Satanic Temple Sues for ‘Religious Exemption’ to Keep Immediate Abortion in Missouri

Baby in the WombJEFFERSON CITY, Mo. — A nationally-recognized Satanist organization has filed suit against the state of Missouri in effort to obtain a “religious exemption” from a law requiring mothers to wait 72 hours before obtaining an abortion.

As previously reported, the New York-based Satanic Temple announced last summer that it was using the Supreme Court decision in favor of the popular craft chain Hobby Lobby to ‘bolster’ an initiative to seek an exemption from pro-life laws that its members claim to violate their religious beliefs.

The U.S. Supreme Court had ruled last June that the federal government cannot force closely-held companies to obey regulations which violate the owners’ religious beliefs. Hobby Lobby has been providing birth control coverage to employees for years, but took issue with four contraceptives that it considered to be abortifacients.

The Satanist organization therefore decided that it too would seek an exemption from laws that conflict with its beliefs, such as obtaining information or counseling about abortion before ending the unborn child’s life. It states that “[t]he Satanic Temple believes that the body is inviolable, ­­subject to one’s own will alone.”

The Satanic Temple then crafted a letter for abortion-minded women to present at abortion facilities in search of exemptions and waivers from applicable abortion laws.

“As an adherent to the principles of the Satanic Temple, my sincerely held religious beliefs are: My body is inviolable and subject to my will alone. … My inviolable body includes any fetal or embryonic tissue I carry so long as that tissue is unable to survive outside my body as an independent human being,” it reads in part.

According to reports, a Missouri woman who is being identified only under the pseudonym “Mary” went to a Planned Parenthood facility in St. Louis to obtain an abortion. As employees advised that she must wait 72 hours to have the procedure and must obtain an ultrasound, she then presented them with the letter from the Satanic Temple.

  • Connect with Christian News

“I personally would have liked to have the procedure done as soon as possible,” “Mary,” who is stated to be 12 weeks pregnant, told reporters. “But with all the difficulties, how hard it is do this, it’s been put off for several weeks. If you’re right on the edge of the state you’ve got to go 500 miles just to get to St. Louis, and you have to make arrangements.”

Shortly afterward, she and the Satanic Temple then decided to file suit against the state of Missouri to seek an exemption. The organization is arguing the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), which was also cited in the Hobby Lobby decision.

“The decision is substantially motivated and informed by Mary Doe’s belief in the Tenets,” complaint asserts. “Thus its implementation, i.e., getting an abortion, is the ‘exercise of religion’ protected by the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA).”

“We have theocrats pushing an agenda through legislation, and it’s time we show that other people have different values and are just as deserving as protections,” Satanic Temple leader Doug Mesner, who also goes by the name Lucien Greaves, told the Daily Beast. “We’re not making Christians get abortions if they feel it’s wrong. They put a burden on us.”


A special message from the publisher...

Dear Reader, our hearts are deeply grieved by the ongoing devastation in Iraq, and through this we have been compelled to take a stand at the gates of hell against the enemy who came to kill and destroy. Bibles for Iraq is a project to put Arabic and Kurdish audio Bibles into the hands of Iraqi and Syrian refugees—many of whom are illiterate and who have never heard the gospel.Will you stand with us and make a donation today to this important effort? Please click here to send a Bible to a refugee >>

Print Friendly
  • Bobby Mae

    Whether you agree or not, this is what you get with religious freedom.

    • John_33

      Not really. Everyone knows that the abortion laws do not violate the Satanist group’s ‘religious’ beliefs. It’s obvious that this group is lying to exploit religious freedom laws to oppose Christians on abortion. The real irony here is that this Satanist group has the exact same objective as many atheists here do. They both desire to oppose Christianity in the public arena. If the judge is wise, he/she will throw this case out.

      • UmustBKiddinMe

        “Everyone knows that abortion is not a real religious belief for Satanists.”

        Who are you to say what is, and is not, a sincerely held religious belief?

        • John_33

          Are you really going to tell me that Satanism requires abortions? By all means, go there, but it’s going to make you look really silly. It’s quite ironic to see an atheist (supposedly an opponent of all religious beliefs) defending the values of Satanists. This is the true face of atheism. Remove the mask and it’s merely rebellion against God.

          • UmustBKiddinMe

            “Are you really going to tell me that Satanism requires abortions? ”

            That is not the argument being made by the Satanists, and your suggesting that it is just makes you look really silly.

            “It’s quite ironic to see an atheist”

            What atheist are you referring to? I’m not an atheist.

            I’ll ask again: Who are you to say what is, and is not, a sincerely held religious belief?

          • John_33

            That is not the argument being made by the Satanists, and your suggesting that it is just makes you look really silly.

            Actually, this particular Satanist group is making the claim that it’s a religious belief.

            From the article:

            “Shortly afterward, she and the Satanic Temple then decided to file suit against the state of Missouri to seek an exemption. The organization is arguing the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), which was also cited in the Hobby Lobby decision.

            “The decision is substantially motivated and informed by Mary Doe’s belief in the Tenets,” complaint asserts. “Thus its implementation, i.e., getting an abortion, is the ‘exercise of religion’ protected by the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA).”

            From another article on the same topic:

            “The Satanic Temple raised the money for Mary in a day; its plan is to present a letter to the abortion provider asking for an exemption on the grounds that, as a Satanist, Mary believes her body is “inviolable” and the waiting period imposes a ‘substantial burden on my sincerely held religious beliefs.’”

            The Satanist group and Mary are arguing that the abortion is part of her Satanism (hence the ‘substantial burden on her religious beliefs.’) Otherwise, religious exemption would not apply. Either Satanism teaches it or it doesn’t.

            What atheist are you referring to? I’m not an atheist.

            Then I stand corrected on this point if that is the case.

          • Paul Hiett

            Not quite.

            “[t]he Satanic Temple believes that the body is inviolable, ­­subject to one’s own will alone.”

          • UmustBKiddinMe

            They are not saying that Satanism REQUIRES abortion. If that were true, then no Satanists would have children, which they obviously do.

            Rather, they are challenging the waiting period. From the article: “As an adherent to the principles of the Satanic Temple, my sincerely held religious beliefs are: My body is inviolable and subject to my will alone. … My inviolable body includes any fetal or embryonic tissue I carry so long as that tissue is unable to survive outside my body as an independent human being,”

            Please note the words: “subject to my will alone”. In other words, they are challenging the state regarding requiring that the person wait. They are saying that their sincerely held religious belief is that their bodies are subject to their will alone and that the requirement to wait 72 hours violates their religious belief.

          • The Last Trump

            Look at you!
            Defending Satanists.
            Your parents must be so proud.

          • UmustBKiddinMe

            Look at you!

            Lying.

            Jesus must be so proud.

          • LadyFreeBird<God'sNotDead

            That person will defend anyone who hates Christians and God’s truth.

          • UmustBKiddinMe

            I see no point in hating anyone and that includes Christians.

          • LadyFreeBird<God'sNotDead

            Good

          • John_33

            They are claiming that the waiting period violates their beliefs, which is not true. What they do with their body has nothing to do with waiting times. In fact, what they are actually demanding is that others treat them within a specific amount of time. What does that have to do with Satanism? Nothing. Their argument isn’t logical, but it never was meant to be. Religious freedom was never about adopting political policy as religious doctrine and then suing in a court of law under the guise of freedom. That’s abusing the intent of the law. Religious freedom has always been about respecting and tolerating real religious beliefs. As I stated before, this group is merely trying to exploit religious freedom to overturn laws.

          • UmustBKiddinMe

            “They are claiming that the waiting period violates their beliefs, which is not true.”

            They disagree. If part of their religious is that what is done to the body is “subject to my will alone”, then not allowing them to do something according to their will – which includes telling them they can’t do something for a specific period of time – violates their beliefs.

            “Religious freedom was never about adopting political policy as religious doctrine and then suing in a court of law under the guise of freedom.”

            What “political policy” are you referring to?

            “Religious freedom has always been about respecting and tolerating real religious beliefs.”

            You certainly aren’t being very respectful or tolerant of their religious beliefs.

            Do you believe that you are in a position to determine what is a real religious belief and what is not?

            “As I stated before, this group is merely trying to exploit religious freedom to overturn laws.”

            They are not seeking to overturn any law. They are requesting an exemption based upon their stated religious beliefs. You know – kinda like how some businesses want to have an exemption from anti-discrimination laws as relates to same-gender weddings – something you no doubt support.

          • John_33

            They disagree. If part of their religious is that what is done to the body is “subject to my will alone”, then not allowing them to do something according to their will – which includes telling them they can’t do something for a specific period of time – violates their beliefs.

            How does that have any bearing on this issue? The portion you quoted doesn’t match what they are suing for. They are demanding that others provide them with a service within an allotted timeframe of their choosing. That’s not a religious freedom issue. Religious freedom is not about letting people dictate what they want others to do for them. It’s about respecting real religious beliefs.

            What “political policy” are you referring to?

            Political policy on any issue. You can’t make religious doctrine out of your political views and then sue in court for religious freedom. That’s abusing the intent of the law.

            Do you believe that you are in a position to determine what is a real religious belief and what is not?

