July 30, 2015

Liberal Clergy Praise Planned Parenthood ‘Doing God’s Work’

A group of liberal clergy who advise the largest abortion provider in the United States have praised employees of the organization for “doing God’s work.”

A statement released Wednesday by the Planned Parenthood Clergy Advocacy Board attacks what it portrays as “politically motivated, heavily edited, and secretly recorded” videos released by the California-based organization Center for Medical Progress (CMP).

The videos, of which a fourth installment was released this morning, reveal Planned Parenthood officials discussing compensation for the potential sale of tissues from aborted pregnancies. Widely shared over social media, the videos sparked uproar among abortion opponents and some medical ethicists because the sale of fetal tissue for profit is illegal under U.S. law. CMP simultaneously released unedited footage of conversations with the officials.

To date, 12 states and two committees in the U.S. House of Representatives have launched investigations into the practices of Planned Parenthood, seeking to determine if the organization broke U.S. law and potentially placing continued government funding of the organization in jeopardy.

“As faith leaders committed to justice, honesty, and liberty, we are troubled by the decades-long campaign of harassment against Planned Parenthood and those they serve,” the clergy statement reads. “Our faiths demand care for those marginalized by poverty and other oppressions. Faith leaders have supported Planned Parenthood for nearly 100 years because of our shared goals: every person — regardless of income, race, or religion — deserves access to safe, affordable, high-quality health care.”

The statement does not mention abortion, instead portraying Planned Parenthood as an indispensable provider of “high-quality care” that “does the best of what religious traditions do.”

The clergy also appeal to religious liberty and individual conscience, portraying the abortion provider’s opponents as seeking “to impose their values and work obsessively to limit access to health care on individuals.”

“Our religious traditions call us to offer compassion, not judgment,” the clergy declare. “People who work for Planned Parenthood give care and respect to those in need, doing God’s work. For this we are grateful.”

The Advocacy Board includes clergy from the United Church of Christ, Episcopal Church and American Baptist Churches as well as clergy from Reformed Jewish and Unitarian Universalist congregations.

Among the clergy listed are Episcopal Priest Susan Russell of All Saints Episcopal Church in Pasadena, California, a prominent lesbian activist within the Episcopal Church who is listed as Vice Chair. The clergy board also lists Ani Zonneveld of Muslims for Progressive Values among its members. Zonneveld served as a board member of the short-lived Progressive Muslim Union of North America and has presided over same-sex weddings.

The abortion provider has acted to limit the impact of the videos, with Planned Parenthood Federation of America President Cecile Richards calling congressional efforts to defund the organization as “attacking women who need preventive health care” in an opinion piece posted Wednesday on the Washington Post. Planned Parenthood has annual revenue of $1.3 billion, of which over $500 million is provided by federal, state and local governments. The organization has contracted with a New York-based public relations firm in order to shape media coverage of the controversy, and media outlets have been warned by the organization not to air footage from the videos.

According to the Washington Times, the Los Angeles Superior Court issued a temporary injunction this week stopping CMP from releasing any video showing three officials from StemExpress, a company that transfers fetal tissue from abortions performed at Planned Parenthood and other clinics to medical researchers.

UPDATE: Check out United Methodist Pastor Matt O’Reilly’s 5 Points on the #PlannedParenthood Video and IRD President Mark Tooley’s comments on Planned Parenthood’s Clergy Advocacy Council.

UPDATE 2: I’ve had requests for the full list of pastors on the Planned Parenthood Clergy Advocacy Council, since the link to the Planned Parenthood page is temporarily down. Fortunately, Google has a cached version of the page here. The 14 board members are:

Rabbi Jon Adland
Canton, OH
Reform Jewish 

Vice Chair
The Rev. Susan Russell
All Saints Episcopal Church
Pasadena, CA

The Rev. David A. Ames
Providence, RI

Rev. Tom Davis
Saratoga Springs, NY
United Church of Christ

The Rev. Dr. Gawain F. de Leeuw
White Plains, NY

The Rev. Kevin Jones
Greenacres, FL

Rev. Dr. Daniel Kanter
First Unitarian Church of Dallas
Dallas, TX

The Rev. Vincent Lachina
Seattle, WA
American Baptist

The Rev. Jeremy Lopez
Salem United Church
Tonowanda, NY
United Church of Christ

Rev Janet Maykus
Indianapolis, IN 
Christian Church DOC

Rabbi Dennis Ross
Concerned Clergy for Choice
Albany, NY
Reform Jewish

Dr. Scott Sattler
Eureka, CA
Universal Sufism

Rabbi Peter Stein
Temple B’rith Kodesh
Rochester, NY
Reform Jewish

Ani Zonneveld
Muslims for Progressive Values
Los Angeles, CA

UPDATE 3: Digging further into the Clergy Advocacy Board list, I have researched a few sentences about each member to offer readers a better idea of who they are, what congregations they serve (if any) and any further connection with Planned Parenthood. Click here for more.

317 Responses to Liberal Clergy Praise Planned Parenthood ‘Doing God’s Work’

  1. It is good to see these Molech-worshiping ghouls make their religious views plain to the middle ground — who are increasingly switching to the pro-life side as they learn more about what the abortion industry is really about.

    Remember that the “Christian” Left loudly and proudly insists that life “really” begins at the first breath, so killing children for any reason before that time is OK with Jesus. https://1eternitymatters.wordpress.com/2015/07/30/no-surprise-the-christian-left-supports-killing-children-up-to-their-first-breath-then-selling-their-body-parts-for-profit/

    “Our religious traditions call us to offer compassion, not judgment,” the clergy declare. “People who work for Planned Parenthood give care and respect to those in need, doing God’s work.”

    Wow, that’s creepy, even for them. Tell that to the baby boy (Planned Parenthood’s terms!) chopped up in the dish.

    • MarcoPolo says:

      I believe (your book), the Bible, even uses the term in Genesis regarding the “birth” of Adam, as God having “BREATHED” life into him. Should we not interpret that as the point at which life “begins”?

      Hallelujah for Planned Parenthood! At least they’re there for those who need them!

      The “abortion industry” is certainly more compassionate and concerned about life than the “Military Industrial Complex”!

      Choose your poison!

      • tj10 says:

        Interesting idea, Marco. I see a few problems with that. Adam was the first human so his birth was unique. In that sense, it is hard to use it as such a standard. Plus, Adam’s body was totally dead before God breathed life into him. His heart was not beating. His blood was not flowing. He was not eating. etc. Babies however are different. They are alive – except for breathing on their own.

        They are there for those who need them?

        As the previous poster mentioned, – like for the still breathing little boy who had his face cut open and brain cut out?

        I can’t imagine how you could be OK with that. But be that as it may, I, along with millions of other Americans, am not. I don’t think the law is either. That doesn’t bother you either though it seems.

        • MarcoPolo says:

          The whole Fairy Tale of Adam’s creation is too much for anyone (except a devout Christian) to embrace.

          I don’t wish to disrespect your religious choice, but in this day and age, shouldn’t we be relying upon Science more than Fables for explaining our past, and for guiding our destiny?

          Life in this realm requires one to be out of it’s mother’s womb. So I defend every woman who chooses her own path in reproduction. If it’s NOT your womb, it’s NOT your business to dictate.

          • tj10 says:

            Well Marco, I agree with relying on science and disgarding fable. That is why I cannot stomach the origin fable of the Materialist who believes that chemicals somehow banded together and formed life by chance on their own. Real science shows us that life always comes from life.

            I don’t wish to disrespect your beliefs in that matter, but in this day and age, shouldn’t we be relying on real science as opposed to Fables for explaining our past, and for guiding our destiny?

            Our beliefs matter! They influence our actions, how we treat people, how we view humans and animal life, etc.

            Life in this realm requires one to be out of it’s mother’s womb? Can you prove that scientifically or is that just your own opinion? I think babies in the womb are very alive. If it’s not your life, then, even a Mother of that child does not have the right to take it. Since when does being a parent give one the right to take their child’s life? So, for you Marco, the baby suddenly comes alive the second it is born and up until that time it is not alive?

            You know what gets me? People using abortion as a form of birth control! They go out and act irresponsibly and have sex and then think they can just cover it all up by getting an abortion.

            I vote for responsible sex to begin with. Wouldn’t that solve the problem so much easier? Actions have consequences!

          • MarcoPolo says:

            I totally agree with you, that Belief matters.
            But the various “Beliefs” are competing for space in a world that is getting smaller, so, doesn’t that mean that we should ALL try to either mutually respect one anothers’ differences, or possibly assimilate those differences?

            Given Man’s predilection for substance and meaning, it just seems that this existence holds something significant, and I think we’d agree that serving Humanity’s needs (ie: assisting the poor and needy) is paramount over self?

            I do my best to remove a ‘stone’ from someone’s path everyday. The presumption that a “Flaming Liberal” like myself can’t seem to get out of my own way, is just wrong.

            I do thank you for your sensible, and cogent responses…Thank you.

          • tj10 says:

            Marco, if we are just skin covered machines powered by/directed by random chemical reactions happening in our evolved monkey brains, why does anything matter at all? Why the universal need for meaning – (when there is none), a yearning for justice – (when justice ultimately doesn’t matter and injustice cannot be said to be wrong except by opinion), an appreciation of beauty – (when it is not needed for life), a clear feeling for the existence of right and wrong – (when our worldview tells us such objective standards do not exist), etc.?

            It seems like our existence holds something significant, but in reality, the Materialist worldview tells us it does not.

            Marco, I appreciate your desire to help your fellow man. I wish everyone felt like that and yes, we can certainly unite in that. There will be times when we will disagree on what it means to help our fellow man based on our view of right and wrong, but there will be many other times we can cooperate.


          • MarcoPolo says:

            Addressing your previous concerns about how it all came to be… I think we as human beings are still grappling with the “Big Bang” and various theories of origination, but that’s not to say we can’t at least try to conceptualize a natural evolution for the sake of understanding how to proceed in this life.
            Life begets life. Yes, I would agree. But randomness does not disrupt that process, it’s just a “pattern” without predictability. Just as humans are created by two living components (egg and sperm), Life on a macro scale is likely identical, just larger. [I’m not a Biologist, just a Philosopher].

            The renowned Biologist E. O. Wilson has a healthy view of our existential and biological purpose for existence, and I find his research to be very helpful in trying to understand Human nature and it’s place on this planet.

            Just as it would be ill conceived to suggest that Man is either evil or good, it is more likely that he is BOTH! Hence the need for some social order, and hence, the emergence of Religion and Governance.

            I think one can be a Naturalist without being a Materialist, and I think one can be religious without being irrational.


          • tj10 says:

            “Addressing your previous concerns about how it all came to be… I think we as human beings are still grappling with the “Big Bang” and various theories of origination, but that’s not to say we can’t at least try to conceptualize a natural evolution for the sake of understanding how to proceed in this life.”

            Well Marco, sure, you can try and conceptualize it, but conceptualizing it is not science. Anyone can use their imagination and try and come up with a “plausible sounding explanation”, but that doesn’t make it true. So, you might believe that life has a totally natural origin and that is fine. But it is nothing more than a belief and is no different than my belief that it does not have a natural origin.

            And I think my belief fits better with what we know about life – fits better with the current evidence much better than your beliefs do at this point – you know, codes, order, design, efficiency, complexity, machines, information, software, systems, fine-tuning, chicken/egg problem, etc.

            Marco, I don’t understand how something can be a pattern without predictability. Patterns are patterns simply because they are predictable, right? If it is not predictable, how can it be a pattern? Are you trying to redefine the word “pattern” here?

            “Just as humans are created by two living components (egg and sperm), Life on a macro scale is likely identical, just larger. [I’m not a Biologist, just a Philosopher].”

            OK, I’m not sure why you would think it is likely, but simply thinking/believing it is likely does not make it so and certainly does not mean it is true.

            “The renowned Biologist E. O. Wilson has a healthy view of our existential and biological purpose for existence, and I find his research to be very helpful in trying to understand Human nature and it’s place on this planet.”

            Great. He interprets the data through his own personal beliefs/his worldview – Materialism – and that is why he says what he does. Can he prove the beliefs upon which he bases all his interpretations on? Of course not. We all interpret the data through our beliefs. If there is no God, no Creator, we really do not have a purpose for existence. The evolutionary paradigm claims our purpose is to leave behind as many healthy offspring as possible. Do you really agree with that? Are you spreading your seed far and wide with the hope of having as many kids as possible – and leaving behind as many of your genes as possible? I doubt it. I bet you would consider that to be immoral.

            “Just as it would be ill conceived to suggest that Man is either evil or good, it is more likely that he is BOTH!”

            Well, we will disagree there. Man is capable of doing and actually does do lots of evil things as well as good things, but I take the view of man presented in Scripture – the view that says man is by nature prone to sin, prone to reject God, prone to go his own way and reject the loving authority of God.

            “Hence the need for some social order, and hence, the emergence of Religion and Governance.”

            Yes, you are right. Because we are sinners at heart and not good at heart, because we have a natural tendancy to do wrong and put self first, we need rules in society. We need keys, locks, anti-virus programs, moral education, etc. Without those things, society would destroy itself and descend into anarchy. But that reality does not necessarily point to the emergence of religion. The biblical view can just as easily explain the same data.

            “I think one can be a Naturalist without being a Materialist, and I think one can be religious without being irrational.”

            OK, Marco, I’m a bit perplexed here. How can you be a Naturalist without being a Materialist? Can you explain what you mean? Are you open then to the existence of God as long as He had nothing to do with the origin of life and the universe? And if you are open to the existence of such a God, why would you not be open to the possibility that He might have had something to do with the origin of life and our universe? Maybe you could explain the difference in your mind between a Naturalist and a Materialist. I don’t think you can avoid the philosophical problems of Materialism by claiming to be a Naturalist.

            I’ll have to look up “namaste” to see what it means.

          • MarcoPolo says:

            I appreciate your honest exchanges, and look forward to furthering my knowledge of how people think the way they do.

            I believe that ALL of Nature is God. That’s the Pantheist in me. That’s not to say I believe everything came to be, because of God. I choose to revere the Natural world as a Divine thing. Greater than any already established religious Deity. For example, a forest can be a holy “Sanctuary”!

            As for the distinction between Materialist and Naturalist. To me, Materialism is the fixation, and subsequent worship of things, “trinkets” and man-made things… not flora and fauna as Nature offers. (Just my opinion!)

            The very binary aspects of Life as we know it seems a good place to start for understanding all things on this planet. There are nuances in everything. Just as one might suggest that sunlight is “white”, it is revealed (through closer inspection) that it is in fact, made up of all the color bands that our eyes are capable of seeing.
            Just as there are variations within the human being’s sexuality, ie: male, female, and androgyne.

            I don’t see how Life can NOT have a Natural origin. May I presume you believe Life had a Super-natural origin? “Genesis” etc..? (Which also, is a Man-made theory).

            Just as I don’t understand String Theory, I can’t explain why some things exist in spite of our best extrapolations.

            Namaste’ is an Indian salutation honoring the mutuality of another person’s (religious and physical) autonomy, without trying to change them.

          • tj10 says:

            you are a really interesting guy! I too appreciate your honest and courteous responses.

            “I believe that ALL of Nature is God. That’s the Pantheist in me. That’s not to say I believe everything came to be, because
            of God. I choose to revere the Natural world as a Divine thing. Greater than any already established religious Deity. For example, a forest can be a holy

            OK, so you are not afraid to have religious beliefs that cannot be backed up by science. But I don’t quite understand why would you choose to revere the creation over the Creator? How can
            the created thing itself be God? Did the natural world which you revere as a Divine Thing create itself? Contrary to what science seems to indicate do you believe it was always in existence? Was it always a Divine Thing or did it become a Divine Thing along the way at some point? I’m assuming you view this Divine Thing as an impersonal thing. So it cannot see, plan, feel, think, etc? Or, do you think it has personality, a mind, a goal and purpose for the universe and for our lives?

