating your tone right up to where you say you will not be reading my response to you.:) It appears you did continue to read others comments and i pray you read mine and can see that I truly perceive a lot of emotional pain and bitterness in your comments. I cannot begin to address all the issues and concerns that have been discussed in this thread nor do I claim to be wise enough to fully explain the beauty and grace in God’s supreme sovereignty. Honestly though many (Calvin, Luther, RC Sproul, John Piper, Voddie Baucham to name a few) have done a wonderful job explaining it in a way people can understand i believe we will not fully understand it till we see HIm face to face. Faith is so necessary in all this. We can’t possibly understand fully all the how’s and why’s of all the things that go on in this fallen world because His ways are not our ways and are higher than ours but a basic understanding and belief in the 5 solas helps so much! It appears to me that you(Jennifer) are trying to understand why bad things happen and unfortunately are arriving at some mistaken conclusions. Really a lot of it has been already addressed in several comments. I am commenting again because i said i would and in the comment I referred to i saw a softening in you for a moment.

    Thank you Jane-*Who are you (Jennifer) to decide when a human life begins? Seriously. Your heartbeat argument is pointless. Then next person might say, “Well, I think it’s when there’s a spinal chord, or brain tissue, or (insert name of body part)”. Do you see how far this can be taken? *

    This is exactly why we have to be so careful when stepping outside the Bible to “define” life. Jennifer-if I am understanding you correctly_you believe the Bible does not speak to when life begins? I believe it does and so does science-AT CONCEPTION.

    Thank you KIm from Canada-2. Even scientifically, that ‘clump of cells’ is a human. Given ‘clumps of cells’ from different forms of life (plant, dog, human) science is capable of knowing which is which. Never will we see a human zygote/baby become a geranuim.

    I wish I had time to say more but I am already running behind:). I will now prepare for the internet tomatoes to be thrown my way. :)LOL
    Blessings, jen in al

  110. Jennifer, I sense a seed of hostility in your statements, from first to last. That’s why I asked Kelly to delete my comment – I absolutely stand by what I wrote, I was simply reconsidering the wisdom of engaging in contentious brawling for it’s own sake, because someone else does. You can manipulate the meanings of people who are responding to you all you like, but you won’t get any more argument from me. I’m confident in my position, and don’t require your input. I’ve already moved past where you are, and have not interest in regressing. But thanks for the conversation.

  111. Carmelita says:

    I am 38 years old and am adopted. The older I get the more I wish I had been aborted. I don’t see adoption as a great thing and certainly don’t have any warm and fuzzy feelings about it. I wish there had been a “morning after pill” for my mother to take.

  112. Word Warrior says:

    Ashley,

    I didn’t say that “more people would answer the problem of technology”; I said that number of people is not the problem with the water shortage in Africa. Bottom line: We overstep our authority AND create big problems when we try to control population with our short-sighted assumptions.

    You may want to do so more research about the issue to strengthen your argument.

  113. EmSue says:

    The “clump of cells” doesn’t just appear out of thin air. It requires an action (sex) for them to exist, and an action (abortion/murder)for them to cease to exist. If no action is taken to “wash out the cells” the “clump” will become as you or me, so I don’t see how someone could tell themselves that it’s not a human. Saying such is merely a sanitization for one’s own conscience. I agree with some who have said that it comes down to convenience. Oh, and it’s not a “personal conviction.”

    “You shall not murder.” Deut 5:17

    “Woe to those who call evil good…” Is 5:20

  114. Allie says:

    “but He does *allow* it in order for His children to learn/understand the vast difference between His righteousness and our unrighteousness”

    Oh, okay, well. Thanks so much, God.

  115. Word Warrior says:

    Carmelita,

    I have to acknowledge the possibility that your comment could be fabricated just to bolster the abortion argument. But if it is not…

    1. I pray you find the love and peace of a God in whom we find our worth and value, rather than looking to a world who has stripped us of it, largely in part because a human CAN be so easily discarded.

    2. Even our own discouragement with life doesn’t give us authority to snuff it out.

    3. Your personal feelings about adoption aren’t shared by the majority; most are so grateful to have been rescued out of a culture of death and again, I pray you can come to this gratefulness as well.

  116. Word Warrior says:

    Carmelita,

    I’m also trying to reconcile your comment with others you have made on the blog, this one, for example:

    http://www.generationcedar.com/main/2009/07/my-natural-childbirth-experience.html#comment-13016

  117. Carmelita says:

    What very few people realize is I struggle greatly with depression. Before marriage I was on several different medications to help me cope, but after marriage my husband wanted me off, so off I went. He knows it is very hard for me to live like this, but he loves my “mood swings” over my “flat” personality. 🙂
    The past few months have been extremely hard. My elderly (85) year old mother has been here much of the time since October. I am to the point where I am reaching for the pill bottle (Xanax) just to keep from lashing out. Every day is the same. She doesn’t hesitate to tell people how she never wanted a girl, but since she turned down two special needs (blind) babies she was scared she wouldn’t get called again so she settled for me. She refuses to say, “I love you” because she says those words don’t mean anything. EVERYTHING I do is wrong. Last night it was the sausage gravy. It had too much pepper in it (after trying it twice and saying there wasn’t enough). She tells my husband she “tried to raise me right but it is obvious she failed” since the gravy had too much pepper in it and I bought store bought biscuits. That was just yesterday. Daily happenings around here. She is going back home in a few weeks, and I think that will help.
    Ever try to show love to someone that has so much contempt for you?
    She doesn’t approve of my parenting either. She cannot stand it when I tell my children “good job”. It might make them *proud* and we all know pride is a sin.
    So yes, trying to figure out why I am on this earth will probably be something I spend a lifetime wondering. And yes, while I do have my “good days”, I have bad ones too. I see the bad in my life, the bad things that have happened to my older children and often think, it could have all been avoided.
    And yes, my parents are Christians.
    It just bothers me that people forget there are adopted children out there who might not be glad they were “rescued”.

  118. Jennifer says:

    “Well, if a “clump of cells” isn’t really a human being, I suppose none of us are. After all, aren’t we made up of “clumps of cells”, just many, many more of them and much more specialized than when we were first formed?”

    That’s one of the most amusing and ridiculous arguments I’ve seen yet. Funny, though.

    “Who are you (Jennifer) to decide when a human life begins?”

    Who are you, dear Jane? Aren’t you doing the exact same thing?

    “Trying to reason with someone, when trying to help her see the truth (in love), is not hating”

    Reasoning. Jane, you have a very strange view of science, reasoning, and love. Save your speeches for the choir.

  119. Jennifer says:

    “It appears to me that you(Jennifer) are trying to understand why bad things happen and unfortunately are arriving at some mistaken conclusions”

    Jen, you’re sweet, but you haven’t moved past your tone of light condescension and that irritates me. My conclusions of anti-calvinism are not in the least mistaken (Calvin, Piper, Sproul and Baucham? Please). And please: once and for all, stop mistaking current anger for bitterness. A “softening” on my part isn’t needed; I’m already “soft” towards respectful people on this board and of course women actually going through what’s been so heavily debated here. I didn’t say I wouldn’t read your response; I clearly said what would indice me to either take it seriously or disregard it.

  120. Jennifer says:

    “Oh, and it’s not a “personal conviction”

    Yes, it is. The people who do it are clearly not the only ones who think about it, and the people who condemn it like you are not the only ones allowed to have opinions.

  121. Jennifer says:

    Clearly Cottage Child, I don’t need to twist your meanings to find your spirit contentious; you yourself just confirmed both your pitiable attitude towards one who disagrees and your prideful reasons for wanting to delete it (because I’m right and even treating you with acidic patroniazation isn’t worth my time, Jennifer). Thank you for confirming your character and your promise not to take up my time further. You’d made it suddenly easy for me to leave you behind.

  122. Jennifer says:

    Thank you for seeing my point, Allie.

    Carmelita, I pray you find God’s Glory and clear design in your life. The woman who claims the title of your mother and her horrible treatment are not your validation or your reasons for living; God is. Her pride, her hate, and her ingratitude are clear signs that she never deserved the title of mother. I hope you can break free of her hatred and focus, instead, on the love your husband and your Creator give.

  123. EmSue says:

    The personal coviction was referring to whether early abortion is right or not. I’m not barring anyone from their opinions, just stating that abortion is murder, be it early, mid-term, or partial birth. And I’m not the one condemning it- God did.

  124. Jennifer says:

    God did not, EmSue. This is clearly a matter of personal conviction. Plus, timing and circumstance are vital factors; it’s very dangerous to label many things with the words “always” or “never”.

  125. EmSue says:

    You and I cannot agree b/c of differences on when life begins. I view the “washing out of cells” as the taking of innocent life (which God did condemn) and you don’t.

    I know that difficult circumstances exist, but tailoring God’s truth to each would be to render it relative instead of absolute.

    I don’t feel like searching upthread- did you say it was fine to abort pre-heartbeat? Then not afterward or just under special circumstances?

    Hypothesis: if a baby had a heartbeat 2 hrs after conception would it be ok to wash it out before then?
    Just trying to understand your point a bit more clearly.

  126. Jennifer says:

    Hi, EmSue. Clearly the crux is where we think life begins.

    “I know that difficult circumstances exist, but tailoring God’s truth to each”

    I don’t believe it is tailoring His truth. Difference circumstances also mean different stages in pregnancy. Plus, He does judge different hearts and different situations separately.

    “did you say it was fine to abort pre-heartbeat? Then not afterward or just under special circumstances?”

    No, not afterward, unless the babe was doomed anyway for some reason. Pre-heartbeat yes, preferably right after conception, before any major cells are planted. The way I see it is this: if you plant a tree seed in the ground, then dig it up after it germinates, is this the equivalent of cutting down a tree? I don’t think it is, even though I personally wouldn’t do this.

  127. Kim from Canada says:

    Ah, Jane…I was refering to quotes that Jennifer had printed inside one her comments – one of which referred to her in a profane manner (obviously hateful). No accusations were about anyone in this comment thread.

  128. Jennifer says:

    I think my belief would only be moral relevance if, for example, I said “Partial birth is HORRIFIC MURDER-unless, of course, the mother was raped.” Um, no; partial birth is horrific murder of a BABY, and this is wrong no matter what. Would I excuse a rape survivor who left her baby in the cold to die? No. The core of the matter is really not how the pregnancy came to be; it’s whether there’s an embryo or a child within. The matter of rape IS volatile to me, and this is why I’m more fierce than any other time when defending a vicim’s right to immediate expulsion of the cells. I can respect the supremacy of “life” argument re pregnancy, but since I find it opinion and not fact, I lose patience with it very fast when people use it as their reason for trying to actively keep rape survivors from AM pills. Since it’s scientifically not anywhere near a comparison to a baby, all that’s left is individual conviction and opinion to dictate this, and I don’t believe such things should trump the woman in question’s choice and her own feelings on the matter.

  129. Jane says:

    Jennifer,

    You’ve said you have a problem with people treating you and your opinions with respect. Well,I gave my opinion and you have just disrespected mine, with your sarcasm and apparent amusement. So if one doesn’t agree with you and share your opinion, they’re spewing hate? Are you kidding me?

    And no, I would never allow myself to define when human life begins, in my human fallibility and stupidity. Only God can do that, I only have His word to go by. No where in His word does He say, “When you have a heartbeat, you have a human being.” Somehow you are deciding this is when life begins, because God just doesn’t say specifically. (BTW, you never answered any question I asked, do you have an answer, or maybe not worth your time since my reasoning is so ridiculous to you, but I suspect it is because you may not have an answer)

    As for your “saving my speeches for the choir” comment(do you see the disrepect here?), well, typical response of someone who is probably uncomfortable with that “speech” and has no better rebuttal.

    I pity you, too, and do love you as a sister in Christ, however misguided. Whether you like it or not.

    OK, now you can have the last word, if you so desire. I’m done. Christ knows the motivations of my heart, and that’s all that matters.

  130. Jane says:

    Oh, sorry, I just saw your comment, Kim. I get it now. Thanks for clarifying.

  131. Jennifer says:

    “Well, I gave my opinion and you have just disrespected mine”

    Yes Jane, that’s because you just offered me patronization, a ludicrous argument, and support of an incredibly rude post to me, calling this post “reasoning” with me, of all cockamamie things. You blatantly implied that I’m misguided, that talking to me like dirt is “reasoning with me in love”, and that it’s okay to do this because I’m the wrong deluded one and the rest of you are right. You haven’t in the slightest earned my respect as either a sensible or loving person.

    “I would never allow myself to define when human life begins, in my human fallibility and stupidity”

    You clearly think life begins at conception. I’ve got news: assuming the Bible says something when it doesn’t is just as wrong as assuming something’s ok just because God didn’t call it wrong.

    “you never answered any question I asked”

    You mean the “are we not just bunches of cells” one? I didn’t think I had to explain this: humans are NOT just cells, heartbeats, spinal cords, or what not. We’re composed of ALL these things and are a hundred times more to boot. This shouldn’t be difficult to discern. I have many answers, and they’re all throughout this thread; you just repeated things that have already been addressed by me. Like, for example, the difference between disagreeing perse and showing disrespect.

    I really don’t care what your motives are, just your words. And your last post greatly resembles your first one in emotion and sense: questioning the obvious and the already-answered, asking for respect when you give none, and especially offering pity and a very misguided view of love. Your “love” basically means an entitlement to talk to others like deluded children, all because you’re right, they’re wrong, and your verbal tearing is done all because you really just love them to pieces. Yeah, I’m feelin’ it. I love you too, dear proud and higher one.

  132. Charity says:

    Totally uninterested in arguing with anyone about this (been there done that too many times with the same commenters;) but I did want to say thank you for this post Kelly! We just celebrated my youngest child’s first birthday yesterday. I am so thankful to God that he was more than a mere ‘lump of cells’ to me before I heard his heartbeat or felt him move. God’s design is so amazing! From the second the sperm and egg unite until the moment that child’s body emerges from the womb, LIFE is apparent. So amazing that He knew us BEFORE we were formed in the womb. PRAISES to Him!! So glad to serve such an AWESOME CREATOR GOD!!!

  133. Jennifer says:

    Wow, I’ll be damned forever for the lump of cells comment.

  134. Jane says:

    I think I touched a nerve.

    And no, that was not the specific question I asked, it was “Who are you to decide when human life begins?” I’ve already answered it for myself. I can’t decide, because I’m not God. What’s your answer? I ask in all sincerity.

  135. Erica says:

    My only thought after reading some of these comments is this: if we subtract conception from the equation, then how would life proceed??

  136. Jennifer says:

    Yeah Jane, you did; one that’s sore. I think there’s misunderstandings on both our sides; the one thing I despise about blogs and online chats.

    “Who are you to decide when human life begins?”

    We all generally form some idea, Jane. In this case, for me it’s a matter of when life does not begin. It’s guesswork, for all of us, but that’s all we have. If I’m wrong, I hope He’ll correct me. Growth, though, is not even always human, nor does it always endure into something human.

  137. Jennifer says:

    Kelly, if you would, please delete my second (NOT my last) reply to Jane. Such drama seems useless now, and I’m too tired for it.

  138. Jennifer says:

    “If we subtract conception from the equation, then how would life proceed??”

    Like it does in asexual breeds, I imagine.

  139. jen in AL says:

    Carmelita-my heart literally broke when I read your comments. I so wish i could meet you face to face and lavish you with God’s words of love and comfort. That is what my exhortation is to you: bathe yourself in the Word of God daily. choose verses of encouragement to memorize and meditate on them frequently throughout the day. I have found when trying to deal with what i call “toxic” people that these things, prayer and the love of the not toxic people is what gets me through it. I don’t know if you read any of my previous comments but my dh and I are both adopted and very grateful for it. not because we had perfect parents (we DON’T-far from it) or have had perfect lives (we HAVEN’T) but because of Christ. It is not easy to out talk the toxic voices in your head with God’s truth but by the grace of God and the Holy Spirit it will happen. God’s people are PRECIOUS to Him. YOU are precious, irreplaceable, beautiful to your Heavenly Father. He delights in you and wants you to give all your cares to Him. many blessings to you. I will pray you find peace and confidence in God’s GOOD plan for your life! You are not a mistake!