            A child can even tell the difference.

            They are not seeking to overturn any law. They are requesting an exemption based upon their stated religious beliefs. You know – kinda like how some businesses want to have an exemption from anti-discrimination laws as relates to same-gender weddings – something you no doubt support.

            They are simply trying to weaken any laws or actions that are perceived to be Christian. A good judge will toss the case out for trying to abuse religious freedom laws.

          • UmustBKiddinMe

            “The portion you quoted doesn’t match what they are suing for”

            From my post: which includes telling them they can’t do something for a specific period of time

            That is what they are suing for. They are seeking an exemption from the waiting period based upon their contention that the law requiring them to wait violates their religious belief that the body is “subject to my will alone”.

            “They are demanding that others provide them with a service within an allotted timeframe of their choosing.”

            Exactly.

            “That’s not a religious freedom issue.”

            It is according to them. Who are you to question that?

            “Religious freedom is not about letting people dictate what they want others to do for them.”

            They aren’t dictating what others do. The issue is abortion and that can be done. It is an issue of telling them they can’t do for a specific time.

            “It’s about respecting real religious beliefs.”

            This is one of their beliefs. Why can’t you respect that?

            “Political policy on any issue.”

            This does not involve political policy.

            “A child can even tell the difference.”

            It’s doubtful that a child would have insight into the religious beliefs of Satanists. Are you familiar with the details of the beliefs of Satanists? If not, then how are you in a position to decide that this is not one of their real beliefs?

            “They are simply trying to weaken any laws or actions that are perceived to be Christian.”

            How is a 72-hour waiting period a “Christian” law?

            “A good judge will toss the case out for trying to abuse religious freedom laws.”

            And now comes the interesting part. The judiciary, thanks to RFRAs, will now be put in a position of ruling on whether or not stated religious beliefs are valid. What a mess.

          • John_33

            That is what they are suing for. They are seeking an exemption from the waiting period based upon their contention that the law requiring them to wait violates their religious belief that the body is “subject to my will alone”.

            This isn’t difficult. They are demanding that other bodies (people) do services within a certain amount of time. That’s not a religious freedom issue. If you understood the history behind religious tolerance, religious freedom, and freedom of conscience, you wouldn’t be here debating this.

            This is one of their beliefs. Why can’t you respect that?

            Belief is not the same as religious belief. I can believe it’s going to rain today, but I can’t sue you if you don’t cater to my belief. I believe that my ice cream must be chilled below 30 degrees Celsius, but store owners aren’t required to respect that. And if I believe that I must have instant abortions whenever I want according to my will, hospitals are not required to cater to that. Their desire is not a religious freedom issue.

            It’s doubtful that a child would have insight into the religious beliefs of Satanists. Are you familiar with the details of the beliefs of Satanists? If not, then how are you in a position to decide that this is not one of their real beliefs?

            No, children can tell the difference. First, the claim doesn’t even match what they are suing for. Second, the main difference in this issue is between honesty and deceit. A child can tell the difference between the two and see that the Satanist group is just trying to manipulate the laws. You even know better than what you’re writing. You just want to bicker on the issue because you oppose Christian influence in politics.

            This does not involve political policy.

            Now you’re being obtuse. Abortion law is political policy, and the Satanist group is trying to change political law by exploiting religious freedom laws to suit their political views. That’s not how religious freedom works.

            How is a 72-hour waiting period a “Christian” law?

            I didn’t say it was a Christian law. I said perceived to be Christian. The Satanist group is simply trying to weaken abortion wait times because they to oppose Christians on the issue.

          • UmustBKiddinMe

            “They are demanding that other bodies (people) do services within a certain amount of time for them. ”

            No. They are asking to be exempted from the 72 hour waiting period. Read the article. No where in the article does is say that the suit demands that anyone to anything within a certain time period.

            “If you understood the history behind religious tolerance, religious freedom, and freedom of conscience”

            I have a very clear understanding of that. You, apparently, do not, as you feel empowered to decide what another person’s sincerely held religious beliefs are valid and which are not – which is the exact opposite of religious freedom and tolerance.

            “Belief is not the same as religious belief.”

            It was self-evident that the discussion was concerning religious beliefs of the Satanists.

            “And if I believe that I must have instant abortions whenever I want according to my will, hospitals are not required to cater to that either.”

            Agreed. But this has nothing to do with hospital policies. This has to do with state law.

            “the Satanist group is trying to change political law”

            Hyperbole. They are not trying to change any law. They are seeking an exemption to the law based upon their religious beliefs. You know, like how some people believe that photographers, caterers, bakers, and florists should be exempt from anti-discrimination laws regarding same-gender marriage because of their religious beliefs.

            “The Satanist group is simply trying to weaken abortion wait times”

            How would their receiving an exemption “weaken abortion wait times”? Would a florist being given an exemption to not do flowers for a same-gender wedding “weaken” anti-discrimination laws?

            “because they want to oppose Christians on the issue.”

            Oh, please, spare me the self-centered self-righteousness. Just because someone wants the right to do something as a citizen doesn’t mean that they “oppose Christians” on the issue.

            So I suppose you think their reasoning goes something like this:

            “I’ll get those Christians. I’ll apply for an exemption to the 72 hour wait time citing my religious beliefs as a Satanist. That’ll show ’em!”

            Seriously? Get over yourself. Not everything is about you.

          • John_33

            They are asking to be exempted from the 72 hour waiting period…No where in the article does it say that the suit demands that anyone do anything within a certain time period.

            Yes! You just said it even as you deny it. They are demanding that they are allowed abortions before the 72 hour limit which is earlier than anyone else. In other words, they are demanding that they get this service from other people (doctors, nurses) within a specific timeframe (before the 72 hour limit). It can’t get any clearer than that. That has nothing to do with their bodies or their will.

            I have a very clear understanding of that. You, apparently, do not, as you feel empowered to decide which sincerely held religious beliefs are valid and which are not – which is the exact opposite of religious freedom and tolerance.

            Great, so you are willing to explain why it’s not the same as previous religious freedom cases throughout history? Please provide dates and historical references. The Tudor period is a good place to start.

            It was self-evident that the discussion was concerning religious beliefs of the Satanists.

            No, it’s not self-evident. This discussion is about the beliefs of people who happen to be Satanists. There’s a difference! Religious people cannot claim all of their beliefs or preferences to be religious.

            Hyperbole. They are not trying to change any law. They are seeking an exemption to the law based upon their religious beliefs. You know, like how some people believe that photographers, caterers, bakers, and florists should be exempt from anti-discrimination laws regarding same-gender marriage because of their religious beliefs.

            No it’s not hyperbole. The Satanist group is indeed trying to change the law for themselves by claiming religious freedom when it doesn’t apply. They are abusing the system and making a mockery of it.

            How would their receiving an exemption “weaken abortion wait times”? Would a florist being given an exemption to not do flowers for a same-gender wedding “weaken” anti-discrimination laws?

            It weakens the law because they are abusing the system by lying that this is a religious freedom issue to get exemptions on things that they want. It’s not the same as florists or bakers who wish to be exempted due to real religious beliefs.

            “Oh, please, spare me the self-centered self-righteousness. Just because someone wants the right to do something as a citizen doesn’t mean that they “oppose Christians” on the issue.

            So I suppose you think their reasoning goes something like this:

            I’ll get those Christians. I’ll apply for an exemption to the 72 hour wait time citing my religious beliefs as a Satanist. That’ll show ’em!”

            Seriously? Get over yourself. Not everything is about you.

            I agree. Not everything is about me…so why are you trying to make this about me?

            In any event, it appears that the judiciary will now be charged with determining what is, and what is not, a “sincerely held religious belief”. Just what we need – the courts deciding on personal religious beliefs. Thank you RFRA. I guess you didn’t realize that it also applies to those whose beliefs are different than yours, huh? Surprise! You got what you wanted – now you gotta live with it.

            Actually, the entire situation can be fixed by the courts without the RFRA.

          • UmustBKiddinMe

            “They are demanding that they are allowed abortions before the 72 hour limit which is earlier than anyone else.”

            Exactly. Which is what I have said from the beginning.

            “Great, so you are willing to explain why it’s not the same as previous religious freedom cases throughout history?”

            From a conceptual basis, I don’t believe it is different.

            “The Satanist group is indeed trying to change the law for themselves”

            Seeking an exemption does not change the law. It changes the application of the law based upon what they claim to be their sincerely held religious beliefs.

            “It weakens the law because they are abusing the system by lying that this is a religious freedom issue to get exemptions on things that they want.”

            You said that you were not familiar with the beliefs of Satanists. Therefore, how are you in a position to state they are lying?

            “It’s not the same as florists or bakers who wish to be exempted due to real religious beliefs.”

            Why?

            “so why are you trying to make this about me?”

            Are you a Christian?

            “Actually, the entire situation can be fixed by the courts without the RFRA.”

            How so?

          • John_33

            Exactly. Which is what I have said from the beginning.

            …which means that they are demanding a service (abortions) from others (doctors, nurses) within a timeframe (72 hours) of their choosing (no limit).

            From a conceptual basis, I don’t believe it is different.

            No, you said that you had a “very clear” understanding of the history. Let’s hear it.