            + “The very binary aspects of Life as we know it seems a good place to start for understanding all things on this planet. There
            are nuances in everything. Just as one might suggest that sunlight is
            “white”, it is revealed (through closer inspection) that it is in
            fact, made up of all the color bands that our eyes are capable of seeing.”

            So here you are relying on your own limited finite wisdom and concluding that the binary aspects of life as we know it seem like a good place to start.

            So you have lots of different ideas here – beliefs if you may. They all seem like you hold them because they seem reasonable to you. But I would venture to say that probably not too many people hold the same beliefs as you
            do. In that light, why do you really think that your own beliefs – the product of an evolved monkey brain – should be accurate?

            + “I don’t see how Life can NOT have a Natural origin. May I presume you believe Life had a Super-natural origin? “Genesis” etc..? (Which also, is a Man-made theory).

            Just as I don’t understand String Theory, I can’t explain why some things exist in spite of our best extrapolations.”

            Yes, you may presume that. I disagree with your opinion that the Natural World is greater than the Creator of the Natural
            world. The Cause cannot be the effect itself. Neither can the effect be greater than the cause. Yes, I certainly do believe that life and the universe had a supernatural origin. There are no known scientific/natural processes that can produce life from chemicals or
            something from nothing. For me, that is an irrational belief.

            You believe the creation story of Genesis is a man-made theory?
            Fair enough. I do not. I believe it is divine revelation. I believe
            the Creator created us with a mind, a soul, a heart, and a personality. He knew we would want to know the answers to
            the big questions of life because that is how He created us. So it makes sense that He would reveal these things to us. The Bible claims to be that revelation and it makes very good sense of
            the world. But you have to arrive at your own beliefs, which it seems you have done. Not sure what evidence you base your beliefs on, but I find it interesting that you have no problem accepting/believing your own personal ideas even though they lack scientific backing.

            The fact that your beliefs are the result of random chemical processes in your evolved monkey brain seems to me to pose a huge difficulty for
            you and your worldview. Why in the world would you think that your personal thoughts secreted by your evolved monkey brain have any relation to reality? And furthermore, why would you think that the thought secretions of your brain are any better than
            the thought secretions of your next door neighbor’s brain? Even Darwin worried about that.
            Maybe you actually believe we have a soul and don’t agree with that part of Naturalism.

            + “Namaste’ is an Indian salutation honoring the mutuality of another person’s (religious and physical) autonomy, without trying to change them.”

            Interesting. I never heard that word before. Learned
            something new today thanks to you!

          • MarcoPolo says:

            (Your words:) “…I find it interesting that you have no problem accepting/believing your own personal ideas even though they lack scientific backing.”
            By that same standard, I find it hard to believe that YOUR religion convinces you of it’s content with no scientific backing, either.

            See where this leads? No single religion is the “right” religion, thus, why is ANY religion more worthy of adherence or reverence?
            I don’t profess to have all, or any of the answers to life’s persistent questions. Just ME going through this life as honestly, and respectfully as possible.

            I’m quite comfortable knowing what I know, even though that may be very limited. And I also believe that we may ALL be very WRONG about what we know!
            Confucius had it right! Which is why I’m more respectful of that “religion”.

            You state that “He (God) will reveal these things to us.” So if He IS to reveal these things, why hasn’t He done so? I can’t rest on the idea of a “Spiritual Being” being my educator. Some will say these revelations are only clear to those who are “Saved”. Why is that a requirement for the purpose of attaining knowledge of the real world? When all we have to do, to better understand the world, is to go out and investigate it.

            In my humble opinion, DESIRE is the root of most evil. To attain enlightenment, we must not desire anything! Of course the conundrum there, is one will then be desiring not to desire!

          • tj10 says:

            “…I find it interesting that you have no problem accepting/believing
            your own personal ideas even though they lack scientific backing.”

            Marco: “By that same standard, I find it hard to believe that YOUR religion convinces you of it’s content with no scientific backing, either.”

            The difference is Marco, that I believe there is scientific backing for much of what I believe – at least as far as creation goes. But
            there are many things I believe that do not have scientific backing, so you are right there. But for me, the Bible is the source of absolute truth so that is why I am able to believe it. You, however, have no such method of discerning truth. Science does not support abiogenesis. I personally believe the facts do not support biological evolution – the goo to you version of it where everything is related and evolves through small tiny steps forward due to random lucky mutations that give a big enough survival value to the organism – nor do I believe the Big Bang is a feasible source/explanation for what we see in the universe today. You believe that nature is a Divine Thing – of course without scientific backing or any backing outside of your own opinion derived from your evolved monkey brain.

            Marco: “See where this leads? No single religion is the “right” religion, thus, why is ANY religion more worthy of adherence or reverence?”

            Exactly right. If there is no God, then we can never really be sure that we know the truth about our origins. Any belief is as good as

            Not only that, but what we believe and how we live really doesn’t matter at all in the end.

            However, I accept the Bible as God’s revelation to man. Therefore, I do see it as the “right” religion, or more accurately as revealed truth. Speaking in accordance with my worldview/beliefs, God made us with a desire to know these things and so it makes sense that He would reveal these things to us. The Bible claims to be that revelation. It
            explains the world rather nicely I think. It speaks to our heart and answers the big questions of life. It has the power to change people’s lives, which I have seen many times.

            Marco: “I don’t profess to have all, or any of the answers to life’s
            persistent questions. Just ME going through this life as honestly, and
            respectfully as possible.
            I’m quite comfortable knowing what I know, even though that may be very limited. And I also believe that we may ALL be very WRONG about what we know! Confucius had it right! Which is why I’m more
            respectful of that “religion”.”

            OK, I can respect that. You recognize you have actual beliefs just like theists and yet you are not at all sure about them. You hold your beliefs very tentatively aware that they might all be wrong. For me, I want a bit more assurance that my beliefs have some connection to reality. The Bible gives this to me. Maybe it doesn’t do it for you, but it does it for me.

            Marco: You state that “He (God) will reveal these things to us.” So if He IS to reveal these things, why hasn’t He done so? I can’t rest on the idea of a “Spiritual Being” being my educator. Some will say these revelations are only clear to those who are “Saved”. Why is that a requirement for the purpose of attaining knowledge of the real world? When all we have to do, to better understand the world, is to go out and investigate it.”

            Me: I believe God has already revealed these things to us in His Word. If you reject that, that’s fine. My perspective is that the only way we can know anything about the outside world, the spirit world, our origins, etc. is if the Creator, who lives out there and created everything, tells us these things. Otherwise, we are stuck bantering back and forth about whose opinion/beliefs are best or more plausible.

            Revelation settles that for me. Yes, we can all go out and investigate the world and learn lots of cool things about it. The problem is when we interpret the data and extrapolate it back to a time when we
            did not exist and try to explain what happened. Currently we do not have a trustworthy of investigating that aspect of life and history.
            Investigating life and the world here and now is a wonderful thing and
            Christians with a Judeo Christian worldview can do that just as easily as the most rabid atheist alive. Historical science though is different. Here our worldview colors how we interpret the limited data available.

            I don’t know if you have to be saved to understand the truths about nature that God reveals to us in Scripture, but you have to be willing to accept those things as truth and allow them to help you with your interpretation about the past. For instance, let’s take the global flood as one example. IF a global flood took place, this would be a very significant fact that we would want to know – especially as we seek to interpret the many landforms, rocks, layers, fossils, etc. that we see today. It could easily explain continent wide sedimentary rock, water gaps, fossils, folded but not broken rock layers, polystrate fossils, many canyons, etc. It would tell us that much of the landforms we see today would have formed rapidly as opposed to the uniformitarian belief of gradually over millions of years – something that cannot be verified.

            Marco: “In my humble opinion, DESIRE is the root of most evil. To attain enlightenment, we must not desire anything! Of course the conundrum there, is one will then be desiring not to desire!”

            Yes, that is what the Buddhists believe. It also relates very
            closely to the 10th commandment – Do not covet. Anyway, the Buddhist arrives at this because he wants to rid the world of suffering and they see desire as the root of all suffering as opposed to evil – although they are related. The Buddhist answer to this is that desire
            itself needs to be done away with. The problem is that they make no distinction between good desire and evil desire. They want to throw it all out. Love is a good desire. Lust is not. But even love is evil if it arouses desire of some type in your heart – whether it be sexual, relational, or emotional. This does not seem realistic or even good.

            Christians see the problem of evil as being rooted in the heart.
            There are all sorts of evil desires that exist there. But until we
            confess our sins and trust Jesus to save us, the heart remains enslaved by sin. But the Bible teaches that Jesus gives us a new heart, a heart not enslaved by sin – although still susceptible to it.
            God begins to change us from the inside out. All other religions try and change people by imposing standards on them from the outside, but until the heart is dealt with, all the standards/rules/teachings in the world cannot change our heart which is where our thoughts, and actions come from.

            Some desires are good. The Bible tells us to long after God as the deer longs for water. So we use biblical standards to evaluate what
            desires are good and what are bad. Sex is a God given desire. It is not bad simply because it is a desire. The desire to eat is not bad in and of itself. The problem comes in how we handle and respond to that desire. A misuse of sex, a misuse of our appetite – that is the problem. Again, this is a heart issue.

            Jesus said this: ““What comes out of a person is what defiles him. 21 For from within, out of the heart of man, come evil thoughts, sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery, 22 coveting, wickedness,
            deceit, sensuality, envy, slander, pride, foolishness. 23 All these evil things come from within, and they defile a person.”

            When we are separated from God by our sin, our hearts are restless and empty. We need to find something to fulfill the needs of our heart that a relationship with God is intended to do. So we turn to various things to try and find fulfillment in life, but these things are all idols and cannot really take the place of a relationship with God. When
            we find our fulfillment in God, we don’t need all these “things” to fufill
            us. No one can ever perfectly accomplish this in this life because we are still susceptible to sin and idolatry and our hearts can be easily pulled away from God by things of this world, but this is the journey we are on with God’s help.

            Improper sex, theft, murder, adultery, coveting, etc. are not necessary if our hearts are set on God and pleasing Him. He gives us the strength to say no to these desires realizing that they
            will not ultimately fulfill us and may lead to deeper discontent. Anyway, this is the Christian teaching and answer to the problem of desire – find your contentment in God and you won’t covet other things or fall prey to evil desires.


          • MarcoPolo says:

            I can’t find anything wrong with what you’ve professed, and for the most part, it applies to many other religions over the long History of this world.

            For Christians, the Bible seems to serve their purpose well, and for the Muslims, the Quaran.

            The task of understanding the “heart” is at the root of most religions. I just can’t see any ONE of them as having ALL the correct answers, so I remain a seeker of Truth as it applies to the general human condition on this planet as it is happening in real time.
            Granted, recorded History assists us in avoiding pitfalls and foibles, all of which are generally created by Man.
            I have no problems accepting the concept of God. As a matter of fact, on many occasions, I’ll thank God (wherever She is), for a myriad of reasons. One doesn’t have to be of any particular religion to have faith in God.

            I think your analogy of the Heart, as the Bible addresses it, to be helpful for the less complex mindsets among Man. For example, I agree that there is always a constant struggle for Man, between his heart, and his head. Two dynamic forces that can be reconciled through religion.
            Not just exclusively Christianity, but Christianity does a fine job of guiding the many faithful followers for the most part.
            I’m reminded of a saying: “Logic dictates, but Emotion rules!” Our heads can get us into as much trouble as our hearts, so we must be vigilant with every thought that we have.

            I thank you for your testimony and patience.
            As always, I’m not out to prove anybody wrong. I just get worried that once some people “get religion”, they tend to become mentally myopic, and that can trip up even the most devout individual.

            Be careful out there!


      • Mac T says:

        That is the most confusing statement on this thread yet. Planned Parenthood has been proven to be a murdering group of people. Unless you believe the lies that they chopped the videos LOL. All videos have been made fully available at full length. Any words they say to the people are their own words not some made up scheme. To say Hallelujah in the same sentence as Planned Parenthood is an oxymoron. They want cash not saving lives. They only harvest material in their eyes, nothing more, nothing less. If it means keeping a breathing, heart beating, baby alive on the table while they harvest them that is OK. There is no compassion involved at all there only murder for money. Cover it up with some free condoms and birth control pills and that makes them a clown cover up organization.

        • MarcoPolo says:

          I can’t know what it takes to confuse some people, but apparently you’re confused by what I said, so let me restate.

          Harvesting body parts has been going on in the Medical community for decades. Why should fetal material be exempt from that practice?

          If a clinic is just going to dispose of it anyway, why not put it to good use? The “Mothers” give consent and that’s all it should require.

          Do you feel the same loss over spilled sperm?

          Look, if you don’t approve of abortion, don’t have one! You don’t have authority over what women do with their bodies.

          • dploof says:

            So according to your logic, rape has always happened so we should just accept it.

          • MarcoPolo says:

            Rape is a violent sexual act against a person (either female or male). But what does rape have to do with your question about abortion? Is rape the only reason for abortion, in your mind?
            Why can’t a woman have an abortion for any other reason?

            Apparently your logic is different than mine.

      • dploof says:

        Where is the compassion for the brutally chopped up son or daughter or niece or nephew or grandchild?

        • MarcoPolo says:

          Firstly, why would any relative have any business in the decision of a woman who seeks an abortion?
          If Grandparents, Uncles or Aunts were allowed to weigh-in on the pregnant woman’s decision, the whole process would be made even more convoluted!
          Nice try pulling the “Relative” card for sympathy.

          It’s solely the decision of the pregnant woman who doesn’t wish to be pregnant anymore! Period!

  2. Brad F says:

    If this isn’t blasphemy, what is?

    “I’m pro-abortion, therefore, God must be pro-abortion too.” The liberal’s god is made in her own image.

    Seriously, I’m glad those kind of churches are dying.

    • midwestMad says:

      Are they? I guess it makes sense. If everything is okay, why do you need spiritual guidance?

    • ShawnBarnish says:

      These must be the same kind of reprobate perverts who think that God is pro homosexual since they are even though the word OF GOD says completely otherwise.

      Here in Arizona they’re are actually several churches worth rainbow flags around their buildings.
      One united church of Christ has a large banner IV their front lawn that shows stick figures representing woman and woman, man and man, and woman man and woman as three acceptable options welcome inside their cult church.

      A Methodist church in Arizona has a lesbian preacher.

      So I guess after seeing that this shouldn’t be a shock to me at all.

      • MarcoPolo says:

        Oh dear! A lesbian preacher!
        Get over it! Humans evolve and so too, their societal norms.

        • Thelma Hendrix says:

          God said im the same yesterday today and tomorrow…so many or going to face God and He will tell them depart from me I never knew you.

          • MarcoPolo says:

            Correction, YOUR God said that!
            History records the inevitable change in ALL things.
            Even (some) religions.
            So if YOU are satisfied with the tenets of your belief, then great! But History is full of every different flavor of faiths, and not all earthly inhabitants are of the same religion. So to each his own!

            Why else could there SO many different Denominations among each religion?

            Just saying.

          • Diana Black says:

            Man makes religion. Man changes. Man changes his history. God is the maker of history, it is His Story! His history has never ever changed, He is the same God of the beginning and the end! There may be different faiths, churches, religion or denominations, But there is only ONE GOD!!!!!! And God does not condone killing his creation, our children!!

          • MarcoPolo says:

            I kinda feel the same way about an Omniscient Energy that parallels that description…”God”, so Yes, I agree!
            As for “killing…children”, first, that’s subjective vernacular!
            Eliminating a fetus/zygote/viable mass… from a woman who determines she can’t tolerate or afford becoming a mother, should always be an available healthcare option. And as a Constitutional Right!

          • Brad F says:

            It’s a shame that all the pro-abortion people didn’t have pro-abortion moms.

          • MarcoPolo says:

            LOL! That’s a good one..Ha!

          • tj10 says:

            OK, that’s funny, but not nice!

