Reflections of a pro-life Democrat

[Brian Stoffregen]

Work at helping people want a child should there be a pregnancy: universal health care, so they don't worry about the medical expenses of giving birth. Sufficient pay so that they don't worry about the costs of raising a child; or paying for day-care should that be their decision. Sufficient maternity/paternity leaves so that they have time to bond with their child - knowing that they will have their job when they wish to return to the work force. These are the types of things that pro-life liberals are promoting. Helping parents want the child who is developing in the womb.

This part of your response troubled me.  Help people to "want a child should there be a pregnancy."  And the answer, in essence, is that to help people "want a child" that is already developing we first and foremost need to make sure that we remove financial challenges in the person's life.  If they are financially secure, then they would "want" the child and not abort it.  Would this really help people to "want" a child, at least in a healthy and responsible way?  I think this touches on the heart of what it means to be a parent.  If the undeveloped child in the womb is seen as a potential financial liability you have problems far beyond the economic. I was raised by a single parent until I was age 12, when my mother remarried.  At the time of conception my mother was unmarried and did not marry my birth father.  Actually, I never knew him. We struggled economically and my mother struggled in other ways.  But her commitment to me as a parent never wavered.  As far as I know she "wanted" me apart from any economic assurances.

That isn’t the case with all single women who become pregnant. Finances are a major concern; and not just for new parents, but for any married couples. As I recall finances are the major reason for marital discord and divorces.

[David Garner]

Work at helping people want a child should there be a pregnancy: universal health care, so they don't worry about the medical expenses of giving birth. Sufficient pay so that they don't worry about the costs of raising a child; or paying for day-care should that be their decision. Sufficient maternity/paternity leaves so that they have time to bond with their child - knowing that they will have their job when they wish to return to the work force. These are the types of things that pro-life liberals are promoting. Helping parents want the child who is developing in the womb.

This part of your response troubled me.  Help people to "want a child should there be a pregnancy."  And the answer, in essence, is that to help people "want a child" that is already developing we first and foremost need to make sure that we remove financial challenges in the person's life.  If they are financially secure, then they would "want" the child and not abort it.  Would this really help people to "want" a child, at least in a healthy and responsible way?  I think this touches on the heart of what it means to be a parent.  If the undeveloped child in the womb is seen as a potential financial liability you have problems far beyond the economic. I was raised by a single parent until I was age 12, when my mother remarried.  At the time of conception my mother was unmarried and did not marry my birth father.  Actually, I never knew him. We struggled economically and my mother struggled in other ways.  But her commitment to me as a parent never wavered.  As far as I know she "wanted" me apart from any economic assurances.

That isn’t the case with all single women who become pregnant. Finances are a major concern; and not just for new parents, but for any married couples. As I recall finances are the major reason for marital discord and divorces.

Perhaps money isn’t the real issue. After all, St. Paul never said “love of money is the root of all virtue.”

[D. Engebretson]

Work at helping people want a child should there be a pregnancy: universal health care, so they don't worry about the medical expenses of giving birth. Sufficient pay so that they don't worry about the costs of raising a child; or paying for day-care should that be their decision. Sufficient maternity/paternity leaves so that they have time to bond with their child - knowing that they will have their job when they wish to return to the work force. These are the types of things that pro-life liberals are promoting. Helping parents want the child who is developing in the womb.

This part of your response troubled me.  Help people to "want a child should there be a pregnancy."  And the answer, in essence, is that to help people "want a child" that is already developing we first and foremost need to make sure that we remove financial challenges in the person's life.  If they are financially secure, then they would "want" the child and not abort it.  Would this really help people to "want" a child, at least in a healthy and responsible way?  I think this touches on the heart of what it means to be a parent.  If the undeveloped child in the womb is seen as a potential financial liability you have problems far beyond the economic. I was raised by a single parent until I was age 12, when my mother remarried.  At the time of conception my mother was unmarried and did not marry my birth father.  Actually, I never knew him. We struggled economically and my mother struggled in other ways.  But her commitment to me as a parent never wavered.  As far as I know she "wanted" me apart from any economic assurances.