            Seeking an exemption does not change the law. It changes the application of the law based upon what they claim to be their sincerely held religious beliefs.

            Right, but when an exemption is asked in deceit, it’s trying to change the law. If I lied and claimed that my religious beliefs demanded that I get an exemption on campaign finance restrictions, then I would be trying to change the law for myself. That’s what they are doing here.

            You said that you were not familiar with the beliefs of Satanists. Therefore, how are you in a position to state they are lying?

            Where did I say that I was not familiar with their beliefs? I said that even a child could figure out the case since they are trying to exploit religious freedom laws. You keep trying to turn this conversation towards me, my knowledge, and my beliefs.

            Why?

            Because the florists and bakers aren’t trying to manipulate religious freedom laws to get special treatment. They are using religious freedom laws for what they were intended. If you really knew the history of religious freedom as you claimed you did, then you wouldn’t have asked!

            Are you a Christian?

            Again, why are you trying to turn this conversation towards me? Why can’t you stay on topic?

            How so?

            The court merely needs to create a litmus test to determine whether the claim is appropriate and whether discrimination occurred. They create litmus tests all the time, and there’s nothing stopping them from doing it here. They don’t even need to delve into the beliefs behind the religion.

          • jmichael39

            actually, as I think about it more, obtaining an abortion IS a religious expression…sacrificing of one’s children was a major part of the worship of moloch…which some have associated with Satan. But what these people will have to prove is that being made to wait 72 hours infringes upon that religious belief…because the law doesn’t forbid abortion, only puts a 72 hour wait on obtaining it.

            Personally, if I were arguing against them in court, I’d suggest that if they are obtaining an abortion for religious purposes then that stands, potentially, outside the realm of it being a woman’s choice and rather a religious practice. And court precedent has forbade any religious practice that does another person harm. In other words, a religion has no right to include in it’s religious practices acts like rape or murder. So, the question would arise, even though the woman is making the choice to abort, if she’s doing it for religious purposes, does that fall within or outside the realm of a woman’s legal powers over her unborn child. Or does the state have a compelling interest in saving that unborn child from being the object of a religious practice that would do it harm? Interesting issue.

          • jmichael39

            Then tell us what argument you think they ARE making.

          • UmustBKiddinMe

            Exactly the one that the article states they are making.

          • jmichael39

            Care to be more specific? Or more specifically, how does a three day waiting period violate their right to obtain abortions? There are waiting periods for purchasing guns…and that doesn’t seem to bother liberals…why not a waiting period for actually killing another human being?

          • UmustBKiddinMe

            “Care to be more specific?”

            Sure. They are claiming that it is one of their sincerely held religious beliefs that they have complete control over their bodies and that no one else can impose on that control. They are claiming that the 72-hour waiting period is government infringement on their ability to have control over their bodies and thus is a violation of their religious beliefs.

            “how does a three day waiting period violate their right to obtain abortions?”

            It doesn’t, nor is that their contention.

            “There are waiting periods for purchasing guns”

            In some places. How is that relevant to the discussion?

            “why not a waiting period for actually killing another human being?”

            It’s not a question of whether the waiting period should or should not be.

          • Dan Summers

            Requires? No. Just like Christianity does not require some one to not serve homosexuals.

            But getting an aborton in no way goes against their beliefs. Since their belief support that an individual has the right to do with their body as they see fit…so if they want one…they have the full right to get one.

            These satanists…if you bothered to do any research…are atheists. With much more moral Rules(Commandments) then Christianity.

          • jmichael39

            And there is nothing in a 3 day waiting period that PREVENTS them from doing what they want with their bodies? Hmm? There are waiting periods for gun purchases. That doesn’t seem to violate the 2nd amendment rights of citizens…how does this 3 day waiting period violate anyone’s rights?

        • Lark62

          The personal autonomy of each person is central to the beliefs of the Satanic Temple.

      • Bobby Mae

        Right, cuz christians aren’t exploiting religious freedom as a way to refuse making cakes for gay weddings without caring about couples who have premarital sex or previously divorced. Christians opened the can of worms, they can deal with the repercussions.

        • jmichael39

          considering there ARE sincerely held religious beliefs most Christians have regarding homosexual behavior, you’re making a false analogy. Or, I should say, unless there is an actual existing sincerely held religious belief that Satanists have that compels them to NOT wait 72 hours to have an abortion, you’re making a false analogy. What they will have to prove is that waiting 72 hours to still obtain the abortion they seek violates a sincerely held religious belief. We’ll see if they can accomplish that.

          • Bobby Mae

            All I’m gonna say is good luck when Muslims increase their numbers here and demand their rules be enforced in public due to religious freedom… Careful what you wish for.

          • jmichael39

            First of all, NOTHING in our religious liberty clauses has EVER permitted any religion from doing things that do harm to others…like lopping off heads or burning your children or mutilating a woman’s genitals…things that are often connected to certain forms of Sharia Law. So spare us the false analogy of connecting a CHristian’s desire to refrain from performing a service they think would violate their religious conscience with those who would mutilate or kill someone as part of their religious beliefs.

      • Tangent001

        Are you saying that religions do not have the right to proselytize or state their views in the public arena?

        Interesting.

        • John_33

          I don’t know how you could have gotten that from my comment, but it couldn’t be further from the truth. I explained my position in later comments.

        • Opus37

          Tangent001, I have some information may help you. Contact me through this post.

      • Dan Summers

        Ah but the state law requiring a 72 hour waiting peroid does violate their beliefs.
        And really unless you are a member of the Satanic Church..who are you to say what they believe or not.
        The Satanic church has it right in their writings that they are to use all scientificially accurate of information as possible at all times. They have full control over their own bodies. So yes they have the religious right to waive the waiting peroid.

        The Judge can not throw out the case…since these are deeply held spiritual beliefs as real a any Christians. This is all about religious equality.

  • FoJC_Forever

    Human life is not a religious option. No religion should have the right under US law to murder a baby.

    The innocent blood cries for Justice. Judgement is coming.

    • Paul Hiett

      Way to stomp all over another religions beliefs. Typical, intolerant, hypocritical Christian.

      • The Last Trump

        Paul Hiett for you, ladies and gentleman.
        Defender of human rights. Unless you’re an unborn baby.
        Or worse, a Christian.
        Don’t you just love this guy!

        • MisterPine

          You could learn a few things from Paul, Rumpy.

          • The Last Trump

            You got that right, perverse One!
            Very few.
            🙁

          • MisterPine

            You would, of course, have to pull your head out of the sand, though, and I think we both know that isn’t going to happen…

          • The Last Trump

            Get some help Pine. You’re sick.
            Paul isn’t even gay, weirdo. Stop following him around here like a love sick puppy, lavishing on him all of your hate votes. It’s just sad.
            Tear yourself away from your hate sites, turn the computer off for ten minutes and go outside and make some friends. After you see a doctor.

          • MisterPine

            I’m not “following” Paul any more than I’m following YOU, Rumpy. He just happens to be in the same place fighting against the same fundamentalist Christian garbage as me, all the same hate and bigotry that people like you spout.

          • Oboehner

            Heck of an arsenal you have to fight with, lies, ignorance, and just plain stupidity – you go girl!

          • MisterPine

            Means so much coming from you, Boner.

          • LadyFreeBird<God'sNotDead

            I have been Praying for both MistePine And Paul .I hope both will be saved before they die.

        • LadyFreeBird<God'sNotDead

          EWWW he is not a very kind to the unborn or Christians. How sad. May God change the heart of *Paul Hiett*

      • FoJC_Forever

        Then, I suppose you’d support a religion which believes you don’t have the right to live. You are blind.

    • LadyFreeBird<God'sNotDead

      Amen!

    • Dan Summers

      It’s not murder as a Fetus is NOT A HUMAN BEING! Not even according the the Bible.
      Funny how Christians actually are going against the word of God on this. Aborition is right in the Bible and how to do it. God has no problem with abortions…it’s clearly in the Bible and he performs them all the time.

      • FoJC_Forever

        Abortion isn’t promoted in the Bible. I’ve already been over that and pointed out the errors in using certain Scriptures to justify the murdering of babies in the womb. You can check my comments for the specifics.

        All human life begins one way inside the womb. Abortion murders human life at the earliest and most vulnerable stages.

        Judgement is coming.

  • Caroline Murray

    12 weeks? Sick. The baby is quite developed at that time! It’s certainly not a clump of cells. I had an ultrasound at 12 weeks and could see my baby swallowing the fluids. It was so adorable! You can’t tell me a 12 week old fetus isn’t a human life.

    • Paul Hiett

      Not your choice though.

      • Crono478

        You are okay with abortions?

        • Paul Hiett

          Not my choice. It’s not my body, nor yours. Religion needs to stay out the affairs of people when it does not concern them. No one is forcing abortions on anyone else, so why do the religious among us think they have the right to force their views on others?

          • Crono478

            In other words, you just said “OK” to abortions because it is not your body? These are actual babies inside wombs of pregnant women. To have an abortion is actually to murder an unborn child. No, I am not okay with that. How can you be okay with this…. Why do you buy into these lies that we should stay out of it because it’s not “our bodies”.