          • Diana Black says:

            Well, I have to tell you, that zygote, viable mass happens to be a living, feeling human being that deserves to live just as much as you and I! Inside of the mother is just as much alive as outside the mother! There are many many forms of birth control as well as numerous places to get birth control. Abortion is not birth control. I really dont see any reason for abortion murder. But thats my opinion as a human who actually cares and loves other human lives. Everyone should have the right for life! We shouldnt decide who dies! Do you thank your mother for allowing you the right to life?

          • MarcoPolo says:

            We’ll probably never know all the reasons women will choose abortion, but since it’s a “living” mass within HER womb, it is ONLY HER decision as to whether abort, or go to term with the pregnancy.

            I don’t mean to seem flippant about such life defining issues, but when it comes to personal liberties that we’ve earned/won as Civil Rights, we should not seek to reverse that Liberty.

            Keep in mind, not every sperm gets this kind of attention, and there are zillions of them all over out there!

          • Diana Black says:

            Your comment is absolutely ridiculous!

          • MarcoPolo says:

            A part of it was intended to be ridiculous.

          • tomte says:

            When, to your understanding, does this “mass” become a human being, that we should refrain from butchering?

          • MarcoPolo says:

            After it’s born!
            Even before it is assigned a Social Security Number.

          • tomte says:

            Howzabout five minutes prior to being born?
            Is it a human life at that point?

          • MarcoPolo says:

            I would call it a Human Life all the way from conception, but it’s still the mother’s call as to whether it should be delivered, and to then become part of this world.

            It’s simple, if it’s not your pregnancy, it’s not your business!

            I truly understand your lament. My sisters are as much against abortion as you seem to be. But that still doesn’t give them any more authority over another woman’s choice to abort.
            I feel sorry for your angst. It must torment you that there are people like me, but that’s the reality. Sorry!

          • tomte says:

            The human life within the womb is already part of this world.
            What gives the Mother the right to remove that innocent life from this world?

          • MarcoPolo says:

            Her United States citizenship includes the Bill of Rights and all commensurate laws, such as Roe v Wade, which endows each and every woman the legal right to the option ans availability of a safe abortion…should she choose.

            It’s HER womb, therefore, it’s HER right, given our current set of laws. If you wish it to be different, then you need to seek to change that.!

          • tomte says:

            You can use big words like “commensurate”.
            None of what you say justifies butchering a little baby.
            It’s sick.
            The legal jargon doesn’t mask this.

          • MarcoPolo says:

            I’m not seeking to disguise the process, or it’s maudlin appearance by using language to mask anything.
            My defense of abortion is for the Civil Rights of the woman who’s pregnant when she wishes not to be.

            Vocabulary is all we’ve got to describe our thoughts, so why criticize it’s use? Hopefully, we’re all educated adults here.
            I’ve not been profane….but I’ll admit to trying to be profound while being perspicuous. My apologies if I offended your sensibilities.

          • tomte says:

            Your position is that a woman’s civil rights should include the right to take the life of an innocent party.
            As well, abortion doesn’t merely have a “maudlin appearance”. This is like saying that the Holocaust or the lynching of black men only had a “maudlin appearance”, thus never mind those gruesome photos of lynched men swinging from trees or piles of dead concentration camp prisoners… things weren’t as bad as they appear in those photos.

          • MarcoPolo says:

            I never said it was pretty.
            I just said it is the sole right of the pregnant woman to avail herself of an abortion at any time she (and/or her Doctor) sees fit.


          • tomte says:

            Does this include partial birth abortion (where the baby is delivered half way, has its brains suctioned out in order to kill it, and is then disposed of)?
            I am not asking you whether this type of abortion is still legal, or is in some states but not others, etc., but rather I am asking you if this is a type of abortion you support on principle.

          • MarcoPolo says:

            I’m not sure how much more I have to divulge before you realize that I support the decision of any pregnant woman to avail herself of abortion services (no matter what procedure is necessary) in order to no longer be pregnant!

            I ask you, would it matter if the procedure was as simple as taking a pill? I’m pretty sure I know your answer, but I had to ask, since procedure is part of your incessant query.

          • tomte says:

            So, you support a procedure that involves vacuuming the brains out of a live, half-delivered baby? Just answer yes or no, rather than dodging the question.

          • MarcoPolo says:

            Firstly, I’ve not dodged any of your incessant questioning. You must feel the need to pester me with some kind of orneriness, and it’s not very productive.

            But to answer your latest question: Sure, YES!

            If that’s the legally, medically safe procedure in practice for some situations…Why not?!

            I’m not a female capable of becoming pregnant, so what business is it of mine what a sovereign pregnant woman does to end her pregnancy?
            Does my complacency make me an accessory to murder?

            Your next round of questioning has got to be coming soon! Sheesh! Time for a cocktail!

          • tomte says:

            “Why not?!”
            Because vacuuming the brains out of a half-delivered baby is sick as all hell.

          • MarcoPolo says:

            Okay, so choose another method!
            You’re the one who asked me the question!

          • tj10 says:

            We are against any procedure whether it be a pill or a partial birth abortion, but we were hoping the type of procedure might make a difference to you. There is a big difference between the two procedures. Would you be OK with your baby being torn to pieces days before it’s natural birth by such a painful process as partial birth abortion?

            You don’t seen any difference between that and a pill???? Are you a human being?

            Can’t we at least agree that this procedure is barbaric and should be illegal?

          • MarcoPolo says:

            If the baby’s mother was never intending to give birth, why would it matter which type of procedure was used. The end result is an abortion. That’s what happens…the baby is eliminated from existence!

            If the mother, or her Doctor is able to harvest usable organs for a living (outside the womb) being, so much the better!

            If you ever watched an Orthopaedic surgeon do their work, you’d think it was barbaric too!

          • tj10 says:

            Let’s see now. Maybe
            I can answer that question with another question for you. Would it matter to you what method of
            operation a doctor uses on you? Would it
            matter if one was more painful than another or would either be OK because the
            result will be the same?

            I’m sorry, Marco. How silly of me. I misjudged you. I thought that you might actually care for
            the baby to some extent and be interested in protecting it from horrible pain
            and suffering, but I see that is not a concern of yours. it seems that for you, even if it causes
            horrendous pain and suffering for the baby, the mother’s rights triumph the
            baby’s rights. You seem to feel like if
            the baby is an inconvenience to her, then she has the right to inflict on it a
            barbaric and painful death. Now I
            understand you a lot better!

            I guess our conversation ends here sir. I see very little point in continuing this
            conversation if you think inflicting horrible pain on suffering on an innocent
            unborn baby is a moral action.

          • MarcoPolo says:

            You finally understand my position.

            Regarding the pain and suffering of the fetus in the process of abortion:
            • How much pain?
            • How long is it sustained?
            • How successful is the procedure to it’s intent?
            • For the life plans of the mother, is it “better”?

            Not long ago, surgery was performed with little, if any anesthesia, so the Science of surgical procedures has come a long way to ensure a “painless” experience.

            This of course does not address the trauma to the mother for her decision. Regrets are sadly, part of the human experience. But once you decide to “jump off a cliff”, you can’t change the outcome, no matter how you think or feel!

          • tj10 says:

            Yes, Marco, thank you for refraining from profaien language. That is to be commended. Many seem unable to restrain themselves when it comes to this subject – sometimes restraint is a problem for both sides of the debate actually.

          • Jolanda Tiellemans says:

            So nothing justifies abortion? What if the mothers life is in danger and the doctor advises her to terminate the pregnancy? if a teenager gets pregnant, sadly it still happens, doesn’t want to say anything to her parents and goes to some butcher to end the pregnancy because she can’t go to a clinic who will help her? Still no reasons to have an abortion? I’m not saying every reason is okay to have an abortion.

          • tomte says:

            All of it involves shedding innocent blood.

          • Jolanda Tiellemans says:

            So you rather let the mother die then rescue her life? That is really selfish. i guess you had never anyone in your family or friends circle who went true it? Well i do and if she hadn’t had the abortion she would have left behind a husband and two small kids. I never thought you christians, if you’re a christian, could be so selfish when it comes to a human life.

          • tomte says:

            You’re O.K. with abortion because you don’t really see the growing baby in the mother’s womb as an actual human life.
            You view it as “potential”, not yet “viable”, etc.
            What if your friend had had her newborn baby executed — would that rest well with you?

          • Jolanda Tiellemans says:

            yes I am ok with abortion if there is a very good reason, like in the case of my friend.

            No of course not, the mothers life would not have been threatened by the birth of the baby. both would have been healthy.

            But like i said in my other comment, there is nothing I can say to convince you to see it differntly.

          • tomte says:

            To see what differently?
            I’m stating to you that every abortion involves shedding innocent blood — snuffing out an innocent life.
            This isn’t merely “how I see things” or my “opinion”.
            It’s just what happens.
            There’s no sane sentence that begins with “We had to kill an innocent person because… “.

          • tomte says:

            “So you rather let the mother die then rescue her life?”
            Which woman?
            The mother or the one in the womb?

          • Jolanda Tiellemans says:

            What do you think? The one in the womb. But I’ll get it, you rather let the mom die then save her life and leave two small kids motherless. How christian-like of you.

          • tomte says:

            The aim of a doctor is to save both lives.
            The aim of an abortionist is always, and only, to end the baby’s life.
            You’re eager to rationalize what happened with your friend. I’m not surprised.
            But, there’s no reasoning away the purposeful killing of a little baby.

          • Jolanda Tiellemans says:

            Why am I not surprised with this answer. it’s to expected from you ‘christians’. If her own doctor told her to terminate the pregnancy, what makes you think that doctor was able to save her life? You think it was easy for her to make that decision, but she made it because she didn’t want to leave her two young children without a mother. But considering your position on the matter, I think there is nothing I can say to convince you. And you call yourself a christian.

          • tomte says:

            I am Christian.
            Good guess.
            But why does opposition to baby-killing need to be Christian based?

          • tomte says:

            I detect a lot of anti-Christian bigotry.
            Being anti-Christian doesn’t get you off the hook for supporting baby-butchering.
            You’ve still got to square your pro-killing views with Mother Nature or the earth goddess, or whatever you’re into.

          • Jolanda Tiellemans says:

            I’m not into anything, I’m an atheist. What? I’m a bigot? You’re the one saying that it’s more important to save a unborn child then the mother. so yeah that makes me anti-christian towards people who think the same like you.

          • truelinguist says:

            An atheist trolling on a Christian blog – so all you’re doing is proving what bitter and bored slobs atheists are.

            Get a life.

          • Jolanda Tiellemans says:

            Naaaahhh very happy with my life. Never found the right guy though. You have any idea how hard it is to find one who loves horses?

          • MarcoPolo says:

            I don’t know how you deduced that Atheists must be bitter or bored, just because we are asking questions on an open site where we can ALL exchange ideas.

            This is called social network exchange. It’s a great tool for discovering the world around us!
            Long live The Institute on Religion & Democracy!

          • truelinguist says:

            You are so deranged. Very few abortions are done to save a woman’s life.

            You can’t push feminazism without lying, so you’ll just keep right on doing it. You lesbians, you have so much hate in your heart for normal couples, so you just love to see women abort.

          • MarcoPolo says:

            You must know Jolanda as some kind of “monster Lesbian”? Do you know Jolanda? Enough to be convinced of her sexual orientation, and her capacity to love or hate?
            I doubt it!

            So please understand, that one need not be a Lesbian, or even female to be a Feminist. I AM A FEMINIST! And I’m male!
            So your assumptions are getting in your way of reasoning.

            As long as our laws allow women to abort their unwanted pregnancies, they will avail themselves of it. Nobody but the mother has any authority over her decision. And the women that I’ve known who chose that option, did so with extreme consideration of all the factors.

            May I presume that if you were (God forbid) raped… that you would take that pregnancy to term? And then, would you keep and raise that child, or put it up for adoption?

          • Jolanda Tiellemans says:

            yeah that is going around a lot lately here, they all think they know me.

          • Jolanda Tiellemans says:

            Yeah got it now, you’re a doctor.

          • tomte says:

            Here, from a pro-life website.

            Discount it if you must on that basis alone, or respond to the content directly:


            The abortion procedure is not – ever – necessary to save the life of a mother. There are, however, maternal health risks that require a treatment that cause the unfortunate, indirect, and unintentional death of an unborn child. For instance, in life-threatening ectopic pregnancies that require removal of a Fallopian tube, the pregnancy (including the unborn child) will be removed along with the Fallopian tube. The intention in this procedure is first and foremost to save the life of the mother, and in order to do so, a physician must perform a procedure that indirectly causes the death of her unborn child.

            This is not an abortion. Furthermore, a true abortion – in which the direct intention is to end the life of a human being – is not a treatment for any type of maternal health risk. Abortions never save mothers, but procedures which by their nature may indirectly lead to a child’s death sometimes save the life of the mother.

          • Jolanda Tiellemans says:

            Okay if you think you know so much about it, then answer me this? what was the doctors reason to tell her to terminate the pregnancy, then to save her life?

          • tomte says:

            You ignored what I posted.

          • Jolanda Tiellemans says:

            no i didn’t, I read it. so enlighten me and tell me what the doctor could have done differently to save both mother and baby? cause you think the doctor was wrong, that he could have saved both mother and baby. cause it seems to me that you have all the answers and know it better then a doctor. but I think we should agree to disagree.

          • tomte says:

            You miss the point of the post.
            The intent of the doctor is to save life.
            The example given in the post is of a doctor intending to save the mother’s life, and in so doing, the baby dies — this isn’t abortion. All attempts are made, initially, to save both lives.
            The intent of the abortionist, by comparison, is to execute the baby.

          • truelinguist says:

            You’re an idiot. Giving birth is not fatal, millions of women do it every day, this is 2015.

            Your type won’t admit that abortion is about a selfish tramp who has no conscience and no scruples about killing her own baby. That crapola about “saving the mother’s life” is just feminazi propaganda.

            I gather you never socialize with any normal women, so I’ll lay a big shocker on you – millions of women every day get very excited and happy when the doctor tells them they’re pregnant. On the other hand, the selfish trollop with the morals of an alleycat who probably doesn’t even know the names of her sex partners reacts differently.

            I bet you’re real proud of the feminist movement. It complained that men were pigs, then urged women to become pigs, and they did. Thankfully, not all women feel that way.

          • Jolanda Tiellemans says:

            So you’re a doctor? Right got it.

          • MarcoPolo says:

            The one in the womb isn’t a mother!
            The one in the womb is an unwanted result of a sexual experience.
            Do you believe that every sexual experience should culminate with a full term gestation and delivery?

          • MarcoPolo says:

            The inference of innocence is confusing at best, because it suggests that to eliminate a fetus, a murder has taken place. A “crime” against a separate/autonomous person.

            In my humble opinion, as long as an umbilical cord is required for sustaining human life, the mother/provider of life giving sustenance is in full authority of her body and all of it’s capability of reproduction. One life (the infant’s) is dependent upon (the mother’s) life and well being.

          • tj10 says:

            “I don’t mean to seem flippant about such life defining issues, but when
            it comes to personal liberties that we’ve earned/won as Civil Rights, we
            should not seek to reverse that Liberty.”

            But you are flippant about it because you just think it is a mass of tissue and not a person. That belief enables you to kill it. At least you admitted that it is living! That’s at least a step in the right direction.

            Do you think that by calling it a “living mass”, you avoid the clear meaning that it is a living being? Does how you speak about it change what it is?

            No. It is a living person that has not been born yet and is still dependent on it’s mother. But it is made up of human tissue. It is alive. It can feel pain. The only reason you don’t want to call it a baby is so that you preserve the right to kill it and hope not to feel too bad about it.

            Playing word games doesn’t change the facts!

          • MarcoPolo says:

            I thought I was clear on my position?

            I admitted that Human Life begins at conception. That what grows inside the woman’s womb is alive AND Human. But since the beginning of time there have been women who did not want to bear children, and took great risk to abort.
            At least today, we have safe, sterile, skilled procedures that will ensure the mother’s survival.

            Call it a Baby if you like, but the woman who doesn’t want to be pregnant calls it a burden and an inconvenience! Thus, abortion!