That isn’t the case with all single women who become pregnant. Finances are a major concern; and not just for new parents, but for any married couples. As I recall finances are the major reason for marital discord and divorces.

Money can buy a certain sense of security and comfort.  But, again, it will not make an effective and loving parent that truly "wants" a child, even an unexpected child.  We can provide all of the safety-net provisions for young mothers and still end up with broken homes, damaged relationships, and abused children.  A self-centered and narcissistic world is incapable of "wanting" anything for anyone other than for personal gratification.  The "real issue" as Mr. Garner intimates, is somewhere else....

[Dave Benke]

I have not commented at all on your party registration. I have been clear all along I’m talking about votes for Democrat politicians by pro-life Democrats. If you’re voting for pro-life candidates who will legislate/govern along pro-life lines, Republicans are your only genuine option these days. If you’re doing so as a registered Democrat, fine, more power to you. My point all along, one that I suspect is obvious to you, is that when you vote for a Democrat (regardless of how you register) in the general election, your vote advances the pro-choice side even if you are personally pro-life.

I might say I support Trump but do not support the coarsening of politics. That is true. But if keeping coarseness out of politics was my stated priority, you’d point out that my vote accomplishes the opposite of what I say my intent is. And you’d be right. Every vote is for a hodgepodge of interests, so you’re always supporting some things you don’t really want to support. I think comparing abortion as an issue to things like universal pre-k or expansion of Obamacare or whatever is simply a failure to accord things their proper order of importance. It is a false equivalency, again, like claiming to be an abolitionist in 1860 but voting against the Republicans for reasons of important legalities regarding the railroads. Actual abolitionists would not consider such a person one of their number.

This is not the argument you made.  You made the argument that it's registered Democrats voting that demonstrates their anti-life stance.  There are tons of democrats
a) who vote for people who represent pro-life positions in other parties or write-in candidates
b) who vote for democrats who represent pro-life positions
c) who vote for democrats in local and regional and state elections

You've now added that you're talking about "general elections."  Are you talking about the many and various levels of elections?  In many to most cases, there is no abortion issue immediately at stake.  Maybe that's here in NY, but I would think it applies to other states on both sides of the issue.  So the other important issues do matter, and if the Democrat is the better candidate, only serve to indicate that candidate does fight for universal health care or health benefits at the local, state or national level, for instance, which a supermajority of people find very important.  This isn't a matter of comparison.  It's a matter of looking at the issues at various levels and determining a vote based on what's possible in terms of legislation.  Your attempt to push all elections into the two categories - pro-life and everything else - misses the boat.

Dave Benke

Nonsense. Go back and read the thread. Nobody who wasn’t trying to weasel his way around the issue could conclude that I have argued anything other than that votes for Democrats advance the pro-choice position. If pro-life Democrats are voting Republican, fine. And if it is a primary between people of the American party, the point is moot. But if you really are that confused, let me clarify for you: when pro-life voters who are Democrats vote for Democrats over Republicans, the effect of their vote is to advance the pro-choice cause at the expense of the pro-life cause. Thus, people who consider abortion to be murder do not consider such “pro-life” voters to be allies to their cause. They are soldiers in the pro-choice army whether they think so or want to be or not.

I continue to disagree for many reasons.

However, the position you hold is absolute to you.  Given what you've written, is it then sinful
a) to vote for a Democrat over a Republican?
b) to be registered as a Democrat, since to be registered as one gives the impression of alliance with pro-choice positions?

Dave Benke

[Dan Fienen]

First, I stipulate that in situations where there is significant medical evidence that continuing the pregnancy poses a significant threat to the life of the mother, I could accept that in such situations abortion can be a morally responsible choice. I note that such situations are relatively rare and constitute only a small portion of the abortions performed in the US.