          • Paul Hiett

            Well, you can call it murder if you want, but it’s obviously not. It’s aborting a fetus that is not yet a person, and incapable of life outside of the mothers body. And yes, it’s not your body, and where do you get the idea that you should be able to dictate to someone else what they do with their body?

            You folks always get up in arms over this issue, but I don’t see you lining up at the orphanages ready to adopt. It’s like you feign this concern right up to the point where the child is born, then you all run for the hills.

          • Crono478

            I would like you to watch www dot 180movie dot com and let me know what you think about this.

          • The Last Trump

            Wow. Sick puppy.
            Not murder when you take a life!
            And what’s worse, from somebody so helpless they can’t even protect themselves. You sure swallowed the Liberal dogma whole, didn’t you? What’s next, euthanize the disabled, you defender of human rights, you? Disgraceful.

          • Really??

            Then if that is true then God murders more babies than anyone! There are many more miscarriages per year than abortions.

          • LadyFreeBird<God'sNotDead

            You have an (((Evil))) heart of hateful stone.

          • Ana John

            Either your mother should’ve aborted you or swallowed the load you came from.

          • Lark62

            Christian love, I presume.

          • bill2

            it’s a clump of cells. it’s not a baby and it’s not murder.

          • Crono478

            Please visit the link that I shared with Paul Hiett and let me know what you think of it.

          • bill2

            ant-choice bullshit

          • Crono478

            Are you scared that it will change your mind. If so, please be humble and give it a chance.

          • Dan Summers

            Babies are born…a Fetus is not a baby.

          • Crono478

            If you think that it is a fetus, then is it okay for these pregnant mothers to drink a lot of alcohol, run a marathon, or take hard drugs. Why or why not?

          • Dan Summers

            If they want to drink and smoke, run a marathon, or do drugs while pregnant then it is none of my business. It is not my body. I can not tell a women not to get an abortion as much as I can not tell anyone not to get a tattoo.

            I would not agree with most of those choices personally and would be upset if my wife did most of those…running a marathon…if she can run she is welcome to do it. IT would more likely be a waddle though.

            I personally do not like the idea of abortion, and would love it if it only happened in cases of rape/assualt, severe birth defects, or risk of the mothers life(looking at Ireland regarding this one).

            But that would involve a huge cultural shift. Hence why those are Pro-Life are more Pro-Birth since support for the Baby stops as soon as it is born, especially for those who can not afford to raise a child. The necessary support services are not there to support these forced births. Also people would need to accept and support a comprehensive and Factual sexual education in Schools. Obviously Abstinence only does not work!

          • Crono478

            You say that you stay out of these pregnant women’s business if they do that but you’d be upset if your wife do that? Why can’t you let you wife drink alcohol and take drugs while she is pregnant? You said that it is not your business and she can only decide to do that.

          • Dan Summers

            Okay…since you can not wrap your head around this…but I have vested interest in my wife’s continuing health. I would be just as opposed to her taking up unhealthy habits even if she wasn’t pregnant.

            My wife drinking, smoking taking drugs does have a direct impact on me and my life. If you or your wife wanted an abortion…None of my business. I would have no right to tell you or her what to do. I don’t have to like it…but that is your right.

            An abortion is nothing more then a planned miscarriage.

          • Crono478

            If I use this logic –> it’s not your body, only she can decide what to do with her body, pregnant or not. Why do you care about her taking up unhealthy habits anyways? What about your close friend who take up very unhealthy lifestyle. Hey, it’s his decision, you should stay out of it. If you are clearly bothered by this, can you remain silent and stay out of it?

          • The Last Trump

            Wow. Wrong on so many levels.
            As decent and responsible human beings we have a duty to protect those who cannot protect themselves, whomever they may be.
            In particular, from the likes of you.

          • bill2

            you have no such thing. you have no right to interfere in someone else life

          • The Last Trump

            blah, blah, blah.
            Says the m0ron trolling the Christian website telling me how to live!
            Get a life, troll.

          • Lark62

            You are upset that someone else is trying to tell you how to live.

            The irony, it burns…

          • The Last Trump

            I’m not upset at all.
            I’ve been married before…
            🙂

          • Lark62

            It is your religious OPINION that a non viable fetus is a person. It is your OPINION that abortion is immoral.

            I have opnions, too. A non viable fetus is not a person. I believe it is immoral to bring a child into this world if the parents do not have the emotional and financial resources to care for that child. I believe it is immoral to force a woman to give birth to a child conceived by rape. I believe it is immoral to force a woman to give birth to a child if that child will trap her in an abusive relationship. I believe it is immoral to force a woman to damage her health to remain pregnant.

            You have no right to interfere with the personal medical decisions of others.

          • The Last Trump

            Really? Still with the old rape excuse! Puh – lease!
            Well over 50 million children slaughtered and ALL were the result of rape, huh? You’re concerned about the immoral mothers who couldn’t be bothered to be responsible enough to use birth control. THAT’S who YOU’RE concerned about! Their health wasn’t important enough to guard against STD’s and the threat of fatal diseases like AIDS, but the slaughtering of innocent children is where their health suddenly becomes important! Such a good little liberal Naz! you are.
            I have no right to defend the defenseless?
            Try to stop me, sicko.

          • Lark62

            Rape and sluts. Rape and sluts. Rape and sluts.

            Get your mind out of the gutter.

            Many/most women seeking an abortion are married with children and are not in a place where they can physically, financially or emotionally take on another child. Others are carrying a wanted child with serious medical conditions.

            If you truly want to reduce abortion, then fight for excellent and free contraception, accurate and comprehensive [email protected] ed, and social safety nets including paid maternity leave.

            But I am willing to bet you are not willing to promote one practical step to reduce abortion. You just want to judge and condemn “those women” inaccurately and unfairly.

            You make me sick.

          • The Last Trump

            Ditto.
            Get help.

          • Paul Hiett

            Again, forcing your religious opinion into the lives of others where it’s not wanted or needed.

            What part of “stay out of the lives of others” is unclear to you?

          • The Last Trump

            The part where I defend the defenseless against immoral homicidal deviants like you.
            Better get used to it.
            And “stay out of the lives of others”!!
            Please. Mr. Christian website troll. What a ridiculous comment coming from the likes of YOU. Your stupid!ty is second only to your glaring hypocrisy. But how it does look good on you! Keep it up, dum dum! 🙂

        • Lark62

          Yes.

    • Sean Williams

      You get ultrasounds? Do you have any idea how that hurts the baby?

      My religion forbids ultrasounds and we don’t think you should be allowed to have one either.

      • Jean-Marie Hendricks

        How does ultrasound hurt the baby? I had one with my now 24 year old son ; and one with my now 19 year old daughter. My daughters was done when I was 8 weeks pregnant and I could see her little heart beating – it was so amazing. Had another done with her when I was 7 months and she was the most beautiful thing in the world. Both my kids came out just fine and are perfectly fine now. So how does ultrasound hurt the baby? Do you even understand how ultrasound works, or are you just making ignorant and inflammatory comments?

        • Lark62

          Doesn’t matter. We have decided that ultrasounds are evil. Only shame filled sluhts want ultrasounds. My book said so. My friend, who you can’t see or hear, said he doesn’t like your choices. He told me to tell you cause he doesn’t talk to evil sluhts. My ridiculous and unfounded opinion trumps your right to make your own medical decisions. Because I’m more special than you, I worked to get laws passed to actually make it illegal for you to make your own medical decisions.

          P.s. I love you. This is for your own good..

          • Jean-Marie Hendricks

            What??? I was replying to Sean Williams’ reply to Caroline Murray. So what in the world are you talking about; and who is “we”? Are you suffering from delusions, or are you suffering a psychotic break down? I think you need some help, buddy! Moreover, just who the hell are you calling a “sluht” [sic] ? That type of behavior is completely uncalled for and I have every intention of reporting your nasty butt!!

          • Lark62

            In other words, you don’t appreciate it when a stranger attempts to limit your personal medical choices. Got it.

            Further, it appears you find it obnoxious and unacceptable when the stranger justifies that interference by
            (a) pointing to religious beliefs you do not share,
            (b) declaring their world view is the one and only correct one,
            (c) using inaccurate and/or imaginary medical justification,
            (d) accusing you of immorality for needing a medical procedure and
            (e) accusing you of immorality for reaching a different conclusion than they on an intensely personal decision.

            Do you perhaps see a parallel?

            Do you understand that the view that a clump of cells is a person is your opinion not universal truth?

            Do you understand that it is wrong to interfere in the medical decisions of others?

          • Jean-Marie Hendricks

            Your attempt to change the subject here from what I was discussing with another poster is what we call a red herring fallacy. I asked a for qualification from another poster and you respond with a bunch of nonsense; which is completely irrelevant to what I was asking this poster – NOT YOU!
            Not to mention, you insult a complete stranger who is not even speaking to you; and now you want to have a civil debate. Is this how you imagine making friends with people? If so, then I reiterate my previous comment: You need professional help!
            No where, and I repeat, NO WHERE did I state any such statement that a person’s medical choices should be limited. Therefore, obviously, you need help, and are the proverbial pig who enjoys rolling in the mud. Unfortunately for you, I do not, and will not roll in the mud with a pig! Good day!

