Gunman Kills Nine After Opening Fire on Service at Historic African American Church

PrayerCHARLESTON, S.C. — Nine people are dead and several others were injured after an unidentified gunman opened fire during a worship and prayer service at a historic African American church in South Carolina Wednesday night.

The shooting occurred at approximately 9 p.m. local time at Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church in Charleston. The suspect is believed to have attended the service for about an hour before standing up and spraying the room with gunfire, reloading several times.

According to reports and still-shots of surveillance video outside of the building, the light-skinned suspect had worn a dark wig and plastic nose and sunglasses to conceal his identity. He is believed to have escaped in a dark four-door sedan before police arrived.

When authorities arrived on the scene, they found eight persons who were already deceased. One church member was transported by ambulance to the hospital, but died on the way.

Among the dead was Emanuel AME Pastor and Senator Clementa Pinckney, 41.

“My friend and brother in Christ Senator Clementa Pinckney was shot to death in the senseless tragedy that occurred in Emanuel AME Church in Charleston,” Senator Larry Grooms posted on Facebook. “My heart breaks for the loss of Sen. Pinckney, the other victims and for their families. Now is the time for prayer. Let us all unite our hearts in prayer and ask God for His grace, love and mercy.”

Mayor Joseph Riley, Jr. condemned the bloodshed as well.

  • Connect with Christian News

“Of all cities, in Charleston, to have a horrible hateful person go into the church and kill people there to pray and worship with each other is something that is beyond any comprehension and is not explained,” he said. “Obviously the most intolerable and unbelievable act possible. … We are going to put our arms around that church and that church family.”

Police Chief Greg Mullen has vowed to find the perpetrator as a manhunt is underway today. The FBI has joined the investigation.

“This tragedy that we’re addressing right now is undescribable,” he stated Thursday morning. “No one in this community will ever forget this night. And as a result of that, and because of the pain, and because of the hurt that this individual has caused this community, this entire community, the law enforcement agencies that are working on this are committed—we will catch this individual.”

Police believe that the suspect is a clean-shaven man in his early 20’s with sandy blonde hair. He appeared to be wearing multiple layers of clothing upon entry to the building.

A motive is not yet known, but officials suspect that the shooting was racially motivated.


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
  • FoJC_Forever

    The only “free speech violation” is removing the child’s right to learn how to speak.

    • robertzaccour

      Very true. Everyone should have the right to life.

      • weasel1886

        I also agree

      • Nofun

        Something in you cannot have superior rights to your body than you do.

    • Nofun

      So you are going to teach a fetus to speak.

  • Pieter Ulrich Fischer

    ANd so….society crumbles in the name of democracy.

    • weasel1886

      So be it

    • jmichael39

      society has already crumbled, brother. But I still won’t stop speaking out against the inhumane murder of these innocent children.

      • Charlie

        Well aren’t you a little warrior!!

        • WorldGoneCrazy

          Yes, he is, and so am I. Just think: God placed you in this world in this time and place, not so you would be happy, but so you would engage in the battle against this generation’s holocaust: abortion. It would be like being plopped down in 1930’s Germany and hearing Bonhoeffer (who jmichael39 is channeling tonight) speak out against the Nazi persecution of the Jews and saying “Well, aren’t you a little warrior!!” The kill rate (per year) for Jews was almost identical to that for aborted babies in America.

          So, I am glad you are getting an engineering degree and all (I have 3 myself – it is a wonderful profession) and it is a fantastic school you are going to, but how about you make your way over to the nearest abortion mill (there is almost always one near college campuses, hint, hint) for a few hours a week and try to save some lives and souls. God bless!

          “Silence in the face of evil is itself evil: God will not hold us guiltless. Not to speak is to speak. Not to act is to act.” ― Dietrich Bonhoeffer

          • Charlie

            No thanks! My town is crowded enough. Have a great day

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            Aaah, yes. Kill the babies to prevent overpopulation. It’s been a “good” argument for genocide throughout history. And spoken so eloquently by someone who survived the womb.

          • Charlie

            Yep, I don’t care and will be the first to admit it.

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            And you call yourself a “Christian.” Well, lots of “Christians” didn’t care about slavery and Jew gassing either.

          • Charlie

            i just thought, and no, God did not place me in this world to engage in battle against abortion. lol the fact that you can say that to an anonymous person on the internet shows how delusional you are.

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            I wrote that when I thought you were a Christian – my bad. You are right: as an a-theist, God put you in this world for sex and drugs and rock&roll, and who cares if babies get killed along the way? As an a-theist, it is all about your “happiness” and narcissism. There are no grounds for objective moral values and duties under a-theism:

            “In a universe of blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won’t find any rhyme or reason in it, or any justice. The universe that we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference… DNA neither knows nor cares. DNA just is. And we dance to its music.” (Richard Dawkins, River Out of
            Eden: A Darwinian View of Life (1995))

            But, for those of us who are Christian, we march to a different Commander, not to ourselves. We are not allowed to just go on our merry way and ignore the slaughter taking place around us. That would be un-Christian.

          • Charlie

            Lol I’m not an atheist… I really should post comments when I’m having a bad day. Goodnight!

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            Sorry you are having a bad day. It can’t be as bad as 4000 babies in the womb today, however. Count your blessings, and good luck in your engineering studies.

          • Jim H

            “There are no grounds for objective moral values and duties under a-theism.”

            A Buddhist would likely disagree with you. Buddhism is non theistic but sees objective moral values that are the basis for karma. Their objective moral values are based on compassion and loving kindness. It is a seen as a core value in many religions and philosophies.

            According to Gandhi, and others, compassion for living beings is a central concept in Hindu philosophy. Compassion for all life, human and non-human, is central to the Jain tradition. Religion scholar Karen Armstrong, a theist, goes as far as saying compassion is the core principle in all world religions. Brother David Steindl-Rast O.S.B., Richard Rohr OFM, have all written on compassion as a core principle. Even Humanists, mostly atheists/agnostics, declare compassion as a core value.

            The Dalai Lama once said that “compassion is a necessity, not a luxury”, and that without it humanity cannot survive.

            If we can look at people and cultures historically, anthropologically, sociology, etc. and we can determine what causes individuals and their societies to flourish, if something like compassion is, as the Dalai Lama contends, a necessity for our survival, why wouldn’t we say it is objectively good?

          • Phipps Mike

            “God put you in this world for sex and drugs and rock&roll,”
            that’s a stereotype, There are many atheists who don’t like rock.

          • Phipps Mike

            ” There are no grounds for objective moral values and duties under a-theism:”

            sure there is…ever heard of quality of life?

          • Phipps Mike

            everything is pre-destined. It is gods plan. ALL deaths are by Gods plan. You seek to change Gods plan?

          • Nofun

            Don’t seek any medical help when you or your family get sick now because that is interfering with god’s plan. I am sure your piety will be a great comfort when hear their last screams of agony.

          • Phipps Mike

            I said: EVERYTHING is pre-destined. That would INCLUDE any decisions about medical help.

          • Nofun

            So not believing in god is predestined too? Then god is burning people for his own pleasure then?

          • Phipps Mike

            believing in God is that “free will” thing that is talked about so often. The reason for free will is simple, If you are FORCED to believe in God, it is not TRUE faith. That’s why God wants us to question our faith. He wants us to have 100% faith in his existence.

          • Nofun

            Free will makes no sense in Christian mythology. If we didn’t have free will we all believe in god and all go to heaven. Having free will enables you to make the wrong choice and get burnt by Jesus for eternity. So really it is a trap laid by Jesus to burn you.

        • Phipps Mike

          he likes to THINK so.

          • Charlie

            Right? He thinks he’s a tough guy preaching to a crowd where he knows he’ll get support. Suuuch a warrior

          • Phipps Mike

            yea, I notice that. Its a virus going around in here. 1000 sheeples vs about 10 sensible people who see the TRUTH.

    • Nofun

      There has always been abortion and society is not crumbling in the least.

      Its just you are not getting your way so you are having a tantrum.

    • jmichael39

      Did you notice, Pieter, how all the other posts I wrote to that other guy were summarily deleted? Very interesting editorial discretion on this one.

      • Pieter Ulrich Fischer

        True…. bit odd by the way. Wonder what the “policy” is to make them do that.

  • brine

    Brought to you by the same government that demands business owners promote the homosexual agenda via forced speech and participation…

    • Nofun

      No, they just have to do their jobs and not discriminate.

      • SoDakCatholic

        A business owner has the right to not do business with anyone – that’s not discrimination. Restaurants always have the choose to not serve someone. Quit butting in to our businesses and our rules on who we do business with or don’t do business with. Why don’t you start your own business and serve the gays who are getting married?

        • Nofun

          Places that refuse to serve can do so based on bad behavior not of race, gender, or sexual orientation reasons. Allow this and we allow racist christian business to not serve black people.

          When laws were made to stop businesses discriminating against black people righteous business owners who just knew these people were under the curse of Ham chose their hateful interpretation of the bible and went out of business … it was so sad.