            Today, Saturday August 22, 2015, my wife and friends and I, will be present at our local Planned Parenthood facility to support those women who deserve the right to control their own lives, and stand in solidarity against those who would rather strip women of yet another Ciivil/Human Right!

          • tj10 says:

            Well Marco, at least you are consistent. You understand that it is a human life. But that makes it all the more difficult to understand how you can support giving women the right to terminate that human life simply because she feels it is a burden or inconvenient to her!

            Since when does inconvenience give us the right to terminate life?
            And I suppose you also stand up for their right to cut open the faces of babies’ whose hearts are still beating to get to their brains so they can be used for research.
            I fail to see how killing the human life in your womb can be a Civil/Human Right!

          • MarcoPolo says:

            “Since when does inconvenience give us the right to terminate life?”
            Since the beginning of Time itself!

            Throughout time and memorial (no pun intended), women have weighed the burden of pregnancy with their perceived ability to bear (a first, or another) child.

            The Civil Right that I refer to, is the law bestowed by the (Roe v Wade) Supreme Court decision. Which endows the liberty of every woman the right to terminate her pregnancy should she choose to.

            The practice of prophylactic protection has come a long way, but men, and women must be diligent in using it, and that seems problematic given human nature. The same can be said for celibacy. But you are right! Those two things could go a long way in preventing some abortions from ever being necessary.

          • tj10 says:

            No Marco, I did not ask “Since when have women practiced abortion?” I asked this: Since when does inconvenience make it right or give them the “right” to terminate a life?

            So you think that the Supreme Court can actually give people civil rights?

            No. According to the Declaration of Independence, our rights are inalienable rights given by the Creator.

            So, if the Supreme Court suddenly decided to make it legal to put your parents to death when they reach a certain age, would that mean that we would get a new “civil right”?

            There is a difference between making something legal and granting Americans a new “civil right”. That distinction is an extremely important one. Did Nazi Germany’s legalization of racism against the Jews give the Germans a new civil right? I don’t think so.

          • MarcoPolo says:

            It’s possible that I misunderstood your question, but I’ll attempt to give you my answer, here.

            Inconvenience determines a lot of things.
            The pregnant mother who may not be physically, mentally, or financially capable of giving birth, much less, raise a child, should still have the right to terminate that pregnancy.
            “Since when…?” Since whenever the pregnant woman determines it for herself!

          • tj10 says:

            OK, perhaps I was unclear using that wording. I’ll put it this way. Inconvenience is no excuse for taking a life. Sure, many have stooped to that level of selfishness, but that does not make it right – even if the Supreme Court says it is legal. The Supreme Court cannot determine morality. They might be able to legalize abortion in the US, but they cannot make it a God given inalienable right nor can they make it a moral action simply by saying it is now legal. My view.

          • MarcoPolo says:

            Message received!
            I’ve never questioned your commitment to this issue, and I think you’ve made your position abundantly clear. Thank you for your sincerity.

            I simply choose to disagree…that’s all.
            Keep the faith!

          • tomte says:

            Dismembering an unborn baby is a good deal different from “Eliminating… a zygote… “

          • MarcoPolo says:

            That depends upon the person seeking the abortion, and their Doctor.

          • tomte says:

            No, the same scientific facts apply to all of us.

          • MarcoPolo says:

            What Scientific facts am I missing?
            Are you saying a pregnant woman cannot abort her fetus (developing baby) at any point that she deems appropriate?
            In parts, or intact?

            An abortion is an abortion…not a delivery!

            Dismembering any living or dead thing is called dissection. Why is that a problem, if the intent is to remove parts instead of the whole?

          • tomte says:

            “An abortion is an abortion…not a delivery!”
            Well, actually, a successful abortion reaches its ending point in the delivery of a human corpse.
            So, a delivery of sorts is involved.

          • MarcoPolo says:

            Fine! Mission accomplished!

          • truelinguist says:

            You sound like you worked for Hitler.
            Hey, those aren’t human beings, they’re just body parts – cut ’em up, it’s no big deal.

            Liberals” “compassion” is a sick joke.

        • Journalread says:

          Humans do NOT evolve! Even Darwin admitted his error.

          • MarcoPolo says:

            If EVERYTHING is subject to evolution, then why wouldn’t humans be part of that process?
            Or perhaps I missed your sarcasm in that statement?

            It may appear that Conservatives are still stuck in the proverbial muck when it comes to enlightenment, but that’s not going to stop Nature from proceeding without them.

          • ShawnBarnish says:

            There is nothing more insane that you RELIGION of Evolution.

            Only a MORON would believe that life started on it’s own, amassed energy and converted it, reproduced itself, then by BILLIONS OF MISTAKES (mutations) that it magically knew were a benefit, “evolved” into even more complex male and female copairs to reproduce.

            Of course, a person that believes an anus is a sex organ might be dumb enough to be brainwashed into the Darwin’s racist motivated religion of evolution.

          • MarcoPolo says:

            Firstly, it’s apparent that you know nothing of the evolutionary process, and secondly, it’s never been a “religion”.

            If the natural process of mitosis wasn’t enough to convince you of life’s marvelous simplicity, I might understand why you think the way you do. But as you protest any kind of theory like the “Big Bang”, I can’t imagine how you can walk upright among the rest of humanity.
            Do your knuckles drag on the ground much?

          • ShawnBarnish says:

            Evolution is nothing more than the figment of bigot boy Charlie’s stupid imagination. It’s not science.

            And it’s stupid.

            There’s no way a self reproducing cell or bacteria “evolved” into the male and female copairs that we all can observe.

            You are brainwashed by your religion preachers in the public fool system.

          • MarcoPolo says:

            There are plenty of scientific FACTS documenting the process. You needn’t reveal your lack of knowledge in front of the world with such immature rantings.
            Do some studying…it will help you immensely!

          • Jeanette Victoria says:

            ROTFLOL no there is not one single bit of scientific evidence that shows the DNA of one species changing into the DNA of a completely different species…

          • MarcoPolo says:

            No one is professing any DNA changes. Or even cross-species.
            We’re talking about permutations of EVERY living thing on the planet over millions of years. Surely you don’t dismiss the theories of biological evolution as researched by Paleantologists, Anthropologists, Biologists, Cosmologists, etc..?

          • Graywolf12 says:

            Looks as if you need to brush up on the difference between mitosis and meiosis. Which one might lead to evolution? Put gloves on to protect your knuckles.

          • MarcoPolo says:

            I’m not sure what you’re asking me to prove that I don’t already know, but I’ll always bring Science into the conversation just to shut down the insanity that so many people on this thread persist as believing to be true!

            Perhaps you would elaborate on your comment so I’ll not misinterpret your intent?

          • Graywolf12 says:

            Do you know the difference in the types of cell division? What is the importance of meiosis to evolution?

          • MarcoPolo says:

            Is it imperative that I know the importance?
            And why should I even care to know?

          • Graywolf12 says:

            Look it up and read about the cell division that makes us who we are, and where evolution would most likely take place. Mitosis is just plain Jane cell division.

          • MarcoPolo says:

            I’m happy to see you at least acknowledge Evolution. That’s more than most on this thread will do.

            If I knew where your point was headed, I could participate in the discussion. I needn’t be dragged through a Biology class just to satisfy your curiosity.

            Please enlighten us?

          • Graywolf12 says:

            Too busy to teach a class. Look up, Google, meiosis and read the chart plus just a few paragraphs will explain the difference between then two types of cell division. You brought up science, so use it to support or refute your argument.

          • MarcoPolo says:

            You still haven’t revealed WHY you are so insistent on my learning the distinctions.

            What I read about Meiosis versus Mitosis suggests a fairly good argument for the gender nuances that are present among most civilizations. ie: LGBT people finally have a Biological explanation for existing. Hallelujah!

            Thanks for bringing that nugget of knowledge to the ‘class’.

            Of course, if I missed your teaching opportunity, maybe you’ll finally make your point?

          • tj10 says:

            Marco, perhaps it is you who actually do not know much about the evolutionary process. If you did know much about it, you would know that much of what you believe about evolution has never been observed. It cannot be tested either. You take the data and interpret it through your evolutionary paradigm to make sense of it, but there are other interpretations that make sense as well – better sense in my opinion.

            Evolutionists cannot explain so many things – how the first life evolved, how new genes evolved, how new organs evolve, why some animals evolve in a short amount of time while others remain basically unchanged for millions of years, why both bats and whales have sonar if they are not related evolutionarily speaking, why the genomes of closely related animals do not match up and why there are many ORphan genes in their genome, etc.

            I should not say that you can not “explain” it. Anyone can make up an explanation for anything. The big question is whether the ad hoc explanation is true or not. Unfortunately for evolutionists, or maybe fortunately – depending on how you look at it, they cannot test their explanations using the scientific method.

            Their “explanations” are basically unfalsifiable and unverifiable so are they really science?

            You can’t explain it all and even what you can explain, much of it you cannot verify with experimental evidence, yet you still believe it. That is why it qualifies as a “belief” as sorts.

          • MarcoPolo says:

            This may be the first time I’ve used the term: Evolutionist. So with some trepidation, I’ll ask, where have you been?
            Science has already covered the entire cycle of life and it’s origins! Do you not buy the “Big Bang” Theory?

            I just hope Science doesn’t get polluted by Religion.

          • tj10 says:

            Marco my man, are you insane? Science has already covered the entire cycle of life and it’s origins? What are you trying to say?

            That they have solved to origin of life problem?

            If so, that would be news to the rest of the planet, my friend. I know they try and come across as if they have everything solved, as if science is THE answer to everything, but it is not. Science done in the here and now using the scientific method is very very reliable. Creationists can do that kind of science every bit as well as the most dedicated atheist. There is no debate. You do the experiment and validate the result and you test it over and over again.

            But, Marco, you can’t do that with evolution. Even if it did happen, a (and we really have no way of knowing), you can’t do an experiment that shows how life evolved from chemicals. It’s impossible! Even if they could do an experiment that shows it is possible – even that would be amazing! – it still would not prove that it actually happened like that. The most you could show is that given certain strict conditions, it COULD HAVE happened that way.

            And no, I do not buy into the Big Bang. The Big Bang has lots of problems. To save the hypothesis, they have made up various unverifiable theory saving rescue devices(not scientific by the way) such as inflation, dark matter, dark energy, among others! The more unverifiable theory saving devices you add to the hypothesis, the less chance it has of being accurate! But it’s the best they’ve got. So they have to stick with it until something better comes along. If something better comes along, they will freely admit all the problems with the Big Bang idea, but not until then. Until then, they will talk as if the Big Bang is established scientific fact.

            Funny! No experiments have ever been done showing that the Big Bang is even possible – that an explosion could actually produce what we see. When we try and figure out what happened in history, we are dealing with historical science – this is VERY different from experimental science that can be verified with experiments.

            I can see you have swallowed the claims of Big Science hook, line, and sinker. Stop and think a minute and ask yourself what they really know and HOW they can know what they claim to know. Ask yourself if their computer models are verifiable? What do the models rely on? Specific conditions and specific variables plugged into the program, right? How do we know these variables and conditions actually existed in the past? Was anyone there to observe and measure it? Even if a computer model works, it doesn’t mean it is accurate because you have to validate the conditions and variables randomly plugged into it to make it work. We’re talking science here now. You can’t just pull variables out of thin air and claim you have proved something.

            If you want to learn about the problems of the Big Bang, look up this: ”
            RSR’s List of Evidence Against the Big Bang”.

            Science is already polluted by the worldview of Materialism. It is the worldview that says there has to be a natural cause for everything. But they cannot prove that assertion scientifically – it is something they take by faith. Therefore it is all built upon that statement of faith/belief.

          • MarcoPolo says:

            If you don’t want to look at this wondrous cosmos as a Science project waiting to be dissected…FINE!
            Just don’t dismiss it in favor of the Bible!

            “Creationism” is the myth!

          • tj10 says:

            Marco, you don’t know much about the history of science do you. Precisely BECAUSE creationists look at this wondrous cosmos as lab for design science, science progressed in the West. It was this view – belief in a God of order, wisdom, power, and design that spurred most of the great scientists of old to study and discover the Creator’s design and it worked wonderfully! Believing in a Creator does not hinder science at all. Instead it spurs us on to learn all about His creation, to learn it’s secrets, it’s beauty, it’s laws, etc. Biomimicry is a perfect example of this. Doubting design on the other hand leads to problems – belief in junk DNA that hinders science, for example.

          • MarcoPolo says:

            I don’t think it’s a problem of my not knowing much about the History of Science, as much as it’s a problem of my not knowing much about what you are trying to say or prove!

            If you are trying to say that this wondrous creation called Planet Earth, is because “God created it”, and His majesty has brought forth great minds that never cease to investigate all of it’s contents? Then, yes, I can tolerate that kind of description!
            It’s not for me to dismiss people’s belief systems just because I don’t agree with them, so PLEASE don’t think that I don’t respect your opinion.

            I don’t believe that our existence is CREATED BY GOD, because God is a man made construct, created to help connect our selves with our environment (including everything from our DNA to the “edges” of the Universe). You know, Micro to Macro! A hugely enormous space!!

            I’m not sure I’ve ever known what “junk DNA” is?
            But with your assistance, I’ll hope to find out.
            Thank you for your honest and polite exchanges.

          • tj10 says:

            “God is a man made construct, created to help connect our selves with our
            environment (including everything from our DNA to the “edges” of the
            Universe). You know, Micro to Macro!”

            Well, if you could only prove that belief scientifically, then you would have something, but until then, it is your belief about God vs my belief about God.

            Yes, I am fully aware of the micro to macro thing. Micro evolution is undeniable while macro is inferred and unobserved. As you can surely guess, I am not a believer in macro evolution, but only recognize micro evolution within the originally created kinds/families or whatever. So I recognize the role of natural selection, but I do not believe that mutations can produce new software that can run new organs or create new body plans, etc. This has never been demonstrated or observed.

            I think I misunderstood your last comment and responded thusly which is why you had trouble trying to figure out what I was trying to say. Yes, I do believe the whole universe is a God given science lab where He expects us to research, observe, experiment, and learn. And He also expects that what we learn, if properly understood will clearly point to His existence. This is what the Bible teaches. I believe nature points clearly to God’s existence. For me — my interpretation based on my worldview, OK? (you and all the other Materialists are welcome to your interpretation based on your worldview) – For me, multiple overlapping, interdependent codes, 3D codes, encoding and decoding machines, the information system and the information encoded and stored in the system, the thousands of nano molecular machines that seem irreducibly complex, the many systems in the body that work together to keep us alive, a finely tuned universe, the existence of natural laws, consciousness, the human brain – a veritable computer, etc. all these things scream design, purpose, and intelligence.

            Who but a Materialist could look at that stuff and honestly say it is due to totally natural processes as opposed to the natural conclusion of intelligent design?!

            Not me.

            Junk DNA is the idea that our genome is littered with evolutionary junk – leftovers from the process of evolution from the past millions of years. At first, scientists were surprised that so little of the genome actually coded for genes. They never expected the complexity or the various codes, including the epigenomic code that they have found, so their natural conclusion based on their beliefs about origins was that the large amount of stuff in the genome that did not code for genes was evolutionary junk. They took that as strong evidence for their hypothesis, but the more we learn, the more we realize that it is not junk, but other codes that have different functions and are necessary for life. Their worldview and beliefs about our origins led them to misinterpret the data. At first, when they plugged the data into their evolutionary paradigm, it made great sense, but that is not proof of course. Now the concept of Junk DNA is becoming an embarrassment to them, just like their views on vestigial organs did in the past – when functions were found for these organs.

          • MarcoPolo says:

            Good points!
            Thank you for clarifying those things I did not understand about your position.

            I suppose one could see the sense in trying to discern Life’s secrets for the purpose of understanding “God”. But for those Scientists who do not ‘believe’ in God, they’re no less valid, or less important in their respective studies.

            I have never considered the world of Computer Codes to be a part of Evolutionary Biology. But then, it is a product of our Biology and Psychology.

            Perhaps you’ll tutor me in that realm?