Simple respect for life demands that we trust people to make good choices about their lives. Why should the church care about abortions when we believe that our members would never seek to have an abortion? How would we know if believers would make the proper choices if they aren't given a choice?

I'm trying to decide if Brian is being disingenuous or simply naïve.

Simple respect for life demands that we trust people to make good choices about their lives.

What does respect for life have to do with trusting that people will make good choices? Perhaps respect for people would suggest that we simply trust people, but respect for life?

Why should the church care about abortions when we believe that our members would never seek to have an abortion?

Again, how naïve are we supposed to be? People sin, good people sin. It dare not go without saying that good Christian people will make good Christian choices. Sometimes even good Christian people will make sinful choices and need to have that called to their attention. In any case, I see part of our mission as churches is to instruct and guide people in making good choices. Even people who I respect as moral, responsible people may not always think their choices through to recognize all the implications of their choices. God's Law as set out in the Bible is, among other things, a guide to what living a good life should look like.

That is also a function of the civil laws under which we live? These laws give guidance as to what we as a society have decided is not conducive to living good lives in our society. Where there is no law, was as a society make no judgement as to whether the actions are good or not.

How would we know if believers would make the proper choices if they aren't given a choice?

Naïve or disingenuous? People always have and make choices. Back when abortions were illegal, did that illegality preclude people from making the choice to have an abortion? In any case, how do we, as a church prevent people from making choices by teaching that most abortions (see my stipulation above) is sinful? Nor do we in the church have coercive or police powers to keep people from exercising their choices?

Keep abortions legal. Work at helping people make better choices in regards to their sex lives. Work at preventing unwanted pregnancies by proper sex education, including the proper use of contraceptives. Work at helping people want a child should there be a pregnancy: universal health care, so they don't worry about the medical expenses of giving birth. Sufficient pay so that they don't worry about the costs of raising a child; or paying for day-care should that be their decision. Sufficient maternity/paternity leaves so that they have time to bond with their child - knowing that they will have their job when they wish to return to the work force. These are the types of things that pro-life liberals are promoting. Helping parents want the child who is developing in the womb.

All of that laundry list of social welfare suggestions are probably good things, a few I could quibble about or question how they are usually actually done. They may help alleviate some of the reasons for the abortions that are performed. In general improving the conditions in which families live are good, and necessary if we want to reduce abortions.


But i still disagree with the premise that Brian states at the beginning of this section. There is absolutely no reason why keeping abortion legal is necessary in order to accomplish the social welfare conditions that his suggestions would promote. We can and arguably should do all that whether or not abortion is legal.


There is a difference between alleviating conditions that could induce parents to reject and abort an unborn child and helping parents want the child to begin with. Economics is not, contrary to what Brian seems to be implying, the only factor. Parental leave and opportunities to bond with the child after he/she has been born have little to do with killing the child before it is born.

If we don't believe that people can make such proper choices without legislating their choices, then simple logic would say that we need to make gun purchases illegal because some people who buy guns make very bad choices that results in the loss of human life. If you believe that gun owners can make responsible choices regarding their guns and human life; you should be able to believe that women can also make responsible choices regarding their own bodies and the child growing within them.

As a matter of fact there is a considerable amount of legislation regulating gun purchase choices. But this is not a good comparison. People choose to purchase a gun for a wide variety of purposes, many of which do not involve ending a human life. The choice to obtain an abortion always results in the ending of human life. No choice to obtain an abortion results a live baby at the end.


What would you consider to be a morally responsible choice to obtain an abortion other than the stipulated situation where continuing the pregnancy involve a significant possibility of medical danger to the mother's life? By opposing legislation and apparently opposing the church making statements about abortion are you indicating an indifference to the ending of life by abortion?

Nearly everyone in my circle of close friends agree that we are pro-choice and anti-abortion. I believe that our ELCA's Social Statement on Abortion spells out that position quite well.