    Jennifer-well, 🙂 , truly no condescension meant. it can be hard to sometimes discern true motives and emotions in a comment thread however i am standing by my interpretation of you comments. if it walks like a duck, talks like a duck, looks like a duck it is probably a duck. for the sake of argument let’s say i am completely wrong and therefore so are all the other commenters that have referenced your tone-wouldn’t it then be wise to change your approach to avoid being so broadly misunderstood? i still believe that your position is not scripturally sound nor scientifically so. And although it may irritate you i am going to continue to pray for you.

    oh, btw, are you unmarried but on birth control? I can’t remember if it is you that said that or not. please feel free to not answer this: are you on bc for medical reasons or do you engage in premarital sex? if so, do you believe this is condoned in God’s word? just curious…

    Amen EmSue and Charity!!!!

    blessings, jen in al

  140. Jane says:

    Well, see, that’s where the rub is. Jennifer, I cannot rely on guesswork to decide when human life begins, to me that is very dangerous when it comes to deciding whether or not it’s OK to terminate a human life. If everyone were to rely on guesswork, then there are no absolutes.

    My other question was “Do you see how far this can be taken?” That is when one person determines life begin with a heartbeat and another says, “Well,not until there’s brain tissue”,or whatever.

    I’m sincerely interested, not trying to be snarky.

  141. Jennifer says:

    Thanks for your patient conversation, Jen. I do consider you a good person and worthwhile discussion partner; your first post was just so similar to all the alarmed pity posts I’ve gotten before. The only thing I find condescending is your insistence that I’m bitter; I know what I feel, thank you. Among other things, emotional pain is current; bitterness is old, and not something I carry. Plus, bitterness is personal; I don’t carry bitterness for people who have wronged me personally, because none of those wrongs compare to the sort we’ve discussed here. I’m no duck. Never did I say everyone else is wrong, either; I apologized to Jasmine and Niki for misunderstanding them and my tone has been harsh sometimes, but not usually unless I think I have a good reason for it to be so. I am unmarried and on bc for health reasons.

  142. Erica says:

    Wow Jennifer you obviously missed my point. You say life doesn’t begin at conception. But, if conception didn’t take place, then there would be no life. However, I am not going to engage in this debate. I just wanted to put a quick thought out there

  143. Jennifer says:

    I know you’re not being snarky, Jane. Thanks.

    “Do you see how far this can be taken”

    Yes, on both sides. I think the heartbeat point is the most likely and reasonable. I can’t control what extremes others take this to, only me. And I see a big difference between the fertilized egg and the half-formed baby, or even the tiny being with appendages and a human heart. If a woman’s assaulted, she may want to wash out the monster’s seed before it ever comes close to resembling a person. And I think science and other factors give her the moral ability to do so without condemnation.

  144. Jennifer says:

    I was being half funny and half serious, Erica; it’s true, after all. Conception is like the seed being planted or perhaps fertilized. But, it’s still not a tree.

  145. Jennifer says:

    My comment’s pending Jane, if you’re waiting.

  146. Word Warrior says:

    Jennifer–sorry been gone most of the day. If you still want me to delete a comment, you’ll have to tell me which one…it’s a little overwhelming 😉

  147. Hey Kelly/WW – I had hoped to catch you before a comment was posted, but it certainly isn’t worth worrying over. I didn’t write anything I don’t stand by, and you shouldn’t have to worry over a hijacked thread. Thanks for presenting another wonderful topic of discussion. Sometimes, I see the work of the enemy, and can choose otherwise. Sometimes 🙂 Be well.

  148. Word Warrior says:

    cottage child…sorry ’bout that :-/

  149. Jennifer says:

    Hi, Kelly. No problem; I only wrote three or four posts to Jane, and this was the second. I don’t know how else to identify it except that it was posted at 5:07 pm. Thanks!

  150. Bassplayer says:

    I have a comment on the “life begins when there is a heartbeat” point of view.

    When Jairus’ daughter died, her heart stopped beating. But her soul was alive, and Jesus called her soul back into her body. When Lazarus died, his heart stopped beating. But Jesus called his soul back into his body. In both these cases, there was no heartbeat . . . but there was a human soul.

    It seems to me a baby’s soul can exist before there is a heartbeat. All we can measure is that there is or isn’t a heartbeat. We cannot determine the presence of a soul. That is the work of God and is not measurable by science. Thank you for considering my comment.

  151. Margaret says:

    Interesting article. I don’t know that I’d agree with the whole of the Botkin’s beliefs, but on this point I do. It’s very much in line with the beliefs I’ve developed as an evangelical Christian and the beliefs my parents hold as Jesus-loving Catholics. 😀

    Easy, squeaky clean contraception and abortion that “hides” in a pill has contributed to the infantalization of the West, and to the entitlement mentality so prevalent. It is all sooooo much more comlex than that, but I don’t have any question that the Pill has contributed.

    ” What about pregnancies that naturally abort? Was that God failing His “children”? Did He have plans for those clumps? ”

    As a mother who lost two babies, yes babies, to miscarriage…No, it was not God “failing”. Yes, he had plans for them. His plans extend waaaay beyond the span of a single human lifetime. THe lives of my “clumps of cells” and you and I and a 90 year old are all on the same tiny, insignifigant spot on the timeline in comparison to eternity. Length of life doesn’t make one more human. Some of their purpose as earth-dwellers was served in the womb, some through their loss, and the rest of it served in an eternity with their Creator.

  152. Margaret says:

    Africa–I disagree that the continent has “turned away from God” any more than any other country, continent, or race of people. We’re all sinners. And Africa houses millions of Christians who faithfully seek God’s face and worship him in the midst of the most horrendous circumstances imaginable.

    That said, I also don’t buy for a second that cutting the African population significantly would better life on the African continent. It would simple create other problems, particularly in cutting the work force and leaving the elderly stranded and uncared for. Because of the culture, it would probably result in a disproportionately male dominated population as well, as has happened in China.

    African cities are crowded because it is the nature of cities to be crowded. The difference is that monies used in other nations for infrastructure, health services, job creation, business building, etc are often used by corrupted officials to serve themselves and their cronies at the expense of the people they claim to serve. Availability of clean water would make a dramatic difference in the lives of Africans, and that *can* be accomplished without cutting the population.

    Blaming it all on Africans having too many babies completely ignores the fact that Western countries devastated the continent with their land grabbing, slave trading, power playing, and arbitrary boundary-line drawing. To be certain some powerful Africans chose to play along with this for personal gain, but the troubles Africa faces now did not start because of “overbreeding” and will not be fixed by eugenics either.

  153. Jennifer says:

    Yes Bass, but those people ALL had complete bodies. I think your comment entirely misses the point. I don’t believe an embryo has a soul until it has a functioning body to hold it.

  154. Jennifer says:

    I’m sorry for your loss, Margaret. You didn’t say specifically when those pregnancies aborted, but I was referring to early, early embryos; my grandmother’s body rejected a fertilized embryo before she even knew she was pregnant and she saw it herself. She told me it was, quite literally, just blood and cells; nothing at all compared to the baby boy she’d just recently had. Your guess as to whether God had plans for emnbryos is as a good as mine, but it’s just that: a guess.

  155. Kim M says:

    Jennifer,
    You said:”Your guess as to whether God had plans for emnbryos is as a good as mine, but it’s just that: a guess.”

    Since we are only guessing, wouldn’t it be better to be on the safe side???? If I thought a certain medication might (possibly) kill one of my babies, I certainly wouldn’t administer it. I would think any person would rather not play Russian roulette with such a delicate thing as life. Just saying…

  156. Kim M says:

    *embryos

  157. Jennifer says:

    Yes it would, that’s why I’m generally not a supporter for abortion. If it were a question of a rape survivor and a MA pill, though, I wouldn’t be willing to play Russian Roulette with her emotional state based on a major what-if question that I’m pretty much decided on.

  158. Kim M says:

    Jennifer,

    Emotional harm has already been done by the rape itself… a child can turn something horrible into something beautiful (if not for the mother, for a couple who cannot have children).

    Here are a few stories just in case you are interested:

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/local/berkshire/low/people_and_places/religion_and_ethics/newsid_8256000/8256168.stm

    http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/woman/real_life/2509501/I-was-raped-at-12-by-my-brother-and-had-his-baby-I-kept-it-a-secret-until-he-struck-again-18-years-later.html

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1043041/I-raped-left-pregnant-16–I-love-baby.html

  159. SavebyGrace says:

    WOW! That’s my first response to the responses on here.

    I’m confounded by Christians that elevate man made ideas as comparable to God’s. It is irrelevant what man made science says when it parts from God’s word. At that point it loses its correctness because it discounts or flat out contradicts Scripture. There are many instances: wifely submission, 6 days of creation, young earth etc. to choose from to prove this point.

    As for abortion – if God says that to hate someone is to murder, if God was pleased when Phineas killed the man for taking a Canaanite woman (might have the name wrong on that one), if it is adultery to LOOK upon a woman with lust then who is to say when life begins except God. (God does not fit into our preconceived notions we adjust to HIS – He is unexplainable!) That is something that medical science cannot explain – Oh yes, they can explain that it happens but not the HOW of it. Someone explain HOW that egg and sperm make a baby and I’ll let them tell me when it becomes a human. Until then I’ll trust God and choose not to murder by using abortion and my own selfish tendencies. No one is a mistake – God has a plan for them and Jesus died for them. When God looked down the halls of eternity He saw them, He knew them and He loved them through God’s grace even the unplanned and unwanted child will have a place on Jesus’ knee one day.

    Provided they follow the BIBLICAL plan of salvation.

    Praise God!

  160. Kelly L says:

    Bassplayer,
    That is an excellent point regarding the heartbeat issue! When we choose when someone is afforded life, we play god. When we play god, we become god of our lives. When we become the god of our own lives, we force God to remove His hand of protection from us. I’d rather let God be God and me be me. His humble, eternally grateful child who doesn’t even want to THINK of a day outside His perfect and pleasing will.

    Also, my last thought is that of proverbs. Even a fool is thought wise when he closes his mouth. Far to many of us Christians engage, throwing pearls at random. I have been guilty of taking the bait. But as one friend told me: “You don’t look so pretty with that face piercing around your mouth” (speaking of the hook in my cheek, like a fish) DON’T take the bait. It is easy for someone to ignore God when plenty of people are willing to engage, directing his/her focus elsewhere (to you). It is far easier for Holy Spirit to hit when He is the only one convicting. Just a thought from one who has tried to take Holy Spirit’s job…unsuccessfully. I’d wink here, but I really did try to take His role…and I don’t think He was winking.

  161. Jennifer says:

    Kim, NOT every woman is the same. Nine months of flashbacks could and would be traumatic for hundreds of women.

    SavedbyGrace, your post isn’t even very clear; very jumbled, in fact. Our theories of life are not contradicted by the Bible at all.

    “There are many instances: wifely submission, 6 days of creation, young earth etc. to choose from to prove this point.”

    Actually dear one, the old ideas of wifely submission are very easily challenged, and not even by contradicting the Bible! As for the Earth in 6 days thing, you shouldn’t write off science and clear evidence so easily. Did you know that days in Heaven may have different spans than days in Earth? Science says it took years and years for the Earth to be created..and it was created in the exact order that the Bible says it was. These things are very easily reconciled more often than you think. Being as a child towards God doesn’t mean switching off our God-given gifts of deduction and logic.

  162. Kim says:

    Whenever one “chooses” to believe life begins it would seem to be prudent to always err on the side of caution. As to the rape/abortion equation, I don’t see how adding another wrong to the situation could possibly make it right. Further traumitizing a woman will make her feel better? Strange logic indeed.

  163. Jennifer says:

    Kim, your automatic assumption that it will further traumatize her is frankly foolish, especially after I’ve clearly said there are women who feel differently. You don’t know that it’s “another wrong”. The whole point is to leave the choice to HER; she’ll know how she feels about it. This isn’t weird logic in the least.

  164. Kim M says:

    I don’t want to be argumentative, but I can’t help but respond. Don’t you think a raped woman (pregnant or not) will have flashbacks regardless. And surely more than just nine months?

  165. Jennifer says:

    Movement in the womb is VERY likely to increase flashbacks by five times at least, don’t you think? You’re not being argumentative.

  166. Angela says:

    Jennifer,

    You said,

    “I don’t believe an embryo has a soul until it has a functioning body to hold it.”

    Just curious, what is the basis for this belief?

  167. Jennifer says:

    Hi, Angela. Well I’ve never heard of souls existing in something less than a body; bodies are what anchor us here. If our body’s destroyed, our soul flees. Those who were resurrected by Christ had full, workable bodies waiting to house their souls again. This is why I don’t believe there’s a soul in the womb until there’s a body to hold it.

  168. wordwarrior says:

    Jennifer,

    (Beating a dead horse and yet still feel the need to defend…)

    Based on your body/soul answer, how do you explain those verses that have been mentioned already about God “knowing” us before we are even formed? What is there to “know”? Doesn’t God speak in terms of knowing our souls?

  169. Jennifer says:

    God knows which souls will inhabit fetus bodies; I believe He speaks to those.

  170. Jennifer says:

    And of course, which cells will live to make fetus bodies.

  171. Margaret says:

    ” my grandmother’s body rejected a fertilized embryo before she even knew she was pregnant and she saw it herself. She told me it was, quite literally, just blood and cells; nothing at all compared to the baby boy she’d just recently had. ”

    So value or the existance of valuable life is based on how we look to others? The second baby I lost may never have developed a heartbeat. That was a molar pregnancy, discovered at 13 weeks but obviously ongoing since conception or shortly after. It doesn’t make any difference to me what it looked like. Whether that life existed for a few seconds before it expired and was overwhelmed by abnormal tissue, or whether it existed for a few weeks, it was still life.

    Many humans born and even grown to adulthood have been treated like non-humans by this same reasoning because of disorders they had. “It doesn’t look like us. It looks like a monster. How can it be human like us?”.

    At 22 days post conception when the embryonic heart begins to beat (http://www.drspock.com/article/0,1510,9851,00.html ) the embryo looks nothing like the 22 year old it has the potential to be someday. Even at 5 weeks it doesn’t. You set the line at fetal heartbeat, but others see no reason that a non-human-looking fetus should be valued, and they would use your own reasoning to support that view.

    The newly concieved, the fetus at 5 weeks, the fetus at 20 weeks, the newborn, the child, you and I, and the elderly are all physically speaking just blood and cells at different stages of development, constantly growing in our youth and constantly changing and degenerating as we age. We know that looking different at different stages of development does not mean we are different beings or non-beings. Once that development starts, the end result will be an adult human unless it is interrupted by outside forces, whether human or natural. We will become old ladies, our children will become adults, and the embryo will become a newborn. The egg cell, otoh, will stay an egg cell and then expire. The sperm cell, will stay as it is and then expire. But if the two join, what exists is the very first point of a unique human life and can be nothing other than human life, no matter what one labels it or how desperately one wants to justify getting rid of it.

  172. Kim M says:

    “Movement in the womb is VERY likely to increase flashbacks by five times at least, don’t you think?”

    Isn’t that just an assumption or a guess? Who is to know that mother isn’t becoming fond of the life inside her body? Who knows if that baby isn’t giving the victim something new and wonderful to think about?

    from:
    http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4161/is_20041128/ai_n12912474/

    “I look at my darling girl, and no, she doesn’t remind me of what happened on that terrible night,” says Heather. “In fact, quite the opposite. She reminds me of what startling beauty can emerge from such utter ugliness.”