          • tj10 says:

            I agree that a person’s worldview does not necessarily impair their ability to do real science. Where it plays a part is when we try and interpret what happened in the distant, unrepeatable, unobservable, untestable past. Why? Because our worldview determines how we interpret the data.

            As far as codes go, search for “Astonishing DNA complexity demolishes neo-Darwinism”. There are multiple codes in our cells. Codes cannot evolve or emerge from chemicals by chance. Neither can the information/instructions encoded in the DNA. Instructions on how to build a new body organ or how to get a new body structure, or how to improve eyesight, etc. This type of information just simply does not evolve by chance mutations.

            Codes that can be read backwards and forwards are interdependent and it boggles the mind to think how such codes could not only evolve by chance, but how they could continue to improve one little mutation at a time. Changing one part might help the one code, but it would also effect the other code that is read backwards at the same time. This type of complexity was never envisioned by Darwin in a million years and is still unexplainable today. It clearly points to intelligence. I see no other rational/logical view.

          • MarcoPolo says:

            Your apparent depth of knowledge escapes my ability to understand. But I do think that any religious approach to Science will leave one wondering, more than learning.

          • tj10 says:

            Another easy to understand article on the problem that information and codes present to Materialists is this article entitled “DNA: the best information storage system” by chemist Dr. Jonathan Sarfati.

          • Taggart Snyder says:

            “Enlightenment”, as in killing babies? You’ve got a pretty twisted view of enlightenment. I’ll stay “stuck in the muck” then, thank you very much.

          • tj10 says:

            Journalread, I am a Christian and do not believe in molecules to man evolution, but this idea that Darwin recanted on his deathbed should be put to rest. It makes no difference anyway if he did or did not. It is listed as an argument that Christians should NOT use on creation dot com.

            Also, whether humans evolve or not depends on what a person means by evolution. If they mean that humans change over time, then yes, of course they do. Look at all the different skin colors. That is due to evolution of sorts. So small changes within the human kind do happen, but what we do NOT see happening is the type of evolution necessary for a single cell to turn into a human being.

            Darwinian processes cannot write software, design and integrate new efficient organs into body plans, plan ahead to create new body plans, evolve information storage, retrieval, processing systems, design and create a code in which to store the information, or design and created encoding and decoding machines.

            Chemicals cannot create consciousness. Computers do not arise by accident, but atheists want us to believe that our brain, which is superior to a computer, did. How is that for logic? And they accuse us of having faith!!! Chemicals have no eyes, ears, or intelligence. They cannot plan ahead. They cannot self-organize with a view to some future goal. They are blind, directionless, and subject to random chance.

            Does anyone really think that codes that are interdependent on each other – codes within other codes – could evolve by chance? Change one part and at the same time ruin another part? Impossible. Some codes can be read both frontwards and backwards! Some codes are 3D! And the codes are self-correcting! The wisdom and intelligence of the Creator is there in plain view. Only someone who does not want to believe would deny it.

          • MarcoPolo says:

            God and Science cannot be used together to form a hypothesis regarding the real world.
            Chemicals are not the same thing as living Cells.

        • Della Thorne says:

          No they dont….but they do deteriorate. The big deal is b saying killing babies is God’s work. That’s vile, and a lie.

        • Alecto says:

          Truth is a timeless objective concept. It does not “evolve” or in your case, devolve.

          • MarcoPolo says:

            I thank you for at least recognizing the fact that in our binary world, there are things that evolve AND devolve. Congratulations!

            As for the subject at hand, there may be those who believe the human body may be subject to market driven strategies, ie: Capitalism plain and simple.
            But ethics shouldn’t be discarded in the process.
            So I’m glad to see that we can agree on some things.

          • Alecto says:

            I on the other hand am disappointed the remark was misinterpreted by you. Same sex attraction is a psychological disorder which disqualifies those affected from any kind of role in the clergy.

          • MarcoPolo says:

            Are you a medical expert who can qualify that statement about same-sex attraction being a psychological disorder?

            And what gives you assurance that there aren’t hundreds, if not thousands of LGBT clergy among us already?
            I knew a very talented and blessed Church leader/Choir-Master/Organist who was Gay, and he never seemed to be suffering from any such psychological malady.

            Good luck believing your reasoning!

          • Alecto says:

            The APA considered it a disorder until a homosexual rewrote the entry in the DSM. He was a homosexual. So much for full disclosure and scientific method.

            Yeah, as an ex-Catholic, and a woman, I’ve had it up to here with the gays in the Catholic Church. I would never ever allow my children anywhere near a Catholic priest or any homosexual, lesbian or other such psychologically-disturbed person.

          • MarcoPolo says:

            You are aware that the APA (American Psychological Association) has always been involved with the comensurate development of the Human condition, and thus, when necessary, make changes (improvements) to their stance on a number of subjects. As facts present themselves, they are reviewed, analyzed and eventually posted for all of the Medical profession to peruse. Thus, their realization that homosexuality is simply another nuance to human sexuality.
            As for the Gay and Lesbian ‘lifestyle’, this is not science fiction, or even Demonic design, it’s just people trying to live their lives in harmony.

          • truelinguist says:

            No, it’s gay men spreading plagues that cannot be cured and cause death.

            Don’t ever compare the gay lifestyle with normal people, the rates of STDs for gay men are off the charts and everyone knows it. Gay men are sleazebags who cannot love or commit.

          • MarcoPolo says:

            I hear what you are saying, but I have a question or two that might help me understand where you are coming from.

            You probably DO know, that AIDS and STD’s are not just a Gay man’s disease, so, do you spend as much effort trying to convey these same fears to the Heterosexual crowd?

            And would you feel differently about Gays and Lesbians if that disease affected ONLY Heterosexuals?

            Now, those aren’t meant to be “gotcha” questions. Just questions that might determine whether it’s the disease of AIDS that puts you at odds with Homosexuality, or if it’s just Homosexuality that makes you feel the way you do about the disease?

            I also wonder, how many of your Gay or Lesbian friends feel about your comment regarding their fidelity/faithfulness?

            I’m sincere in my query, as I luckily don’t have any friends (Gay and Straight) that suffer from the lack of loyalty to their respective partners/spouses.
            So you are right, that there are plenty of Straight AND Gay people who don’t behave well. But to broad-brush a group of Americans as “sleazebags” just because of their sexual orientation, is over simplifying, and wrong!

            Thank you in advance for your honest and sincere response.

        • Photogirl4u says:

          Humans evolve…I don’t think so.

          • MarcoPolo says:

            It’s quite evident that there are people on this thread who refuse to evolve. Interesting indeed!

          • truelinguist says:

            What an ego.
            Anybody who thinks different from you isn’t “evolved”?

            Keep deluding yourself, old girl.

        • Jeanette Victoria says:

          Perversion is not “evolving” it is degeneration.

          • MarcoPolo says:

            Where’s the perversion you cite?

          • Photogirl4u says:

            MarcoPolo, it depends on your standards..no values=no perversion,

          • MarcoPolo says:

            Or even: Low standards=moderate kinkiness.

          • tomte says:

            Calling baby-killing “reproductive freedom”.

          • MarcoPolo says:

            I know it just sounds like rationalization to distinguish the matter removed from the womb by calling it different things. Baby”, “Viable Mass”, Fetus, Zygote… Al lot depends on developmental stages of growth to some crowds. Another group decries validly, that at the moment of conception a human life begins, so nothing short of murder is occurring when one aborts!
            Both sides have valid reasons. The rub comes when our Civil Liberties come in conflict with our Moral Compass. “Logic dictates…but emotion, rules!”

            I’m not a woman with a working womb, so quite honestly, I choose to relinquish any, and all authority, solely on/to the (pregnant) woman. Guaranteeing her ownership of her body, and all it is capable of doing… which sometimes is not nice or neat!

          • tomte says:

            Nor am I a woman, but I know that if a woman drowns her toddler in the bath tub, on purpose, she hasn’t merely committed a crime, but laws aside, she’s done something deeply evil.
            Being a man doesn’t remove your right to call a spade a spade. Are you suggesting that only anti-abortion women can really weigh in on the matter of abortion? Is a man, convicted of murder, in his rights to request that only other men sit on the jury at his murder trial, as women, being another gender, would not be able to understand fully what he did?
            As well, when I study the details of fetal development, and thereby come to the conclusion that abortion involves snuffing out an innocent life… I am not holding a pro-life position based only upon emotion.

          • MarcoPolo says:

            I’m saying this again for those slow learners…
            If you don’t own a womb, don’t make decisions for the women who DO!
            Period! (No pun intended!)

          • tomte says:

            Looks as if you missed my point…
            speaking of “slow learners”.
            Hey, if you don’t own a gun, don’t make decisions for those who do.
            Hey, if some guy wants to murder people with his gun, who are you to judge, as that’s his *personal choice*, right?

          • MarcoPolo says:

            Are those people whom this ‘guy with a gun’ chooses to murder, inside HIS womb?
            His actions would be called a crime. Abortion is a legal right of a pregnant woman who wishes not to be pregnant!

          • tomte says:

            No the murderer’s victims are not inside his womb.
            He has no womb.
            Yes, I’m aware that abortion is legal.

          • tomte says:

            “Both sides have valid reasons. The rub comes when our Civil Liberties come in conflict with our Moral Compass. “Logic dictates…but emotion, rules!””
            What is your point here?
            Are you saying that morals are based only upon emotions?
            Are you saying that morals are illogical?
            Are you saying that civil liberties should have no moral basis?
            If civil liberties are actually immoral, does this make them better?
            Are you defending a civil liberty which involves baby killing?

          • MarcoPolo says:

            I’m happy to see that you’ve been thinking about that old quote. I intended to suggest that people who are in the midst of a personal conflict might determine their decision upon the emotional factors, versus the logical ones.

            Being pregnant is something that I’m so glad I’m not capable of. And yet, I will not fail in my support of women who wish to end their pregnancies in the safe legal manner that is currently available.

            Thanks for asking!

          • tomte says:

            “I will not fail in my support of women who wish to end their pregnancies… ”


            …by killing their babies.

            You have to clarify what you mean.

            A woman can “end her pregnancy” by giving birth to a baby.

            Or she can “end her pregnancy” by having her baby killed.

            As well, you refer to “safe” abortions. Abortions aren’t safe for all parties; they’re lethal for at least one party.

            Also, try addressing my remarks directly…

            Are you saying that morals are based only upon emotions?
            Are you saying that morals are illogical?
            Are you saying that civil liberties should have no moral basis?
            If civil liberties are actually immoral, does this make them better?
            Are you defending a civil liberty which involves baby killing?

          • MarcoPolo says:

            Sorry to get you into such a dither, Tomte!

            I think it’s pretty clear that an abortion eliminates (kills, if you insist) the growing human inside the mother’s womb. Have I clarified that point, now?

            As for Civil liberties vs Personal liberties, I don’t contest their importance, nor should you.
            How they are determined depends upon the Society that establishes them, and I’m presuming you’re not too happy with some of the choices that some women are willing to exercise?

            If you’re not Pro-Choice, that’s fine! Just don’t interfere with the liberties of others who are!

          • tomte says:

            Abortion interferes with the liberties of others.
            Hey, if you’re against murder, that’s swell. Just don’t interfere with a murderer’s *liberties* if he wants to murder someone.
            As well, I’m not in a dither.

          • MarcoPolo says:

            I suppose if you knew someone was going to commit murder, you could alert the authorities.
            But abortion IS LEGAL, so what do you expect to do about THAT?

          • tomte says:

            You keep telling me it’s legal.
            I’m well aware of the fact.
            Saying “It’s legal!” a million times won’t change the fact that it involves the purposeful shedding of innocent blood.

          • MarcoPolo says:

            Very well, I’ll cease reminding you that the abortion procedure is legal… if you’ll stop whining about the “innocent baby” being murdered?

            Someone else on this site suggested once that I should be grateful that my Mother didn’t abort me.
            They went on to claim that if she had, I would have felt it! WHAT?!
            Okay, maybe there is some pain. But for how long?
            And certainly once dead, you’re just dead! Total permanent Blackness! Mission accomplished!

          • tomte says:

            ” …if you’ll stop whining about the “innocent baby” being murdered?”

          • tomte says:

            Fiddle around with this one, Marco…

            “Planned Parenthood Clinic Cut Through Dead Baby’s Face to Get His Intact Brain”
            ..full story on Breitbart and many other places.
            Also, posted by commenter NDaniels, in the vicinity of this comment.

          • MarcoPolo says:

            I’m guessing here, but if a brain is being harvested from a human…it’s better if the human is already a corpse.
            You do know (I presume) that human body parts are harvested everyday, from all ages of people. If a woman who has opted for an abortion, she has the legal right to make something positive from the procedure. And fetal body parts are helpful to those who need them. Why waste viable tissue?

          • tomte says:

            Looks like you didn’t read the article.
            Probably too tough for you to stomach.

          • MarcoPolo says:

            Do I need to read the article to understand what was taking place?
            I presume it has something to do with extracting the brain from a fetus (or unborn human).

            I used to attend surgical operations for purposes of illustrating the procedure for Medical Journals, so blood and guts don’t phase me in the least.

            Let me know if I made the wrong assumption?

          • tomte says:

            This isn’t about surgery which is meant to improve a person’s life.
            This is about extracting the brain from a murdered baby.
            The fact of the murder — the spilling of innocent blood — is the issue at hand.
            I’m not debating whether you’ve attended a medical study lab and witnessed the dissection of a cadaver, etc.

          • MarcoPolo says:

            A brain was available, and the surgeons extracted it! The infant’s cranium would be completely wasted if not for the consideration of the parties who chose to donate what could be salvaged.
            YOU consider it MURDER, and I DON’T!
            You’re not going to convince me any differently, so why keep beating a dead corpse? Just donate the remains, and move on!

        • tj10 says:

          “Humans evolve and so too, their societal norms.”

          Marco, my friend, your worldview and beliefs are showing. It’s a free country and you are free to believe whatever you want, but so are we. If you want to believe that a baby with beating heart is not human, and it is OK to stop his heart, cut open his head, take his brain, and end his life, you are free to do that.

          You obviously do not believe in God and so sure, your conclusions are completely logical within that worldview because there can be no absolute morality in your mind. Anything can be justified if necessary. Anything is OK, because real good and evil do not exist.

          Yes, human morals and societal norms evolve (change) – and not always for the better -, but the problem is that God’s standards do not change.

        • Mac T says:

          LOL again your confusing. The liberals also want Islam to be part of our culture of growth. The culture that is so backwords and ancient in it’s views the lesbian preacher would not only not exist they would be stoned to death after they rape and beat her to almost death.

          • MarcoPolo says:

            You’re mistaken, or simply mislead.
            Liberals aren’t trying to incorporate Islam into our system of Governance. We are simply acknowledging Muslims as our brethren, and bid them well in their desire to assimilate into our culture. I trust you’ve read the inscription on the plaque of the Statue of Liberty?

            I can’t think of ANYBODY who would tolerate the Sharia Laws! So drop the Fox News Fear factor. We’re going to be just fine!

      • Namyriah says:

        Just remember, a rainbow flag in front of a church is the precursor to a FOR SALE sign. These churches are going down the tubes.

  3. Elizabeth says:

    I THANK GOD that I became Catholic and not Episcopalian!!!! SCARY!!!! I guess they pretty much rip up the Bible and start over when they are like this!

    • Arbuthnaught says:

      Indeed, they are bible shredders.

    • Mac T says:

      Elizabeth sorry to tell you the new Pope agrees with them also. Catholic is not much better any more they are following in the Episcopalian foot steps one day at a time agreeing with whatever will get them some people in the door.

      • Elizabeth says:

        Actually that is not true….don’t just read the liberal press. They even mis-quoted his “then who am I to judge” statement. Follow his other quotes from the Vatican and what he said the week after that none of the Liberal press wanted to quote and put out there.

        • bamared2222 says:

          He is a socialist and anti-capitalist. He looks at gays and atheists as brothers and sisters. The man is dangerous and even untrusted by many Catholics. I don’t blame them either.