Apparently your circle of close friends serves as your echo chamber bubble protecting you from having to consider other ways of looking at this issue or other opinions. How cozy and safe for you. Apparently it also allows you to simply dismiss alternative opinions.

[peter_speckhard]

I have not commented at all on your party registration. I have been clear all along I’m talking about votes for Democrat politicians by pro-life Democrats. If you’re voting for pro-life candidates who will legislate/govern along pro-life lines, Republicans are your only genuine option these days. If you’re doing so as a registered Democrat, fine, more power to you. My point all along, one that I suspect is obvious to you, is that when you vote for a Democrat (regardless of how you register) in the general election, your vote advances the pro-choice side even if you are personally pro-life.

I might say I support Trump but do not support the coarsening of politics. That is true. But if keeping coarseness out of politics was my stated priority, you’d point out that my vote accomplishes the opposite of what I say my intent is. And you’d be right. Every vote is for a hodgepodge of interests, so you’re always supporting some things you don’t really want to support. I think comparing abortion as an issue to things like universal pre-k or expansion of Obamacare or whatever is simply a failure to accord things their proper order of importance. It is a false equivalency, again, like claiming to be an abolitionist in 1860 but voting against the Republicans for reasons of important legalities regarding the railroads. Actual abolitionists would not consider such a person one of their number.

This is not the argument you made.  You made the argument that it's registered Democrats voting that demonstrates their anti-life stance.  There are tons of democrats
a) who vote for people who represent pro-life positions in other parties or write-in candidates
b) who vote for democrats who represent pro-life positions
c) who vote for democrats in local and regional and state elections

You've now added that you're talking about "general elections."  Are you talking about the many and various levels of elections?  In many to most cases, there is no abortion issue immediately at stake.  Maybe that's here in NY, but I would think it applies to other states on both sides of the issue.  So the other important issues do matter, and if the Democrat is the better candidate, only serve to indicate that candidate does fight for universal health care or health benefits at the local, state or national level, for instance, which a supermajority of people find very important.  This isn't a matter of comparison.  It's a matter of looking at the issues at various levels and determining a vote based on what's possible in terms of legislation.  Your attempt to push all elections into the two categories - pro-life and everything else - misses the boat.

Dave Benke

Nonsense. Go back and read the thread. Nobody who wasn’t trying to weasel his way around the issue could conclude that I have argued anything other than that votes for Democrats advance the pro-choice position. If pro-life Democrats are voting Republican, fine. And if it is a primary between people of the American party, the point is moot. But if you really are that confused, let me clarify for you: when pro-life voters who are Democrats vote for Democrats over Republicans, the effect of their vote is to advance the pro-choice cause at the expense of the pro-life cause. Thus, people who consider abortion to be murder do not consider such “pro-life” voters to be allies to their cause. They are soldiers in the pro-choice army whether they think so or want to be or not.

I continue to disagree for many reasons.

However, the position you hold is absolute to you.  Given what you've written, is it then sinful
a) to vote for a Democrat over a Republican?
b) to be registered as a Democrat, since to be registered as one gives the impression of alliance with pro-choice positions?

Dave Benke

Not necessarily, and no.

In some elections, the position really has nothing to do with abortion, or the impact it may have is so slight while the impact on other issues of lesser importance than abortion might be great. So the fact that abortion is a worse societal ill than slavery might be outweighed by other considerations.

As for registration, that is a judgement call on how much it matters to give this or that impression vs. voting in primaries. Many places have open primaries, so registration by party doesn’t mean much.

Legal abortion is worse than state-enforced racism. If you would vote for an avowedly racist candidate (not one who is accused of it but isn’t but one who is open and deliberate about it and has an actual racist platform like Wallace in 68) because other issues in your mind outweigh the unfortunate, overt, and unapologetic racism of the guy you’re voting for, then I can see how you might vote for an avowedly pro-choice candidate.

I think many people would have a hard time accepting it if someone who identified with the Civil Rights Movement tried to justify voting for the Dixiecrats. Why not just stop claiming to be an ally of the Civil Rights Movement? 