          The same types of people who serve divorcees, the glutinous etc will also have to go out of business if they don’t serve gay people …. that will also be very sad.

          • SoDakCatholic

            One other thing. I had a bookstore. I reserved the right to not allow or carry adult books in my store. I would not have carried books on anything gay either. That is my right to believe as I choose. There are other stores that carry smut. I am not one of them. Same with the bakery. Bakers have the right to not bake a cake for a couple who chose sodomy as their lifestyle. It goes against God. Period.

          • Nofun

            That’s fine as books aren’t people. You don’t get to refuse service to people for no valid reason. Funny you still served divorcees, gluttons, felons etc, hey.

          • Isaac Fast

            Your analogy, while well intentioned, is inappropriate. Your choice not to carry certain items in your inventory, is completely within your rights. But, if you choose to carry a certain product, picking and choosing who you sell it to, is, discrimination…particularly if your decision is based upon membership in a “protected class”.

            It’s that simple.

          • Fairy Larry

            Ask Sweet Cakes about that…lol

    • Fairy Larry

      We Have
      We Have
      ROCKED YOU

  • WorldGoneCrazy

    Between 78% and 90%+ of women who see an ultrasound of their baby in the womb choose life for their child. And that does not sit well with the Demon-crat Party that makes so much blood money, and votes, off of abortion.

    • robertzaccour

      I agree, people should be informed. What are the lieberals afraid of? The truth?

      • weasel1886

        Forcing someone to be informed

        • robertzaccour

          No, but encouraging people to first be informed would be a good start.

          • weasel1886

            Encouragement is a long way from forcing.

          • Phipps Mike

            BINGO. If the mother doesn’t want to hear it. that’s just that.

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            Glad you called her a “mother.” Even YOU know that it is a baby being murdered in the womb. What a shock!

          • Phipps Mike

            just “eating extra” for the baby is a “mothering” act. That is an indisputable fact. In a perfect world where there were no rapists, no incest or no chances of the mother dying by carrying to term, we wouldn’t need abortion at all. Unwanted babies can go up for adoption. I don’t believe in abortion as a form of birth control.

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            “I don’t believe in abortion as a form of birth control.”

            Good for you! But, let us give the rapist’s child a chance to live: he or she does not deserve the death penalty for the crime of their father. Frederick Douglass was conceived in rape and there are many people walking the earth today conceived in rape and incest. Their lives matter.

          • Phipps Mike

            I agree, however, I am a strong believer that the mother/victim should not have to deal with the rapist when he gets visitation rights with that child. I think the mother should instead get rights to put a bullet in the rapists head. I also believe there is a strong possibility that the child of a rapist will become a sex offender of some sort, themselves at some time in their life. Studies have shown that violence is an inherited trait, not just an environmental one. So the adoptive parents should use EXTRA rules and boundaries on that rape baby.

          • Laura Americanpatriot Westfall

            That is a bunch of crap. There is absolutely NO proof whatsoever that just because someones father is a rapist, that ,that individual will in turn become a rapist or some kind of violent offender. I do agree that the mother should be given the option to shoot the rapist between the eyes. I also think that people should concentrate on changing the laws and ridding the system of these ignorant bleeding heart libtards who are the ones that believe that a rapist getting someone pregnant entitles them to any form of custody rights to that child. If you fathered a child thru rape then all of your rights as a father are automatically severed. PERIOD !!! But no matter what SLAUGHTERING your BABY is NOT the answer.
            Aborting your baby does NOT make you no longer a mother. I now makes you the mother of a DEAD BABY. One that you slaughtered.

          • weasel1886

            So would you use the death penalty on a woman that had an abortion ?

          • Phipps Mike

            you didnt read what I said close enough. I said “Studies have shown that violence is an inherited trait,” meaning that it doesnt necessarily mean that the baby will commit the SAME crimes as their father…etc… Its about the predisposition that it can happen easier to this baby than one with a non violent ancestry. Its the same as alcoholism in a family, makes it easier for their children to become alcoholics. Now you also missed where I said “So the adoptive parents…” meaning that my solution was to adopt, not slaughter.

          • Isaac Fast

            Let’s call things what they are. A future baby, while still in the womb, is a fetus. If we are going to allot civil rights to a fetus, what’s next, forcing women to allow each one of her eggs, to be properly fertilized?

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            “A future baby, while still in the womb, is a fetus.”

            ba·by [bey-bee]
            NOUN [PLURAL BA·BIES.]

            1. an infant or very young child.
            2. a newborn or very young animal.
            3. the youngest member of a family, group, etc.
            4. an immature or childish person.
            5. a human fetus.

            “If we are going to allot civil rights to a fetus”

            A human fetus is a living human being. What right do you have to deny him or her civil rights, particularly the right to life, which he or she is enjoying before you baby sacrificers kill him or her?!?

            “what’s next, forcing women to allow each one of her eggs, to be properly fertilized?”

            You need a lesson in Human Biology 101: the egg is already fertilized by the time the abortion is conducted. Sperm or eggs, in and of themselves are NOT human beings. Only the fertilized egg is.

          • Fairy Larry

            If its a living human being then remove it from the womb and let it live…..ITS NOT VIABLE

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            That is a “great” argument for removing living human beings from life support against their will. Viability is not a pre-condition for humanity. You do make poor excuses for moral murder.

    • Dave L

      There are many pro-life Democrats. The Democrats have their “Liberals” just as the Republicans have their “Neo-Cons”.

      • weasel1886

        Once you are labeled here you are labeled for life and there is no dissent from the party line

      • WorldGoneCrazy

        “There are many pro-life Democrats.”

        There are not so many pro-life Democrats that abortion does not still retain its position as their highest unholy sacrament. Name a single Democrat president or presidential candidate since Roe and Doe that was pro-life. There are only one or two pro-life Democrats in Congress. Apparently, being pro-life is not that important in the Democrat Party. But funding Planned Parenthood and outsourcing abortion to foreign countries are VERY important to them.

        • Dave L

          I won’t take political sides because it alienates people from Christ. But it seems odd politicians in general promise so much to no avail.

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            You are correct that politicians deliver too little. The Republican party, while voting against abortion and abortion funding, has not yet produced a Lincoln who will bring it to the forefront and end this abomination. The Democrat Party, on the other hand, supports and celebrates abortion.

            Nevertheless, I believe that it is very important for Christians to make themselves known and heard in the public square, especially when nearly 4000 innocent defenseless human beings are being killed every day in the womb. That is the equivalent of about 150 Sandy Hook shootings every day, 365 days a year. There is only one party in America that has any hope of ending this holocaust, and it is the same party that defeated slavery. Meanwhile the party that supports abortion also supported slavery, by using many of the same arguments (choice, economics, sub-human descriptions, convenience, etc) and by denying a class of human beings their God-given rights.

          • Dave L

            We still alienate “Democrats” when we promote “Republicans” or visa versa. There is plenty of innocent blood on the hands of both parties.

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            Yes, there is blood on the hands of both, but there is only one party that celebrates abortion.

            “Silence in the face of evil is itself evil: God will not hold us guiltless. Not to speak is to speak. Not to act is to act.” ― Dietrich
            Bonhoeffer

          • Dave L

            Wouldn’t it make more sense to promote a Christian world view over a political world view, if the goal was to lessen evil, instead of polarizing and strengthening it by using politics?

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            So, it seems to me that you are saying let the satanic side deal in politics and we Christians stay out of it?!? You should know that morality is legislated in politics – it’s just a question of whose. And for 42 years, it has been that of the baby sacrificers. We ARE promoting a Christian worldview when we are standing against abortion. Those who serve Jesus are serving the God of Life and Truth. Those who are pro-abortion are serving the devil of death and lies.

            Lives are on the line, Dave. One party ended slavery too. Was it wrong for Christians to engage in politics to end slavery? Those weren’t pro-abolition Democrats. 🙂

          • Dave L

            You are still meddling in the Devil’s domain. You can only force people to comply to your views. Ultimately this leads to more blood shed when it spills over into revolution, civil war or insurrection. History proves this to be true.

            If you truely believe what you say, your conscience binds you to this outcome as a last resort.

            Abortion has been practiced for millennia; through most of history, it was induced by herbal chemistry. Jesus. the Apostles especially Paul were no strangers to it. But Jesus told us to “preach the Gospel”.

            Paul tells us to “Pray” for our rulers that we might lead a peaceful life. Why, because the King’s heart is in the hand of the Lord, and God turns it accordingly.

            “and from Jesus Christ the faithful witness, the firstborn of the dead, and the ruler of kings on earth. To him who loves us and has freed us from our sins by his blood” (Revelation 1:5, ESV)

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            “You are still meddling in the Devil’s domain.”

            Every Christian who engages in this world is “meddling in the Devil’s domain.” That is what we were put here for – not to hunker down in our church basements and be cowards.

            “Ultimately this leads to more blood shed when it spills over into revolution, civil war or insurrection. History proves this to be true.”

            Here’s a little breaking news, Dave: the bloodshed is already here. 58 million lives and counting since Roe and Doe. And the Demon-crats celebrate that as “choice” and a “woman’s right.” I suggest you get in the game.

            “Abortion has been practiced for millennia; through most of history, it was induced by herbal chemistry. Jesus. the Apostles especially Paul were no strangers to it. But Jesus told us to “preach the Gospel”.”

            The Gospel of Life is part and parcel with the Lord’s Gospel. The Church abhorred abortion from Day 1. They understood “Thou shalt not murder” quite well, especially given the Jewish background of many of these new Christians.

            “Paul tells us to “Pray” for our rulers that we might lead a peaceful life. Why, because the King’s heart is in the hand of the Lord, and God turns it accordingly.”

            I pray for Obama every single day. I pray he will come to know the Lord Jesus Christ so that he will come to know what a crime against God and humanity abortion is.

            “For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother’s womb. I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made . . . My frame was not hidden from you when I was made in the secret place. When I was woven together in the depths of the earth, your eyes saw my unformed body. All the days ordained for me were written in your book before one of them came to be.” (Psalm 139:13-16)

            “Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born I set you apart; I appointed you as a prophet to the nations.” (Jeremiah 1:5)

          • Dave L

            If the king’s heart is in the hand of the Lord, why do we have abortion?

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            Surely you are not saying that God is the Author of abortion?!? Would you say the same thing about racial slavery or Jew gassing?

          • Dave L

            What if it is God’s judgment? We know he visits the sins of the fathers on to the children of the 3rd and 4th generation of those who hate him (Ex. 20:5). And that he destroyed everyone except 8 in the Flood. Jesus said the great tribulation of 70 AD (mothers ate their young, among other things) God sent, in judgment on unbelieving Israel.

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            OMG, really?!? The only “God’s Judgment” we have received was when the A&P (Abortion & Poverty) President was crammed down our throats. No, God is not the Author of sin – that would be the other guy. Perhaps you have them confused?

            The fact that God ALLOWS us to sin does not mean He WILLS us to sin. That is very poor theology. How could you serve such a God?

          • Dave L

            “I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things.” (Isaiah 45:7, KJV 1900)

            “Shall a trumpet be blown in the city, and the people not be afraid? Shall there be evil in a city, and the Lord hath not done it?” (Amos 3:6, KJV 1900)

            “Out of the mouth of the most High proceedeth not evil and good?” (Lamentations 3:38, KJV 1900)

            “For the inhabitant of Maroth waited carefully for good: But evil came down from the Lord unto the gate of Jerusalem.” (Micah 1:12, KJV 1900)

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            KJV 1900, huh? That could be the problem. 🙂

            Again, you seem to be confusing his allowance of evil with His decreeing it. Or that when He does decree evil, it is as His judgment on wicked people, not the position you seem to hold, that God, as the Author of evil, is Himself evil.

            And, if this is the “god” you serve, then I can surely see how you might sit by and watch a woman being raped, a man strangling another man, or a woman walking into the abortion mill about to impose the death sentence on her child – all while smiling knowingly that God was the Author of the evil in your presence and it is to be ordained and not interfered with. Really, with Christians such as you, who needs atheists?!?

            “God cannot be tempted by evil, and He Himself does not tempt anyone” (James 1:13).

            “God is light, and in Him there is no darkness at all” (1 John 1:5).

            “God is not the author of confusion” (1 Corinthians 14:33).

          • Dave L

            I can provide other translations of the same verses. They all say basically the same thing. Here’s one example ; “Is a trumpet blown in a city, and the people are not afraid? Does disaster come to a city, unless the Lord has done it?” (Amos 3:6, ESV)

            If people are by nature children of wrath (Eph. 2:3), what can they expect from God other than wrath? Why does this seem so strange that he would do what he says?

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            I see you did not address your being a content non-interfering bystander to rape or murder. Is that what you think your “god” desires from you?

            Nor did you address the difference between God’s wrath on wicked people and his wrath on innocent people, like abortion victims.

            Nor did you address the conflicting Bible verses I provided you. Perhaps your hermeneutics are poor – VERY poor? Or, does your “god” contradict Himself?

            If God’s wrath were evident right now, there would be no Demon-crats left on earth, since they are ones who support baby sacrifice. The fact that Demon-crats exist is proof of God’s abundant mercy. I suggest you take advantage of God’s abundant mercy, and leave your false “god” behind.

          • Dave L

            You do not know me personally so you can not accuse me of being guilty of your first point.

            Regarding your second point, there are no innocent people. The wages of sin is death. This is why infants who never consciously sin die along with everyone else. Adam’s Original Sin condemns us all.

            Your third point about faulty Hermeneutics doesn’t answer the Scriptures I quoted with out interpretation.

            And point four, the Democrats exist just as everything else exists, by God’s appointment.

            “In him we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to the purpose of him who works all things according to the counsel of his will,” (Ephesians 1:11, ESV)

            Here are some more “Wrath” verses without interpretation:

            “Therefore God sends them a strong delusion, so that they may believe what is false,” (2 Thessalonians 2:11, ESV)

            “And the LORD said to him, ‘By what means?’ And he said, ‘I will go out, and will be a lying spirit in the mouth of all his prophets.’ And he said, ‘You are to entice him, and you shall succeed; go out and do so.’” (1 Kings 22:22, ESV)

            “What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction,” (Romans 9:22, ESV)

            “For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth.” (Romans 1:18, ESV)

            “He who believes in the Son has everlasting life; and he who does not believe the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him.”” (John 3:36, NKJV)

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            “You do not know me personally so you can not accuse me of being guilty of your first point.”

            I most certainly CAN accuse you of the first point when you make an argument that is fully consistent with the first point. I notice you are deflecting the first point instead of answering it. I will take that as a “yes” from you.

            “Regarding your second point, there are no innocent people.”

            There are blameless people, who are innocent of any crime, certainly one deserving of the death penalty. There are also positionally righteous people. This would apply to babies in the womb. If you wish to argue as to why your “god” believes that babies in the womb deserve the death penalty, I am all ears.

            “Your third point about faulty Hermeneutics doesn’t answer the Scriptures I quoted with out interpretation.”

            And, you do not respond with a Biblically sound argument as to why the verses I quoted are in direct contradiction to your verses.

            “And point four, the Democrats exist just as everything else exists, by God’s appointment.”

            Or, by God’s mercy.

            “Here are some more “Wrath” verses without interpretation:”

            Yes, indeed! And all of those wrath verses are against those who are on the wrong side of God, not positionally righteous, like, say, baby-killing Democrats, as one example. So, you have shown me why God’s wrath is directed toward the wicked: now show me why it is directed toward the innocent?!? Please, do make clear the case that your “god” stores up wrath for those babies, especially ones in the womb – I really do want to see this. And, in the meantime, consider this verse as you dream tonight:

            ‘He said to His disciples, “It is inevitable that stumbling blocks come, but woe to him through whom they come! “It would be better for him if a millstone were hung around his neck and he were thrown into the sea, than that he would cause one of these little ones to stumble.” ‘ Luke 17:1-2

          • Dave L

            Back to the first point. If I spell out my Pro-Life activity, I cannot prove it unless you know me personally.

            There are no innocent people except Jesus.

            …”as it is written: “None is righteous, no, not one; no one understands; no one seeks for God. All have turned aside; together they have become worthless; no one does good, not even one.”” (Romans 3:9–12, ESV)

            “The LORD looks down from heaven on the children of man, to see if there are any who understand, who seek after God. They have all turned aside; together they have become corrupt; there is none who does good, not even one.” (Psalm 14:2–3, ESV)

            “Surely there is not a righteous man on earth who does good and never sins.” (Ecclesiastes 7:20, ESV)

            Hermeneutic? Jesus quoted Scripture only when challenged by the Devil. He did not interpret it for him, because it stands alone as God’s Word.

            Please point out how God’s word, as you say, contradicts itself?

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            “If I spell out my Pro-Life activity, I cannot prove it unless you know me personally.”

            That’s a fail. 🙂 Why, oh why, would you engage in ANY pro-life activity if God is the Author of abortion?!? If it is His will, as you say, then we should not protest it, we should applaud it.

            “Please point out how God’s word, as you say, contradicts itself?”

            God’s Word does NOT contradict itself. That is why, in reply to your verses saying (by your interpretation) that God is the Author of evil, I gave you verses that says He isn’t. So, I am wondering how you resolve that (apparent) contradiction (under your interpretation)? Or do you not know that God does not contradict Himself?

            I don’t have the hermeneutics issue that you have, because I believe that God stores up His wrath for those who are positionally unrighteous, not positionally righteous. And, I would love to see how you can justify God pouring out His wrath on babies in the womb, who He just created “fearfully and wonderfully?” That’s quite a “god!”

            YOU are the one making the argument for looking contentedly on a genocide in our presence, and justifying it by God’s will instead of man’s sinfulness. YOU are the one who gets to answer to God for it too.

          • Dave L

            If the wages of sin is death, God owes death to everyone. The Bible teaches that we are conceived in sin (“Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me.” (Psalm 51:5, ESV).

            So you are at issue with God for being righteous in punishing sin with death. God would not be righteous if he did not.

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            “So you are at issue with God for being righteous in punishing sin with death.”

            You are at issue with thinking that God desires man to kill babies in the womb – or out. Your argument is that since those babies will experience death at some point in their lives, it is OK to kill them in the womb. Your argument thus would be fully supportive of murder of any type – not just inside the womb, but out. This is a morally repugnant position and one in direct conflict with God:

            “Thou shalt not murder.” Exodus 20:13

          • Dave L

            God administers death to everyone because of his Righteousness and because of their sin. He owes death to everyone.

            He does not use Christians to administer death to sinners though he once used the Old Testament Church this way. Under the New Testament He uses Christians to condemn sin, and to point the way for people to escape His wrath through Jesus. So while it is true, God owes death to every person, and sees to it, it is equally true that in His love, he poured out His wrath on innocent Jesus in the place of all who will be saved.

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            All 100% true.

            “Under the New Testament He uses Christians to condemn sin”

            And abortion is sin. Let us condemn it. Let us warn those who commit this sin, especially the abortionists and death mill workers, of their danger of God’s wrath and their need for repentance. And let us speak out against political parties that celebrate this sin as a “right.” There are no rights to do a wrong.

          • Dave L

            Thanks for the reply….

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            God bless you, Dave!

          • Fairy Larry

            The OT & NT is very pro slavery. Paul wrote a letter to Philemon, a slave owner, telling him how a good Christian should treat his slaves & told the “christians” slaves how they should obey their slave owners
            What an immoral sickness your faith is

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            “What an immoral sickness your faith is”

            When you make objective moral claims about Christianity, you are denying your a-theistic faith and stealing from God.

            Premise 1: If there is no God, then objective moral values do
            not exist.
            Premise 2: Evil exists.
            Conclusion 1: Therefore, objective moral values DO exist.
            Conclusion 2: therefore, God exists.

            A-theists affirm Premise 1:

            “In a universe of blind physical forces and genetic replication,
            some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won’t find any rhyme or reason in it, or any justice. The universe that we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference… DNA neither knows nor cares. DNA just is. And we dance to its music.” (Richard Dawkins, River Out of Eden: A Darwinian View of Life (1995))

            “Let me summarize my views on what modern evolutionary biology tells us loud and clear — and these are basically Darwin’s views. There are no gods, no purposes, and no goal-directed forces of any kind. There is no life after death. When I die, I am absolutely certain that I am going to be dead. That’s the end of me. There is no ultimate foundation for ethics, no ultimate meaning in life, and no free will for humans, either.” A-theist William Provine

            “The position of the modern evolutionist is that humans have an awareness of morality because such an awareness of biological worth. Morality is a biological adaptation no less than are hands and feet and teeth. Considered as a rationally justifiable set of claims about an objective something, ethics is illusory. I appreciate when someone says, ‘Love thy neighbor as thyself,’ they think they are referring above and beyond themselves. Nevertheless, such reference is truly without foundation. Morality is just an aid to survival and reproduction, . . . and any deeper meaning is illusory.” (Michael Ruse, “Evolutionary Theory and Christian Ethics,” in The Darwinian
            Paradigm (London: Routledge, 1989), pp. 262-269).

            A-theists affirm premise 2 by pointing out how objectively
            “evil” Christians and the God of the Bible is.

            Therefore, by identity with Premise 2, Conclusion 1 is achieved. Therefore, by Modus Tollens of Premise 1 and Conclusion 1, Conclusion 2 is achieved, and God exists. So, when you talk about how objectively “evil” Christians and
            their God is, you are unwittingly acknowledging His existence. Thank you so much for acknowledging God today!

          • weasel1886

            There is a vast difference in being involved in issues and claiming one party has moral ascendancy over another.

            If you think republicans wanted to give equal rights to blacks in 1860 you are sadly mistaken. Lincoln even said he’d keep slavery if it would keep the country together.

            It would have been better for the Christian right to have formed their own party back in the 1970’s than to latch on to the GOP

          • weasel1886

            Can you tell me what has politics done to stem abortion over the last 30 years ? The pro-life movement has done nothing but pass a few laws.
            They have never addressed the reasons why women have abortions

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            We have stood on sidewalks and rescued babies about to be exterminated by your side, we have built crisis pregnancy centers (now about 8 times as many CPC as abortion mills), we have offered counseling and time and treasure and adoption services and post-abortive counseling to abortion-minded women, we have passed laws (like this one!) that show women that abortion really is moral murder – in short we have saved lives.

            Other than celebrating and worshipping baby sacrifice and calling it “good,” what have you or any other Demon-crats done to save innocent defenseless human beings in the womb from being exterminated?

            “Silence in the face of evil is itself evil: God will not hold us guiltless. Not to speak is to speak. Not to act is to act.” ― Dietrich Bonhoeffer

          • weasel1886

            So all abortions have stopped? The rate has gone down.

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            Your argument appears to be:

            1. If all abortions have not stopped, then it is wrong to oppose abortion.
            2. All abortions have not stopped.
            3. Therefore, it is wrong to oppose abortion.

            The first premise is false. You can see that by substituting “slavery” or “Jew gassing” or any “genocide” for “abortions.”

          • weasel1886

            I agree with you what’s the problem

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            No problem.

          • Fairy Larry

            Absolutely. You bassackward Jesus junkies have been responsible for suppression, oppression, imprisonment, torture, rape & genocide for 1500 yrs

            About time we nail y’all to that broken cross y’all cower behind

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            You have no grounds, as an a-theist, for making claims regarding objective moral values and duties. Take it up with your “pope” and “cardinals:”

            “In a universe of blind physical forces and genetic replication,
            some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won’t find any rhyme or reason in it, or any justice. The universe that we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind, pitiless
            indifference… DNA neither knows nor cares. DNA just is. And we dance to its music.” (Richard Dawkins, River Out of
            Eden: A Darwinian View of Life (1995))

            “Let me summarize my views on what modern evolutionary biology tells us loud and clear — and these are basically Darwin’s views. There are no gods, no purposes, and no goal-directed forces of any kind. There is no life after death. When I die, I am absolutely certain that I am going to be dead. That’s the end of me. There is no ultimate foundation for ethics, no ultimate meaning in life, and no free will for humans, either.” A-theist William Provine

            “The position of the modern evolutionist is that humans have an awareness of morality because such an awareness of biological worth. Morality is a biological adaptation no less than are hands and feet and teeth. Considered as a rationally justifiable set of claims about an objective something, ethics is illusory. I appreciate when someone says, ‘Love thy neighbor as thyself,’ they think they are referring above and beyond
            themselves. Nevertheless, such reference is truly without foundation. Morality is just an aid to survival and reproduction, . . . and any deeper meaning is illusory.” (Michael Ruse, “Evolutionary Theory and Christian Ethics,” in The Darwinian Paradigm (London: Routledge, 1989), pp. 262-269).

            So, when you claim that Christians are / were objectively immoral, you are stealing objective moral values and duties from an Objective Moral Law Giver, God. Thank you for acknowledging God today! God bless!

          • Nofun

            The only world view you need is reality. All other world views just censor reality.

          • Dave L

            How do you know you are not censoring reality when you rule out other world views?

          • Nofun

            Your world view delusion is not reality. Its the religious idea that things become real if you believe them very hard and ignore all evidence to the contrary.

            If you achieve belief this way you have achieved delusion.

          • Dave L

            Can you back this up? Or is it just your observation?

          • Nofun

            OK Try very hard to imagine your dog can fly and see if it becomes true or not. If you see him not fly just pretend he just did and is now a bit tired.

            Also an observation would be evidence. Like observing a god would be evidence of a god.

          • weasel1886

            You are correct. My thought is that Farewell, Dobson, and Robinson have done tremendous damage to Christian culture by making it political and a fund raiser for candidates
            There are many people, myself included, that are so turned off by “the way you vote determines how much of a Christian you are crowd” I can hardly go to church anymore

          • Dave L

            Thanks for sharing this. I became alienated from family and area Churches for the same reasons years ago. Much of the problem stems from the “Pre-Trib Rapture movement ” lusting for WWIII to begin over Israel and hasten the return of the Lord. Some believe they are the most dangerous cult in the world because of this. Historic Christianity knows nothing of their views, having originated less than 200 years ago with the Scofield Reference Bible.

          • weasel1886

            The whole Revelation pre trib thing is scary. I grew up in a very conservative Lutheran church where they still teach that Jesus comes to Earth gathers everyone, we all go home that’s it. The idea of a rapture and 666 is considered hearsay.
            I thought my Evangelical pastor at a small church was going to die when I told him what I was taught.

          • Dave L

            After considerable study, I believe the Amillennial view is correct. I think Lutherans and Reformed hold similar views regarding this. I’ve learned a lot from Luther (Bondage of the Will) and Calvin (the 5 points) along with the English Baptists of the post Reformation era. (Spurgeon, Gill, Keech, etc.)

          • Nofun

            The GOP are the only party that trade on abortion.

          • Nofun

            The Pro-Dead women and girls lobby will have plenty of blood on their hands if they ever win.

          • Dave L

            Do you mean this is not happening now?

          • Nofun

            Yes women now have a choice of a safe medical abortion over dangerous unsafe amateur efforts. No matter what you do to the law abortion will still happen….. your choice is whether you want women and girls to die and become diseased en masse or not.

            Pro choice is the only moral position.

          • Dave L

            Some would say …..your choice is whether you want murderous women and girls to die and become diseased en masse or not.

          • Nofun

            Yes they deserve to die because their decisions don’t jell with your Sunday church morals. Fetus worship is evil and misogynist.

          • Phipps Mike

            if Republicans were pro life AFTER the birth, it would help slow abortions down (let welfare stand).

          • Paul Durant

            I agree with that statement Mike. I would challenge you to go to Black Genocide.Org. I believe it will help you see life in a different way. The abortion agenda is worldwide and much deeper then you think. It really has nothing to do with women’s choice. Amongst those in the know there is no question as to whether or not abortion is the taking of a life. Please consider that it has nothing to do with party politics and that there is a reason no Republican President has done more then to pay lip service to the issue.

          • Phipps Mike

            party politics DOES have something to do with it. They end welfare and a mom brings in a baby who cant eat. He/she starves to death. Or, no medical care when the baby is sick. That is NOT pro-life. If you are truly pro-life, you must support welfare.

          • Disqusdmnj

            Come on, quit the hyperbole – no Democrat “celebrates” abortion. Dems on the whole want more *real* education (not abstinence) because it has been scientifically proven to LOWER abortion rates, but that’s an uphill battle when the GOP wants doctors to be forced to give incorrect, non-scientific “information” to their patients… that’s what this whole case was about.

            Any sane liberal/Democrat – and some conservatives as well – will tell you they want abortions to be safe, legal, and incredibly rare. Education, and letting doctors do their jobs without interference from idiotic lawmakers will accomplish that.

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            An ultrasound is “incorrect, non-scientific information?!?” I am glad you are not in the medical field or any STEM field for that matter.

            Abortion is the murder of an innocent defenseless human being in the womb. That is Human Biology 101 – even if you desire to ignore basic science.

          • Disqusdmnj

            An ultrasound is an ultrasound, that’s not the point. But as this here site itself reports, “As previously reported, lawmakers in North Carolina passed the Women’s Right to Know Act in 2011, which required women to obtain an ultrasound prior to an abortion, and that the abortionist describe the child’s features to the mother, as well as offer the opportunity to listen to the baby’s heartbeat. Other parts of the law included a mandatory 24-hour waiting period and that the woman be provided alternatives to abortion.”

            This, like other attempts to tell women that abortions cause cancer or depression or the like, forces doctors to tell their patients things that are not true, that are not medically sound or proven, or that may actually harm the woman’s health. It violates doctor/patient privilege, and does exactly what most conservatives say they DON’T want – it keeps government IN people’s lives and decisions, instead of out of them.

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            Do not be silly. An ultrasound, listening to the heartbeat, and describing the development of the child in the womb are all facts of reality and are ALL things that would be done by an OB when the child is wanted. Why not when the child is about to be “thrown away” in a dumpster? Why are liberals so afraid of the truth? Because it might make them appear to be moral monsters? Worse than the pro-slavers they were in the 1800’s?

          • Disqusdmnj

            An ultrasound is not a medical requirement for an abortion.

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            It should be: a baby is about to lose her life. Shouldn’t the fact that she is a living human being be presented to the Mom so she has ALL of the facts and knows ALL of the choices? 🙂

            Also, it might interest you to know that many abortionists prefer to use an ultrasound to guide their instruments so that they do not puncture the woman’s uterus. But, of course, Planned Murder in Da Hood does not let the woman see the screen – can’t let that truth come out, I guess.

            You might also want to know that the ultrasound creeps out the other “clinic” workers too – many of them quit after watching an ultrasound-guided abortion. Abby Johnson, the director of a Planned Parenthood was one of them. I guess even cold-hearted monsters just cannot deny watching a human being undergoing death by dismemberment or crushing.

          • Disqusdmnj

            Sometimes it’s just a bunch of cells, with no life to lose. Sometimes the mother’s life is at risk, and that life is more precious than that of a bunch of cells to her family and other children. [Sometimes it’s a miscarriage, nature’s (god’s?) way of performing an abortion, since that’s how 10-20% of all pregnancies end.] And those times where an abortion *is* the right MEDICAL choice, it is between the mother and her doctor, and not a bunch of North Carolina politicians.

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            “Sometimes it’s just a bunch of cells, with no life to lose.”

            Never. You fail Human Biology 101: life begins at conception. “Clump of cells” is so 1960-ish. It is not surprising to me that someone who supports abortion is a science-phobe.

          • Disqusdmnj

            Obviously I wasn’t referring to the fact that cells are also alive. You’re talking about a baby; I’m talking about cells.

            So in the case of an ectopic or tubal pregnancy, where the mother’s life is not just at risk, but where she will die if the pregnancy goes to term, you’d rather her die. Got it. Very compassionate of you.

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            “Obviously I wasn’t referring to the fact that cells are also alive. ”

            Those “cells” are a complete human being: they are not skin cells on our arms. Brush up on your Human Biology please – for the sake of children.

            “So in the case of an ectopic or tubal pregnancy, where the mother’s life is not just at risk, but where she will die if the pregnancy goes to term”

            That’s actually not true. The woman has a very good chance of surviving the ectopic pregnancy. And the baby has a decent chance too – but not as good as the Mom. And removal of the tube with the baby in it is NOT an abortion – abortion is the intentional killing of the baby IN the womb. Some ectopic pregnancies are carried until 20-30 weeks and then delivered by surgery. At some point in the future, a baby removed in the tube may be viable even earlier than the now 20 weeks.

            Interesting how you quickly switch to the very low probability cases to justify your position for 4000 dead babies a day in America alone. In fact, an ultrasound will help identify ectopic pregnancies – I thought you were for women?!?

          • Disqusdmnj

            Crazy, I do see your points and intent. You have to believe that *neither* of us want to see 4,000 abortions, or 400, or 4. But whereas you see it as murder, I just see it as what should be a last resort, but still an option; and no, not even an “easy decision” option, but one nonetheless (and sometimes yes, it is just a bunch of cells). Education helps prevent it, access to healthcare helps prevent it, affordable and widely available birth control helps prevent it, and allowing doctors to speak to their patients truthfully and with medical knowledge and not what some lawmaker believes is good advice… but lets face it, those prerogatives are not in the wheelhouse of conservative, evangelical voters or lawmakers (I call them “Rebiblicans”, LOL). They want to cut all that down and teach abstinence, and then assume people, women, will just have the babies. They won’t, because they never did. Abortion is older than the Bible, older than Christianity, older than religion itself. It happened when abortion was illegal, and will happen whether NC or Texas or Oklahoma passes its restrictive laws or not. So in my humble opinion, you may as well make it safe and available… and extremely rare. And just as I understand people are still going to believe in fairy tales in old books and there’s nothing I can do about changing that, you should understand abortion is going to happen no matter how abhorrent you think it is, or what you think is a worthy way to prevent it. So you may as well learn which ways work in making it happen as little as possible, and get those ways to become law… not the ones that don’t work.

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            “But whereas you see it as murder, I just see it as what should be a last resort”

            It is not even close to that. The hard cases (life of mother, rape, and incest) make up less than 2% of the cases, and yes, they ARE hard. But, killing an innocent defenseless child because he or she was conceived in rape is still murder.

            “affordable and widely available birth control helps prevent it.”

            That is not actually true: the rise in abortions went hand-in-hand with more contraception. More contraception = more sex events = more unexpected pregnancies (because contraception is ALWAYS less than 100% reliable, except for abstinence).

            “Abortion is older than the Bible, older than Christianity, older than religion itself.”

            But, the Christian position against it has been consistent for 2000 years, from the very earliest writings. You can be sure that Messianic Jews knew full well “Thou shalt not murder.”

            “It happened when abortion was illegal”

            Yes, but not at this rate. The law is a powerful teacher. Look how abortion skyrocketed right after Roe and Doe. Look how pot use has done the same.

            “So in my humble opinion, you may as well make it safe and available… and extremely rare.”

            That talking point has never been even close to realized. Great, then you are for outlawing it except for all of the 3 hard cases above – the 2%, right? (That is still over 20K per year, but quite the accomplishment.) No more of this silly “health of the mother” which covers headaches, etc, right? Only life of the mother, plus rape and incest.

            BTW, you DO know that the talking points on the abortion side have shifted from “safe, legal, and rare” to “I had an abortion and I’m proud of it,” don’t you? Because it seems that you are underestimating the wickedness of the remaining pro-aborts, even as they become fewer in number.

          • Disqusdmnj

            “BTW, you DO know that the talking points on the abortion side have shifted from “safe, legal, and rare” to “I had an abortion and I’m proud of it,” don’t you? Because it seems that you are underestimating the wickedness of the remaining pro-aborts, even as they become fewer in number.”

            I put as much stock into them as I do “Christians” – and there are plenty on sites like these, this one included – who wished they could kill gay people themselves, as their “God” commanded it.

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            ““We proudly provide safe and legal abortion.” — Cecile Richards, head of Planned Parenthood, the largest abortion provider in the US. (Not exactly a fringe group.)

            ““I love abortion. I don’t accept it. I don’t view it as a necessary evil. I embrace it. I donate to abortion funds. I write about how important it is to make sure that every woman has access to safe, legal abortion services. I have bumper stickers and buttons and t-shirts proclaiming my support for reproductive freedom. I love abortion. And I bristle every time a fellow activist uses a trendy catch-phrase or rallying cry meant to placate pro-lifers. The first of these, ‘Make abortion safe, legal, and rare!” has been used for decades as a call for abortion rights.’ ” … “Terminating a pregnancy is not an unethical act, yet suggesting that abortion should be rare implies that there is something undesirable about having one.” — Jessica DelBalzo

            Filmed her abortion and proud of it: http://thestir .cafemom .com/bizarre_news/172111/woman_films_her_own_abortion

            Super proud of her abortion: http://chicksontheright .com/blog/item/28339-girls-star-is-super-proud-of-her-abortion-and-wants-you-to-know-it

            Facebook page celebrating abortion: https://www .facebook .com/pages/I-Had-An-Abortion/138570696250541

            And why not? After all, if abortion really IS a legitimate right, then women should be proud of it. I am proud of my right to free speech, to assemble peacefully (including on the sidewalks in front of the death mills), to exercise my religion. Why shouldn’t women be proud of their abortions?!? Is there something WRONG with abortion? Abortion doesn’t kill an innocent defenseless human being or anything, does it?!?

          • Disqusdmnj

            It is a right, just as I have the right to kill someone who has entered my house with the intent to harm my family. I sure as hell wouldn’t be proud of it though.

            Again, some pro-choice nut jobs will be like that. Some Christians (Gary on here, for one) would love to not be sent to jail were he to mow down a bunch of gay people with a semi-automatic, thinking he’s doing good. Some Muslims fly planes into buildings.

            But it is a right, and there are times when it’s medically necessary, and there are times when it isn’t. So again, you may as well do what you can to reduce it, because you know you can’t eliminate it.

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            “It is a right, just as I have the right to kill someone who has entered my house with the intent to harm my family. I sure as hell wouldn’t be proud of it though.”

            There are no rights to do a wrong. The analogy fails too, if it was an analogy.

            “Again, some pro-choice nut jobs will be like that.”

            Cecile Richards is the head of Planned Parenthood. She is the BFF of the Democrat Party. I agree that she is a nutjob, but one party thinks she is the cat’s meow.

            “So again, you may as well do what you can to reduce it, because you know you can’t eliminate it.”

            The same could be said for murder (which abortion is) and rape and burglary. They will never be eliminated, but, there are laws passed against those atrocities. Weird how we landed men on the moon and won two world wars, yet women did not yet have the “right” to kill their babies (inside the womb or out). I just don’t know how we got by?!? (sarcasm)

          • Phipps Mike

            ” life begins at conception”
            yes. LIFE does. However…VIABLE life (if put outside the womb)….NO.

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            Viability is an arbitrary criterion. And, technology keeps pushing it back towards conception. A life is a life, and pro-aborts have no right to take it.

          • Phipps Mike

            theres nothing arbitrary about it. A fetus is viable pretty much after 5 months in the womb. Arbitrary means a selection that has no reasoning. The development stages give definites as opposed to arbitrary. Point being, that its not a viable life if it cant live on its own without mechanical assistance.

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            It is an arbitrary criterion for assigning objective moral value to a human being. You should be ashamed of yourself for saying that a human being, who is in precisely the location that ALL human beings were (including yourself, you hypocrite) at that dependent stage of development, has no right to live. Furthermore, a baby who is one month old (outside of the womb) is also not viable without food or water provided by another person. So, your morally reprehensible argument applies to infanticide too.

          • Fairy Larry

            If its viable then remove it and let it live on its on….oh it will cease to exist because ITS NOT VIABLE

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            Your morally reprehensible “logic” would also apply to removing living human beings from life support against their will. Viability is not a pre-condition to humanity. Your argument is also supremely hypocritical, since you were once as dependent as babies inside the womb (and out, during infancy) are.

          • Phipps Mike

            we are talking PHYSICS, not morals. Also, stop putting words in my mouth. I didnt say that anybody doesnt have a right to live. I said that a baby for the most part is viable at 5 months. Viable doesn’t mean “with food and water”, that would apply to adults if we went by that reasoning. You can stop playing word games anytime.

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            My apologies: I thought you were using viability as a legitimate criterion for a moral right to abortion? That would be reprehensible, illogical, and hypocritical.

            You are correct that it is technology that drives viability, and that the current cutoff is around 5 months. But, this number does keep getting pushed back toward conception over time, which is why it is relativistic, if not arbitrary. But, as a moral criterion, it IS arbitrary. I could just as easily say “when the heart starts beating” or “when one foot is out of the womb” or “when Gosnell says it is OK.”

          • Phipps Mike

            ok, now you understand me and thanks for the apology. Yes, it is relativistic, dependent upon what geographic location. I really dont think abortion is something somebody wants to happen, its just that sometimes such as for the life of the mother, it happens.

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            “I really dont think abortion is something somebody wants to happen, its just that sometimes such as for the life of the mother, it happens.”

            Please forgive me, but I could not let that statement go: less than 2% of abortions are for rape, incest, and the life of the mother – the hard cases. In fact, in the case of the life of the mother, it is always possible to terminate the pregnancy WITHOUT committing an abortion, and if the pregnancy is beyond 20 weeks, as many are before health problems show up for the mother, the baby has a good chance of surviving – provided she is not aborted first.

            The abortion movement has gone far past the old claims that they want “safe, legal, and rare.” (Actually, abortion providers NEVER wanted that: baby killing is big business – between $500 and $1800 for a few minutes work in the lower cost abortion mill in our city.)

            Abortion has new talking points: “I had an abortion and I’m proud of it!”

            “We proudly provide safe and legal abortion.” — Cecile Richards, head of Planned Parenthood, the largest abortion provider in the US. (Not exactly a fringe group.)

            ““I love abortion. I don’t accept it. I don’t view it as a necessary evil. I embrace it. I donate to abortion funds. I write about how important it is to make sure that every woman has access to safe, legal abortion services. I have bumper stickers and buttons and t-shirts proclaiming my support for reproductive freedom. I love abortion. And I bristle every time a fellow activist uses a trendy catch-phrase or rallying cry meant to placate pro-lifers. The first of these, ‘Make abortion safe, legal, and rare!” has been used for decades as a call for abortion rights.’ ” … “Terminating a pregnancy is not an unethical act, yet suggesting that abortion should be rare
            implies that there is something undesirable about having one.” — Jessica DelBalzo

            Filmed her abortion and proud of it: http://thestir .cafemom
            .com/bizarre_news/172111/woman_films_her_own_abortion

            Super proud of her abortion: http://chicksontheright
            .com/blog/item/28339-girls-star-is-super-proud-of-her-abortion-and-wants-you-to-know-it

            Facebook page celebrating abortion: https://www .facebook .com/pages/I-Had-An-Abortion/138570696250541

            And why not? After all, if abortion really IS a legitimate right, then women should be proud of it. I am proud of my right to free speech, to assemble peacefully (including on the sidewalks in front of the death mills), to exercise my religion. Why shouldn’t women be proud of their abortions?!? Is there something WRONG with abortion? Abortion doesn’t kill an innocent defenseless human being or anything, does it?!? I am sure that many slave owners were proud of their “right” to own black people too.

          • Phipps Mike

            I’m perfectly aware of the stats on that. My point is that sometimes it IS necessary. Its like Capital punishment. I don’t really condone it, because there are those few who truly were wrongly convicted and sent to their death and their innocence proved AFTER they were executed. But I know that in cases like Jeffrey Dahmer, capital punishment is warranted. God must have thought so too since Jeffrey was beat to death with a broomstick by his prison co-worker.

          • MamaBear

            Obviously, someone who believes “an ultrasound is an ultrasound” has almost zero familiarity with ultrasounds. The grainy ultrasounds of when I had my children compared to the ultrasounds of my grandbabies is rather like comparing old black and white snapshots with modern digital photography.
            Many abortion clinics still use old ultrasound equipment that any legitimate OB or Imaging Center would have scrapped long ago because they are not really concerned with clear images.

          • MamaBear

            Ultrasounds are used in the medical field for more than just prenatal care.
            Ultrasounds are used in cancer diagnosis, both in determining the need for a biopsy and in guiding needle biopsies to tumors so they will be minimumly invasive. They are used to diagnose blocked arteries as well. When my chemo-port did not work right, an ultrasound was used to find the internal catheter had developed a kink. Ultrasound technology is useful in many fields of medicine where once doctors either had to guess or use more invasive techniques.
            In prenatal care, ultrasounds are used to give more accurate due dates than were possible a generation ago (and babies still come when they want to), as well as prenatally diagnose problems.

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            Amen – thank you, MamaBear!

            We also see that ultrasounds help convert the workers and, even in some cases, the abortionists themselves. We also have seen that the abortion mills tend to use grainy un-calibrated ultrasounds to perpetrate their deceit (clump of cells, products of conception, etc – all the lies of the 1960’s). So, it might matter where the ultrasound is viewed: at a crisis pregnancy center, where the images are clear, the medical information is sound, and the services are free to the client – versus at an abortion mill, where the images are grainy, the medical information is a pack of lies, and the abortionist and workers have a financial stake in the death of the human being in the womb. And, it is in the best interest of the woman undergoing the abortion: it just might save them from a punctured uterus.

        • weasel1886

          Explain to me what republicans and the pro life movement have done to end abortions over the last 35 years

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            We have stood on sidewalks and rescued babies about to be exterminated by your side, we have built crisis pregnancy centers (now about 8 times as many CPC as abortion mills), we have offered counseling and time and treasure and adoption services and post-abortive counseling to abortion-minded women, we have passed laws (like this one!) that show women that abortion really is moral murder – in short we have saved lives.

            Other than celebrating and worshipping baby sacrifice and calling it “good,” what have you or any other Demon-crats done to save innocent defenseless human beings in the womb from being exterminated?

            “Silence in the face of evil is itself evil: God will not hold us guiltless. Not to speak is to speak. Not to act is to act.” ― Dietrich Bonhoeffer

          • Laura Americanpatriot Westfall

            Conservatives have fought long and hard to try and get abortion put to and end in this country.

          • weasel1886

            No they haven’t. You have had conservative presidents and congress and they haven”t done 1 thing.
            It believe it is too much of a political positive to keep it legal for them. They get money and votes from pro life people so why try to end it ?
            Congress voted 40 plus times to end Obamacare and not once to end abortion.

      • Fairy Larry

        Neo-Cons are warmongers
        Dems or nothing but moderate republicans (Corporate Fascist)
        Liberal is a rather outdated word, progressive is more correct terminology(AND THE CORRECT IDEOLOGY)
        Tea Trash are religiously deluded bassackward white trash homophobic misogynistic xenophobic theocrats

    • Phipps Mike

      and just how many women were in this study? 5?

    • Nofun

      Proof?

  • robertzaccour

    It’s good to keep people informed of the facts. What are they afraid of? The truth?

    • weasel1886

      Forcing someone to view something they don’t want to see or experience is not right. A rape victim should not have to go through it

  • Phipps Mike

    “But pro-life organizations said that informing a woman about the reality
    of what she is about to do is not too much to ask for abortionists.”

    no, but its not free speech when the speech is FORCED by law upon the lady getting the abortion. Where is the ladies freedom to NOT hear it? I concur with SCOTUS.

  • Reason2012

    It just goes to show you how evil abortion is:

    > which required women to obtain an ultrasound prior to an abortion and that the abortionist describe the child’s features to the mother, Other parts of the law included a mandatory 24-hour waiting period and that the woman be provided alternatives to abortion. <

    They don't want women to have other alternatives – they want them to take a step to the dark side and_kill their son/daughter instead.

    Oh the barbaric outright EVIL that is "abortion".

    • Nofun

      No Hitler didn’t have to convince people at all to kill Jews because they were already cast as Christ killers by the German protestant churches.

      • Reason2012

        He convinced them the Jewish people were not human beings so they could get them to slaughter those civilians by the millions.

        • weasel1886

          He also used Martin Luthers writings and claimed to be doing Christ’s work.

        • Nofun

          As I said Christian churches already did that legwork. He used Christianity in every book and speech. The holocaust is a one of the many christian atrocities against humanity.

          • Reason2012

            People always use Christianity falsely – just like He used evolutionism to build his “master race” by helping evolution along and eliminating the “weaker races” like the Jewish people. But again, He convinced people the Jewish people were not human beings so they would execute them by the millions.

          • Nofun

            True. The problem is Evolution doesn’t mean the strongest.

            I am not saying he was a christian but that he used christianity to justify the mass murder of Jews and that the churches at the time were extremely anti-Semetic. No one can suddenly make a people turn against a minority … it takes years of indoctrination … christianity provided that indoctrination.

            Go further back and all christianity was Anti-Semetic as the jews do not accept Jesus as the messiah. Read a Shakespeare play and note the Anti-Semetic christian views.

          • Reason2012

            He used evolution and claiming they’re not human to promote the mass murder – he used Christianity to get into power to begin with. No Christians would consider it God’s will to slay His chosen people.

            People have used evolution to claim some human beings are evolved further along than others – it’s been used to promote racism. Your ignorance of it does not make it any less true. Google evolution racism.

            Hitler was likewise trying to build the “master race”. Read up on your history, instead of remaining willfully ignorant and saying “lie lie lie!” when people try to educate you.

            It takes years of indoctrination of the lie of evolutionism to convince people we’re animals and some humans are less evolved than others, and to “help natural selection” by exterminating the weak Jewish people.

            No, calling Christianity anti-semantic is like calling Christianity anti-Christ or anti-God. The Jewish people are God’s chosen people – any Christians who does anything but support them has little idea what It means to be Christian.

          • Nofun

            How did he do that? Evolution is the survival of the fittest not the strongest. Christians did decide to slaughter Jews and did nothing to stop it. This god’s people nonsense is a modern fad, back in the day they were hated for saying jesus was not god and not the messiah. At least own up to this reality.

            Evolution does not sat anyone is less evolved than anyone else. So again you lie and lie and lie.

    • DNelson

      Wait, I thought you have said before that it is not right to force people to participate in something they do not want to participate in. Or does that only apply to things you disagree with?

      • Reason2012

        Abolishing abortion is forcing people to participate in having an abortion? How so?

        • DNelson

          Abortion isn’t being abolished in this situation. Care to ask a relevant question?

          • Reason2012

            You don’t seem to realize this is about a woman having an abortion and making them fully aware of what it is they’re about to do so they do (kill_their son/daughter) it less often. Care to stay on topic?

            If a person wants to support_KILLING another human being, you at least need to be made fully aware of how you’re about to do so and given other options to consider, rather than bury your head in the sand so you think think you’re just killing an inhuman parasite, as the left would love you to do. It’s how_Hitler managed to get people to_kill others they never would have done so otherwise: convince them their victims are not human beings.

            That you are going out of your way to promote the_killing of human beings is sad, yet not surprising.

            So again, care to ask a relevant question, as you put it?

          • weasel1886

            Hitler, WW II, You mean like we dehumanized Germans and Japanese so we could burn their innocent children alive ?

          • DNelson

            I am quite aware that this is about woman who are seeking to abort.

            What have I said that indicates that I promote abortion? I do not.

            Again, Care to ask a relevant question?

  • Willard Gibbs

    SCOTUS got it right–the only point of this law was to unconstitutionally interfere with a woman’s right to choose by making it more inconvenient to get an abortion. When the decision is 8-1, it is hard to say it was due to the liberal justices.

  • Bacchus

    What happened to the Hippocratic oath doctors where supposed to sign preventing abortion????

    • Nofun

      Abortion is a safe medical procedure.

      • Bacchus

        Are you absolutely stupid and ignorant? Abortion murders the child. it sure as hell is not safe for the baby. Hitler did this in Germany. What if you were aborted? We would not be having this conversation! ARE YOU WORTHLESS? if you believe in abortion you should put your money where your mouth is and go kill yourself.

        • Nofun

          It is a safe medical procedure for a woman to terminate HER pregnancy … no babies or children involved.

          No, what Hitler did in Germany was maintain the existing abortion ban and elevated it so every miscarriage was investigated by the police. He was one of you.

          Yes if I was aborted we would not be having this conversation …. nor would I have any perspective about the procedure. The idea that someone can be really disappointed that they were aborted shows that you don’t understand life, death or abortion. If I was aborted I would have no perspective about it.

          Again abortion is only abort terminating a woman’s pregnancy … it doesn’t happen outside the womb so wishing me to kill myself (such a loving Christian) is irrelevant. They 2 situations are different moral domains. One is where something is inside another, the other a born person.

          I am not worthless nor is a woman so worthless she has to have others decide what she does with her body.

          • Bacchus

            You must be the most stupid ignorant evil woman I have the misfortune to communicate with. Murdering a “fetus” is NO different to murdering a man or woman. You are a worst than an animal. You are cold callous and calculating. Obviously you have no regard for life of any kind especially another human being.

          • Nofun

            Something in you is a different moral domain than something not in you so different morals apply. A fetus can never have equal or superior rights over a woman’s body. It is there by her permission and that permission can be revoked at any time for any reason. You, the state and jesus don’t get a say.

            It is you that wants to ban abortion and thus kill and make diseased women and girls en masse. The argument is not whether abortion is moral but whether banning abortion is moral. We know the above happens when we ban it and we still have abortion so you only choice is safe or unsafe abortion … the moral choice is obvious.