          • robert owen says:

            I was a Cathoholic but found them too conservative. Now I’m a Whiskipalian!

          • Deacon John Berstecher says:

            On boy.

          • mike t says:

            needs to apply 77 X 7 when you dialogue here in the devil’s playground.

          • Deacon John Berstecher says:

            Gays and atheists are still children of God. No doubt his ideological leanings are different than ours; after all he grew up in South America, the doctrine he speaks on has not changed.
            Remember, Jesus ate and walked with sinners. Even made one an Apostle.

          • TEAchR'76 says:

            He also told them to repent and sin no more.

          • Deacon John Berstecher says:

            And that is very important. BUT, prior to that He warned of making judgements.

          • ShawnBarnish says:

            Jesus warned about making HYPOCRITICAL judgments.
            i.e. judging things you are also guilty of.

            Jesus only warned to FIRST get yourself right so you can judge people righteously.

            Try reading past one or two isolated verses some time.

          • ShawnBarnish says:

            That’s a commandment not a requirement for salvation.
            Saved by faith not by our own works.

            Ephesians 2 KJV
            8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:

            9 Not of works, lest any man should boast.

          • bamared2222 says:

            They are sinners like all of us; however, we don’t throw out the biblical teaching and doctrine to accommodate their sin! Secondly, all of Jesus apostles were sinners saved by grace like other born again believers.
            Sent from my Windows Phone

          • ShawnBarnish says:

            The “we are all God’s children” nonsense is a lie. Only confessed believers are “children of God”.

            Jesus Christ is the only begotten son of God.
            And we believers became a son of God via adoption through our belief in Jesus Christ.

            Galatians 4 KJV
            4 But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law,

            5 To redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons

            Unbelievers are “bastards”.

            Hebrews 12 KJV
            6 For whom the Lord loveth he chasteneth, and scourgeth every son whom he receiveth.

            7 If ye endure chastening, God dealeth with you as with sons; for what son is he whom the father chasteneth not?

            8 But if ye be without chastisement, whereof all are partakers, then are ye bastards, and not sons.

            And the wicked reprobates like the pope, Obama etc are children of the devil!

            John 8:44 KJV
            Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it

          • Deacon John Berstecher says:

            We are ALL made in the image of God. Jesus spent a lot of time with sinners. That is a fact. Why did He do this, if they were not believers? What about the early Christians. The Gospels were not even written yet, and then only after most of Paul’s letters.

          • ShawnBarnish says:

            Being made in the image (how God designed us) does not = all being a child of God.

            I already proved with the word of God that people BECOME a child of God via adoption once they become a believer and some people become a child of the devil.

            Also preaching to sinners is one thing. That is how you give them the gospel. Most lost people are not enemies of God. They are just lost sinners.

            THESE PEOPLE HOWEVER who rise up against God to pervert his word, who work iniquity ARE the enemy of God.

            God says to love my enemy but NOT love his enemies.

            Psalm 139 KJV

            20 For they speak against thee wickedly, and thine enemies take thy name in vain.

            21 Do not I hate them, O Lord, that hate thee? and am not I grieved with those that rise up against thee?

            22 I hate them with perfect hatred: I count them mine enemies.

            23 Search me, O God, and know my heart: try me, and know my thoughts:

            24 And see if there be any wicked way in me, and lead me in the way everlasting.

            As for you FAKE Christians who are on the side of the world, this is what God said about that:

            James 4:4 KJV
            Ye adulterers and adulteresses, know ye not that the friendship of the world is enmity with God? whosoever therefore will be a friend of the world is the enemy of God.

          • Deacon John Berstecher says:

            Time for this “fake” Christian to end this thread.

          • ShawnBarnish says:

            Hey “Deacon”. I am curious.

            1) Are you a man? (a real one, not a tranny)

            2) Do you have a wife and have only been married once and never divorced?

            3) Do you have children?

          • Deacon John Berstecher says:

            Yes. Yes. Yes, and yes-4.

          • PTripp says:

            But no man can change the Gospel to suit their needs or wishes. Once they do, it’s no longer God’s Word. There’s a reason Lucifer is called the great deceiver and father of lies. The Catholic Church was one of the first to change the Gospel and accommodate pagan beliefs.

            You might be interested in learning the true history of the Church. It’s fully referenced.


          • Deacon John Berstecher says:

            So tell me this: if original sin never existed (obviously the “1st sin” was original), why was it taught long before Jesus?
            It is claimed that all human being are sinful. All are responsible for their own sins. Okay. But how do you explain a baby just born – sinful by himself? Just by being born, taking his 1st breath?

            Anyway, thank you for the link. I promise I will read it and not be dismissive, until I finish.

          • Michael Cook says:

            Show me where the Bible claims the wicked are God’s children. These murderers are not children of God. They are the Satan’s children. They do the deeds of their father. They, like he are liars and thieves. And their destiny will be the same as his.

          • mike t says:

            to bamared. no catholics untrust their pope. you were just catholic stomping, huh? and that about gays and athiests being his kin. take your valium and nod out, O’bama red.

          • bamared2222 says:

            Sorry Mike, just reading what the man himself says. No stomping needed. And I have been reading a lot of blogs and many Catholics are unhappy and skeptical of this man. And the statements about gays and atheists are well known and documentable. You are simply ignorant and uninformed. BAMARED, and I have no need of valium thank you. Go back to your weed.
            Subject: Re: Comment on Liberal Clergy Praise Planned Parenthood ‘Doing God’s Work’

        • PTripp says:

          You might be interested to learn the truth about the Church. I hope so.


        • Mac T says:

          Actually he just said it again the past week in a speech he gave. He now says that Islam and Muslims are children of god and we should love them and not fight with them. Sorry to tell you this also. They could care less about the God we believe in. All they want is our submission. He is starting to agree with anything they agree with in main stream media as a whole.

      • Deacon John Berstecher says:

        Actually as Elizabeth states – that is not true

      • colleen friemuth-betsinger says:

        Excuse me, I am a Catholic and I Don’t believe any of this crap. I believe what has been tradition in the church for over 2000 years. And if Pope Francis did say what you said he did, well shame on him. He will answer to God. Thank you. And I will check out what you said.Mac T.

        • mike t says:

          don’t buy it colleen. trouble maker. MIKE

        • ShawnBarnish says:

          Well if you believe in baptizing infants and breweries you can pay to anyone other than Jesus Christ as intercession to God the father then I guess you’ll believe anything that comes from those modern day Pharisees.

          John 14:6 KJV
          Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me

          Here’s Jesus Christ speaking to the Pharisees, the same people who are now running the catholic church today!

          Now he forbids a church leader to use the title “”Father”!

          Matthew 23 KJV
          5 But all their works they do for to be seen of men: they make broad their phylacteries, and enlarge the borders of their garments,

          6 And love the uppermost rooms at feasts, and the chief seats in the synagogues,

          7 And greetings in the markets, and to be called of men, Rabbi, Rabbi.

          8 But be not ye called Rabbi: for one is your Master, even Christ; and all ye are brethren.

          9 And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven.

          10 Neither be ye called masters: for one is your Master, even Christ.

          Not too mention all the graven images God told you not to fashion!

          Deuteronomy 5 KJV
          8 Thou shalt not make thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the waters beneath the earth:

          9 Thou shalt not bow down thyself unto them, nor serve them: for I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me,

          10 And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me and keep my commandments.

          Images of Mary and saints are heaven images. They are dumb idols!

          Habakkuk 2 KJV
          18 What profiteth the graven image that the maker thereof hath graven it; the molten image, and a teacher of lies, that the maker of his work trusteth therein, to make dumb idols?

          19 Woe unto him that saith to the wood, Awake; to the dumb stone, Arise, it shall teach! Behold, it is laid over with gold and silver, and there is no breath at all in the midst of it.

        • PTripp says:

          You might want to learn the origins of the Catholic Church and how it continues to change.


        • Mac T says:

          I never said you did Colleen. I did say the pope does and in the catholic church he is the head. That is all I said ma’am. As for shaming him all you have to do is look at his latest visit here. I rarely, if ever, heard him speak about his position, which is to talk about our lord and savior Jesus Christ. He did however sound like a liberal clone talking about any American Liberal views that the TV show “The View” would predominately agree with.

      • Brad Thomas says:

        Unfortunately, many of the mainline Christian denominations have so strayed away from Godly principles that they are little more than social clubs.

      • ShawnBarnish says:

        The pope and the head of the catholic church is the modern day Pharisees.
        They keep the people ignorant worth foolish traditions of men, repetitious prayer and the literal worship of idols including heaven images sweety uo in the church and in the homes off the Catholics.
        The word of God forbids all of that including calling a religious leader “father” and Jesus said “No man shines to the gather but by me” in John 14:6 kjv.

        Yet because the catholic church Kris the members ignorant and busy doing the silly traditions instead of creating the bible it is hard to get through to a catholic. 🙁

        Obviously the pope will also welcome the antichrist as well. I wonder how many Catholics will obey him then?

    • Wrong_way_willis says:

      You are actually as guilty in your sin as they are, as I am.

      There’s a portion of scripture where Jesus points out the hypocrisy of a Pharisee … Funny how that Pharisee said the same thing you did..

      Plus if you Knew scripture you’d NOT BE CATHOLIC. Being as I am an X Catholic I do know what you either know and deny or do not know and have no desire too.

      Nevertheless If you believe upon the name of Jesus you shall be saved. That belief however to be TRUE must bear fruit..

      • Elizabeth says:

        Yes we are ALL Sinners but as Christ said to sinners “GO and SIN NO MORE”…he never condoned sin.

        Romans 1:24-28
        Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen. For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error. And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a debased mind to do what ought not to be done.

        • Wrong_way_willis says:

          Great post…. But why would you condem others and sin yourself?
          You do not keep Gods, nor Jesus’s Sabbath Holy…. But you do keep the sabbath of Shawtawn holy by keeping a day that even your own church says is not sanctified in scripture …. Today is Gods Sabbath and since now you know … Now you know you sin.

    • ShawnBarnish says:

      Statistically “Catholics” have more abortions than any other branch of “Christianity”.

      I guess that’s what happens when you get your doctrine from a pervert prettiest instead of the word of God itself sown into your heart.

      Please reconsider becoming a bible believing Christian rather than a idol worshiping, baby sprinkling (fake baptism), repetitious prayer chanting catholic.

      Btw, pretty much all “denominations” are tweaked worth their doctrine. That’s why they even have a controlling entity over them be it the pervert Vatican or a board of directors etc in the case of Lutheran, Episcopalian, Methodist, church of Christ, etc etc.

      I’m a fundamental Baptist. I belong to an independent local church that has Jesus Christ as the head and only the word of God as the authority. We actually all bring a king James bible to church and we all open it and learn from it.
      We obey the gospel. We go out two by two to share the gospel.
      We BAPTIZE those who confess that Jesus Christ is the son of God. And it is done by submersion as done in the bible to symbolize the death burial and resurrection.
      Obviously a baby can not do that and it is heresy to baptize a baby. Which my ignorant family did to me as a baby in the Lutheran (catholic lite) church.

      Please get a unmolested bible (kjv) and read acts 16:30-31, John 3:15-18 to see the salvation is by FAITH ALONE and not by works, not by someone praying a dead person into heaven.

      Also read Acts 8:36-38 and you’ll see the requirement of a person being baptized.

      The catholic church is lying to you. And if the latest pervert pope (modern day Pharisees) who is pro homosexua and pro global warming lie among pro new world order, you must not be able to see.
      And if you

      • Elizabeth says:

        Well Shawn I will be praying for you….I was a Southern Baptist for most of my life, my parents were and my grandfather was a Baptist missionary in China and pastor. The happiest moment of my life was when at age 51 I came home to the Church that Jesus placed here on Earth. Most people try reading the writings of the first Christians and the Early Church Fathers….you see…the Baptist and other protestant churches started about 1500 AD or later…The Catholic Church was started in 33 AD by Jesus himself when he made Peter the head of the Church and the first Pope (which Pope means PAPA)….I have never lived a more full, happy, fulfilling and close life to God than when I came home. As for more Catholics having Abortions….I really doubt that…and if that is what the stats say it’s because there are millions of Catholics world-wide and many people “say” they are Catholic but have not been to church in years. I really doubt those numbers are right if you ask True Catholics who go to Mass every Sunday and live out the faith. I worked with numbers all my life and I know you can make them say what you want and skew them anyway you want. I will pray that one day you will meet a TRUE Catholic who like all the FIRST CATHOLICS (Mary, Peter, Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Martha etc …on and on…) knew God, Loved him and LIVED the HARD FACT Faith out. I will keep you in my prayers.

        • ShawnBarnish says:

          HA HA HA HA! You are so deceived!
          Jesus is the rock! Not Peter!
          The Bible uses that reference for Jesus several times! Then he tells Peter “On this rock (Jesus) will I build my church”.

          And the Catholic Cult, while it did continue off of the practices of the Pharisees, it did not simply start in 33AD.

          Sadly. I could use bible verse after bible verse to PROVE that calling your priest “Father” is heresy, that baptizing infants is heresy, that confessing sins to a pedophile in a box is heresy, that praying to mary as intercession is heresy, that making and bowing down before graven idols is heresy yet you will IGNORE the word of God and stick to your sick pervert man made cult.

          • Deacon John Berstecher says:

            For I became your father in Christ Jesus through the gospel” (1 Cor. 4:14–15).

            All of these passages were written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, and they express the infallibly recorded truth that Christ’s ministers do have a role as spiritual fathers. Jesus is not against acknowledging that. It is he who gave these men their role as spiritual fathers, and it is his Holy Spirit who recorded this role for us in the pages of Scripture. To acknowledge spiritual fatherhood is to acknowledge the truth, and no amount of anti-Catholic grumbling will change that fact.

          • ShawnBarnish says:

            First of all, get a REAL bible.

            14 I write not these things to shame you, but as my beloved sons I warn you.

            15 For though ye have ten thousand instructers in Christ, yet have ye not many fathers: for in Christ Jesus I have begotten you through the gospel.

            He did not say he was their FATHER. Wow what a fool to twist scripture like that!
            He was talking about netting new believers.

            And he said IN CHRIST JESUS he made the new believers. NOT in himself and he never called himself “Father”.

            Also, this isn’t Peter speaking. LOL Wow silly deceived Catholic. This was Paul’s letter to the church at Corinth.

            And again, Jesus REBUKED a person who used the religious title of “Father”.
            And he also rebuked the religious title of “Rabbi”, saying that Jesus is the ONLY Rabbi and God in heaven is the ONLY Father.

          • Deacon John Berstecher says:

            Ah, it does have 1 Cor after the quote, That would be Paul.
            What to you is a real Bible. The one put together in 1611? Are you blind to the fact the the KJV was a translation into English from an existing Bible.?

            Calling me names etc does not make for an intelligent discussion, or to make your point. That is childish.

            Yes, your quotes are correct. I can also take quotes to refute your points. Context Shawn, context. The whole Word of God is important, together. Old Testament and New Testament. Jesus stressed He did not come to change the Law. What did He mean?.

            I suggest finding the meaning of English words from Hebrew, Latin and Greek. They are not always the same.

          • Elizabeth says:

            Shawn…I was just like you…..hearing you is like hearing a old recording of myself. You have a lot of hate in your speech and no love. Jesus never called out in hate not even the Pharisees did he hate he only called them Blind Guides.. I am not going to sit here on social media and debate you in your hate. I will just continue to pray for you that God will soften your heart and that some day you will learn to treat people with love no matter what they believe. And by the way…Peter in the original language of Jesus (Aramaic) is the word for ROCK but not just a pebble – a BIG Rock. Several months ago I found this Youtube video of The Lord’s Prayer sung in Aramaic….you will love it ….so beautiful!!! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MAEIrp4MFBE

          • ShawnBarnish says:

            You’re so blind that you don’t even know that there is both a time to love AND TO HATE.
            -Ecc 3:8 KJV

            Jesus didn’t love the Pharisees. They were not just sinners but were wicked reprobates.
            He straight up told them that they would receive THE GREATER DAMNATION.