          • Lark62

            Great. I did not intend to insult you.

            I am not changing the subject. I am agreeing with Sean. My religion says ultrasounds are evil therefore no one can get one. Isn’t that how it works?

            If, as you say, you don’t think a person’s medical decisions should be limited due to interference from a stranger, we are on the same side.

            If you think that woman’s decision to get an abortion is hers alone and should not be restricted because of someone else’s religious beliefs, you and I are in complete agreement.

            If on the other hand you think that a woman should be blocked from access to safe and timely medical services for abortion because of someone else’s religion, then you should be fine with strangers interfering with your private medical decisions. Pick one.

          • Jean-Marie Hendricks

            You did change the subject; because my beliefs or thoughts on the issue were not in question. Moreover, you answered a question for which you have no possible knowledge – unless of course you and Sean are one in the same.
            Again, I will not get into a debate with someone who is NOT being asked the question (Hello is your name Sean Williams?); and 2) cannot and will not stick to the facts at hand.
            You are a pig who likes wallowing in the mud (you know, simply loves to fight, and dirty fighting at that); and I will NOT be drawn into some stupid red herring; or any other intellectual fallacy, propped up discussion. Either cite facts and references for your claims, or they are nothing more than conjecture!!! Good day!

          • Lark62

            I did not make claims, I put the normal anti abortion statements into a different medical context, thus highlighting how absurd and intrusive that behavior is. And I asked questions.

            In response, you called me a pig. Twice. And implied I was mentally ill.

            Methinks thou doest protest too much. Perhaps I struck a nerve.

            Cheers.

          • Jean-Marie Hendricks

            Again, are you Sean Williams? If not, then why are you answering a questions directed at Sean Williams? Moreover, I was not asking you ANYTHING; I asked Sean Williams. And how do you propose you are capable of answering the question directed at Sean Williams? Do you have special access to his mind and beliefs; or are you so desperate for attention (and a fight with anyone up for the challenge; which isn’t much of a challenge I might add) that you feel the need to stick your oinker into a conversation not directed at you? I’m going to go with the later here.

            And just because you have never heard of the ole’ adage of the proverbial pig who enjoys the wallow in the mud – doesn’t mean I’m calling you a literal pig – good grief you’re so ignorant. At least I didn’t call you a “Sluht”!!! Do you seriously need to believe the world revolves around you that bad?

            As for the mentally ill part – let’s refresh your memory here:

            ” Doesn’t matter. We have decided that ultrasounds are evil. Only shame filled sluhts want ultrasounds. My book said so. My friend, who you can’t see or hear, said he doesn’t like your choices. He told me to tell you cause he doesn’t talk to evil sluhts. My ridiculous and unfounded opinion trumps your right to make your own medical decisions. Because I’m more special than you, I worked to get laws passed to actually make it illegal for you to make your own medical decisions.

            P.s. I love you. This is for your own good..”

            Those are your words! If I said something like that to one of my psychology professors – yeah – they would be calling to get me some help. And for your information, delusion is a psychological and psychiatric term; which indicates a person is having hallucinations (delusions) which can be visual, audio, or other form of sensory perception. If you have an invisible friend who only speaks to you – then yeah – you need some professional help; because you are suffering from delusions/hallucinations, and a psychotic break from reality. Which is, by the way, exactly what I told you – lets refresh our memory again:

            “What??? I was replying to Sean Williams’ reply to Caroline Murray. So what in the world are you talking about; and who is “we”? Are you suffering from delusions, or are you suffering a psychotic break down? I think you need some help, buddy! Moreover, just who the hell are you calling a “sluht” [sic] ? That type of behavior is completely uncalled for and I have every intention of reporting your nasty butt!!”
            And those are my very words. Sounds I touched a nerve with you. Perhaps because your invisible friend is distracting you from reality – hopefully you get some help for that soon!

          • Lark62

            Are you telling me that you seriously did not recognize that my initial post in this thread was a sarcastic repackaging of christian anti abortion arguments? Seriously?

            No. I do not carry on conversations with imaginary friends. I grew out of imaginary friends some time ago. Christians are the ones with an imaginary friend who communicates with them when they talk to him/it in their head.

            Christians are the ones who think their invisible friend and magic book give them the right to interfere in the medical decisions of others.

            Christians are the ones who accuse people they never met of immorality. Christians are the ones who equate the worth of a (female! ) person with not having sex. Christians are the ones who assume that the only person who needs an abortion is a promiscuous unmarried girl.

            Christians are the ones working to get their medically unsound guilt tripping anti abortion nonsense into law so that women cannot make their own medical decisions.

            In my original post I said that only immoral sluts would want an ultrasound. That is clearly ridiculous. As is the Christian message that only immoral sluts seek abortions.

            Self awareness is your friend.

            P.s. when you say to someone “you are a pig…” you have called that person a pig. Reality is also your friend.

            Cheers

          • Jean-Marie Hendricks

            Oh, believe me, I knew exactly what you were doing; however, I wasn’t falling for the bait. Instead I remained with the topic (ULTRASOUND) rather than make this a Christian v. Abortion Activist argument.
            Sean Williams’ comment was as much a red herring as yours was (ultrasound has nothing to do with abortion). In addition, I called both of you out on lack of scientific evidence to support your inflammatory comments and your personal use of intellectual fallacies (since you obviously CANNOT argue with facts)!
            So, let’s play this out shall we? I calling you the “proverbial pig who likes to wallow in the mud (AGAIN, meaning the person who enjoys getting dirty, fighting dirty, and just arguing for the sake of – well arguing) is equivalent to calling you a “literal pig.” Therefore, following the deductive reasoning here; that would mean that you calling me a “sluht” [Sic] means that you called me a literal “sluht”[sic], right! However, yours is justified because, as you stated, “that is clearly ridiculous.”
            Well guess what genius, so is the idea that you are a literal pig – you ignoramus! You can’t have it both ways, little one. If my comment was to be taken as a literal insult; then so is yours, and I am just as right to be offended at your comment as you are mine. The only difference here is that I called you a pig (a porcine, an animal which is actually been found to be quite intelligent, and shares similar DNA to the human genome strand). On the other hand, you called me a “sluht”; which is defined as a ‘loose woman!’ Which do you think is worse? Being called a ‘pig’ or a ‘sluht’? I’m sorry, I’d rather be associated with a domestic animal that not only provides valuable meat to humans; but also is quite valuable to scientific study of human DNA, and provides life-saving organs to human beings. I happen to be a happily married woman to ONE MAN, which I happen to make-love to! Obviously you struggle to comprehend a reference (the previous post in which I stated you were the “proverbial pig”; and later stating “you are a pig.”) You are so dense and clueless; yet you want to argue about this rather than the subject at hand; which is again, a red herring!
            You obviously are incapable of any debate; because you can not argue the facts with sound reason. You toss out intellectual fallacies (red herring, ad hominem, and over-generalization fallacies). Each of these demonstrate your lazy attitude toward research and honest civil discourse – so give me a break! You could not debate your way out of a paper bag, even if your life depended on it. You make inflammatory comments to incite an argument; because you enjoy arguing for the sake of arguing. You have zero point(s) to make; because you can not argue based on the medical science, or any actual facts. nor do you have any actual references to back up your claims – therefore rendering them nothing more than inflammatory conjecture!!!
            You may be an adult; however, you debate like a child! Good day and enjoy rolling in your wallow ALL ALONE; because I am seriously done with you. You have wasted enough of my time today. Go back to your mommy’s basement and revel in the hot pocket she left for you next to your computer. When you grow up and figure out how to debate an issue; perhaps, and I do mean perhaps, you can actually sum up a sound and reasonable argument that is based in facts, rather than 5 year old fallacies.

        • Sean Williams

          An angel came to me in a vision and told me it did. Why are you trying to oppress my religion?

          • Jean-Marie Hendricks

            How is asking a question “oppressing” your “religion”? Please qualify your comment with logical reasoning – deductive or inductive will suffice – so long as it is logical and demonstrates some form of reasoning. I’m thinking you and Lark62 must be suffering from the same delusion or psychotic break. Please seek a qualified professional who can help you work through this issue -Thanks.

          • Sean Williams

            An angel came to me in a vision and told me so. I already answered your question.

    • LeftCoast

      Satan will do anything to kill, steal and destroy.

      • Lark62

        Read your book. In your myth, Satan is the one that told the truth. God is the one that lied.

        God is also responsible for the murder of millions either directly or by ordering others to do the work. Satan killed about 8 people – jobs family -and no one else, and that was on God’s orders.

        Explain to me again which one is the good guy….

        • LeftCoast

          You might want to read up on your truth telling friend. Or look for a person who follows Lucifer and get some inside info on your boy.

    • Dan Summers

      A fetus can not survive outside the womb at 12 weeks. It will not be viable.

      Until it is born it is not a human being…even the Bible states as muich.

  • LeftCoast

    If you are pro-choice then you are on the same team with Satan and his followers. If you are atheist and agree with pro-choice, you are on the team with the bad guy you don’t believe in. LOL

    • Paul Hiett

      That’s merely your opinion. Fortunately, we have different opinions, and therefore have no need to worry about the mythological “bad guy” from yours.