  173. SavebyGrace says:

    “But if the two join, what exists is the very first point of a unique human life and can be nothing other than human life, no matter what one labels it or how desperately one wants to justify getting rid of it.”

    Well said.

    I really don’t think it has anything to do with whether or not it should be considered a person. I think our Lord answered it pretty clearly with John 3:19:

    And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.

    People want their sin, they esteem it more highly than they do obedience. Which is why we are told in the end times people will be “lovers of self, desiring to have their ears tickled, deceiving and being deceived”. True Christianity is about humility – as Christ was humble, obedient even to the point of death – putting others before ourself. Even if it means carrying a rape baby to term.

    Who are you O’man to question God. God says “Do not murder.”

    Jennifer, beloved sister, you are being deceived. You know full well God is not mocked. Calling it a “clump of cells” (why don’t you call your degree just a piece of paper?) is tantamount to calling a baby a piece of dirt to be thrown out. Do you really think Almighty, Holy, God is going to hold you blameless for that? We will be judged for every word we’ve spoken – Lord help us.

    Matthew 18:6
    But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea.

    Seems to me that killing a baby would be pretty offensive! Of course, if you buy into “clump of cells” foolishness …… Seems like a pretty flimsy excuse to claim to be smarter than God.

    Out of curiousity exactly how do you choose which verses are relevant and to be obeyed and which ones should be thrown out? Are you smarter than God?? Really?

  174. Jane says:

    “I don’t believe an embryo has a soul until it has a functioning body to hold it”

    So if an embryo develops a heart/heartbeat, that constitutes a functioning body, so we can now assume it has a soul? A fully functioning body consists of much more than that, wouldn’t you agree?

  175. Angela says:

    Jennifer,

    I am not trying to start another argument. There have been plenty here, but just a few thoughts.

    You said,

    “I’ve never heard of souls existing in something less than a body; bodies are what anchor us here. If our body’s destroyed, our soul flees. Those who were resurrected by Christ had full, workable bodies waiting to house their souls again. This is why I don’t believe there’s a soul in the womb until there’s a body to hold it.”

    Who is to say what God considers a body. You define it as when the heart begins to beat but it doesn’t yet look like an actual body that we think of. I think, when something is not clear to you in the Bible, it is important to search out God for the answer, not science or what the world thinks it knows. God is not bound by science or the laws of the universe. He is above it all because he created it.

    You said that you have never heard of souls existing in something less than a body. What about Jesus on the Mount of Transfiguration when he was talking to Moses and Elijah. They (Moses and Elijah) have not yet received their resurrected bodies b/c Jesus is the only one who has (the resurrection has not happened yet). They were already dead so they were not in their earthly bodies. How did they exist? And even if you disagree or find fault with this example, just b/c you haven’t heard of it, does it mean it can’t happen? Is that the definition of what is, what we have heard of?

    All I am trying to say is that we can not know the full mind of God, however, we do know that He values life. I don’t believe it is wise to make assumptions about when life begins, when God places a soul within a body (for all we know, he may consider the “clump” a body)etc… I know you will say that we are all doing the same thing, however; when it comes to something so important as life, how can we not be cautious.

    One more thought and I am out of the discussion. God can take the evil intentions of man (ie…rape, casual sex) and use it for His good purposes. I understand that you are concerned for the women who are victim’s of rape, but a God that is so loving, gracious and merciful, can heal them, even if they have their baby.

    No one here can change your mind about anything. I know from experience that God is the only one who can bring about these changes. I have read all of your comments and thought about them at great length. I believe that is all Kelly is asking others to do regarding the blogs she posts. Just stop and consider and pray about it. Then let God convict us. He does sometimes change our convictions (again, speaking from experience).

    Respectfully,

    Angela

  176. Niki says:

    Just getting back to this discussion and am surprised it is still going on. The more I read of your posts, Jennifer, the more I see that you don’t seem to take the Bible literally. As you mentioned before you have struggled with doubts, etc. Could it be it is because you are trying to mix science and the Bible together? You have mentioned several times of using science to prove your beliefs. Even just recently and off topic you mentioned that the earth was not created in 6 literal days. It seems you are trying to find something more concrete or more black and white or explainable or justifiable. Why not just take the Word of God for what it says in context and not try to make science fit in between the Scriptures? I’m not sure if I’m explaining what I mean very well. I think what I’m trying to say is that science does not need to prove that the Bible is true. It’s nice when it does, but the two will not always agree.

    On the topic of abortion, I think what you are trying to say is that you feel it is the woman’s decision to do what she feels is right for her body and are trying to justify her choice (should it be abortion) by science, not the Bible.

    Not pointing fingers, just trying to clarify and sum it up for me.

  177. Jennifer says:

    “Many humans born and even grown to adulthood have been treated like non-humans by this same reasoning because of disorders they had”

    You’ve got to be freaking kidding me. Margaret, it was BIOLOGICALLY a MASS of CELLS! Deformed people, babies and otherwise, are clearly PEOPLE, and I’ve said specifically that aborting such fetuses because they are deformed is unforgivable. You offer some of the worst logic, analogies, and offensive twistings of my words that I’ve ever seen.

  178. Jennifer says:

    “Isn’t that just an assumption or a guess? Who is to know that mother isn’t becoming fond of the life inside her body?”

    That’s just guessing too, Kim, and mostly fairy-tale; most therapists would clarify the opposite sort of thinking as the norm. Nevertheless, sure, it could happen. That fact, and the story you linked to, are both reasons why for the umpteenth time I’ve advised leaving the decision to the WOMAN. Do you guys recall this at all? I’m not the one saying it should be taken out of her hands; you are.

  179. Jennifer says:

    “Who is to know that mother isn’t becoming fond of the life inside her body?”

    That’s just a guess too, and for the most part a fairy-tale one; most therapists would confirm the opposite feelings. But sure, it could happen. That’s why I support, for the umpteenth time, leaving the choice to the WOMAN. Do you guys forget this? I’m not the one trying to take the decision out of her hands; you are.

  180. Jennifer says:

    SavedbyGrace-beloved sister, you sound like a fool. Patronizing me, ignoring my points which do NOT ignore the Bible, ignoring my clear distinction between an egg and a baby (and comparing the two yourself so utterly), threatening me with holy judgement, and accusing me of thinking myself smarter than God will get you nowhere with me. If anything, you’ve confirmed and vindicated my reasons for not either listening to or taking to heart arguments like yours.

  181. Jennifer says:

    “They (Moses and Elijah) have not yet received their resurrected bodies b/c Jesus is the only one who has (the resurrection has not happened yet). They were already dead so they were not in their earthly bodies. How did they exist”

    They have ALREADY EXISTED. They have ALREADY HAD BODIES AND LIVING SOULS. You’re connecting two incredibly different situations and it won’t work.

  182. Jennifer says:

    Good grief, Jane, which side are you on? Do you agree that a being with a beating heart should be regarded as human? Do you think I should, rather, assume this isn’t a human body and advise destroying anything that’s not a full-fledged, 8 month baby? What are you saying?

  183. Jennifer says:

    “As you mentioned before you have struggled with doubts, etc. Could it be it is because you are trying to mix science and the Bible together?”

    No, it’s because I have anxiety and people chuck silly doubts and attempt to tangle my thought threads.

    I knew the six literal days thing would come up. Niki, I said it could be six literal days in HEAVEN. Not Earth; we have a different time zone. This is something quite different from seeking a source other than God; rather, it proves science and the Bible do co-exist, and science supports the Bible. This has been very freeing, not doubtful, for me.

    “On the topic of abortion, I think what you are trying to say is that you feel it is the woman’s decision to do what she feels is right for her body and are trying to justify her choice (should it be abortion) by science, not the Bible”

    Do I really need to explain again the reason why I feel my position is not either contradicted or condemned by the Bible? I don’t think I do, Niki, you’ve proved that you actually listen. What I think is that the decision is between the woman and GOD; no one else. None of us with our tidy explanations will be there with her when she’s faced with the choice; only God will.

  184. Charity says:

    Kim M,
    I don’t want to be argumentative, but I can’t help but respond. Don’t you think a raped woman (pregnant or not) will have flashbacks regardless. And surely more than just nine months?

    GREAT point. I know this is true, as I experience horrific nightmares, moments of shear terror and uncontrolled panic because of an attempted rape I went through almost 10years ago.

  185. Charity says:

    I will also add, this was an attepmted rape, not full blown. I can only imagine what someone experiences that has gone through worse. I face this memory every day and by God’s grace and through His strength I press on knowing that He makes no mistakes and that He is in control. I do not know why I went through what I did. I also grew up in a very abusive home and struggle with memories and nightmares from experiences of those years. I can say that I was a virgin when I married although I feel as though it were “by the skin of my teeth”, as there were so many attempts to take my purity from me. Maybe that is why I valued it so much and did not want to date at all for fear of just throwing away what ‘little’ (it felt to me) purity that I had left. Maybe that is what led me to courtship with my husband and was able to see God lead us into a beautiful wedding night. Just my rambled thoughts…

  186. Jennifer says:

    Charity, thank you for sharing. I’m so sorry about what happened to you and very grateful God saved you from worse horror. And no, He did NOT cause it; He saved you from it.

  187. Jane says:

    Jennifer,

    I don’t have a clue what you are talking about. In my last post I was quoting you. You claimed {March 7, 4:13) that you believed an embryo doesn’t have a soul until it has a functioning body to hold it.

    All I was asking is, whether you believed that a heart/heartbeat constitutes a functioning body, therefore YOU could assume it now has a soul. That seems to be the point you believe a fetus is considered human life (a beating heart). All I am saying is a functioning body is much more than just a beating heart.

    I believe there’s a soul present in the embryo at the moment of conception, because I AM NOT GOD and I can’t determine that for myself at what point there is a soul. re: God knowing us before we were formed

    You are totally misreading or misinterpreting what I’m asking.

    I don’t have time for this anymore. Only God can open your eyes, you are being deceived.

  188. Jennifer says:

    Think what you want, Jane. I have no time to be re-explaining and defending myself every second either. Goodbye

  189. SavebyGrace says:

    Jennifer, thank you for proving my point. You have no logical argument and no Biblical support and you know it so you start name calling.

    There is a difference between Biblical knowledge and Biblical understanding.

    What’s ironic is your inability to stop responding to those who disagree with you. Yes, many people disagree with you. Okay.
    Many people disagree with me too – so what?

    You think I’m a fool and I think you are deceived. There is no time when sin is the correct response in God’s eyes. It really doesn’t matter why one chooses to sin it is still sin. You can interpret and reinterpret to your hearts content but you are still biblically wrong. Of course, if you really believe that the Bible supports your position then prove it or would it be too easy to poke holes in it?

    Biblically we are to esteem one another more highly than ourselves so how is putting your desire to abort an unwanted baby putting that child first. God foreknew that baby and Jesus died for that baby.

    And Sister, for the record, I’m not threatening you with holy judgement. One cannot threaten with something they do not have. Judgement belongs to God. Whether you take biblical knowledge to heart is not up to me. You’ve been exposed to the truth by many different people over the course of the last few days what you do with it is up to you. Have a teachable heart and listen to the Holy Spirit.

    Others can tell the state of your heart by your words. Your words indicate a selfish and prideful heart. Claiming that abortion is not a sin is calling God a liar. That is not a position you want to be in come judgement day.

    In Christ’s love,

  190. Margaret says:

    “You’ve got to be freaking kidding me. Margaret, it was BIOLOGICALLY a MASS of CELLS! Deformed people, babies and otherwise, are clearly PEOPLE”

    No, I’m not kidding. You say they’re people. We now think it’s obvious that they’re people due to social changes (thank God!). But others didn’t think they looked human enough to be valued as people. You know the “tree man” with those bark like growths all over him due to infection? How do you think he’d have been recieved by Middle Eastern Europe? As a full human? Doubtful.

    Or even more of an obvious one, what about ancient cultures that didn’t view newborns as inherently valuable beings? How does a culture come to view leaving a baby on a mountan side to die as a moral, even responsible, act? Same way it comes to view abortion as one, starting from the beginning of gestation. “It’s not old enough to have a soul. It hasn’t reached our arbitrary ensoulment date. It doesn’t look like my sweet toddler over there. Eh. Can’t afford another one right now, this one will just have to do.”

    I say an embryo is “people”, you don’t think it looks human enough to be valued as “people”.

    You are no less a mass of cells, biolgically, than the embryo. Your cells have reached the peak of specialization, or soon will, and will start on their down hill journey. But if you want to talk biology, then that’s what we all are. Bunches of cells, developing and having human genes, and a shape that fits somewhere in the range of humanity. Like an embryo.

  191. Jennifer says:

    Grace, your words show overt pride in your opinion and Biblical interpretation, and mis-understanding in logic. I’ve explained my Biblical reasons ad nauseum, and it’s clear you either can’t comprehend them or are just happier to throw accusations. I called you a fool; this is a Biblical word and a state of being portrayed when one ignores evidence, puts so much stock into their opinion that they deem all others MORALLY wrong, and makes accusations when failing to accurately assess another person’s statements. I’ve already “proved” my case, to put it in your challenging words. If you want every single point of mine restated, you’re welcome to scroll back up and re-read; I am not repeating myself. As for the fact that I keep on responding, of course I do; most who disagree ask me questions. It’d be rather impolite and childish to ignore them, or not consider their words out of total pride in my own position, as you have.

  192. Jennifer says:

    I’m sorry Jane, my frusterated brain finally settled enough to understand your question. At the time, it seemed you were pointing out that a being with a beating heart wasn’t a functioning body, and were then asking me if I should really be considering such fetuses as humans. I get it now, and I think a beating heart should qualify as the beginning of official human life; that’s my answer.

  193. Jennifer says:

    “Claiming that abortion is not a sin is calling God a liar”

    Actually, claiming THAT is claiming God says something that He definitely does not say. Not a position you want to be in, trust me; it causes nothing but trouble for both you and whoever mistakenly believes you.

  194. SavebyGrace says:

    Hate to say I told you so but I did – you simply cannot let it go. (Almost 2 hours)

    Commandment #6 Thou shalt not murder. Prove me wrong. Prove Biblically that abortion is not murder. You can’t. It frankly amuses me that though you claim to have studied and find that the Bible supports your claim that you have till yet to show it. Surely if you have truly studied this you have debated it with others, surely you have Biblical references???? I’ve noticed that you have till yet to deal with the situation Biblically.

    Others have pointed to verses to indicate that before HE formed you in the womb He knew you. You off-handedly denied these verses. Again, how do you choose with verses don’t matter??

    I’m not interested in anyone believing me – I am nobody. I am; however, deeply interested in people believing the Bible, trusting in Christ and joining me in Heaven one day. What are you interested in – salvation of others or youself being understood. You are not that important but the truth of God’s word ( the only ABSOLUTE truth there is) is very important to me.

    I’m waiting for the first Biblical passage to support your position.

  195. Jennifer D. says:

    Jennifer – in reference to the quote from SavebyGrace you said “Actually, claiming THAT is claiming God says something that He definitely does not say.” What God’s word does say is that he hates hands that shed innocent blood. An unborn child, even in embryo form, is innocent – even in the case of rape. Therefore I’m sure you can see that God would call abortion a sin. Not to mention scriptures about murder, etc.

  196. Word Warrior says:

    Jennifer,

    I found an interesting blog by a scientist who specifically defends against abortion at any stage.

    Since your platform is your certainty that science doesn’t conclude that an embryo is a human, and the Bible is “silent” on the issue, (and I assume if, indeed, there was “proof” otherwise you may take a different position?)I found something he said interesting…

    In the course of laying out the science, I produced a formidable list of quotes from leading embryology texts which state unequivocally that fertilization produces a new human organism, beginning with the single-celled stage called the zygote…If one were to take the hundreds of thousands of biologists and add up our collective years of research, the number reaches into the millions of collective years of research.