Nobody is under any obligation to say they are pro-life. Many people in this board are proudly pro-choice. When it counts, officially, you side with them. They are made happy by the way you vote, and their cause is advanced. Meanwhile, every single pro-life organization in the nation says that our cause is hindered by the people you choose to put in power.

[Charles Austin]

Pastor Fienen, how many women considering abortion have you met, prayed with, counseled, communed, or otherwise shared the experience? What experiences have your wife or daughter(if you have one) had with friends, co-workers, or children of friends considering whether to terminate a pregnancy? Were these experiences, if any, in the 1960s or early 1970s when abortions were difficult to obtain?
   Were the women involved too young to be a parent, too old for another child, too sick or too tired to rear another child or too poor to support another child. Were they too uneducated (or denied certain kinds of education) to even understand how they got pregnant?
    Adoption? Yes, an alternative, but have you discussed with women the physical, mental and social cost of that alternative?
    I ask because to me much of the posting on this subject by you and others here suggest that you are experientially clueless about the real-life, human aspect of this issue.
    Now if you are locked into THE pro-life formula (sperm+egg=human-being-with-inalienable-right-to-life), then I guess you are allowed to be clueless about the travails of the pregnant woman and the people around her.

[Dan Fienen]

Pastor Fienen, how many women considering abortion have you met, prayed with, counseled, communed, or otherwise shared the experience? What experiences have your wife or daughter(if you have one) had with friends, co-workers, or children of friends considering whether to terminate a pregnancy? Were these experiences, if any, in the 1960s or early 1970s when abortions were difficult to obtain?
   Were the women involved too young to be a parent, too old for another child, too sick or too tired to rear another child or too poor to support another child. Were they too uneducated (or denied certain kinds of education) to even understand how they got pregnant?
    Adoption? Yes, an alternative, but have you discussed with women the physical, mental and social cost of that alternative?
    I ask because to me much of the posting on this subject by you and others here suggest that you are experientially clueless about the real-life, human aspect of this issue.
    Now if you are locked into THE pro-life formula (sperm+egg=human-being-with-inalienable-right-to-life), then I guess you are allowed to be clueless about the travails of the pregnant woman and the people around her.

So is the formula inconvenient pregnancy=aborted baby, flush the inconvenience an acceptable solution for the real life problems that women face?


Yes we can do better about assisting pregnant women facing social and economic difficulties attendant to their pregnancies. We as a society should do better. And no, by and large the pro-life movement is not, NOT characterized by focusing only on keeping babies from being aborted and caring nothing for the welfare of the mothers or the babies once they have been born. That is a baseless accusation perpetuated by those who have never really talked with pro-life people or looked at what pro-life organizations really do. A convenient way to dismiss inconvenient people.


Large scale convenient, legal abortion is an easy solution to what are sometimes difficult situations so long as you decide that inconvenient lives may be disposed with. Convicted mass murders deserve far more consideration, understanding, and sympathy in that world view, than do unborn babies that become disposable, or harvestable and monetized.


I could ask if you have every seen organizations devoted to helping mothers not abort their babies, or actually talked to (rather than talked at or down to) pro-life people, but I remember you have made it a policy not to talk abortion with those who aren't already in agreement with legal abortion, let the chips fall where they may. Much easier that way.

[Brian Stoffregen]

Work at helping people want a child should there be a pregnancy: universal health care, so they don't worry about the medical expenses of giving birth. Sufficient pay so that they don't worry about the costs of raising a child; or paying for day-care should that be their decision. Sufficient maternity/paternity leaves so that they have time to bond with their child - knowing that they will have their job when they wish to return to the work force. These are the types of things that pro-life liberals are promoting. Helping parents want the child who is developing in the womb.