      • The Last Trump

        Funny how your opinion matches up so closely with that of the “mythological” bad guy’s on sooo many subjects.
        Must be a coincidence.

        • Paul Hiett

          Yes, because equality for everyone is obviously not a moral that your choice of a deity shares.

          • The Last Trump

            Oh you mean like the equality of unborn babies?
            Not fooling anybody, sicko. Get help.

          • Dan Summers

            A Fetus is not a human being

        • Dan Summers

          Kettle to Pot….

          Funny how your Version of God Matches up with your opinions right?

    • Dan Summers

      Prove Satan even exists first…before you say anyone is or is not on his team.

      • LeftCoast

        No need, that’s for you to deal with, he’s on your bench, not mine.

  • amostpolitedebate

    Satanists are the best IRL trolls.

  • UmustBKiddinMe

    Well this is a twist to the RFRA that conservatives never envisioned. You got what you wanted – this is one of the results. Enjoy.

    • jmichael39

      actually, if you understood anything about the HL ruling, you’d know this is NOT a surprise to anyone…including conservatives. The court’s ruling in HL essentially said that HL was exempted from the law requiring they pay for the coverage on all 20 or so birth control methods because 1) it was a sincerely held religious belief and 2) that the BC methods offered through the law could still be acquired by the HL employees without undue burden on the public interests.
      I’ll be curious how the plaintiffs in this case think they can apply that ruling to this case. There is no undue burden on any GROUP in waiting 3 days to have an abortion. I am sure there are provisions in the law already allowing for individual exemptions based, for example, on another, more urgent health issue. And I would be curious which sincerely held religious belief they believe the law is infringing. Not saying they don’t have one…since I don’t know the full details of the satanic religion. But I am saying I’ll be curious to hear their argument.

  • bill2

    freedom of religion. according to you idiots the law doesn’t apply if it contradicts your faith.

  • Reason2012

    Where does it say in their religion it’s their religious belief to be allowed to_kill their son/daughter? And how does that trump our laws that_killing is against the law if we say it is?

    • Bobby Mae

      Where in the Christian religion does it say you can’t bake a cake for a gay couple? Religious freedom baby.

      • Reason2012

        It’s “religious freedom” to be allowed to_kill your son/daughter? How so?

        • Bobby Mae

          Is religious freedom to be allowed to discriminate against certain groups of people? Freedom of religion applies to all religions, not just evangelicals. Evangelicals needed a law to be able to legally discriminate, well guess what, people in other religions will now do things you don’t approve of and justify their actions based on your own RFRA bs. It’s really not that hard to figure out.

          • Reason2012

            Is it religious freedom to_kill your son/daughter? How so?

          • Bobby Mae

            Look abortions Are bound to happen whether you approve or not. Even outlawed, like in many Latin American countries, you’re still going to have girls with coat hangers in back alleys. Abortion is a very serious and personal issue, and because I believe in freedom I think abortion is an issue that women that find themselves in the situation should decide for themselves.

          • Reason2012

            Is it religious freedom to_kill your son/daughter? How so?

            Do the females being_killed in the womb “get to decide for themselves” if they can be_killed or not?

          • Bobby Mae

            I don’t claim to be a religious expert. It’s clearly not Christian, but Christians were so gung-ho while donating their life savings to memories pizza that I don’t think they thought about how easy it is to form your own religions in this country, which will be protected via your “religious freedom.” Fair is fair. And again, abortion is a private matter, and because I believe in freedom, and not “freedom,” I think that’s a choice up to them.

          • Reason2012

            Again: is it religious freedom to_kill your son/daughter?
            I assume by completely ignoring the question multiple times you admit it’s not.
            Thank you for posting.

          • Bobby Mae

            I already answered that, let’s put on our listening ears. I said I’m not a religious expert. It’s clearly not of the christian religion to perform abortions, but in our country you can register pretty much any religion you want. Get it? Is it religious freedom to take hallucinogens? to you, no. To some native american groups, yes.

          • Reason2012

            It’s clearly not ANY religion to perform abortions. Again: is it religious freedom to_kill your son/daughter?

            I assume by completely ignoring the question multiple times you admit it’s not.
            Thank you for posting.

          • Bobby Mae

            I answered your question already. Stop acting like you’re so smug

          • Reason2012

            Hello. No, you only mention Christianity and how it does not support such a thing.

            But you do go on to again claim “we can register any religion you want”, implying there is a religion out there whose belief it is to be able to kill_their son/daughter while still in the womb – so SHOW the “religion we can register” that it’s their beliefs to_kill your son/daughter while still in the womb.

            I assume by ignoring the question again and again you admit there’s no such religion.
            Thank you for posting.

          • Bobby Mae

            You conveniently left how the part where I said I don’t claim to be a religious expert, that there are many different religions in this country, and I acknowledge that in Christianity abortion is not supported. Thats all i can say and if you consider that not answering your question then so be it. you are very argumentative for someone alleging to live with Christ in their heart.

          • Reason2012

            So in other words you admit you don’t know of any religion whose belief it is to be able to kill_their son/daughter while still in the womb. This after replying to my comment to someone else asking this question as if you knew such a case. Glad we cleared it up that you do not.

          • Bobby Mae

            Correct, I personally do not and never said I did. Just as I don’t expect you to know all the beliefs of the 4200 registered religions on this planet. I’m not sure what you’re trying to prove here. You sound like you want a cookie.

          • Bobby Mae

            And just FYI, I personally amam not creating any such religion. All I’m saying is that due to “religious freedom” and your cake/flower tantrum, Christians have opened a can of worms. Like the church of cannabis in Illinois and now the satanists. If Christians can legally “protect their conscience” then so can other groups.

          • Reason2012

            It’s not opening a can of worms for anyone to say “my religious beliefs demand our right to_kill our sons/daughters”, which is what this was about. So no one needs to “protect their conscience” by preserving this sort of “barbaric” right that you STILL try to pretend is an issue.

            We believe in religious freedoms – you demand to censor it except where you give permission, which is the huge difference between us.

            Thank you for posting.

          • Bobby Mae

            Look, if you want religious freedom you must understand it applies to everyone and not just you, regardless of whether you think it’s bogus or not. But this conversation is clearly going in circles so I’m taking off. Xoxo, gay bobby.

          • LadyFreeBird<God'sNotDead

            That right to life are being taken away from these unborn Girls and boys. I don’t understand why *Bobby Mae* And all the others seem to hate the unborn so much as to say it is okay to kill them.So sad…………….:(

          • Lark62

            Is an acorn an oak tree?

            A non viable fetus without functioning organs is not a person. It may become one, but it isn’t yet.

            On the other hand, there is a person in the equation who has value. She has the right and the responsibility to make the best decision she can for herself and her family (including husband, other children and anyone else who relies on her).

          • Crono478

            That is a bad analogy between an oak tree with acorns and a pregnant woman with unborn baby.

            At surface, it may be a good analogy to you. However, an acorn is a seed that can be used to grow an oak tree once it’s dropped on ground.

            In contrast, life is in blood. We die when we bleed out. Even, you call “non-viable” fetus is a unborn baby that has constant blood flow through it. If blood does not flow through the unborn baby for too long at any time throughout the pregnancy, it will die.

            That is why we know that to have an abortion, it is to murder the baby inside womb.

          • Lark62

            An acorn has all the dna necessary to make an oak tree. But it isn’t a tree yet.

            A fertilized egg, an embryo, a fetus may become a person but it isn’t one yet.

            You don’t have to agree. But you have no business interjecting your personal religious opinions into the medical decisions of any other person.

          • Crono478

            Why don’t you watch www 180movie com and let me know what you think of this.

          • Reason2012

            Please prove a fetus in the womb is not a human being. Is it a cow? Something else? What is it if it’s not a human being?

            How can a female make the best decision she can for herself if she’s_killed before she is allowed to come out of the womb? Please explain.

          • Dan Summers

            It is a clump of cells that has the potential to be a human.

            What give anyone the right to tell anyone what they can and can not do with thier own body? Untill that fetus leaves the woman…it is still part of her body.

          • Reason2012

            Please prove he or she is not a human being.

            What gives you the right to tell the human being in the womb they cannot live and that you have the right to_kill him or her?

        • B.E. Miller

          Go google “Peaceful Valley Cemetery” in Idaho. According to Idaho law, it IS legal to kill your child for religion. There are parents there who don’t take their kids to the doctors when they are ill, they believe in prayer alone, and many children are dying as a result of this religious belief. There was even an Idahoan politician who said that if people want their kids to go be with God, it’s not wrong. (It’s also extremely hard to get an abortion in Idaho.)

          These are Christian parents in Idaho, BTW. They believe in the Old Testament, where children are the property of the father.

          • Reason2012

            No, that’s not “I’m going to kill them intentionally right now” – that’s called hoping they live, but being unintelligent about it.

            There are always false Christians, so pointing to them doesn’t make God false.

            So you cannot show where it’s “religious freedom” to be allowed to intentionally_kill your son/daughter? The only point.