    We’ve managed to come up with a great deal of certitude in all of that.

    The certitude of the zygote’s unique organismal identity and status is one of those truths taught in all of the leading texts in the field. …” From Coming Home

    Seems this argument ends where those involved decide to place their trust. Even in the scientific community there is discrepancy. If the fact that 1. God CLEARLY is the Author of life and 2. science supports the fact that conception produces a human being isn’t enough evidence for a Christian to abhor the very mention of abortion, said Christian isn’t interested in facts or in God’s authority at all.

  197. SavebyGrace says:

    Well said!

  198. Word Warrior says:

    Just one of the quotes…

    “At the moment the sperm cell of the human male meets the ovum of the female and the union results in a fertilized ovum (zygote), a new life has begun…”

    Considine, Douglas (ed.). Van Nostrand’s Scientific Encyclopedia. 5th edition. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold Company, 1976, p. 943

  199. Word Warrior says:

    And my favorite quote by the blog’s author:

    “If the field of embryology is not to be believed and lacks credibility in the eyes of one pro-abort, how much less credibility does that individual’s conjectures about embryology contain?

    If science can teach us nothing, then bioethics becomes an academic version of Oprah or Montel Williams.”

  200. SavebyGrace says:

    Kelly what’s the URL for the blog you are quoting?

  201. Word Warrior says:

    Saved…

    Click on the hyper-linked text “Coming Home” in my comment.

  202. Jennifer says:

    Grace sweetie, who just brought it up again? That would be you. You’re the one practically dancing around with a “See? I’m right, I’m right, and you can’t disprove it!” attitude. It amuses me that you think your words mean something to me.

    “You off-handedly denied these verses”

    No I didn’t dear; I said God was addressing people who SURVIVED pregnancy. God knew which eggs would grow to be humans and have souls; I can’t believe I have to explain this to you. And don’t even bother trying to wave this post in my face, because your last post, like every one before it, required-no, DEMANDED-an answer.

    “An unborn child, even in embryo form”

    Says who? Neither the Bible nor science say this.

  203. Jennifer says:

    Thanks for the link, Kelly. I appreciate that man’s honesty on the matter. He appeared to conclude what I’ve already acknowledged: that fertilization creates a fertilized egg, a new cell, which if unprevented will grow eventually into a full human being, or the beginning of one. There was a heck of a lot of medical jargon, but my deduction was this: according to this man, a zygote is the beginning of an embryo, which is a cell that if unprevented will grow into a full-fledged human. Am I right?

  204. SavebyGrace says:

    Jennifer, I don’t believe anyone is dancing around regarding your obvious ignorance of Biblical truth. I think if anything most of us feel pity for you. You can still obtain salvation. Repent and trust God.

    I’ll leave you with these verses and due to your hard heartedness and stiff neck hope others will leave it to the Lord to “sift you on the threshing floor”:

    2 Timothy 2:14 -16
    Remind them of these things, and solemnly charge them in the presence of God not to wrangle about words, which is useless and leads to the ruin of the hearers. Be diligent to present yourself approved to God as a workman who does not need to be ashamed, accurately handling the word of truth. But avoid worldly and empty (vain) chatter, for it will lead to further ungodliness and their talk will spread like gangrene.

    Proverbs 26:4
    Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him.

    Proverbs 25:5
    Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit.

    We are making her wise in her own conceit.

    Jennifer, I hope you will listen to God’s voice through His written word because, I, like many on this blog fear for your soul. Not because you don’t think like us but because of your obvious disbelief in Scripture.

    You are arguing symantecs, yes God knew which ones would live. So, you would take the place of God and presume that you know which ones should die? Prideful, prideful, prideful Where little child is your humility?

  205. Word Warrior says:

    Jennifer,

    Yes and no; he is saying that fertilization creates a zygote but that a zygote is a human being.

    Jennifer, I feel like the jargon has been the problem in this whole debate. Since it isn’t rational or possible that a fully-developed human can be present at conception, then it’s equally irrational to claim the zygote is any less human. The fact that a human MUST begin as a zygote doesn’t make it less human. The logic is so, well logical, that the frustration from others should come as no surprise.

  206. Jennifer says:

    You, little child, are an ignorant and arrogant fool. How dare you question my salvation because I disagree with your fundamental views of the Bible? I hope you don’t return to your own prideful folly like the dogs mentioned in Scripture when you hope to convert a true non-believer. You, little Pharisee, has “wisdom” which means nothing to me. You are not my sister, I am not yours, and as of now I am ignoring your prideful spirit and barbs of fear.

  207. Jennifer says:

    So basically Kelly, he’s defining the zygote as a human being; is it not a single cell with a single nucleus? Is he not basically saying what you and others have been saying the whole time?

  208. Word Warrior says:

    Jennifer,

    No and yes, again. *He* is not defining a zygote as a human being. But he has (apparently on the site??) provided scores of statements from the scientific community concluding that a zygote is, indeed, a human.

    My point is that you can’t bank on “the medical community says it’s not human” because many, many scientists have concluded it is.

  209. Jennifer says:

    I don’t see anything on the site saying anything other than “a zygote is the cell beginning of a human being, and I and other scientists believe it is therefore the equal of and/or nothing less than the beginning of a human being.” They seem to be saying in other words that it’s both a cell and a human.

  210. Dan says:

    Please read the following 13-page paper by Robert George:

    http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/abs/10.1162/daed.2008.137.1.23

    If you don’t have access to a Daedalus subscription and don’t want to pay for access to the paper, there is a free version available here:

    http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3671/is_200801/ai_n24392942/

    A more detailed analysis can be found in the book “Embryo: A Defense of Human Life” by Robert George and Christofer Tollefsen, soon to be discussed on this blog:
    http://gerardnadal.com/2010/02/27/by-popular-demand/

  211. Kelly L says:

    Can I re-post my comment? All of us should stop engaging, taking the bait. Pearls to swine. Can we not see the hand of the enemy gaining a foothold in our lives because we assume we can change the mind of Jennifer who is arguing to argue, not to gain understanding? If this were a conversation in a room with all of us there, would be continue? I think cyberworld has blinded us all.
    Only Holy Spirit can change her mind, or ours. Stop trying to be Him. Just pray! And stop this snotty verbiage back and forth. We are not being good witnesses to those who know not Christ, but are watching intently!

  212. Jennifer says:

    What I think, Kelly, is that this issue is far more complex than either side here makes it, in everything: science, egg, formation, heart and feelings of the one carrying these things. I have listened for so long to the loud cluster of voices here, telling me what Jesus is and exactly how He thinks, and I have listened to my own angry and defiant voice for so long responding to these shouts and saying what He is NOT, in turn, that I’ve almost forgotten what HIS voice sounds like; that terrifies me. I can almost always sense Him here, whatever I’m arguing/struggling with, but now His voice has been almost lost among the shuffle and nothing scares me more. I’ve heard enough; the God of all of you here seems One who judges absolutely and springs into action to point a finger at me whenever your voice is raised in either concerned love or belligerent pride. In turn, my defense has become so automatic that I’ve almost caught myself trying to pull my God along by the Hand to stand by my side and represent what I say. I will not accept this finite picture of God, either yours or mine; I will not see Him as either a God who agrees with my side absolutely or who serves as the mascot for the “pro-life” people. I’m tired of these absolutes and tired of this issue; it’s starting to mean less and less to me, cuddly babies and all. Enough is enough.

    You may be sure, Kelly, that I haven’t been plugging my ears to you. You’ve challenged me to reconsider carefully how I see an embryo. You want me to err on the side of caution? Very well, I will; other than this, I don’t know what else you want from me. You women want me to consider the ejection of every single zygote as something absolutely equal to the murder of a fully developed human or late-term baby? I can’t do that. You want me to condemn every single rape survivor who uses a MA pill instantly as a murderess? I WON’T do that; ever. This is where our paths meet, where the bridge begins and ends. Take of that what you will. I’m tired of this topic, tired of Jesus being wrested into each individual’s vision of Him, and wish to leave this behind forever.

  213. Hello All,

    I’m up rather late and decided to pop in on the conversation, having been directed here by one of the participants.

    I am the scientist being quoted here and thought that perhaps I could clear a few issues up, answer some questions, and let you know of some more material.

    First, I’m a Ph.D. in molecular biology and medical microbiology with 16 years of teaching college under my belt. I’m unapologetically Roman Catholic and ardently pro-life. My blog, Coming Home, is dedicated to bringing forward the explosion of hard-core, mainstream scientific data that supports every single contention of the pro-life community. I’m glad to have found this blog and will be adding it to my blogroll when I’m done posting.

    Briefly, the field of Embryology tells us that egg and sperm are maternal and paternal tissue, respectively. At fertilization, they cease to be parental tissue and become a new life, a new organism, a new human being. See this post with all of the hyperlinks to supporting posts on the blog:

    http://gerardnadal.com/2010/03/08/embryology-and-truth-denial/

    We all are most familiar with the adult form of a human, but Embryology tells us that this is but one of many stages of development a human progresses through during his/her life-cycle. Just as I am the adult, I was the adolescent, the child, the toddler, the infant, the neonate, the fetus, the late embryo, the gastrula, the blastula, the morula, the single-celled zygote.

    Embryology tells me that I was the same organism, with my own unique genetic identity directing my own development in every one of those stages. I didn’t need to exhibit all of my potential capacities at every stage in order to be me. (reproducing at age five is a scary thought). Yet, despite how many functions I end up performing, or whether I ever develop all of my capacities, I am still me, and was, even at the single-celled stage.

    Thee is lots more to discuss on this, which is why I extend an invitation to you all. On my blog, every Tues and Thurs. I run a column called Pro-Life Academy. Beginning next Tuesday, I will be running a book club for 8 weeks, doing a chapter a week from the blockbuster book, Embryo: A Defense of Human Life, by Prof. Robert P. George of Princeton and Dr. Christopher Tollefsen of USC.

    The book treats the issue from a strictly secular perspective and does not appeal to religion to arrive at a vigorous defense of human life in the embryonic stage. The book is available at Amazon.com

    An added bonus is that co-author Dr. Tollefsen will be joining in the conversations to assist with understanding the philosophy and ethics. Dr. Tollefsen is a great guy, witty and very approachable. Grab a copy of the book and join us starting next Tuesday.

    If there are any questions, I would be happy to answer them here, or at my blog.

    God Bless.

  214. SavebyGrace says:

    I’ve been troubled this morning by my part in this discussion. I want to say that I’m sorry I offended.

    Jennifer, maybe one doesn’t have to believe the entire Bible as truth for salvation. But in order to live the Christian life you do have to obey Holy Scripture.

    At any rate, I’m sorry.

  215. Hi,

    I have a comment being held hostage. I’m willing to pay the ransom…

  216. Jane says:

    Thank you for answering my questions, Jennifer. This debate is why I rarely comment on this or any other blog with such a hot topic. Comments and the tones can be misunderstood, then discussion degenerates from there, feelings hurt, etc. But, I let myself get sucked in. (head smack) I lose my focus on my Savior.

    Anyway, even if we never agree on this subject, no hard feelings on my part, no judgement. If I have conveyed that to you, I apologize.

    Take care.

  217. Word Warrior says:

    Thank you, Dr. Nadal, for this information and the critically important work you are doing for the pro-life movement.

  218. Jane says:

    Thank you, Kelly L for your wise counsel. I’m going to heed it.

  219. jen in AL says:

    Thank you so much for your comment Dr. Nadal and for the invitation! Thank you to all the pro-life commenters for showing clearly that life begins at conception. WW-you are amazing!

    Jennifer-I am so sorry that you still don’t see this. I mean no condescension. Truly sorry. usually, I can read people’s comments that appear confused and I feel compassion but for some reason your comments truly break my heart. I can only think that it is the Holy Spirit prompting me to respond to you. I can’t begin to address every one of the mistaken conclusions i see but I did have this question. You say that “… I said God was addressing people who SURVIVED pregnancy. God knew which eggs would grow to be humans and have souls…” Have you considered that the babies you say don’t survive being pregnant filled their God-given purpose and life, however short? God is eternal. These babies lives seem too short, their parents didn’t even get to hold them but we are finite and can’t always understand these mysteries and can’t see time from an eternal standpoint. They had souls from conception. Sometimes, things don’t have to be spelled out exactly to know what God has to say on the matter. The Bible does not specifically say, “Thou shall not look at a pornographic magazine!” but we know from countless scriptures that we are not to do that. the same is true in this situation. God does not use the word zygote or other medical terminology however He does make it known who controls the womb, when he knew us, etc by countless passages many have referred to in this comment thread. No one is asking you to not feel compassion for those brutalized by rape. Just that you would see the taking of innocent human life is not the answer and that the life begins at conception. More could be said but i think i will leave it at that. Humbly praying for you and all of us, that we would see clearly what God’s word says and be bold to stand for it.

    blessings, jen in al

  220. Kate Scott says:

    Jennifer, I’ve had 3 miscarriages. The last one I’m not sure EVER had a heartbeat. I do NOT believe that the question of humanity comes in whether or not there’s a heartbeat. I DO believe that upon conception the “clump of cells” is human-he or she has a spirit….a spirit that if he or she dies goes to be with our Lord.

    If an everlasting spirit is not present at conception, then when does it appear? Did my 3rd baby (who formed and looked human, but probably never had a beating heart) never have a spirit (or soul as some people call it) because his or her heart never started to beat?

  221. Jennifer says:

    SavedbyGrace, that means a great deal to me. I’m very sorry too, sister, for my cruel words. This is possibly the most volatile issue there is and we have regrettably both spoken inaccurately of each other. As I hope you can see by my last post, I don’t hold you or anyone else alone to blame anymore. Thank you again.

  222. Jennifer says:

    Thank you for your Christian kindness, Jane. You’ve not conveyed judgement at all 🙂 I apologize for the times when my finite brain thought otherwise. God Bless

  223. Jennifer says:

    Oh and Jane-believe me, I lost sight of my Savior too, somewhere along the way. I intend to never let that happen again.

  224. Jennifer says:

    Jen in AL, I hope you read my last comment from last night, the one right before Dr. Nadal’s long one; I don’t see things nearly as cut and dryly as you seem to think.

    “I DO believe that upon conception the “clump of cells” is human-he or she has a spirit”

    You believe that, and that’s your prerogative. I hope for the sake of all the embryos out there that it isn’t true.

    Thank you Dr. Nadal for answering my last question. That’s what I thought you meant.

  225. Jennifer,

    What follows from the conclusion of Embryology, that a new human organism exists at ferilization, is the question of personhood. That new organism is a human organism, but is that human organism a human person?

    Science cannot pronounce on personhood, as personhood is a legal and moral status possessed by the human organism. The identity of the organism (WHAT is it?) is the formal object of our study.

    “HOW do you treat that organism?” is the question for philosophy, theology and law.

    As a Christian and as a citizen (I’m not only a scientist), I would say that personhood is intrinsic to being human. The organism is human from conception onward, therefore it ought to enjoy the rights of all human organisms, without prejudice regarding age or developmental stage.

    That’s what our reading of the book EMBRYO, will be addressing over the next 8 weeks. I hope you’ll be able to join us.

    God Bless

  226. SavebyGrace says:

    Oh no Jennifer, this is not the most volatile subject there is. I can prove it too but this isn’t the time nor the place.

    I said I was sorry I offended but, honey, you are still wrong – Biblically speaking. The Bible teaches that our life belongs to God – we were purchased at a price- even babies. What you propose is that a new pregancy doesn’t count as life and so doesn’t matter if murdered. There is no Biblical support for that and where science disagrees with Scripture that science is being misinterpreted.

    What you are basically telling every woman that miscarries is that it doesn’t matter, it wasn’t a real person anyway – it didn’t even have a soul. Don’t you think that’s a rather heartless thing to say to a grieving woman?