            Matthew 23:14 KJV
            Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye devour widows’ houses, and for a pretence make long prayer: therefore ye shall receive the greater damnation.

            These wicked false teachers, the catholic priests etc are all wicked workers of iniquity and because they are not just a sinner but work the iniquity they will receive the greater damnation in hell.

            Btw, you’ve been doing nothing but working iniquity since you replied to me, Satan. So don’t you dare trying to use the word hate against me as if it is a bad thing.. Hate is GOOD when it is righteous. I hate you with righteous hatred.

            Psalm 5:5 KJV
            The foolish shall not stand in thy sight: thou hatest all workers of iniquity.

            Psalm 11:5 KJV
            The Lord trieth the righteous: but the wicked and him that loveth violence his soul hateth

            Psalm 26:5 KJV
            I have hated the congregation of evil doers; and will not sit with the wicked.

            Psalm 31:6 KJV
            I have hated them that regard lying vanities: but I trust in the Lord.

            Psalm 139 kjv
            20 For they speak against thee wickedly, and thine enemies take thy name in vain.

            21 Do not I hate them, O Lord, that hate thee? and am not I grieved with those that rise up against thee?

            22 I hate them with perfect hatred: I count them mine enemies.

            23 Search me, O God, and know my heart: try me, and know my thoughts:

            24 And see if there be any wicked way in me, and lead me in the way everlasting.

          • ShawnBarnish says:

            Get that SICK graven image down from here.

            And MAN OF GOD would sooner break that sick disgusting idol of yours down into DUST.

            And again, Peter was NOT the rock that the church was built on you blaspheming fool!

            Jesus is the rock!

            Jesus is the cornerstone that was laid when he rose again.
            He is the rock. Not Peter, a sinner like anyone else.

            Isaiah 28:16 KJV
            “Therefore thus saith the Lord God, Behold, I lay in Zion for a foundation a stone, a tried stone, a precious corner stone, a sure foundation: he that believeth shall not make haste.”

            Also, if you weren’t so brainwashed by the cult and reads IN CONTEXT you’d see that the person being spoken of was JESUS and by time you get to that verse that you heretics isolate to teach your lie, any normal person would know that Jesus was still talking about HIMSELF!

            So start a few verses above and here’s what jesus asked Peter:

            Matthew 16 KJV
            15 He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am?

            16 And Simon Peter answered and said,
            NOTE THIS >>>Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.

            17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.

            18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

            Jesus was talking about himself.

            More on Jesus being THE ROCK

            Romans 9:33 KJV
            “As it is written, Behold, I lay in Sion a stumblingstone and rock of offence: and whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed.”

            1 Corinthians 10:4 KJV
            “And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ.”


            Ephesians 2:20 KJV
            “And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone;”

            In Job 6 God is speaking to Job and mentioning events that occurred and will occur (future to job) and one of them was when Jesus did his work, being that he was the ROCK. The cornerstone.

            A cornerstone is what things are BUILT UPON! And that is the reference.

            Job 38:6 KJV
            “Whereupon are the foundations thereof fastened? or who laid the corner stone thereof;”

            Peter is NOT the rock. Jesus is.

            Oh wait, let’s do one more from the book of….. PETER!

            1 Peter 2:6 KJV
            “Wherefore also it is contained in the scripture, Behold, I lay in Sion a chief corner stone, elect, precious: and he that believeth on him shall not be confounded.”

            Peter is talking about JESUS not himself.

            Anyone who puts their faith on anyone but Jesus to get to the father in heavven is a heretic.

        • ShawnBarnish says:

          And don’t you DARE pray for me via your Catholic cult rituals.
          The only way to the father is through Jesus Christ! John 14:6 KJV

          Also, Catholic’s rules keep changing because they ignore the firm teachings of the bible and believe a pervert instead.

          i.e. instead of the bible instructing to cover your nakedness from your lions to your thighs (skirts and dresses or men’s shorts covering to just above the knees) the Catholic cult spews out nonsense about how many inches the skirt must be and of course they CHANGE the rule every few years until the modern schoolgirls got half their nakedness showing.

          Just look at your wicked pope. The pervert is straight out telling the world that the LGBT is good and that we need to obey the government as far as Global Warming goes.

          Oh, your piece of dung pervert pope is also pimping the lies of evolution and the big bang teachings.

          What a sick bastard.

    • Alecto says:

      Really? Thankful that Catholic women abort at the same rates as Protestants, Jews, and all other groups? Thankful that American “bishops” are more aghast and lash out at Americans who want to enforce our sovereignty than they’re abhorred by butchery at Planned Parenthood? C’mon now. There’s Catholic and there’s Vat II quasi-catholic.

  4. Namyriah says:

    Oh, murder. “Muslims for Progressive Values.” Amazing, now the lefty churches are not only serving as patsies for the atheists, but for Muslims as well.

  5. Gregg says:

    Great to see the Left, stand on the side of the underdog and most vulnerable

  6. Books Moore says:

    I see that we still have Michas who “serve God” for ten shekels and a shirt.

  7. Bob McMahan says:

    Every one of the churches named here have rapidly declining congregations.

  8. sigzero says:

    Clearly they know nothing about God and His Word.

  9. davepinoy says:

    This is where pride and arrogance takes a person or a congregation. Because they think of history of the church and the values of the early christians are of no value, they seek to what pleases their ears and satisfy their ego’s. Their very rational or razon d’ etre is quintessentially pride and ignorance. Of course they would not accept its ignorance but as epistemology would say…IGNORANCE IS LOUD….

  10. Thomas Cahill says:

    I’m done with the Episcopal Church.

  11. CaptGene says:

    she is telling the truth, actually. Of course, HER “god” is not THE
    God of the Old and New Testaments. THIS is her “god” and the “son of
    her god”. Galatians 6:7 Do not be deceived: God cannot be mocked. A man
    reaps what he sows.

  12. CrossHugger says:

    I heard that they unveiled a statue of satan in Detroit recently. Maybe that would be the god that these folks worship. It sure isn’t the God of Scripture.

  13. Cjones1 says:

    Maybe they should preach that if you are younger than 43 years old or have children or grandchildren, then, but for the grace of God, those who now enjoy life should cherish it because they could have become parts on the sacrificial platter of Planned Parenthood.

  14. Gaijinman says:

    Episcopal, Unitarian and other Luciferian cultists… shill for baby murder and otherwise for every collectivist cause…

  15. KAPOS comes in all religious affilaitions. Christian clergy is no exception, as current leftist marxist islamist Vatican Pope Francis of Assisi demonstrates day in and day out, whom the lower clergy takes his cue and runs with it. He who loses his humanity, loses his soul.

    The Christian Church, like Democrats, under this marxist leftist islamist loving Pope and his lower clergy, have lost their humanity / morality, lost their souls, and are now servants of evil, the same evil that Hitler and Joseph Mengele committed.

  16. Edward Prisby says:

    By their fruits you will know them. Doing the work of their god Satan, who is a murderer and the father of lies.

    • Karl Schneider says:

      correction,they are living baby parts,STOLEN from their owners…this is the “urban legend” story of waking up in a bath tub of ice with a note telling you your kidney has be stolen FOR REAL,except there is not tub,no note and you never wake up because your dead from having a “doctor” crush your head,stab a sissors into your neck and head to scramble your brain and cut your spinal cord…and we call ISIS animals?

      • MarcoPolo says:

        A woman has every legal right to dispense with her aborted fetus in any way she deems beneficial to her needs. It’s not a BABY until it’s delivered and breathing!

        This is the same complaint that stirred former President George W. Bush to halt all embryo stem cell research.

        If it’s not your body….it’s not your decision!

        And BTW, a wedding cake is always just a wedding cake… not a GAY wedding cake! The ceremony and purpose are identical to the Traditional ceremony. Get over it!

        • Alecto says:

          You’re confused, indoctrinated and demonstrate a very weak intellect and character. Those flaws disqualify you from making serious inquiries or deductions on the topic.

          • MarcoPolo says:

            How so?

          • Alecto says:

            Government compelled commercial behavior by citizens (you MUST sell X, or buy Y, X being wedding cakes and Y being health insurance) IS tantamount to slavery a la the Soviet Union. A human being is a human being from the moment of conception and is no other thing, incapable of being ANY other thing and is not an inchoate being, it is what it is from the moment of existence (h/t Marcus Aurelius), you’re not using reason, you are using a selective reasoning, which is not objective or comprehensible to others.

        • ShawnBarnish says:

          By that logic I have every right to dispose of any Sodomite infecting our society that I see fit for destruction!

          • MarcoPolo says:

            I’d be careful using terms like “DISPOSE” while Homeland Security is listening.
            Do you own a gun?! Sheesh!

          • ShawnBarnish says:

            DHS, oh you mean Obama’s joke that is ran by a ugly counterfeit man?

          • MarcoPolo says:

            Keep in mind, the single largest Government Departmental addition in history, was the Dept. of Homeland Security…by George W. Bush & his Cohort Dick Cheney!
            Ya gotta love ’em!

          • Brad F says:

            You morons will be talking about Cheney when you’re vegetating in a nursing home slobbering over yourselves. Give it a rest, the Bush presidency ended in January 2009, you seem to have chronology problems.

          • MarcoPolo says:

            If you find no problems with the former Administration, I know we have nothing to talk about, but I mentioned him merely for clarification.

            DHS occurred well before Obama was even a thought! …I had to defend his honor, because truth needs to be heard.

            And as far as vegetating in a Nursing Home, I’ve got other plans. Worry not!

          • Gary Whiteman says:

            Defend Obama’s “honor”????

            The man is the scum of the earth.

          • MarcoPolo says:

            Everybody has an opinion!

          • MarcoPolo says:

            If you are gestating a sodomite within your body (like an unwanted pregnancy), you DO legally have a right to dispose of it.

        • ShawnBarnish says:

          And no, the wedding of a pair of same sex perverts does NOT equal the marriage of a man and his wife.

          Two men or two women can not even CONSUMATE the marriage.

          Two men can CONSTIPATE it with feces, but that is not even close to the same thing.

          Also no two men or two women can procreate.

          You are such a moron to believe that it is equal.

          • MarcoPolo says:

            So is procreation the determining measure for qualifying for marriage?
            What about those of us who will never reproduce? Do we not qualify as valid matrimonial partners?

            Equality is the missing element in this conversation. Why can’t the institution of Marriage simply accommodate every “qualified” candidate for inclusion?

            BTW, we’re talking about love, faithfulness, and compassion here…NOT sex!

    • ShawnBarnish says:

      Indeed. And what a shame modern AmeriKa is because of it.

  17. Mike Ward says:

    What I find so stunning is not that progressive churches support Planned Parenthood, but how Planned Parenthood is so far above reproach in their opinion. It’s like a god to them that can never ever under any circumstances be accused of anything wrong.

    Camille Paglia who is a Progressive, feminist, atheist lesbian–not exactly the kind of person who’s going to join the Right any time soon–was interviewed by Salon this week where she said in part, “Now I am a former member of Planned Parenthood and a strong supporter of unconstrained reproductive rights. But I was horrified and disgusted by those videos and immediately felt there were serious breaches of medical ethics in the conduct of Planned Parenthood officials.”

    You will rarely, if ever, hear that sort of critique from Progressive Christian leaders of anything they support. They have completely binary thinking. If they support it, it can never be criticized. If they oppose it, it can never be praised. And they will attack anyone who dares to disagree with them either way.

  18. Arbuthnaught says:

    Planned Beasthood. Not Planned Parenthood.

  19. Daniel Carlson says:

    This is the “liberation gospel”, “social gospel”, at it’s worst. One cannot truly be liberated or in a society with God until one’s sins are wiped clean. Jesus didn’t come to liberate people’s desires to sin and do evil – He came to forgive sin and destroy evil.

    The trouble with liberation theology is that it takes the work of Christ — His death on the cross — and turns it into a triviality while at the same time turning the word ‘love’ into the idol. “God is love”, but He is NOT our love. “God is love”, but His love is not expressed through the abolition of the Commandments. “God is love”, and where true love reins, truth must rein also. Otherwise it’s not God’s love but the devil’s.

    This woman and all who support her speak not for God but for the devil, because she does not speak the truth.

  20. James Smith says:

    Which god?
    People dont get it..
    This is not an attack on PP. Its a attack on the practice of selling of organs and body parts which is illegal. Clean up your house.

  21. Jeanette Victoria says:

    God’s work indeed the “god” Moloch. The Episcopal Church might as well as admit it they have become the Church of Satan

  22. Red 2 says:

    Is this position the position of the advocacy board or just a group of members of the advocacy board? Is this position from the clergy of these churches an official position of said churches, or just these individual clergy members?

    • Jeff Walton says:

      Good question, Red 2. This statement represents the members of the board, not the religious groups they affiliate with. That being said, both the Episcopal Church and the United Church of Christ are affiliates of the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice (RCRC), the primary purpose of which is to offer a veneer of religious support for abortion on demand. American Baptist Churches USA is not an affiliate of RCRC.

  23. IrishConservative says:

    If God continues to allow this type of balsphemy then He indeed does owe Sodom and Gamora an apology. If He does allow it then maybe God doesn’t exist after all.

  24. Jennifer P says:

    Killing children in the womb is God’s work?

    No. Killing children in the womb is the devil’s work. It is the deepest depth of evil.

  25. Namyriah says:

    If the ACLU clergy did not make loony statements about abortion and homosexuality, would they get any attention at all? They sure don’t make news by their pastoring of megachurches.

  26. ZG says:

    Science demonstrates that abortion is killing innocent human life! #Defund PP

  27. gamalh says:

    All I am going to say is they will have to stand in front of God one day and try to explain why they taught this. In the bible it tells of the teachers that teach false information will be held accountable for it.

    • PTripp says:

      I don’t recall them getting a chance to put up a defense.

      Somehow I don’t think ‘it’s all Bush’s fault’ will erase their sins once written in the Book of Life.

      Sorry, had to throw that sarcasm in. It’s not Trial Day, it’s Judgement Day. Our lives are our testimony.

      • gamalh says:

        Well you are right but it says in the bible that they will be saying that they did many good works in his name and HE will say depart from me, I never knew you. Don’t you know that will be the most horrible thing to hear?

  28. Bruce Mercer says:

    since when is murder God’s work?

  29. Gioiel says:

    What God are they serving? Definitely not the same one as me! Their god must be satan, they”ll get what they deserve!!

  30. Mac T says:

    This is why homosexuals and Christian churches do not mix. They first off don’t want to be told the truth that the bible says that what they are doing is a sin. Then don’t tell them anything that allows them to murder babies is a sin and it is murder. Then don’t tell them what to do at all, how about that. Free will allows you to sin, it does not cleanse you of the sin if you continue to do it.

  31. Vyorgo says:

    “and media outlets have been warned by the organization not to air footage from the videos.”

    oh, so planned parenthood has the right to CENSOR what the media reports on, eh? Liberals for censorship…..

  32. SoulSeekerUSA says:

    These are what God calls wolves in sheep clothing. Nothing but evil.

  33. Dave M. says:

    I Thought that Free Obama Care would pay for all this other stuff why do we need to keep funding the slaughter house and brokrage of baby parts???

    • CarriedbyGrace says:

      To the tune of 500 million dollars a year, no less.

    • Deacon John Berstecher says:

      That makes sense Dave. Defund Planned Parenthood in one agency, but give it to them thru another? It all comes from the same place – our pockets.

  34. SSGT says:

    “every person* — regardless of income, race, or religion — deserves access to safe, affordable, high-quality health care.”

    *excluding those yet born

  35. RooforLife says:

    Isaiah 5:20 Woe unto them who call evil, good, and good,
    evil; who put darkness for light, and light for darkness; who put bitter for
    sweet, and sweet for bitter!

    Mt 7; 15-16 “Be on your guard against false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing but underneath are wolves on the prowl. You will know them by their deeds. Do you ever pick grapes from
    thornbushes, or figs from prickly plants? Never!”