          • B.E. Miller

            Why do you call them false Christians? They would say that they are more real Christians than you or me. They would say that you or I are the false Christians, and they are the Real Christians.

          • Reason2012

            Christians that_kill others intentionally prove they are false.

            He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him.
            1 John 2:4

            Please don’t tell me you think people that go around_killing other human beings are “Christians” saved by God as that’s just flat out dishonest if you are.

            No, they are not denying kids aid with the INTENT of_killing their kid – I already told you this.

            No, the Idahoan politician who implied it’s ok to_kill your kid so they can be with God is not a Christian.

          • Dan Summers

            Was waiting for the Not a true Scotsman fallacy. Knew it was coming 🙂

            No one is killing sons or daughters. A Fetus is not a human being. At the point we are talking about people getting aboritions they are a clump of cells that has the potential to be a human.

            You must really have a problem with Invitro Fertilization…all those embryos being destroyed after the procedure…all that murder.

          • Reason2012

            If a person says they are a law abiding citizen, yet they are robbing banks, they are lying and are not a law abiding citizen. And I’m sure you’d be there to say “Was waiting for the Not a true Scotsman fallacy – Knew it was coming. :)” and you’d be just as wrong. 🙂

            Likewise, the bible points out if a person is willfully sinning and does not care, they can say they’re saved all they wish: they’re lying.

            What is the person in the womb if he or she is not a human being. What is he or she? A cow? Back up your claim.

            Hitler did a fantastic job convincing the Germans the Jewish people were not human beings – it’s how he got them to_murder MILLIONS of them. Well done using the same tactic. I’m sure you’re proud of yourself. But we will answer to God, so I would think again.

            Yes, we try to play God and try creating life. So of course in thinking we are God we end up getting a lot of people_killed. But at least in that case people die of natural causes all the time, rather than on purpose, as is the case of abortion.

            Be thankful you were not sliced to pieces while still in the womb – that others were be there to fight for your right to life. Yet now here you are championing the slaughter of others.

            Don’t worry – we will all get exactly what we deserve from God.

    • Lark62

      It is your religion that requires a father to murder disobedient and non believing children. It is your holy book that has instructions for inducing an abortion if a woman is suspected of adultery. Read your own book.

      Me, I support the belief that each person had a right to govern their own body without interference.

      • Reason2012

        So in other words you cannot answer the question.

        So let me get this straight you’re going to pretend it’s “bad” 3000+ years ago for an adult son that gets drunk over and over again, ignores his father and mother even after numerous attempts to rebuke him, being threatened with death if he does not change and he persists – that is bad – but a son or daughter that did nothing wrong and the parents_kill him or her b/c they couldn’t be bothered allowing him to live – too inconvenient – is good?

        It only shows how barbaric we truly are. 57 MILLION sons/daughters slaughtered by their own parents not 3000 years ago, but the past 30 or so years, all in the name of avoiding inconvenience.

        We “justify” it by pointing to what probably almost never happened: a drunkard son who would not hearken to his parent’s rebuke being put to death, and even that just for the Jewish people only.

        If every human being has the right to govern their own body, why doesn’t the human being in the womb have the right to even avoid being_killed.

        You do what_Hitler did: convince others those being_killed are not human beings – that’s how genocide is promoted. Worked great for_hitler, works great for those who hate their own kids b/c of the inconvenience of having to let them be born.

        We will get exactly what have have coming to us when we face God.

        • Dan Summers

          And if it be from a month old even unto five years old, then thy estimation shall be of the male five shekels of silver, and for the female thy estimation shall be three shekels of silver. — Leviticus 27:6

          Even the Bible does not place value on a child under 1 month old. They aren’t even counted as people.

          Number the children of Levi after the house of their fathers, by their families: every male from a month old and upward shalt thou number them. And Moses numbered them according to the word of the LORD. — Numbers 3:15-16

          Yea, though they bring forth, yet will I slay even the beloved fruit of their womb. — Hosea 9:16

          Because by this deed thou hast given great occasion to the enemies of the LORD to blaspheme, the child also that is born unto thee shall surely die. — 2 Samuel 12:14

          Tamar thy daughter in law hath played the harlot; and also, behold, she is with child by whoredom. And Judah said, Bring her forth, and let her be burnt. — Genesis 38:24

          God has no problem killing unborn children. Why do you go against you god?

          OH…and you bring up Hitler….A Christian! Good work!

          • Reason2012

            Wrong.

            If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman’s husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine. And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life,
            Exodus 21:22-23

            It calls a woman who has a child in her womb “with child” not “with parasite” that you wish it said.

            Also, in the case of hurt following the loss of life, it points out that it IS in fact life and hence it’s a capital crime, and the person will pay life for life that was taken.

            A person can claim to be a law abiding citizen all they wish: if they are actually robbing banks they are not. Hitler called himself a Christian to get into power -that he was out to murder innocents by the millions proves he was anything but one.,

            But good work using Hitler’s technique for promoting murder: convincing others that in certain cases human beings were NOT really human beings. You must be proud. Sad part is, you will face God for promoting such slaughter.

    • Dan Summers

      A fetus is not a human being.
      At the point the abortion is taking place the fetus has the potential to be a human being. It is better akin to a parasite feeding off the host.

      And what about you? You are a believer in a faith that REQUIRES you to kill your neighbour for working on the Sabbath. Or KILL any one who claims to be a witch(pagan).

      Abortion is approved in the Bible. Even the Bible does not attache any value to a fetus or even a child for the first few days of life.

      • Reason2012

        Please prove he or she is not a human being. What is he or she, a cow?

        On what day, exactly, does he or she become a human being? Please back up your claim.

        If not killed, he or she will live to be an average of 80 years old or more, just like everyone else.

        Attacking the Bible doesn’t make a person not a human being when still in the womb.

        If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman’s husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine. And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life,
        Exodus 21:22-23

        Clearly points out there that a woman is “with child” not “with parasite”.
        And that when mischief follows, life for life is given – the person is put to death for having put to death the LIFE of the child in the womb.

        So please prove the person in the womb is not a human being.

      • Jean-Marie Hendricks

        Parasites don’t share DNA with their hosts; nor do they require the hosts DNA to exist, reproduce, etc. Your biological knowledge is seriously lacking – please do some studying before making such ridiculous comments.

        Please cite your biblical references in regards to your comments; otherwise they are nothing more than conjecture or taken out of context at best, or outright lies at worst!

  • Bobby Mae

    I personally love how concerned about life conservative evangelicals are, but when it comes to the lives of Mexicans the overwhelming majority of comments I see are less than loving. Life is life no?

  • Homer for God

    Everybody’s looking at it the wrong way. Religion is like class, or factions. Each one has their own way of interpreting what they see and they come up with their own set of rules and regulations for their members to follow. I, for one, do not belong to a “religion”. I am part of the body of Christ, a sinner by nature, saved by the blood of Jesus. I refuse to be affiliated with “religion” especially since satanism is considered one. Most “religions” claim to serve God but their actions are quite contrary to the true teachings of the Bible (i.e. Catholics harboring pedophiles, Episcopal allowing women ministers, Mormons and their second book, etc.)

    Paul, I will agree it’s her choice (remember that argument?), but if you and the others can sleep at night knowing that their choice leads to murder of innocents then that is on your head. I know that God will judge them in the end like he will judge all of us. I choose to fight for God and what he has done for me (and Chronos, and FoJC and the last trump, and all my other brothers and sisters in Christ). I have plenty more to say, but I am praying on it so I can be provided with the best words possible to convey the opinion I have and I will post it soon. God bless you brothers and sisters in Christ who come here to defend the good word of God, and even bigger blessings on you others (Paul, Pine, and others that have contridictive points), for you guys reaffirm the need for revival in this world ( by the way that’s truth not hate because I love all of you guys and I pray for you every night). May you finally answer the knocking on your heart that is Jesus asking you to come home. I did have one final question for you guys; for all your hate talk, and hatred towards God… why come to a CHRISTIAN news site to debate when there are more then plenty atheists news sites to comment on?

    • Paul Hiett

      Will Christians be lining up to adopt the children who would have normally been aborted? Are you preparing your home for a few of these kids?

      • Homer for God

        If the spirit moves in them then yes they will….will you?

        • Paul Hiett

          Absolutely not. I don’t want any more children. And if so many Christians actually cared about these kids, we’d have no children in foster homes or orphanages, would we?

          • Homer for God

            I can’t speak for them as you asked me the question, but the same goes for anyone with strong moral convictions…not just Christians. You can’t single out one group when the problem is worldwide. We Christians just speak out in prayer and naturally are the first one’s to place blame for not acting. You though just proved that Christians are not the only one’s and thus are subject to your own scrutiny.

          • Paul Hiett

            You folks constantly protest abortions left and right…you stand outside of abortion clinics and berate and chastise those going in. Yet, as I’ve pointed out, once the child is born, you stop caring.

            It’s hypocritical, to say the least. Either put your money where your mouth is and get in line to adopt, or stop telling others how to live.

          • Homer for God

            Thank you for proving my point. So quick to point out our faults but not accepting that you are in the same boat. From your views, You should be just as upset that young girls are choosing to have sex, get pregnant, and then give the child up for adoption like it’s nothing. All it is doing is costing you taxpayer money and resources that you could be used to fund education and proper health care for those who really need it. You’re not speaking about that because you are too busy telling Christians how bad we are while you yourself does nothing to change it. That is just as hypocritical. I will pray for you. Not that you will change your thinking but for you to really understand others.

            Be prepared though. It’s only going to get worse. The signs are showing, prophecy’s (written almost 2000 years ago mind you) are being fulfilled. By your attack on Christianity and your constant attempt to silence us and the Word, all you are doing is proving that the prophecy is coming true (thank you). Christians are not making the world bad…satan is. All we can do is try to save as many souls as we can by leading them to Christ before it’s too late. Criticise all you want; we already know our fate…do you? God bless

          • Paul Hiett

            I support pro-choice. You work to prevent women from having the choice. I am not “in the same boat”, clearly.

          • Homer for God

            Clearly doing a great job what with the body count continuing to rise every day, but you go on and support a woman’s choice to murder and I’ll continue to pray for the souls of the lost.

          • Paul Hiett

            It’s not murder, btw.

          • Homer for God

            Whatever makes you sleep better at night my friend. God Bless

          • Lark62

            Why do you assume that it is only or even mostly promiscuous young girls who need abortions?

            That isn’t the reality. Facts are useful little things, except ehen they get in the way of sluht shaming.

            If your god feels so strongly about abortion, show me chapter and verse where god forbids abortion. I can can show you multiple verses with the opposite – a verse instructing priests to induce abortion, verses ordering the murder of babies, verses where god killed a baby to punish the parents. Show me one verse prohibiting abortion.

            You ought to read your book. I don’t think it says what you think it says.

          • Homer for God

            It’s called the commandments. You know…though shall not kill. Your justification of this is no different then Hitler’s, Stalin’s the KKK’S and all other tyrannical people who justified the mass murder of several innocents.

          • Lark62

            Actually, the loving biblical god ordered his chosen to slaughter people right and left, including babies. There is nothing in that commandment that applies to unborn or non jews. Try again.

          • Homer for God

            Sure. You’re are so apt to point out the old testament when Jesus himself abolished most laws and traditions of the old except for the commandments and the two he added (love your neighbor as yourself love the Lord with all your body,soul and mind.) Commandment: thou shall not kill.

          • Dan Summers

            Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill. Matthew 5-17

            So no he did not come to destroy the old law at all…it all still applies. But of course you are free to cherry pick and ignore this part.

          • Homer for God

            Also, you’re right, GOD ORDERED MAN (for whatever reason no one knows) not man choosing themselves to do it. God stopped talking to man directly in the old testament. he only sent messengers (angels). No one knew why until Jesus came.

          • Dan Summers

            Actually it is Thou Shalt not murder…Killing is perfectly fine and accepted in the Bible.

          • Lark62

            I would be happy if the supported health insurance and education for the mandatory birthlings.

            Nope. They are pro birth and pro slut shaming. They want nothing to do with life.

            It would help if they would learn about the real reasons women seek abortions. Many / most are married with kids. Some have health conditions.

            But christians would rather stand on high and pontificate. Until they need an abortion. Then they buy a wig and sunglasses.

          • Crono478

            I shared the link with you, have you watched it.

      • Homer for God

        And remember one thing….if the woman became pregnant by force then yes adoption is a great way, but if she chooses to have sex then gets pregnant then she should take responsibility and not hide behind abortion…agreed? God bless

        • Paul Hiett

          Oh, so if a woman is raped, you would force her to carry that child to term?

          • Homer for God

            yes…It might be hard to hear but that child doesn’t deserve the punishment for someone else’s sins. As far as the mother is concerned. There is counseling to help (christian and non-christian) cope with what happened to her. If she cannot raise a child due to the painful reminder of what happened to her, that is fine. There are people who will provide that child a loving home.

          • weasel1886

            Where are all these potential adoptive parents ? Why don’t we see them now? There are thousands of kids in foster homes now.

          • Homer for God

            Weasel..of course there’s major problems with kids without homes. If I could adopt them all I would, but killing them is not an answer either. As far as the father, they are just as responsible if the sex was consensual, but unfortunately for thousands of years those certain men refuse to take it leaving some (not all) children to grow up angry and resentful towards society and everything in it. They blame the lack of having a father as their reasoning to defy authority as well and that is just as massive of a problem as promiscuous women who refuse to protect themselves from conceiving.
            Only solution is education to prevent this happening. It won’t happen because we live in a self serving world now. This “hands off” approach to raising our kids (which I will not do) is going to lead to a world of anarchy.
            But murder is now an option.
            .

        • weasel1886

          So does the father have any responsibility?

        • Dan Summers

          NO not agreed. Why is it all up to the woman?

          What is there are other major health concerns and risk to the mothers life? A Fetus is not a human being.

    • Lark62

      Abortion is not murder.

      Your religious belief is that something magic happens when egg meets sperm and a “soul” is created. That is a belief. There is no evidence that a soul even exists. It is just your religion.

      I do not share that belief. My belief is that the health, security and personal autonomy of the people here and breathing is sacred. A fetus without functioning organs and unable to live outside the womb is not a person. That means that the current health, current security of the female human being takes precedent over the possible future person.

      You don’t have to agree with me. I don’t agree with you. But you have no right to interfere with the personal medical decisions of other people.

      • Homer for God

        You want to go to extreme situations then we can agree that if medically there is a problem that will kill mom before baby is born.
        I’m talking about women who are capable of carrying full term with no problems. Yes whether you believe it or not, a soul is there at conception. It’s not new, but it was always known (just not to us). That’s where the belief lies. You and Paul and other atheists do not believe what you cannot see or prove, but seeing has been proven deceptive and false proof is always out there. You don’t have faith and that is why your beliefs will change over and over again from now until the end. Our faith has sustained our truth the same consistent way over 2 thousands years. The only attempt to change it was by MAN who then suffered the consequences.I hope you realize that God and the teachings of His Word will never change no matter how mad you get or how much hatred you spew .

        • Lark62

          I respect that you believe in a soul and that it forms at the moment of conception.

          Please respect that other people

          • Homer for God

            I respect. Doesn’t mean I approve or agree.

          • Lark62

            Fair enough. All I care is that some can see that there is another view, and that it is based on morality and compassion as well.

        • Dan Summers

          “Yes whether you believe it or not, a soul is there at conception. ”

          Going to ask you to cough your sources on this and your evidence. Just because you believe something to be true…does not make it so. YOU believe a soul exists. YOU believe without evidence. Based on facts and what we can prove…there is no such thing as a soul.

          If you can prove something exists…then there is no reason to believe it does.

          “You don’t have faith and that is why your beliefs will change over and over again from now until the end”

          You do understand that your faith has changed a lot over the years too right? Christianity today in the US would be practically unrecognizable by the first Christians. Sustained Truth for over 2000 years? So you want us to point out all the errors in the Bible? Show exactly where they get it wrong over and over again…take the Easter challenge and write a Chronological time line of the Resurrection from just the 4 Gospels….(They don;’t even agree with what happened.)

          The teachings have changed a lot over the years….if it didn’t we would not have over 30,000 different denominations. But then your got it 100% after all these centuries right?

  • BarkingDawg

    You have to admit, if it works for Hobby Lobby, then it has to work for the Satanists as well.

  • The Postman

    Well, welcome to religious freedom. How does it taste?
    Oh, I’m sorry. Did you mean just YOUR religion?
    Behold the intended consequences!!!

  • Reason2012

    Not a problem for “religious freedom” as no one’s shown any religion where it’s documented in their ages-old holy book there “religious belief” to slaughter their kids while still in the womb. More thinly veiled, dishonest, hateful attacks by those who hate God.

    • Dan Summers

      Abortion is not their religious belief.

      Their religious belief is that they have full control over their body. They are not arguing their religious right to abortion at all. No need to since it is a perfectly legal procedure.

      They are arguing that forcing the 72 hour waiting period violates their religious belief in this state. The State has no right to force some one to wait 3 days and force to travel great distances for this procedure.

      Though if you want religious justification…Read your Bible. God calls for the murder of unborn children a few times.

      • Reason2012

        Exactly. It’s not a religious belief. So these satanists claiming it’s a religious belief of theirs is just a flat out lie.

        But then of course you turn around and claim it is their religious belief, now acting like abortion (killing_their own daughter) is a way to have control over her body.

        If they have “full control over their body”, why does that not include when she is still in the womb?

        “unborn children” – fascinating how you suddenly admit the truth that you’re still a human being – a child – while in the womb. In you need to hatefully attack God you expose who you’re lying to say it’s not a child in the womb. 🙂

        Hitler did a good job convincing others those he wanted dead were “not human beings”. You must be proud to promote the same technique to promote your genocide. I would think again: God will have something to say about it.

    • weasel1886

      Then why do Christians have abortions at about the same rate as non church goers. Oh I know they aren’t “real Christians”
      ISIL-anti gay anti abortion anti porn they sound like perfect conservatives

      • Reason2012

        If they sincerely repent from such a thing, God can forgive such an act, and you cannot fake being sincere. Paul_killed Christians before being saved. Why so much hate?