    Personally, I have twins in heaven. We had a nice heartbeat one day and then the next we didn’t. Those babies had souls and I’ll see them in heaven. I have faith in God that His purpose in our family experiencing that tragedy will one day be known.

    We live in a fallen world and bad things happen rape, miscarriage, murder but we shouldn’t embrace it and make excuses for the sinful way people respond.

  227. Jennifer says:

    Your words show that you still don’t understand my position, Grace. “Pro-life” people are more likely to be cruel to a woman who did what they don’t agree with (and you and others seem to think it’s ok to call all such women murderers) and I haven’t once mocked or taken lightly a would-be mother’s sadness. Your assumption that I’ve even spoken to a grieving woman, much less said THAT, is untrue and frankly unfair. Please stop assuming such things.

  228. Jennifer says:

    You’ve expressed your view of the embryo in its biological form perfectly, Dr. Nadal. Thank you

  229. SavebyGrace says:

    Jennifer, I didn’t say that you had said that. I asked if you thought it was cruel. So, I didn’t assume anything – stop jumping the gun and think.

    I don’t know any “pro-life” people personally. BUT I know a lot of Christians. These same Christians know that Biblically abortion is wrong. For a lot of different reasons which have been stated many times over the last few days.

    I’ll say this much more – I’d never condemn a unsaved woman for having an abortion. That same woman needs the gospel far more than she needs to be condemned. Christ paid for that sin when He paid the whole bill. As for Christian women – quite frankly I don’t know what I’d say. I’d hope, I’d listen to the Holy Spirit and let Him guide me. As I’ve said before – Sin is sin there are no gray areas. Sinning to “correct” a sin isn’t excusable at all. We all need to be conformed to Jesus Christ. The Biblical Jesus Christ not some version that we’ve made up to suit ourselves.

  230. SavebyGrace says:

    BTW, Jennifer. If it’s understanding you want – you’ve got it. I do understand you very well. I used to be the as you but through study of the Scriptures and guidance by the Holy Spirit I’ve learned better.

    I understand and I disagree. What’s the problem in that. Surely you are not friends only with people who agree with you???

  231. Jennifer says:

    No, of course I wouldn’t say such a cruel thing to a woman. I’ve gotten the “I understand you because I used to be you” words before; dozens of older women have given me this, their way of saying “you’re young, sweet and wrong, and you’ll change”. It’s cute, because those women (always on blogs, never in person) always thought they were being empathetic. Sure I have friends who disagree, and who don’t fear for my soul. I’m glad you wouldn’t condemn a woman in that situation. Thank God He’s in charge.

  232. SavebyGrace says:

    Jennifer, I wouldn’t write those “older” women off so quickly if I were you. Those of us with little age on us sometimes shudder to realize how foolish WE sounded 🙂 I know my mother still snickers from time to time. Titus 2 actually tells “older” women to teach “younger” women. Perhaps it would behoove you to listen a little more and explain yourself a little less. We all benefit from that from time to time.

    Surely you realize that we gain insight as we age, we also grow intellectually and spiritually (if we listen to the Holy Spirit). Honestly, I’ve told many people more difficult things than this face to face so I doubt I’d have a problem with you — unless you’re really tall and scary!

    I’d say everyone on this blog (and many like it) is thankful that He is in charge. I’ve met several Christians (like you ) who work to insert worldly ideas into Christianity and I tackle each one the same way. You know where the problem comes in? It is always a lack of belief in the validity of Scripture. “It was written by men”, “it doesn’t apply to us today”, “we’re too smart for that now”, “it’s just a fable” or some such.

    So, what I’d really like to know from you is what do you believe about Jesus? I don’t want to argue – I just want to know. I want to know because I truly do care whether or not you are heaven bound. I’m willing to drop abortion, we are each God’s servants and He can make us stand when the time comes, we will agree to disagree. But it’s important to believe in the Jesus of the Bible ( all of it ). Our gospel has to be right or we really have believed in vain. Are you willing to share that with me? or I guess “us” would be more accurate right now.

  233. Jennifer says:

    I’m well-aware of what Titus says, Grace, and those women should worry about how foolish they sound now. I listen and learn greatly from amazing older women. I know wise older women when I see them and have learned from them; the patronizing ones who try to use their age as a caste system are not among these.

    I really don’t need you to tackle me in any way, shape, or form Grace. I don’t need you to fix me or tell me whether I’m heaven bound or not; you are in absolutely no position to do so and to be honest with you, I’m still amazed at your gall. I think well of you now, far from what I did last night, but you still have a way of saying something in exactly the wrong way. I haven’t found help in this thread, just confusion and a myriad of voices muffling His. I’m sorry, but I’m done sharing. The last thing I’ll say is that I take the Bible as nothing less than His Divine and inspired Word.

  234. jen in AL says:

    The last thing I’ll say is that I take the Bible as nothing less than His Divine and inspired Word.
    Jennifer-I am so glad you said that! I will pray for God to reveal His word to us more and more everyday.

    I do have a question… you said “I hope for the sake of all the embryos out there that it isn’t true.” – Why do you hope that?

    Dr. Nadal-loved your last comment about personhood. thank you!

    blessings, jen in al

  235. Jennifer says:

    Thank you Jen 🙂 I said that because if she’s right, it’ll mean that embryos are the equivalent of humans and in the face of early abortion, that can’t be good.

  236. Margaret says:

    “I said that because if she’s right, it’ll mean that embryos are the equivalent of humans and in the face of early abortion, that can’t be good.”

    Possibly why some of us are soooo passionate about what you view as nothing but a lump of cells. 😉

    No, it is not good at all, to think of the numbers of tiny live snuffed out by deliberate early abortion. And a mother who’s lost a pregnancy early on knows that it’s no less a grievous thing than a later miscarriage.

    The embryo is a tiny, genetically unique, genetically human being (or organism, if you like scientific words). I do not know how anyone could still argue that in the face of basic biology. The only question is, is this small being to be valued as a full person, or must it meet certain standards I have come up with before it’s safe from having it’s life ended for my convenience or emotional ease?

    Dr. Nadal–thank you for adding your comments! I will have to turn my dad on to your blog. As a doctor, a dad, and a Catholic, I know he’ll appreciate it!

  237. Jennifer says:

    It’s not nearly so simple as you say, Margaret. Which is why I’m passionate about not fitting the matter into a box 😉

    “A mother who’s lost a pregnancy early on knows that it’s no less a grievous thing than a later miscarriage.”

    Actually, not all women see a resemblance between ejecting cells after a matter of weeks and losing a partly formed or full-formed baby.

  238. Cassandra says:

    I have serious medical problems due to malfunctioning female hormones. I take “The Pill” because my body doesn’t make/use my hormones properly. Because of this, I have had medical complications that not only make me ill on a daily basis, but that could have killed me, had I not had intervention.

    Yes, a hormonal imbalance caused me to have periods for 16 days at a time, with only 2 weeks in between – I became anemic, and complications resulted.

    Would people rather me be ill, and possibly die, than to use this medication to supplement what my body cannot create? Had “The Pill” never been created, I may not be here. At least now, my condition is manageable, but I am in daily pain and discomfort due to hormone imbalances.

  239. Jennifer says:

    I’m very sorry for your difficulties, Cassandra. Thanks for sharing them; they’re a very valid matter.

  240. anonymous says:

    WOW! There are so many comments on this topic and I skimmed them, so if I am repeating something someone else has already written, please forgive me.

    Sorry I posted anonymous, but right, wrong or whatever, I am not ready for the world (or my 3 children) to know my deep dark secrets,

    Cassandra, taking a medication to fix a real illness is not the same as taking a medication to prevent babies. (I do hope that if you are married you are careful about using the medication as birth control, as some of the pills cause abortions.) And it seems that as a society we have begun equating pregnancy with an abnormal state of our body, rather than a natural one. Almost like an illness or even a mistake that God made us fertile and we need to fix that.

    Carmelita, I am saddened by your comments, but maybe your husband and children are glad that you lived and were not aborted.

    Jennifer, many of your comments refered to a woman who had been raped and then had to deal with the pregnancy as a result. I have experienced rape and I know it is a horrible thing. I also have had 2 abortions (unrelated to the rape) and personally I would rather be raped over and over than live with the knowledge that I killed my babies. And it doesn’t matter if I wasn’t very far along. ONce I had a baby I realized that abortion is murder. It is. It really just is. I have heard a few women tell their stories about how it was a good thing. I have heard MANY women tell their stories of regret. MANY wish they had never done this horrible thing to their own children. MANY of us wish we had not bought into the LIE that tells us “it isn’t even a baby”. IT IS A BABY.

    I also would like to comment on the young earth, male headship stuff. For me, I believe the entire bible the way it was written. If you only believe part of it, how do you decide which parts are true and which parts are symbolic?

    Sorry I posted anonymous, but right, wrong or whatever, I am not ready for the world (or my 3 children) to know my deep dark secrets,

  241. anonymous says:

    word warrior, I reposted because it didn’t come up. Basically the same thing. Please delete the one stuck in limbo.

    thanks

  242. Jennifer says:

    “Personally I would rather be raped over and over than live with the knowledge that I killed my babies”

    I’m sorry you think such a horrific thing.

    “ONce I had a baby I realized that abortion is murder. It is. It really just is”

    Once again, these comments are based on emotion, as you based them on nothing but how your feelings changed after giving birth. Having a baby generates a lot of emotion. The feelings of you and women who regret it are not greater or worthier than those who don’t.

    “For me, I believe the entire bible the way it was written. If you only believe part of it, how do you decide which parts are true and which parts are symbolic?”

    Well, it’s painfully clear the “Lord is my Shepherd” psalm is symbolic. As for the male headship circus, it’s not called ignoring the Bible, but doing a little research.

    I’m truly very sorry for your tragedies. I hope you confide in a trusted therapist. You are not to blame for your rape, or the abortions; I say the latter because it’s likely you were indeed deceived about certain medical matters.

  243. anonymous says:

    Jennifer,
    which medical matters might I have been deceived about?

  244. anonymous says:

    Jennifer,

    “Once again, these comments are based on emotion, as you based them on nothing but how your feelings changed after giving birth. Having a baby generates a lot of emotion. The feelings of you and women who regret it are not greater or worthier than those who don’t.”

    I thought you were talking about emotion when you mentioned abortion after rape. I think it was your comment (there are so many comments, so I could be wrong) about a woman having to feel the kick of the baby and relive the rape 5 times over again? I am a little confused about why it is OK to play the emotion card when justifying legalized abortion, but not when explaining why it is wrong. Even if it is true that you would relive the rape, that is only for 9 months, instead I am going on 20 years of reliving the “procedures”. My feelings changed because it was at that point my INFORMATION changed.

    Also, I have been to therapy, thanks very much. I sought out a biblical counselor, not a secular counselor, who most certainly did not try to justify my sins, but focused on God’s forgiveness and redemption. I most definitely am not to blame for the rape, but I AM totally responsible for the abortions, just as every other woman who made that decision is. I am not sure if you have had any experience personally with abortion, but it seems a little odd that you are so dead set on justifying it. I just thought you might want to hear from someone who had been through both. It is horrifying to be violated through no fault of your own. It is even more horrifying to live with knowledge that you have done something so unforgivable to your children. Maybe the most disgusting thing of all is the fact that so many people told me it was OK to do, people who were Christians. As Christians, we need to be very careful that we are not telling other Christians a sin is not a sin.

    Mark 9:42 Whoever causes one of these little ones who believe to stumble, it would be better for him if, with a heavy millstone hung around his neck, he had been cast into the sea.

    I also would like to point out that A LOT of women have post-abortion problems. The Catholic church has a whole counseling program called PROJECT RACHEL, because it is something that many people rightly feel guilt over. It is not some procedure that is over and done with and then everything is fine afterward.

    Also, as Christians we need to be able to accept correction and heed the biblical counsel of other women. There is a “chain of command” so to speak. Husbands being the head of their wives, like Christ is the head of the church is one of those authority things some people have problems with. I don’t know what research you have that disputes the validity of the bible in that area, but once again, we are back to I believe the whole bible. Anyone is certainly free to practice the parts they think are important. However, we need to remember that our hearts will deceive us, but scripture will guide us.

    Proverbs 28:26 He who trusts in his own heart is a fool, But he who walks wisely will be delivered.
    AND
    Proverbs 10:17 He who heeds discipline shows the way to life, but whoever ignores correction leads others astray.

    “Well, it’s painfully clear the “Lord is my Shepherd” psalm is symbolic. As for the male headship circus, it’s not called ignoring the Bible, but doing a little research.”

    I’ll give you that the Lord is my shepherd is symbolic, but you are equating Psalms, which are songs of praise to the Lord, with Titus and Timothy (biblical headship) which are letters written on how the church should behave. They are not the same thing at all and it still is ignoring the bible to ignore the pastoral letters on the behavior of the members of the Body, especially if you are using songs in the bible to justify it.

    One very last comment about the young earth. In one of your previous comments you said that maybe an earth day wasn’t the same as a heaven day. When you read the creation, Genesis does say there was morning, there was evening and this was one day, a second day, etc. I would wonder why God went to all the trouble to tell us how long the day was. Just something to consider. Someone else commented that you were trying to mix science and the bible or God or something like that. I don’t believe you have to have one or the other. I do believe that some of the “scientific evidence” is not actual evidence and if you do independent research on it you will discover some deception in the scientific community. An independent study of evolution changed my life. And I wasn’t studying to disprove, but just as an activity with my then 12 year old home schooled son.

    Sorry this comment is all over the place.
    God bless all of you.
    Thank you Kelly for all you do. I have said many times, I wish I knew some wise Titus 2 women when I was younger and am thankful for your blog now.

  245. Word Warrior says:

    Anon,

    Very well-articulated and I appreciate it.

  246. Jennifer says:

    “I am a little confused about why it is OK to play the emotion card when justifying legalized abortion, but not when explaining why it is wrong”

    I never said it’s wrong to “play the emotion card”. I have VERY clearly said that it’s individual choice. What happened was wrong for YOU; I contradicted your words that it was wrong PERIOD. Besides, you didn’t even get an abortion based on rape; you simply claimed it’s wrong for everyone, no matter what, all because you’ve given birth and now feel this way. That won’t fly with me.

  247. anonymous says:

    No you didn’t say it was wrong, you just dismissed it. It seemed as if your example of emotion was ligitimate, but then you dismissed mine. Well, everything is not individual choice and somethings are cut and dry, even if everyone doesn’t see it. Some will justify murder of adults with circumstances.

    Two wrongs never make a right. I guess my main concern is that we need to quit focusing on what “flies with us” and start focusing on God’s will, which I believe is revealed through his Word. Sufficient and infalliable.

  248. Jennifer says:

    “I am not sure if you have had any experience personally with abortion, but it seems a little odd that you are so dead set on justifying it”

    Because unlike some, I don’t have to go through something to know that different people will handle it differently. If I got an abortion and regretted it, would I then be in a position to say it’s wrong and traumatic for every woman in every circumstance? No. I have no such authority.

    “Also, I have been to therapy, thanks very much”

    There’s no need to be defensive. That was a valid suggestion and concern.

    “They are not the same thing at all and it still is ignoring the bible to ignore the pastoral letters on the behavior of the members of the Body, especially if you are using songs in the bible to justify it”

    That’s a gigantic and incorrect presumption on your part. I wasn’t equating Psalms with Titus, merey giving an example of not taking everything literally; don’t misquote me. I don’t ignore any part of the Bible.

    “My feelings changed because it was at that point my INFORMATION changed”

    That’s nice to know.