This part of your response troubled me.  Help people to "want a child should there be a pregnancy."  And the answer, in essence, is that to help people "want a child" that is already developing we first and foremost need to make sure that we remove financial challenges in the person's life.  If they are financially secure, then they would "want" the child and not abort it.  Would this really help people to "want" a child, at least in a healthy and responsible way?  I think this touches on the heart of what it means to be a parent.  If the undeveloped child in the womb is seen as a potential financial liability you have problems far beyond the economic. I was raised by a single parent until I was age 12, when my mother remarried.  At the time of conception my mother was unmarried and did not marry my birth father.  Actually, I never knew him. We struggled economically and my mother struggled in other ways.  But her commitment to me as a parent never wavered.  As far as I know she "wanted" me apart from any economic assurances.

That isn’t the case with all single women who become pregnant. Finances are a major concern; and not just for new parents, but for any married couples. As I recall finances are the major reason for marital discord and divorces.

Money can buy a certain sense of security and comfort.  But, again, it will not make an effective and loving parent that truly "wants" a child, even an unexpected child.  We can provide all of the safety-net provisions for young mothers and still end up with broken homes, damaged relationships, and abused children.  A self-centered and narcissistic world is incapable of "wanting" anything for anyone other than for personal gratification.  The "real issue" as Mr. Garner intimates, is somewhere else....

Yes … and no. I've read and seen TV reports on studies that indicate that there is a level of income that is necessary for happiness. People and families below that level are less happy than those above it. (That line varies in different parts of the U.S.) Those same studies show that for those above that line, more money does not make them happier.


Another study indicates that offering bonuses for extra work can have a negative effect. Rather than motivating people to work harder; it can motivate them to cheat. (The VA administrators who lied on reports so that they got their bonuses is an example of this.)


I also remember some celebrity saying: "I've been poor and I've been rich. Rich is better."


Also, part of the discussion on the retirement thread is about income. I can say that we are much less stressed now with a little money in the bank, and where we aren't living paycheck to paycheck, hoping that there won't be any major expenses. When we had to replace our air conditioner earlier this year: a necessity in Yuma - and what is required here is usually more expensive than other places - we didn't have to borrow money to pay for it (like we did the last time).

[Charles Austin]

Pastor Fienen:
So is the formula inconvenient pregnancy=aborted baby, flush the inconvenience an acceptable solution for the real life problems that women face?
Me:
No, and not responsive to my questions.

Pastor Fienen:
Yes we can do better about assisting pregnant women facing social and economic difficulties attendant to their pregnancies. We as a society should do better. And no, by and large the pro-life movement is not, NOT characterized by focusing only on keeping babies from being aborted and caring nothing for the welfare of the mothers or the babies once they have been born. That is a baseless accusation perpetuated by those who have never really talked with pro-life people or looked at what pro-life organizations really do. A convenient way to dismiss inconvenient people.
Me:
Again, not responsive, and I do not make here the accusation you refute.

Pastor Fienen:
Large scale convenient, legal abortion is an easy solution to what are sometimes difficult situations so long as you decide that inconvenient lives may be disposed with. Convicted mass murders deserve far more consideration, understanding, and sympathy in that world view, than do unborn babies that become disposable, or harvestable and monetized.
Me:
So I take it the answer is that you have had no long-term, varied experience with women considering abortion.

Pastor Fienen:
I could ask if you have every seen organizations devoted to helping mothers not abort their babies, or actually talked to (rather than talked at or down to) pro-life people, but I remember you have made it a policy not to talk abortion with those who aren't already in agreement with legal abortion, let the chips fall where they may. Much easier that way.
Me:
Then ask it. I have.
And Wrong again. That’s not my “policy.” But this modest and limited forum is perhaps the only place where I am not willing to discuss abortion in depth.
 

[Tom Eckstein]

Pastor Fienen, how many women considering abortion have you met, prayed with, counseled, communed, or otherwise shared the experience? What experiences have your wife or daughter(if you have one) had with friends, co-workers, or children of friends considering whether to terminate a pregnancy? Were these experiences, if any, in the 1960s or early 1970s when abortions were difficult to obtain?
   Were the women involved too young to be a parent, too old for another child, too sick or too tired to rear another child or too poor to support another child. Were they too uneducated (or denied certain kinds of education) to even understand how they got pregnant?
    Adoption? Yes, an alternative, but have you discussed with women the physical, mental and social cost of that alternative?
    I ask because to me much of the posting on this subject by you and others here suggest that you are experientially clueless about the real-life, human aspect of this issue.
    Now if you are locked into THE pro-life formula (sperm+egg=human-being-with-inalienable-right-to-life), then I guess you are allowed to be clueless about the travails of the pregnant woman and the people around her.

Charles, the vast majority of pro-life people are very well aware of the challenges some women face when pregnant (although, sadly, some women simply deem their child as an inconvenience and would rather maintain their comfortable lifestyle instead of being responsible for their choice to have sex and make the sacrifices that every parent must make for their children).  As a result, the vast majority of pro-life people do many things to help women who are in a crisis pregnancy so that they can keep their child or give her up for adoption.  The vast majority of pro-life people help these women not only during their pregnancy but also after the child is born.

Here is a link to just one of many organizations that help women keep their chilidren - and my daughter, who lives in Fort Wayne where this organization is located, is very active in their ministry:  https://letthemlive.org/

Having said that, the fact that our nation allows parents to hire someone to dismember their child in the womb simply because she is not wanted and deemed too much of a problem is pure evil - and anyone who supports such a law is supporting pure evil.

Charles, imagine a couple next door to you saying the following about their 2 week old baby:  "Having this baby is more stressful than we imagined and also more costly than we predicted.  With inflation we simply can't afford this baby not too mention our child is keeping us from pursuing our life goals.  So, thank God we live in a nation that allows us to hire someone to kill our child.  Anyone who would question our morality for doing this has no compassion for our situation and is a judgmental Pharisee!"   The same words are spoken very often by those who hire someone to dismember their child in the womb - the only difference is the residential location of the child, and a TEMPORARY residential location at that!

[Charles Austin]

Pastor Eckstein, once again, I have to say that your language in the matter and the thoughts behind that language remain the reasons that I do not discuss abortion here. And I think your speculation on what parents might say indicates that you don’t have a lot of experience dealing with people considering the termination of a pregnancy.

[Tom Eckstein]

Pastor Eckstein, once again, I have to say that your language in the matter and the thoughts behind that language remain the reasons that I do not discuss abortion here. And I think your speculation on what parents might say indicates that you don’t have a lot of experience dealing with people considering the termination of a pregnancy.

Charles, the reason you don't want to discuss the reality of abortion is that you have no good arguments against an evil law that allows parents to hire someone to dismember their children in the womb or burn them with acid until they're dead.

As for my experience working with parents considering abortion, you have no clue of my ministry in this area after 30+ years being a pastor.  I have and continue to work with people who have a crisis pregnancy - and even though I'm well aware that some of them are facing difficulties in keeping this child, I lovingly make clear to them that killing their child is NOT an option for a Christian (and should not be allowed for ANYONE, Christian or not, in any civilized socieity!).  Our congregation offers help for parents facing a crisis pregnancy as well as helping parents whose children are already born but have legitimate financial needs.

So, go ahead a continue to suggest that pro-life people only care about babies in the womb and not after they're born.  Go ahead and justify your support of a law that allows parents to hire someone to kill their children.  Go ahead and keep on fooling yourself!

[Charles Austin]

Q.E.D.

[Steven W Bohler]

Pastor Eckstein, once again, I have to say that your language in the matter and the thoughts behind that language remain the reasons that I do not discuss abortion here. And I think your speculation on what parents might say indicates that you don’t have a lot of experience dealing with people considering the termination of a pregnancy.

1. And yet you continue to post on the subject.  Every time it comes up.  Without fail.  Despite your repeated assertion that you do not, and will not, discuss it.
2. I would wager that Rev. Eckstein has had more pastoral experience in this than you.