          • Bacchus

            If you dont want children dont screw around. A fetus is a human being or are you such an ignoramus you dont understand? You will be held accountable for the murder of a human being. You have twisted morals verging on Satanism The question is the value of an unborn child. It takes two to make a baby therefore the decision is out of you right. Life begins at conception.

  • DNelson

    What a great victory for conservatives! The court has struck down a law which forces business owners (doctors in this case) from being forced to say something that might violate their beliefs, and forcing people to participate in activities (the mother being forced to have an ultrasound) they do not want to participate in. I mean, they do go on so about how it isn’t right for Christians to have to be required by law to participate in gay weddings.

    Oh, wait, maybe they won’t view this as a victory, because they think force is wrong when it is something they disagree with, but force is OK if it’s something they do agree with. Hmmmm….what’s that called? Oh, right, hypocrisy.

    • Dave L

      Forced speech is not free speech. Shouldn’t it apply equally to all? It seems speech is only “free” if it complies with the law, and “forced” if it doesn’t. But the reason for free speech is so speech cannot be forced. Pat yourself on the back but kiss your freedom good bye.

      • DNelson

        “but the reason for free speech is so speech cannot be forced.”

        Which is what the court ruled, which I agree with.

        • Dave L

          What about the Christian Bakers? How do you see this?

          • Reason2012

            Bingo. The left is always hypocritical in their enforcement of their claims.

          • weasel1886

            If a law court says they don’t have to bake a cake or a law is passed I’m fine with it.
            Look no further than Indiana and see how that worked out.
            In areas where there are discrimination laws then bakers must follow the law.
            Bingo

          • DNelson

            Well, I certainly hope there are not “Christian Bakers”. I would hate to think that Christians are being baked. However, if you are referring to bakers who are members of the Christian faith, then what is it you are specifically referring to when you say “what about” them?

          • Dave L

            How do you view the law protecting the abortion clinics from forced speech, while at the same time not protecting the Christian makers of baked goods?

          • DNelson

            Are the bakers being required to say something to their customers? If so, I would not support that.

          • Dave L

            How about warnings on cigarettes and food? Do you support this?

          • DNelson

            Yes, I do. In the interest of public health. Regarding cigarettes, I find it fascinating that, despite the known harm they cause, and despite knowing the nicotine is the most addictive drug known to man, I am amazed they are still available.

          • Dave L

            How about forcing people to work (speak) for others? Isn’t forcing someone to work for someone else involuntary servitude? Slavery?

          • DNelson

            I’m not aware that people are forced to work for someone else in the US. Where is that happening?

          • Dave L

            We were discussing the Christians who because of conscience refused to work in violation of the law, for customers.

          • DNelson

            If they don’t want to follow the rules regarding running a business, they are free to not open a business. Just as those who hold to the religious belief that the races should not mix and therefore do not want to provide services for interracial marriages are free to not open a business. Owning a business is a choice. There is no forcing.

          • Dave L

            I don’t think you have escaped the charge of slavery. What about Conscientious Objector laws already on the books? Many have opposed mandatory (the Draft) military service for similar reasons.

          • DNelson

            You are certainly free to think whatever you care to.

            The draft was mandatory. Opening a business is not. The two are not comparable.

          • Dave L

            The comparison is in government forcing a person to violate their conscience under threat of persecution. Even if it means stripping of their livelihood.

          • DNelson

            Again, no one is forced to own a business, nor is a business owner forced to offer certain products. Therefore, there is no forcing by the government.

            As you noted, there were Conscientious Objector laws on the books based upon the fact that the draft was, indeed, forced.

          • Dave L

            force is force in any situation. Forced work is slavery.

            Check this out:

            Christian Man Asks Thirteen Gay Bakeries To Bake Him Pro-Traditional Marriage Cake, And Is Denied Service By All Of Them (WATCH THE SHOCKING VIDEO) Tinker with the url

            shoebat com/2014/12/12/christian-man-asks-thirteen-gay-bakeries-bake-pro-traditional-marriage-cake-denied-service-watch-shocking-video/

          • DNelson

            If operating a business is a choice, then there is no forcing. Forcing is when a person has no choice.

            A baker is not required to put certain words on a cake. They may refuse.

          • Dave L

            If a Baker is not required to put “certain” words on a cake, why all the fuss?

          • DNelson

            The fuss is the contention that if a standard wedding cake is made for a same-gender marriage, and the baker believes that same-gender marriage is a sin according to their religious beliefs, that by making the cake they are participating in or endorsing that sin.

          • Dave L

            Yes, in looking back over this case I believe the “wedding Cake” unlike a bag of cookies, is a “symbol”, a form of speech, symbolizing marriage. So I too would suffer along side of the Bakers instead of selling a symbol or “seal of approval” used for a purpose against my beliefs. Some might include cakes sporting firearms, marijuana use, white supremacy etc.

          • DNelson

            If the baker offered cakes that included sporting firearms, marijuana use, white supremacy, etc., then they would not have the ability to deny those cakes based upon something that is a covered category.

            So, in your view, if a person’s religious belief was that the races should not mix, they should be free to turn away an interracial couple, correct? Or if they believed that marriage is only marriage if the vows are done before the Christian god, then they should be free to turn away a Muslim couple, correct?

          • Dave L

            I suppose I would stand by my beliefs and suffer the consequences, if I held any of the above.

    • Reason2012

      What religious beliefs are they following that’s being violated, where their religious beliefs are saying “It’s good to_kill my son/daughter while still in the womb”?

      There are none.

      And people are not free to hold to just any made up beliefs. If that were true, then some can_kill others because “they believe they have the right to_kill others that they find annoying”.

      If a woman insists on_KILLING a human being, they’ve already given up a few rights of their own to make sure they are SURE about it if they insist on depriving the right to life, ALL rights, of another human being.

      Human beings have the right to life -you instead champion the rights of those who want to_kill them, while ignoring ALL the rights being violated (understatement) of the human being that’s going to be_killed, which says it all. Why the hypocrisy?

      • weasel1886

        The Bible says to kill gay people. Is the Bible part of religion? Maybe we need a law that children must be told that their parents are allowed to kill them if they are bad, according to the Bible

      • DNelson

        I wouldn’t presume to know their personal religious beliefs. People are free to hold to whatever beliefs they care to. Doctors should not be forced to read a script if they disagree with it. Women should not be forced to have an ultrasound if they do not want one. You know – personal choice – something you are always speaking so strongly about – at least when it suits you.

      • DNelson

        “There are none.”

        So you believe that it is acceptable for the government to force citizens to say things as long as what they are forcing them to say doesn’t violate the person’s religious beliefs. That’s an interesting view.

        “And people are not free to hold to just any made up beliefs”

        Why not?

        “If that were true, then some can_kill others because “they believe they have the right to_kill others that they find annoying”.”

        They are free to believe they should be able to. That does not, however, mean that they are free to act upon those beliefs. Forcing someone to do something is not equivalent to allowing them to do something. Your analogy fails.

        “they’ve already given up a few rights of their own”

        What rights would those be? Where is that stated in law?

        • Reason2012

          > So you believe that it is acceptable for the government to force citizens to say things as long as what they are forcing them to say doesn’t violate the person’s religious beliefs. That’s an interesting view. Why not? They are free to believe they should be able to. That does not, however, mean that they are free to act upon those beliefs <

          Bingo. They cannot HOLD to those beliefs to act on them.

          You continue to contradict yourself and either you do not notice or it's intentional because you're just trolling.
          Take care.

          • DNelson

            While you are certainly free to believe that women who seek an abortion should be required to give up some of their rights, the reality is that they do not.

            “They cannot HOLD to those beliefs to act on them.”

            Not being able to act on them does not equate to their not being able to believe as they like.

            “You continue to contradict yourself”

            For example?

          • Reason2012

            While you are free a person is free to_kill others, most do not. And if a person wants to_kill someone else, then they must give up some rights of their own.

            I didn’t say not be able to believe as they like – to hold to them means to act on them, which you think it does not.

            > For example? <

            It's in the post. You ignored it.

  • SoDakCatholic

    Discrimination or not, business have the right to run their business as they see fit. Christian businesses are not going to surrender to the devil by celebrating something they see as immoral. There are other bakers that don’t care. Go to their place of business. This is just another way for the gays to cause trouble. They’re good at doing it.

  • sammy13

    And no one speaks for the unborn child.

    • Nofun

      Another’s womb is not your business.

      • Pieter Ulrich Fischer

        That womb contains another person.And when an innocents life is at stake… it does concern us.

        • Nofun

          Wait till you get pregnant and be concerned about that …do not interfere with other people’s bodies or choices.

          The womb contains a woman’s pregnancy and it her choice to carry it to term or not …. you don’t get a say.

  • Fairy Larry

    I guess its cool that you call Drs “abortionist”, I know sane society refers to y’all as religiously deluded nut jobs. Then again for a multitude of reasons numbers prove ppl are fleeing the faith and y’all are being viewed as pariahs
    Praise Sweet Baby Jesus