    “There is a “chain of command” so to speak. Husbands being the head of their wives, like Christ is the head of the church is one of those authority things some people have problems with. I don’t know what research you have that disputes the validity of the bible in that area”

    Yes, I’m well-aware of the chain gang some people have fun with, the sin of spiritual hierarchy where fleshly men represent God on earth. I don’t challenge the validity of the Bible; I see those passages as having different meaning than you. This is a typical assumption, though.

    “I would wonder why God went to all the trouble to tell us how long the day was”

    Why is it threatening to some to believe this process may have taken place on a heavenly timescale? Also, I know well of scientific deception; I haven’t remained in the dark about these matters.

    “As Christians we need to be able to accept correction and heed the biblical counsel of other women”

    I hope you’re not assuming I don’t do this. There are many older women I listen to and learn from. As I said before, however, I’ve learned which ones to ignore. Everyone has certain matters they’re convicted on, and I’ve been accused of not having a “teachable spirit” or listening to “wiser women” when I refused to change my mind that men are born to rule and that all nudity in films is pornographic. I have no time for such foolishness and this won’t change based on the age of the people clacking their tongues.

    I appreciate your testimony and hope that you will continue to heal. This seems to remain a dark and large part of your life, which is why I suggested therapy. God Bless

  249. Jennifer says:

    I dismissed what seemed at the time to be your only reason for changing your mind; you didn’t mention scientific information at that point. I’ve heard women rapidly change sides when they give birth and don’t consider this valid; among other things, there’s a big difference between the baby they just had and an hour’s old fertilized egg. Secondly, the happy emotional mommy clearly doesn’t have as much place judging as the traumatized survivor.

  250. Margaret says:

    Actually, not all women see a resemblance between ejecting cells after a matter of weeks and losing a partly formed or full-formed baby.
    ***************

    I hope you never express that sentiment to a woman IRL who’s just lost her baby, even if you think she’s stupid for grieving a “clump of cells”. Or tell her “At least it wasn’t a real baby you lost”.

    You have no clue how hurtful that is to a woman who’s miscarried.

  251. Jennifer says:

    I already said I’d never say something like that to a women who miscarried, nor do I judge such women as stupid. You certainly seem to have an issue with selective reading.

  252. Margaret says:

    What is in your heart can make it through your mouth without intending it to. If you think it’s foolish to believe that an embryo is a human being worthy of grieving, then you do think the woman doing the grieving is foolish. Or misguided. Or uneducated.

    And that may come out despite your best intentions.

  253. ycw says:

    Probably not much I can add, but I will try.

    First the science:
    Dr. Nadal comes here, as a scientist, who specifically has studied embryology, and a Christian. He unequivocally states that the zygote is both a human and a single cell.

    Jennifer calls that his view. If someone can’t believe a Christian embryologist on when the beginning of life is, on what can he or she base his belief that is stronger than the word of a man educated both about the specific science and about the Bible?

    (Hi Dr. Nadal! Nice to see you here 🙂

    I see no Biblical basis for the belief that life begins with the heartbeat.

    Even if one does believe that, determining the age of an embryo is an inexact science. The heart is beating well before the embryo can be seen with a normal ultrasound. How can one verify that the embryo is indeed 1 week 6 days instead of 3 weeks? Last menstrual period is not completely reliable, especially as fertilization and implantation do not always occur at the same point–fertilization could be at different time after intercourse or points in the fallopian tube; implantation can occur over a five-day range.

    Jennifer, I find it hard to believe that you are as educated on this issue as you claim. You keep referring to an “after-morning pill.” Second, you use very unscientific terms like “sperm-kissed cells,” “fertilized egg,” and “clump of cells.” Presumably you meant the first metaphorically, but the others are misleading and dehumanizing.

    There is no such thing (in humans) as a fertilized egg. The egg and the sperm are separate entities, neither of which has potential to grow beyond itself. When they combine at fertilization, they are a new entity, the zygote. It is improper to call the zygote a fertilized egg–especially in order to dehumanize him or her. It becomes especially obvious that dehumanization is the goal when one refers to the developing entity as a fertilized egg past the first cell division; before that it could be merely scientific error, but by the time that entity has descended through the fallopian tube and ready to implant, it is certainly not a fertilized egg, let alone simply “egg.” Properly, it is called a blastocyst, embryo, or (possibly) pre-embryo (some say this term is also unscientific and dehumanizing). I will assume that, since you think neither an adult nor a baby with a heartbeat nor even the bodies of those who have fallen asleep are only clumps of cells, you mean a clump of undifferentiated cells. The truth is that by the time that the blastocyst is ready to implant, around a week, it has already begun to differentiate–it could never implant otherwise, because the cells that become the placenta are different from the cells that become other parts of the baby. The cells have certainly differentiated before the heart begins beating–the cells that will make up the heart are different from the cells that will turn into other organs.

    Furthermore, Jennifer, you repeatedly have asserted that you are talking about an entity which is hours old.

    You are, in fact, possibly dealing with a newly-created zygote when the morning-after pill is taken. But there is no way that I know of to kill this entity while he or she is in the natural environment (one could destroy a zygote if he or she were first removed from the womb, with microscopic instruments). The zygote is protected from any harmful substances the mother may have ingested, and at first just divides on without outside nourishment. When the developing entity begins to need outside nourishment, he or she attaches to the uterine wall (in normal pregnancy), to draw that nourishment from his or her mother. It is at this point when hormonal birth control may cause the entity’s death–at 5 to 10 days, not at a few hours old.

    Curious that when it is hardest to empathize with the developing human being, God has afforded it the most protection from anything that may harm it. Curious that there is a window of only a week or so when a woman may not know she is pregnant, and her actions may hurt the developing embryo. Curious that the point she can confirm her pregnancy is the same point when the beating heart, which you consider so much a part of whether the child is human or alive, comes into being around the time pregnancy can be confirmed, when she might be tempted to take action against that child–might his or her developing heart turn a mother’s heart. Curious how in your paradigm, a person who had not considered the possibility of pregnancy and is confronted with it and kills the child only once she knows is evil, because the child has a heart, but a mother who decides ahead of time to ingest a drug and make sure a child dies, a mere week before the heart begins to beat, is not. Perhaps God has created the system with the intent of protecting the child more before he or she is lovable. I don’t know this–certainly the Bible does not speak on the child at this age, except that he or she is already tainted by sin. But the God I serve and worship is certainly one who extends grace to the unlovable, mercy to those who cannot protect themselves, and cares about the least of these, even those who never came to birth.

    To speak of those embryos who do not implant, or do not develop a heartbeat, does not mean that God does not love or care for them. If you agree that older babies are valuable before their birth, then one could make the same argument of those who die at 8, or 12, or 20 weeks, or those who are stillborn. If a baby is stillborn, I believe that God is in control and had a plan for him or her–I would assume from your statements that you do as well. That many children (how many I do not know; but too many) die at 30 weeks gestation, or in their first month of life, or at 3 years old, or before puberty, does not lessen the humanity of either the people who die at those ages, or the people at those ages who survive. The child who dies at five years old is certainly not less human than the one who lives to become ninety, so why should it work differently if many children die before their second week of life in the womb? I don’t claim to know God’s plan for these children, but I believe that since no sparrow falls without his notice, since even the hairs on our head and the stars in the sky are numbered, the creator of the universe does not allow even such a tiny life to pass through his or her earthly existance unknown or unloved. I believe he sees them and knows them and loves them and weeps for them, whether or not their mothers know or weep, whether or not their deaths are natural.

    I also learned recently that the pill can cause miscarriage in pregnancies after pill use is discontinued, including later miscarriages (after the heart has formed).

    I find it odd that you do not want pro-lifers to try and prevent women from entering places which kill babies. How are they to know the rape victim trying to obtain a morning after pill (which is more likely to occur at a normal pharmacy than a facility specializing in abortion) from a woman who desires to abort a child 5 or 8 weeks after conception? Do you not believe it is right for them to plead for the lives of children who are 14 weeks old and being killed because they may have Down Syndrome, or children who are 4 weeks old and being killed so that their grandparents do not discover their mother has had sex? Or are you simply saying that those who want to prevent abortion should use discernment and only prevent those from entering who, in your view, would be in error killing the entity growing within them? How would you suggest that occur? Does this not deny the right of those outside the facility to obey their conscience? Almost always they are peaceful; women who don’t believe as they do can simply ignore their words and go in; they are not blocked.

    Your concern for those who have endured rape is commendable. But at the same time, while you say others should not argue from emotion, you do just that in the case of rape. It is not effective in this case, not because the women here believe rape is anything less than horrible and traumatic, but because we see value in the unborn child as well, and are as offended and moved on his or her behalf as you are on behalf of the victim of rape. If we are passionate, this is why, and this is what we believe our conscience and God’s word to tell us. Shall we ignore what we believe science, the Bible, and our own hearts tell us, because you say otherwise? Certainly if you do not think you should bend to all those speaking from another point of view, you cannot believe it would be right for us to abandon our position on your sayso without being convicted by the Spirit–when in fact, the conviction of the Spirit (we believe) is the cause of our current position.

    I have argued from science and logic. I do not feel an argument from scripture would be helpful–you do not believe all of the Bible is literal, and you believe those verses which do refer to unborn people only apply to those who later reach a certain stage of development, and others have presented Scriptural arguments. But I must, though you discount it, also argue from emotion.

    I am offended by your attitude towards very young children and those who have lost those children. I am one of them. I do not even know for certain how many children I have lost, because my losses have been so early. But I have decided that while it may be foolish to mourn a child who never existed, it would be heartbreaking to me to one day learn that I had lost a child and that child was never loved on this earth, and so I put aside the wisdom of the world to be a fool if I feel God wants that of me.

    I believe that I have lost 9 children.

    One of them I knew before I started losing her. I had a positive pregnancy test the day I expected my period–faint but positive. That day I bled a little and I thought I was losing her. I named her Ruby. I was devastated. But there was only a little bleeding, and research told me that it was probably not a miscarriage. For a whole week I knew about my baby and I loved her. She was 3 weeks old (or so) when she died. She likely had a beating heart. Losing her felt like having my insides flayed–physically and emotionally.

    Over a period of four years, I believe I had other very early miscarriages, mostly between 10 and 14 days. Who knows if any of these ever had a beating heart? I did not even know they existed until my period wasn’t normal, but my mother’s heart and woman’s intuition lead me to believe they were early miscarriages.

    I do take it personally when someone tells me that Joseph, Isaiah, Elisha, Enoch, Ruby, Maranatha, Michael, Joy, and Ebenezer were not real people, had no value, and deserved no rights. I think this is the first time someone has gone so far as to say that they were not loved or cared about or protected by God, if only because usually those who think it is okay to kill babies don’t believe in our God.

    But, even knowing from some comments here that there were women reading who have lost children without a beating heart, you refer coldly to our experiences as “ejecting cells after a matter of weeks” and talk about these children in dehumanizing terms. You say that God does not love those children, and that it is okay you think so because not everyone cares when they lose children at a very young age. (Not everyone cares if they lose a child at 8 weeks, or after birth, either, so that is hardly a logical argument.)

    I learned that I was pregnant with my daughter around 15 days after her conception. I was so worried I would lose her, because I had never carried a pregnancy past 3 weeks. I beseeched God over and over for her life before I saw a picture or even really felt her presence. And God gave me a beautiful daughter who is now just under 2. I thought everything must have been better, and now I would not ever lose an unborn baby again.

    9 months later God gave me another child. He lived 10 days. I named him Ebenezer.

    And somehow in less than a month I managed to figure out what had gone wrong and put things in place to protect the next child I conceived. Less than a month later, somewhere in my fallopian tube, one of my husband’s sperm penetrated one of my eggs, and a zygote was formed. He implanted in my womb and began to change my blood chemistry. 11 days into his life, before his heart could begin beating, a blood test told me he existed.

    Again I pleaded with God for a new life within me, and solicited the prayers of others. No one told me they wanted to wait a few more days before they would pray, because he wasn’t a baby yet. And at 11 days I loved him deeply and fiercely. Now he is almost one year older–3 months after his birth. He is lying across my arms with his hand and head resting against my breast, sleeping lightly (until I put him down–then he’d wake up). He is the same being as he was as a zygote, when his father’s sperm cell and my egg cell met to become him. He is the same person he was when he burrowed into my womb to take nourishment I was not hesitant to give. This boy is the one I fell in love with at just 11 days old. He is no more human now than he was when I started feeling cramps a month after I learned he was there, cramps that worried me I would lose him and then worried me they would not end for 11 months. He was my son when he would turn sideways and put me in so much pain I couldn’t think at 7 months. He was the same person as now through 3 weeks of on-and-off early labor, and when my water broke at 38 1/2 weeks. He was still the same person when, an hour fifteen minutes later, he was “ejected from” my body on the same day his daddy had been born 27 years earlier.

    God knew him at conception, and has loved him and nourished him since. I knew him at 11 days, and I have loved him and nourished him since.

    And God and I knew and loved Ebenezer as well. And Ruby. And Joseph, Isaiah, Elisha, Enoch, Maranatha, Michael, and Joy.

    God love you.

  254. ycw says:

    On the issue of using the pill for medical issues:

    First, this is a separate issue than using the pill for birth control. If a woman is not married and does not plan to marry soon, how is it an issue?

    Second, there are other ways to get or take the hormones that would not interfere with developing children. Obviously–as women with normal hormone levels usually are able to conceive and bear children. If, for example, there is a progesterone deficiency–which can actually cause miscarriage as well–progesterone can be used in one of several ways and is not dangerous to a developing child. It can prevent ovulation, but if used only after ovulation, it actually helps sustain a pregnancy. However, I learned several months ago that the sudden withdrawal of progesterone will almost always cause a miscarriage (hence, the placebo pills in a BCP package probably will lead to a period even if conception has occurred–meaning they may cause a child to be expelled even if he or she implanted). But if the progesterone is used until a pregnancy can be detected–usually when the period would start or before–a test could determine whether or not there was a pregnancy, and progesterone could be continued (or possibly increased) if the woman was pregnant, and safely discontinued if she was not.

    In actuality, I think that the omnipresent use of the pill has left women with some problems in the lurch, because rather than diagnose and treat the true problems, doctors just can prescribe a pill which gives everyone the same cycle all the time and masks the symptoms of a number of reproductive disorders.

  255. ycw says:

    Kelly, I think I have a huge comment caught in moderation.

  256. anonymous says:

    Jennifer,

    I started to reply to all your counter points, BUT I’m not going to, simply because I don’t believe you are teachable in this case. If you have been accused of not being teachable, maybe you aren’t, in which case there would be no point in continuing. Over 200 comments on this topic, mainly between you and some other commenter and you still maintain you position, even though a few women have made very valid points that you just ignore.

    I don’t think I misquoted you at all. The example you came up with for why all the bible is not true was Psalm. If you have a better one, I would love to hear it. However, I don’t think we are ever going to agree on the correct way to decide right and wrong, because to you it is all relative. To me it is cut and dry. Making decisions based on how well you will handle something is selfish and self-centered. As Christians I think we are to love ourselves last.

    Once again, I would love to hear some of the research that helped you come to the conclusion you did about husbands headship and also which verses support this and how you are able to incorporate the Timothy and TItus verses into your viewpoint.

  257. SavebyGrace says:

    Anonymous and YCW wonderful comments. Thank you for taking the time to write them. It is certainly by God’s grace that so many ladies can take the time to fully address this issue.

    YCW I feel for you – all those losses. But think of the wonderful reunion in store for your family. I share with you one other thing – a problematic pregancy and a daughter named Ruby. Water broke @ 17 1/2 weeks, bed rest except to go to the doctor for 3 mos., born and crashed, rushed to a level 4 NICU. The doctors told my spouse she’ll die on the machine or in your arms what do you want to do? He said I’ll pray and tell you in the morning – God’s miracle!! She’s 8, she’s beautiful, she’s smart – my precious little girl. So much more than I asked God for, all I wanted was a playmate for my son – just able to play that’s all, LORD. YOU will get us through the rest. God is so generous, loving, kind, all- knowing, wonderful, empathetic, patient – I could go on – as I’m sure you could too 🙂 What a glorious day I met my Saviour and now I get to serve HIM for eternity.

    Definitely NOT a “clump of cells” and definitely KNOWN by God Almightly and HELD in HIS capable hands to this day.

  258. Jennifer says:

    I don’t think women are foolish for grieving lost pregnancies, which could mean a lot of difficulties for them. Don’t bother trying to read into my heart mode, Margaret.

  259. anonymous says:

    ycw,

    Your comment may be the sweetest thing I have ever read. I have tears thinking about all my children and I am so sorry that all babies don’t have a mother to love them they way you have loved yours.

  260. Jennifer says:

    “I see no Biblical basis for the belief that life begins with the heartbeat”

    I see no Biblical basis that it begins when sperm meets cell.

    “Presumably you meant the first metaphorically, but the others are misleading”

    Not in the least, and they haven’t been any less scientific than most of the comments here by people other than Dr. Nadal. It’s a huge thing trying to claim that a human being is a single-cell.

    “you repeatedly have asserted that you are talking about an entity which is hours old”

    If a rape survivor arrives at a hospital hours after the assault, or sooner, that’s exactly what we’re dealing with.

    “The heart is beating well before the embryo can be seen with a normal ultrasound. How can one verify that the embryo is indeed 1 week 6 days instead of 3 weeks?”

    The doctor should be able to determine this.

    “so why should it work differently if many children die before their second week of life in the womb?”

    Because those beings are not yet humans, like 5-year-olds are, that’s why. You speak in cool scientific terms, yet non-logically called zygotes “him or her” when they couldn’t possibly have genders yet. You’re right, you don’t “know” whether God in fact has a plan for them.

    “I find it odd that you do not want pro-lifers to try and prevent women from entering places which kill babies”

    Um, because it’s illegal? Because it’s wrong? Because it’s traumatic?

    “How are they to know the rape victim trying to obtain a morning after pill (which is more likely to occur at a normal pharmacy than a facility specializing in abortion) from a woman who desires to abort a child 5 or 8 weeks after conception?”

    That’s EXACTLY MY POINT. They DON’T know, so they have no business whatsoever butting in to these strangers’ lives!!

    “Does this not deny the right of those outside the facility to obey their conscience?”

    Now you think conscience dictates? Those peoples’ rights end at another persons’ body. They have no business intruding.

    “Almost always they are peaceful; women who don’t believe as they do can simply ignore their words and go in; they are not blocked.”

    Almost always peaceful? Sure. I guess you’re unfamiliar with Randy Alcorn’s suggestion to block clinics. “Peacefully”, of course.

    “while you say others should not argue from emotion, you do just that in the case of rape”

    I already explained what I said earlier. Scroll up a little.

    “We see value in the unborn child as well, and are as offended and moved on his or her behalf as you are on behalf of the victim of rape”

    A zygote does not feel trauma, fear, pain, or injustice. This is why I don’t equate them with a traumatized woman.

    “Shall we ignore what we believe science, the Bible, and our own hearts tell us, because you say otherwise? Certainly if you do not think you should bend to all those speaking from another point of view, you cannot believe it would be right for us to abandon our position on your sayso”

    I never said any such thing, dear one. I said you shouldn’t expect ME to drop mine on your sayso, and shouldn’t convict others. I haven’t once asked anyone esle to drop their convictions, while this has been done repeatedly to me.

    “I think this is the first time someone has gone so far as to say that they were not loved or cared about or protected by God, if only because usually those who think it is okay to kill babies don’t believe in our God”

    Boy oh boy, do you women go far off with this.

    “You say that God does not love those children, and that it is okay you think so because not everyone cares when they lose children at a very young age”

    You women indeed have an ice brush you love to paint me with. IF those zygotes are in fact children, of course God loves them. I pointed out that not all women feel the same; this was neither mocking you nor justifying “killing babies”.

    “He is the same being as he was as a zygote”

    Um, no he isn’t. What a thing to say.

    I feel greatly for you, though it’s hard to focus on this when you mispresent my words in the midst of sharing your pain, which you claim I care nothing for. God has blessed you and your children, and may He continue to do so. Thank you.

  261. Charity says:

    ycw, thank you so much for pouring your heart out for all of us to see. I agree with you an all accounts. Blessings to you and yours…

  262. Jennifer says:

    “If you have been accused of not being teachable, maybe you aren’t”

    No I’m not, in either cases of outright silliness or things I have as much reason as you do to be convicted on.

    “Over 200 comments on this topic, mainly between you and some other commenter and you still maintain you position, even though a few women have made very valid points that you just ignore”

    I haven’t ignored a single thing, dear one. Yes I do maintain my position, because I’ve been offered no proof that a single cell is a human’s equal. Even Dr. Nadal said the question of personhood is one of philosophy.

    “To you it is all relative”

    Wrong. I see some things as VERY cut and dry, like partial birth and rape.

    “Making decisions based on how well you will handle something is selfish and self-centered”

    You’re right, how DARE a traumatized woman be concerned about whether a pregnancy will harm her fragile psyche and heart even further??

    “Once again, I would love to hear some of the research that helped you come to the conclusion you did about husbands headship and also which verses support this”

    I’d be happy to give you the names of certain authors I trust. However, if you think I’m going to even for a second devote part of this discussion to ANOTHER controversial topic that will win more fire on my head, think again.

  263. Jennifer says:

    “Definitely NOT a “clump of cells””

    At some point, that’s exactly what they are. Not at conception, as I first thought; nope, just one cell there. But later on, when more cells come into place, it’s in just that state. This is what my grandmother’s body rejected.

  264. SavebyGrace says:

    Jenny ‘ol girl since you chose to respond to me –

    Why are you so obsessed with being agreed with? No one on this link has agreed with you as far as I can tell. You’ve belittled and offered snotty, presumably empathetic sentiments time after time.

    You have used the same arguments over and over again. Do you really believe repeating the same thing over and over will change anyones mind? You have been presented with points of view ranging from science to opinion to experience to Scripture and you disagree with everyone of them. Why are you continuing? What is your point? or even what is it you want us to say?

  265. ycw says:

    Jennifer, it is clear that you are not really hearing all that I am saying.

    “I see no Biblical basis that it begins when sperm meets cell.”

    My basis for this is not the Bible, but science, which Dr. Nadal and I have both explained. Science tells me conception is the beginning of life; the Bible tells me it’s not okay to kill it. I draw the moral teachings from the Bible, and the factual information that helps me make a moral choice from science.

    “Not in the least, and they haven’t been any less scientific than most of the comments here by people other than Dr. Nadal. It’s a huge thing trying to claim that a human being is a single-cell.”

    It’s a huge thing to claim a baby is not alive until a certain point–and you have done very little to prove your point, other than talking about the fact that it doesn’t look like a baby and does not make sense to you that it can be a baby without a heart. I would not expect terms like “clump of cells” (let alone the scientifically ludicrous “egg” and “fertilized egg”) from someone basing her conclusions on science.

    “If a rape survivor arrives at a hospital hours after the assault, or sooner, that’s exactly what we’re dealing with.”

    Clearly you missed what I stated:
    “You are, in fact, possibly dealing with a newly-created zygote when the morning-after pill is taken. But… when hormonal birth control may cause the entity’s death [is] at 5 to 10 days, not at a few hours old.”

    “The heart is beating well before the embryo can be seen with a normal ultrasound. How can one verify that the embryo is indeed 1 week 6 days instead of 3 weeks?”

    “The doctor should be able to determine this.”

    Please explain.

    “‘so why should it work differently if many children die before their second week of life in the womb?’

    “Because those beings are not yet humans, like 5-year-olds are, that’s why.”

    I agree that it is the humanity of the entity that matters, not the death rate–but you were the one who brought up the death rate as an argument against their humanity.

    “You speak in cool scientific terms, yet non-logically called zygotes “him or her” when they couldn’t possibly have genders yet.”

    Again you show your lack of scientific knowledge. Gender is determined not by the existence of genitalia, but by the chromosomes. At conception, a normal zygote has either two x chromosomes (female) or one x and one y (male). This is scientific fact–basic biology.

    “You’re right, you don’t ‘know’ whether God in fact has a plan for them.”

    This is a distortion of what I said. I do know God has a plan for them. I said that I did not know what it was.

    “That’s EXACTLY MY POINT. They DON’T know, so they have no business whatsoever butting in to these strangers’ lives!! ….Now you think conscience dictates? Those peoples’ rights end at another persons’ body. They have no business intruding.”

    I cannot take your position that it is wrong to kill babies before birth seriously when you deny the legitimacy of those who try peacefully to prevent those deaths. This is not the response of someone who truly has any concern for children killed by abortion. I was willing to give you the benefit of the doubt–but here you assert that those who oppose child-killing have no rights even to peacefully protest and inform, because such activities might prevent the deaths of some entities you do not feel are children. I cannot understand how, if you truly think it wrong to kill babies–even only after a certain age–you have a problem with those who try to save those babies, simply on the (false) grounds that it is illegal (this falls under freedom of speech and assembly). Besides, do Christians not have a duty to do what is right, even if it is not legal? Morality is not relative. It cannot be wrong for me to kill my 8-week-old fetus, but right for another woman to kill hers, if those children are both human. And if it is wrong, why is it wrong to try and stop it?

    “A zygote does not feel trauma, fear, pain, or injustice. This is why I don’t equate them with a traumatized woman.”

    The same could be said of some severely disabled individuals–or a person under anesthesia. The rights of a human being are universal, based on the fact that he or she is a member of the human species and an image of God. The Bible says not to curse the deaf–why? Because even if they do not hear it, it offends their human dignity (and ours).

    “I haven’t once asked anyone esle [sic] to drop their convictions, while this has been done repeatedly to me.”

    Actually, you did when you suggested that they should not protest abortion.

    “You women indeed have an ice brush you love to paint me with. IF those zygotes are in fact children, of course God loves them. I pointed out that not all women feel the same; this was neither mocking you nor justifying ‘killing babies.'”

    Again, you are arguing from feelings, not science, scripture, or logic. What is felt about the children does not determine the humanity–love, hate, or indifference. You claimed otherwise first. And by asserting that my children were not people, but God would love them if they were, you are quite clearly stating that they are not people and God does not love them. If you can be offended on the account of rape victims, certainly I have a right to offense when you so insult my children.

    “‘He is the same being as he was as a zygote’

    “Um, no he isn’t. What a thing to say.”

    This is not a refutation.
    I did not say that my love for my son has not grown–it has–or that I would not miss my born children even more if I lost them–I hope not to find out. I was simply stating scientific fact.

    Your words do not convey caring and compassion to me. I don’t need you to feel for me, and I reject sympathy from someone who would call my precious children fertilized eggs. I am indeed richly blessed, and I do not see how I have misrepresented you–you have claimed that prior to the development of a beating heart, children are not people and it is okay to kill them. You have not exhibited any remorse about doing so, and have in fact said that anyone who believes otherwise traumatizes women and will have to answer for their beliefs. Meanwhile, you have refused to allow that others may speak up on behalf even of those babies you say it is not okay to kill, as it might traumatize or hinder women killing entities you believe are not babies.

    I refuse to stay silent when you demean children and advocate a right to kill them, even if you claim that you would not be okay with killing all unborn children. I can’t take that seriously when you keep referring to abortion in general and talk about the decision to kill at any point as a private one. One person’s right to privacy is not more important than another’s right to life. But you seem to believe it is until… when again?

    I am perhaps being a bit less charitable now, but I believe you have been misleading about what you believe, if you think anyone should butt out of a woman’s decision to kill her child just because it might be a child you are okay with killing.

  266. ycw says:

    “At some point, that’s exactly what they are. Not at conception, as I first thought; nope, just one cell there. But later on, when more cells come into place, it’s in just that state. This is what my grandmother’s body rejected.”

    I find it difficult to believe that you have researched this issue, but only now discovered that a human being at conception is a single cell.

    Why do you keep pointing out what your grandmother saw? Frankly, I find it unlikely that she was able to see anything before two weeks, and even at three it is unlikely one could determine what part of what came from one’s body is the embryo. And you said that at two weeks the embryo is human. At any rate, neither what she saw nor what she felt determined the worth of that child, and we have demonstrated that some people do feel deeply for their children even before their hearts started beating–even if their hearts never started beating. If it is late enough for the embryo to have implanted (and before that it is virtually impossible that anyone would see the embryo), cells have begun differentiating, and not all of the embryo’s cells are the same type, so it is no more just a clump of cells than anyone else is.

    If this child who died–your aunt or uncle–had a beating heart before dying, would that change your view on whether it was a child? Or your view on when life begins?

  267. ycw says:

    “At some point, that’s exactly what they are. Not at conception, as I first thought; nope, just one cell there. But later on, when more cells come into place, it’s in just that state. This is what my grandmother’s body rejected.”

    I find it difficult to believe that you have researched this issue, but only now discovered that a human being at conception is a single cell.

    Why do you keep pointing out what your grandmother saw? Frankly, I find it unlikely that she was able to see anything before two weeks, and even at three it is unlikely one could determine what part of what came from one’s body is the embryo. And you said that at two weeks the embryo is human. At any rate, neither what she saw nor what she felt determined the worth of that child, and we have demonstrated that some people do feel deeply for their children even before their hearts started beating–even if their hearts never started beating. If it is late enough for the embryo to have implanted (and before that it is virtually impossible that anyone would see the embryo), cells have begun differentiating, and not all of the embryo’s cells are the same type, so it is no more just a clump of cells than anyone else is.

    If this child who died–your aunt or uncle–had a beating heart before dying, would that change your view on whether it was a child? Or your view on when life begins?

    (Kelly, there’s another in moderation as well)

  268. ycw says:

    Sorry about the double post.

    One more thing to think about, Jennifer (and/or anyone else who might be questioning when life begins):

    When the Holy Spirit overshadowed Mary, and she conceived, did Jesus start out implanted at 2 weeks old with a beating heart? Or did His life on Earth begin as a zygote?

  269. Jennifer says:

    I’m not interested in discussing this further, ycw. I have a comment in moderation to dear ‘ol Grace and when that one comes out, it will hopefully be my last. It really doesn’t matter what I knew before now. What I DO know now is that the fertilized entity is less than I even thought it was. And once again, God had a plan for Jesus; you don’t know if He has a plan, or a soul, for zygotes that become nothing further. Once again, what-ifs and might-have-beens don’t make babies.

  270. Jennifer says:

    Of course Jesus began as a zygote (well, perhaps; who knows? He had no sperm to His being). Your implication is not really valid to the argument.

  271. Word Warrior says:

    Jennifer,

    To me, this that you said is the most compelling reason for NOT gambling with your theory:

    “you don’t know if He has a plan, or a soul, for zygotes that become nothing further.”

    It is precisely because we do not know God’s purposes that it is so dangerous to assume we can meddle with life.

  272. Jennifer says:

    “Your implication is not really valid to the argument”

    To clarify: this is because, as I’ve said before, God knew what He would become. This doesn’t mean that Christ was human as a zygote; it means God always planned for Him to be more. Nevertheless, I wouldn’t be surprised if, in THIS case, Christ had a soul as a zygote. I really don’t know, because this was the most exceptional birth and pregnancy ever made. So, as a matter of fact, I think I’ll retract my last comment before this one; we have no idea what Christ was like in the womb.

  273. Jennifer says:

    But I DON’T gamble with life, Kelly. I think you’ve all assumed that I’d tell a woman in this situation what to do; quite the opposite. It’s between her and God, not me or anyone else.

  274. Word Warrior says:

    Jennifer,

    Perhaps I should have phrased it differently; I’m not addressing “what you would tell a woman”; but let’s be logical…what I or you believe becomes our philosophy about life; our philosophy about life comes out our fingertips and if we’re obeying Scripture, it becomes the premise for what we teach the younger women in our hearing.

    So what you believe (as you are one member of a larger body) matters dearly to the body of Christ. This is certainly why the women debating here care about the issue so much.

    As much as we’d like to hold the mantra: “believe what you want and stay out of everybody’s business” that is simply not the way the body of Christ was meant to function.

  275. Jennifer says:

    “Other than talking about the fact that it doesn’t look like a baby and does not make sense to you that it can be a baby without a heart”

    No heart, no organs, no NOTHING, ycw.

    “Jennifer, it is clear that you are not really hearing all that I am saying”

    You’ve shown no more interest in understanding me.

    “My basis for this is not the Bible, but science, which Dr. Nadal and I have both explained”

    You’ve explained that it’s a single cell, not a person. Blocking an abortion clinic is wrong, presumptious, and illegal. If you can’t understand the problems with this, I don’t know what to tell you. If you see a heavily pregnant woman heading toward an abortion clinic, THAT would be obvious, wouldn’t it? By all means, stop her then.

    “The same could be said of some severely disabled individuals–or a person under anesthesia. The rights of a human being are universal, based on the fact that he or she is a member of the human species and an image of God. The Bible says not to curse the deaf–why? Because even if they do not hear it, it offends their human dignity (and ours)”

    Nice try. I’m not comparing cells to human beings, whether incapacitated or not.

    “Actually, you did when you suggested that they should not protest abortion”

    There’s a difference between HAVING convictions and screaming them in other people’s faces. Do you understand this at all?

    “If you can be offended on the account of rape victims, certainly I have a right to offense when you so insult my children”

    I didn’t insult your children. I’m talking about cells, which are NOT your children. And it’s 100% logical for me to point out that not all women feel the same. I base their beings on their level of function and existence, not emotion. I said that God loves them if they’re children to acknowledge that I could be wrong, not to do what you accused me of doing.

    “You have not exhibited any remorse about doing so, and have in fact said that anyone who believes otherwise traumatizes women and will have to answer for their beliefs”

    Of course I did dear, after being threatened with hell myself.

    “Your words do not convey caring and compassion to me”

    That’s because after being criticized, put down, patronized, and spiritually threatened for about four days, I’m starting to lose patience.

    “I don’t need you to feel for me”

    Good for you.

    “I reject sympathy from someone who would call my precious children fertilized eggs”

    Your precious children are children now, not zygotes. Does that word make you feel better?

    “children are not people and it is okay to kill them”

    If they’re not people, it’s not murder.

    “I refuse to stay silent when you demean children and advocate a right to kill them, even if you claim that you would not be okay with killing all unborn children”

    And I will not stay silent when you and others damn people in different situations from yours who condemn killing unborn CHILDREN, not cells.

    “talk about the decision to kill at any point as a private one”

    I never said that ANY and every stage was okay. If you want to refrain from LYING about my words, pay more attention.

    “One person’s right to privacy is not more important than another’s right to life”

    A cell does not have rights like a woman. It is your OPINION that a zygote is human. Emotion-based, whatever, it’s your right. However, your right to believe a zygote is a human doesn’t make it one and it does NOT give you the right to use your convictions to intrude on another’s life.

    “If you think anyone should butt out of a woman’s decision to kill her child just because it might be a child you are okay with killing”

    You really can’t grasp that some people don’t see it as a child, even scientifically. I’ve tried to be as clear as I can.

  276. Jennifer says:

    I understand what you mean, Kelly. However there IS a limit, isn’t there? If a younger woman doesn’t want advice in her marriage, other women don’t force their way in, no matter how wise they think they are, do they?

  277. Jennifer says:

    As I said to Grace, Kelly (in the stuck comment I really hope comes out soon), I’ve reached a resolution on this matter that’s probably different from what you imagine. I might share it, as soon as the other comments come out.

  278. Jennifer says:

    “Neither what she saw nor what she felt determined the worth of that child”

    Actually, what she saw is EXACTLY what determined that it was NOT a child. If it had a heartbeat, of course I’d be upset that my grandmother lost a CHILD.

  279. Word Warrior says:

    I’m sorry, Jennifer, I couldn’t publish that comment.

  280. Jennifer says:

    That’s okay, Kelly. I apologize that it was too much. Just as well, really, I’ve had time to reconstruct my thoughts.

  281. Jennifer says:

    Scientifically, a zygote is no comparison to a human or even a tiny fetus with organs. However, I know this will become a human if left alone (maybe) and I’m aware that God often sees things differently, and of the gravity and meaning this has. So, there is no easy answer; it’s a mystery I don’t take lightly. All I know is that I will never, ever condemn a traumatized woman who terminates an early pregnancy; this is between her and God, and only HE can tell her what to do. On this subject I have no more to say, and this will just have to be enough for all of you.

    Grace, old girl, you need to listen very closely right now. I don’t care about changing anyone’s mind; I never did. I don’t give a flying darn whether the most stubborn of you ladies go to your graves thinking I’m doomed to hell. Most of the women here are awesome, but I’ve nevertheless had my faith and humanity put down, criticized, patronized, doubted, misquoted, and downright insulted. And you have the nerve to accuse ME of being snotty and belittling? I’ve been a one-woman defense team for the past week, almost non-stop, and you’re getting snooty about the fact that I’m finally starting to lose patience, once and for all, after having received the same arguments from YOU and others over and over and over?? You have no place talking whatsoever on either the matter of sounding snotty OR accusing me of being obsessed with changing people’s minds. Um, hello? People are still addressing ME, still bringing the topic up with ME, trying to change MY mind. And you carry one of the most know-it-all tones I’ve seen in a long time.

    I don’t WANT you to agree with me, any of you. What I want is for you to stop OBSESSING over changing MY MIND. I want you to leave me the devil alone. Do you understand that? Because the more you push me, the more defensive I’ll get and the more all your words, from science to sad story, will sound like blah blah blah to me. It’s been a WEEK of this, remember?

    Grace, Ycw and Anon, go home. Go to your families, thank God for them, and pray thanks that you’re right and I’m wrong for daring to say your kids were ever zygotes. Do what you want, just leave me out of it.

  282. pregnant lady says:

    I have followed the comments on this post with interest.

    The biggest question I have, and have had in the past on other controversial topics that have been posted on this blog, is why people who disagree continue to patronize this blog and engage in heated discussions with people that they clearly disagree with?

    Jennifer, please understand that I don’t mean this as an attack, but it seems clear from your comments that you do not hold the same beliefs as Kelly and most of the women who frequent the comment section of this blog. And while I admire someone who listens to points of view that are different from their own, I have a hard time understanding why you would continue to come here if you are indeed as offended as you state you are?

    Your last comment stated that you have been belittled, spiritually threatened, offended, insulted, etc., and yet you continue to post, repeatedly, on this blog. Why? If it’s self defense you’re after, I think you achieved that early on in your comments. If you’re not here to change anyone else’s mind, then why ARE you here? Not suggesting you leave, just truly wondering what your motivation is?

    I truly don’t mean this is an offensive way. I am just intensely curious. If I disagreed with 95% of the commentors on a given blog, and felt repeatedly put down, offended, and threatened by said commentors, then I would probably stop frequenting the blog.

    Also, I think you stated (I could be wrong, there are so many comments on this post that I could be confusing you with someone else) that you are not married, nor do you have any children. If that is true, you cannot summarily dismiss the wisdom (yes, there is wisdom that comes when one experiences these things from a scriptural understanding and practice) that has been gained by those who have. Does this mean that a younger, single woman can’t know ANYTHING about marriage or parenthood? Of course not. But it seems logical that knowing about something is quite different from experiencing something. And while it is not always the case, experience usually brings fresh knowledge and wisdom concerning a topic. You seem to have implied in a previous comment that some women have changed their minds just because they got emotionally happy after having their children, and therefore lost any ability to base their convictions on fact rather than emotion. While this could be true in some cases, it does not logically follow that it is true in ALL cases. While we should not be led by our emotions, emotions do not automatically obscure further knowledge or appreciation of factual information.

    Anyway, this comment is getting much longer than I intended. Although I hope my curiosity as to your persistence on this blog is satisfied, I will not be responding to any comments that may be directed my way. I have no desire to be part of the fray that has resulted here the past few days. I confess I have found it interesting, but I know my own tendencies towards defensiveness and how quickly I personally can succumb to dialogue that is not in the least bit edifying. That is not meant to sound all high and mighty; just being honest about my own personal temptations. I like being right and having the last word too much to engage in heated discussions on topics like this, which is why I have never posted before on such a controversial post. This time I guess my curiosity got the best of me.

    As to the original topic, Kelly, I am thankful that you post things like this; if not for people who were willing to speak out against the birth control norm, I might never have been challenged to rethink my own beliefs about the subject. My husband and I, in the grace of God, became convicted over our use of hormonal contraceptives 3 years ago. 🙂 We will welcome our third child in May (hopefully! our second one was overdue, so I’m hoping this one will show up “on time!”)

  283. Jennifer says:

    Well, if you’re not going to respond to any comments, I guess there’s no reason for me to answer you.

  284. Jennifer says:

    Alright, since you asked nicely I won’t snub you: Lady, I never discounted wisdom, or feelings for that matter, from other people; not deliberately anyway. I’ve said from the beginning that everyone’s entitled to their feelings BUT that these feelings shouldn’t dictate another’s actions. Women with babies are happy; good for them. Does this make them more knowledgeable about this matter scientifically? No, so I won’t respond as though it does.

    Why am I still here? A few reasons: some have been polite and I like to talk to them. I want my position to be clear. And, I’m an anxious person; it’s hard for me to let things go. Plus, when someone bites me, I show my teeth in turn; I’m not one to turn my back on that. I hope I can now, because the INPOLITE comments come so unexpectedly and they’re wearing me down. Thanks for asking

  285. Jennifer says:

    Trust me Lady, don’t feel the need to explain why you drifted here and never landed. May I have that strength sometimes. Still, not sure I regret it.

  286. jen in AL says:

    hey Jennifer, I am actually surprised that the comment thread has gotten this long! it gives me hope that there is passion out there for God’s truth and to stop the holocost of the unborn! WW, YCW, ‘Grace, Anon., Lady, Dr. Nadal, so many I am sure I am forgetting someone 🙂 have so thoroughly outlined why your position is both unbiblical and unscientific that I will not be commenting on those things but…i did notice something that points to again what I would call the spirit in which you have engaged in this topic from the beginning.

    you said-
    ” I’ve been a one-woman defense team for the past week, almost non-stop, and you’re getting snooty about the fact that I’M FINALLY STARTING TO LOSE PATIENCE once and for all, after having received the same arguments from YOU and others over and over and over?? (EMPHASIS Jen in al)

    I just want to gently 🙂 point out that your tone and delivery was precisely what I addressed back in my first couple of comments. i saw pain, bitterness, anger, confusion from the start. your tone is the same as it was from the start. The reason that I bring this up is truly not to make you feel like you are being pounded into the earth and i believe wholeheartedly that that is not any other commenters intention either but i bring this up to address a heart issue that I believe is probably killing the joy in your life. I know, i know, really big, bold statement to make after having such limited interaction with you. I don’t know you personally that i am aware of. believe me i have on my “internet big girl shoes, raincoat and hat” to prepare for what may come my way for making such a broad statement. However sometimes it is the view from a bit of a distance, the small but revealing interaction that can sometimes give a pretty good picture of what may be going on under the surface. I hope you can receive this in the spirit it is intended. blessings to all, jen in al

  287. Jennifer says:

    Think what you want, Jen. I have no reason to be bitter, but every reason to be defensive of people I know are affected by what is, to you all, such an easily black and white issue. I know the spirit that your comment is intended, smileys and all, and what you think you know, and it’d be a waste of time to argue. So, there’s your rain of bitter fire from me.

  288. jen in AL says:

    I know you believe that your tone is only defensiveness but I urge you to go read the first few of your comments which were made before your position was openly defensive. the same tone i referred to is present from the start. I know it makes it easier to justify or explain to say you are only defending others you say are being attacked but it doesn’t make it accurate. Please try to look at what I am saying with fresh eyes and a humble spirit. praying for you, for all of us, jen in al

  289. Jennifer says:

    My tone was painfully clearly defensiveness, of women taking the pill and of exasperation and even disgust for Botkin. I’m sorry you persist on thinking I’m a bitter unahppy woman, but whatever; pray your heart out.

  290. No Name says:

    Sometimes “defensiveness” is sheer conviction. The whole time they are trying to “defend” the battle rages within them….”I’m right, see I’m right, and look, once again I’m right, because I’m right…Right??” I pray no one looses heart by standing by the choice of LIFE through this comment thread. God can use your words to reach even the coldest, most stubborn, hardest of hearts.
    (Although I have commented here several times before, I feel I cannot reveal my name and will be making no responses to this.)

  291. Jennifer says:

    “I’m right, see I’m right, and look, once again I’m right, because I’m right…Right??”

    LOL Yeah, I’m the one with that attitude, the cold heart, and they’re the ones who could lose heart. What a cute victimization drama.

  292. jen in AL says:

    thank you No Name. I am sure those of us with a passion for life and what God says about it will never loose heart! thank you for the encouragement to press on.

    Jennifer-if your defensiveness is from sheer conviction please defend it biblically and scientifically. so far every one of your points have been clearly and repeatedly shown to be in error on both counts.

  293. The Mrs. says:

    Well, Well, Jennifer….at least i can say it to you and I don’t run and hide to another borad to rip you apart as you do Kelly with your “anti-fundie” friends!!I stand by what I say. And BTW Penny, I don’t have to tell him, nor do I have to ask, you sad, sad lady!

  294. EmSue says:

    I agree. This is getting a bit out of hand. I feel like I’m watching a soap opera.

  295. Tawny says:

    Wow! So much I want to say!
    This subject is a passion of mine! I’ve written on it on my blog many times!
    I however, will leave one simple comment by restating a vastly overlooked fact Kelly (WW) pointed out earlier!

    “Even Levi, who receives tithes, paid tithes through Abraham, so to speak, for he was still in the loins of his father when Melchizedek met him.” Hebrews 7:9,10

    LOINS! He (a man) met another being (a man) when he was still in his father’s loin! He wasn’t even a clump of cells or a zygote! He was a sperm yet realeased to his mother’s egg!

    If this human man knew or met this other human man when he was still in the loin, how much sooner does God know this man & his soul?!?! His life seems to exhist before conception! What a thought!

    Why did God feel it important to reaveal to the Author that this man was known by another man while he was still in his father’s loin?!? Most likly to make it blantinly obvious in times such as these, that God alone creates life! That there is no point where life begins that humans can measure ( like conception or a heart beat) God brings to very specific people together to create the DNA he had planned! He brings them together to create the baby he has planned! So gods definition of life may have a beging at the point he brings the people together! God does NOT remain quiet on the birthcontrol or abortion issues! He is loud and clear! Some just choose not to listen to or see His word!

  296. Jennifer says:

    Tawny, the problem with your claim is that we DON’T really exist in our father’s sperm, do we? This is at least partly metaphorical, and I’ve already spoken about God knowing who will be BORN before their time. It seems some just don’t listen.

  297. Word Warrior says:

    I have been away from my computer (I do have a life ;-)) and was very disheartened when I returned to check comments. I had already disabled the comments and deleted some of them before I saw a suggestion by someone to do so.

    I invite debate and differences of opinion until it turns into character-bashing and name-calling.

    I would ask those of you who can’t comment without using profanity to stop commenting. Those of you who have a hatred for fundamentalism and enjoy expressing that here–same message. There are plenty of “snarky blogs” for people who enjoy tearing down the beliefs of others for fun. This isn’t the place.

    All in love,
    Kelly

  298. […] America After 50 Years of the Pill […]

WordPress Themes