    There are 6 things that the LORD hates, 7 that are an
    abomination 2 him: haughty eyes, a lying tongue, AND HANDS THAT SHED INNOCENT BLOOD; A heart that plots wicked schemes, feet that run swiftly to evil, the false witness who utters lies and he who sows discord among brothers(Prvs 6:16-19)

    We are called 2 Rescue those who are UNJUSTLY SENTENCED
    TO DIE; don’t stand back & let them die……For God, who knows all hearts, knows yours, and He knows you knew! Prv 24:11-12

    Jesus said in Mt 25:40: “Whatever you did for the
    least of my brethren, YOU DID IT TO ME.”

    The unborn, are a boy or girl from conception it’s in their DNA & is Jesus brethren just as much as born persons.

    Will God hear your prayers if you support abortion?

    Isaiah 1:15 And when you spread forth your hands [in prayer, imploring help], I will hide My eyes from you; even though you make many prayers, I will not hear. Your hands are full of blood!

    When the Word was made flesh God was an embryo!
    Lk 1: 29-38

    Abortion and the Bible:

    Pro-Life or Pro-Choice?

    God’s Terms for Unborn Human Life http://gospelway.com/morality/abortion.php

  36. Donna Johnson says:

    She is a False Prophet12 She is a false prophet.
    1 Timothy 2:11 – 2:12
    11 Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.
    12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.

  37. Karl Schneider says:

    i’m for late,late,late term abortion…performed on these planned parenthood murderous slime and the ones that support them

  38. bamared2222 says:

    These people are evil in their hearts. They don’t know evil from good. How in the world could anyone think abortion is “doing God’s work??????” They are insane, reprobates and hypocrites who will face a terrible judgment without turning from their sins.

  39. tiredofgarbage says:

    Here is the e-mail for Susan Russell – srussell srussell@allsaints-pas.org

  40. Laura says:

    put lipstick and earrings on her, and she’s still a “butch”

  41. Paula Coyle says:

    Clearly they are doing God’s work as mentioned in Psalm 137:8-9.
    (look it up)

  42. they’re not selling tissue, they are selling baby parts in tact and the most valued are lungs which are the last to develop. those are the most prized. please don’t insult our intelligence and report this as fetal tissue, it is actual organs and to top that, in case you didn’t realize, they are purposely altering procedures to ensure they don’t crush the parts that are vital to sales. Also the woman who started planned parenthood did not start it to legalize abortion, in fact she started it because of the fact she saw too many back alley abortions being performed and she thought women should have the right to prevent pregnancy in the first place. So technically she wanted women to be able to know about and use birth control so that they wouldn’t have to deal with an issue of abortion. All these reports out there and no one is digging into the historical facts nor are they looking at the reality of what is happening here. I’m glad this came out and I’m glad the videos are out there, they speak for themselves and the government should stop supporting abortion anywhere. If they want to fund birth control that’s one thing but abortion, no sorry go put the money to use somewhere else. They are def not doing God’s work and these “churches” should not hide behind the mask they are hiding behind. I guess since freedom of speech is something we give here in America, it’s only fair Satan has a right to be heard too because that’s who’s on the bull horn there saying it’s God’s work. No it’s not. God gave us life therefore He is the only one who can take it, it’s not for any of us to take, may I lead you all to Thou Shall Not Kill? Just sayin….

  43. Mark Irons says:

    “Yea, they sacrificed their sons and their daughters unto devils, and shed innocent blood, even the blood of their sons and of their daughters, whom they sacrificed unto the idols of Canaan: and the land was polluted with blood. Thus were they defiled with their own works, and went a whoring with their own inventions. Therefore was the wrath of the Lord kindled against his people, insomuch that he abhorred his own inheritance. And he gave them into the hand of the heathen; and they that hated them (obama) ruled over them.” Psalm 106:37-41

  44. Dan Ramirez says:

    Gods work is not taking life in any form. These people are hypocrites bearing false colors. Those that follow them are seeking the easy path and you know where that will lead you!!!!!!

  45. Jason Zentz says:

    DOING GOD’S WORK?! You liberals are just straight up the epitome of evil. You claim to be doing God’s work yet know nothing of His word. She must be the Clergy reading from that Queen James Bible. God’s work is soon to come with His judgement on this country.

  46. Brandi Andrews says:

    Remember the 10 Commandments ???? Thou shalt not Kill. Abortion clinics kill. Planned Parenthood, chops babies up and sells their parts. Totally disgusting ! And these people proclaim to clergy, NO THEY ARE ONLY HIDING BEHIND GOD, THEY ARE PHONIES !

  47. Dusty H says:

    Planned Parenthood is the full fruit of the new “social gospel” and “social justice”, but don’t be deceived into thinking that this wholesale slaughter of unborn babies is the completion of their agenda! For several years the ethics discussions at the most respected progressive/liberal Universities has turned to “post-birth” or “after-birth” abortion.



  48. Richard Baier says:

    So “faith leaders” support murdering babies and selling dismembered body parts? Where did Jesus say this is ok?

  49. Thelma Hendrix says:

    Many will meet God and God will say I Never Knew You..
    There evil and un Godly… Say to say but true.

  50. Susan Russell says:

    @disqus_P6z0qujTid:disqus — Just for the record [a] publishing my email address did indeed result in a “flood of invective” and [b] I don’t believe you either asked for or received permission to use my photograph on this blog site.

    • Namyriah says:

      Nothing wrong with invective, so long as it’s directed at the right target.

      As for photo: Someone standing around in public with a megaphone isn’t exactly a shrinking violet, are you? If you Episcopagans didn’t talk about sodomy and abortion, you would get no publicity at all, would you? You’re tickled pink that you got attention from the people you hate, so don’t act offended.

      Keep up the good work shrinking your laughable “church.” You’ve driven all the Christians away, now it’s just a cozy little club for gays and lesbians to hang out on Sundays. A religion based on child murder and spreading of STDs just doesn’t have that much appeal to people with real spiritual needs.

  51. rjh4elohim says:

    This is … scary for your souls. Who is your god?

  52. Dan says:

    Just to add to the disgust department – check out the home page of http://www.umc.org. One of their lead stories has pictures of lions on it and talks about the social principles and how we are to care for animals. This is a new low for the UMC, even by already low standards. Nothing about PP selling body parts from murdered fetuses, since animals are obviously more precious than a lump of fetal tissue. I am beginning to think that the M in UMC should stand for Moloch instead of Methodist.

    Not to be outdone the PCUSA web site has an article about “when pigs go to heaven” that asks how the swine felt when Jesus cast out the demons and ran them over the cliff.

  53. Forgiven Sinner says:

    The arrogant, self-righteousness and sense of intellectual and moral superiority of those who worship at the altar of abortion is as far from the love of Jesus Christ as one could be.

    The hearts and minds of these monsters have been destroyed by their ideology.

    Rather than humble themselves and seek repentance and forgiveness, they exalt themselves as they commit child sacrifice inside the Gates of Hell they call Planned Parenthood.

    Father forgive them…for they know not what they do.

  54. Barry Takacss says:

    i dont want to know what kind of god they pray to. over 300,000 babies murdered every year and they are doing “God’s work” that is b s!

  55. BRMountain says:

    Women, most all of them, whether Liberal or Conservative have always declared that “This is a very personal and private issue” and they alone should be allowed to make the decision on whether to abort or not. That it is “Their choice.”
    Then the question begs to be asked, why everyone else is forced to “Pay” for it? They want it both ways, no consequences for their actions and taxpayers have to pay for their irresponsibility and lack of good sound judgement.
    There should, in my humble opinion, abortions allowed for rape, incest and women held captive and raped over and over for years, IF that is what they want. There should be some assistance for those people. Otherwise, if you make a choice to abort, at any time in your pregnancy, then YOU pay for it or you and the Father and no abortions after 10 weeks.

    Pregnancy is not the ONLY consequence of unprotected sex. There are many diseases that can ruin your life and require treatments that also places taxpayers on the hook.
    Planned Parenthood is hardly the only Womens Health Center where services can and are provided, so the nonsense that women will suffer without Planned Parenthood is a lie.

    As for Priests having a say so, what happened to the separation of Church and State? Have your beliefs and speak them but stay the hell out of Politics. Catholic Priests, Bishops, etc..should have no say in abortion issues after all the rape and sexual abuse that goes on in their places of worship.

    These women who scream for free birth control, free abortions, free STD services and meds, need to take some responsibility or their “OWN” actions and have some decorum and respect for others that have to pay the bills due to the lack of responsibility that they demonstrate over and over. There are women that use abortion as a means of birth control, having multiple abortions over and over at taxpayers expense. I have no respect for this kind of behavior.

    Also, Planned Parenthood does NOT provide mammograms, that service is referred out , the same as your Doctor does when you need one.

    They do STD tests, prescribe birth control, and perform pregnancy tests and abortions, abortions, abortions. They even sell live babies to stem cell labs. LIVE babies that have been taken at 30 and 36 weeks! For mercy sakes, there have to be limits to this type of degradation and lack of morals. Once again, the liberals give evidence to the fact that they have none of these qualities.

  56. boxxjockey says:

    Ladies you are as bad as the Nazi’s. I can promise you biblically that you are so incorrect with so many verses. You will answer to Jesus and you will be covered for eternity in the blood of all those murdered babies. Yes, they are human beings, not fetuses. You and all that support these murders are absolutely no different than Hitler, you are in human and will rep what you sow.

  57. Larry Farlow says:

    The Episcopal Church is a full-blown synagogue of Satan at this point. No Christian should remain therein.

  58. Max Haiflich, Jr. says:

    When did Christ approve of LYING in his name? Why do so many ignore Christ and push the Old Testament, instead?

  59. Jeanette Victoria says:

    The Episcopal Church has become the temple of Satan

  60. Gary Whiteman says:

    This Susan Russell has the title
    “Vice Chair.”


  61. Molech is alive and well…at least within those social clubs mascarading as churches. These congregations / denominations should have their tax exempt status revoked.

  62. NDaniels says:

    “Americans United for Life says 7th Planned Parenthood Undercover Video Reveals the Horrific ‘Tell-Tale Heart’ of Its Gruesome Infant Organ Trafficking

    “The beating heart of an aborted infant seems like an image from Edgar Allen Poe’s horror story ‘The Tell-Tale Heart,’ but in truth, it’s Cecile Richards’ inhumane profiteering displayed in living color,” said AUL’s Dr. Charmaine Yoest.

    WASHINGTON, D.C. (08-19-15) — As horrific depictions in a seventh undercover Planned Parenthood video, released by the Center for Medical Progress, describe Planned Parenthood personnel examining the beating heart of an aborted infant, the inhumanity of the abortion industry is on full display. “The beating heart of a soon-to-be dead infant seems like an image from Edgar Allen Poe’s horror story ‘The Tell-Tale Heart,’ but in truth, it’s Cecile Richards’ inhumane profiteering displayed in living color,” said Americans United for Life President and CEO Dr. Charmaine Yoest.”

    In a national column at Fox News, Dr. Yoest went on to discuss this moment in time, as Americans work to confront the evils unveiled in the undercover videos of Planned Parenthood personnel haggling over price, picking through infant body parts and discussing how to make the most money possible from the dead.

    She wrote: “Planned Parenthood continues to insist that the videos have been edited to indict them — an odd claim since the full videos, and transcripts, are all available online. In fact, the broader context of each one of the videos released so far, and the ones to come, reveals a deepening morass of moral, ethical and legal entanglement for corporate Planned Parenthood. They may end up wishing the story were only a debate over profit.”

    AUL’s legal team has laid out options for Congressional and state officials to address the potential crimes and unethical conduct unveiled in the videos.

    “Planned Parenthood must be held accountable,” said Dr. Yoest. “Federal and state investigations into this heavily taxpayer-funded organization must begin with subpoenas of top officials. The federal government has a responsibility to the American people to ensure the integrity of abortion organizations like Planned Parenthood.”

    In FY 2014, Planned Parenthood reported that 40% of its nearly $1.3 billion in revenue came at the taxpayers’ expense. A report issued by the Government Accountability Office in March 2015 documented that Planned Parenthood receives half a billion dollars annually from federal and joint federal-state programs. Relying on a heavy stream of funding from the government, Planned Parenthood operates the largest abortion business in the nation. Planned Parenthood clinics perform nearly 900 abortions every single day—327,653 abortions in 2013. According to Planned Parenthood’s most recent annual report, abortions were 94% of its pregnancy related services.

    In light of the inhumane treatment of infants who died from abortion, AUL also released updated legislation to require the proper handling of their remains. The “Unborn Infants Dignity Act” would prevent abortionists from profiting.

    At Fox, Dr. Yoest wrote: “Americans have lived with abortion now for over forty years. Why this moment of outrage? The great William Wilberforce, in his fight against slavery, said of his generation: ‘You may choose to look the other way, but you can never say again that you did not know.’ That’s why these videos have created a great moment of national decision. We have been looking the other way for many years. Now we cannot say we did not know.”

    # # #

    Americans United for Life (AUL) is the legal architect of the pro-life movement. We are accumulating victories, building momentum, and advancing a culture of life in America. Our vision is a nation in which everyone is welcomed in life and protected in law. The first national pro-life organization in America, AUL has been committed to defending human life since 1971.

  63. tj10 says:

    “Our religious traditions call us to offer compassion, not judgment.
    People who work for Planned Parenthood give care and respect to those in
    need, doing God’s work. For this we are grateful.”

    This is how morality gets turned upside down in society. It reminds me of that phrase in the book of Judges where every man did what was right in his own eyes. In the end, it is not our various “religious traditions” that matter, but God’s standards. When we call good evil, and evil good, we are inviting judgment on ourselves.

    Sure, Planned Parenthood does some good in this world. That is not the subject of the debate. The subject of the debate is the evil they do. It doesn’t need to be rehashed. The videos give clear evidence of the grotesque, evil, and illegal activities they callously undertake on a regular basis. If Pastor Davis thinks that God doesn’t care about what is happening to these babies, he is not fit to be a Pastor! God cares for all the oppressed in society, including the unborn. He is the only one authorized to give and take life. When God calls something sin, I think He expects us to view it as sin as well. If Pastor Davis and friends have evidence otherwise, we would love to hear it.

  64. tj10 says:

    Acts 20:29 Paul

    “I know that false teachers, like vicious wolves, will come in among you after I leave, not sparing the flock.”

    Mt. 7:15 Jesus

    “Beware of false prophets who come disguised as harmless sheep but are really vicious wolves.”

    I think Paul and Jesus were speaking of people like Pastor Davis when they said these things.

  65. dploof says:

    There is nothing of God in abortion. These poor misguided people are only aiding the devil. They don’t know that there are many organization like Project Rachel to help women who have had abortions to heal from that trama. Killing a child is never to be blessed.

  66. 17_woods says:

    Abortion clinics are just modern day eugenics centers where a disproportionate number of black fetuses are aborted. Baptizing the practice doesn’t make it righteous.

    God is not mocked with permanent impunity.

  67. Craig M Hatch says:

    For in the end, women were not given the keys of priesthood! Women, are not to be the head of Christ’s church. For those who believe in such false teachings! You are as damned as they are!

  68. Craig M Hatch says:

    @Tj10, Wrong, murder was never sanctioned by God nor Christ! You are deluded as these so called whore’s and whore masters of Satan! There is no compassion in the death of a child who is crushed or burned to death while in the mother’s womb! Never mind that its founder, the whore of death, Margaret Sanger created Planned Parenthood to kill off the poor and minority classes! So please do not sit there and try to justify planned parenthood, for, you are no better than the murderers who have killed hundred of millions of children! In fact it was Margaret Sanger that the Nazi’s modeled their eugenics program after! And it was Margaret Sanger who praised the Nazis for their Eugenics programs! So go ahead worship the whore of death, worship the harlot of Satan’s seed! For your days are numbered as everyone’s are, and, then you will stand before your maker with guilt and shame!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *