New York ‘Concerned Clergy for Choice’ Group Gathers in State Capitol in Support of Abortion, Contraception Access

Photo Credit: Spectrum News/Capital Tonight

ALBANY, N.Y. — A group known as “Concerned Clergy for Choice” and others recently gathered in the New York state capital to advocate for access to abortion and contraception, and to express support for the sexually-centered organization Planned Parenthood.

“As pastors, we believe in New Yorkers’ ability to get the health care that is supported by their religious teachings and personal beliefs,” Director Dennis Ross, a Reformed Jewish rabbi, told the Legislative Gazette. “People of all faiths believe in safe and legal abortion, access to contraception and sex education, and we know Planned Parenthood is an essential healthcare provider.”

The group, which is a program of Planned Parenthood Empire State Acts, includes Presbyterian, Methodist, Episcopalian, American Baptist and Unitarian clergy members.

Also present at the event was Sara Hutchinson Ratcliff of Catholics for Choice, who asserted that many Catholics differ with their leaders on the issue of abortion.

“Regardless of what the Catholic bishops may tell policymakers, the great majority of the faithful in the Catholic church disagree with our hierarchy about issues of abortion, contraception, and where and how the proper role of religious voices in public policy should be,” she said.

The two additionally appeared on the statewide talk show “Capital Tonight,” where they stated that they are concerned about the consequences of repealing Obamacare and claimed that many religious persons support the provision of contraception and abortion.

“[E]veryday Catholics stopped listening to our bishops a long time ago when it came to contraceptive use,” Hutchinson Ratcliff stated. “99 percent of sexually active Catholic women use a form of contraception the bishops disapprove of. … And in fact, Catholic women seek abortion care at the same rate of other faiths as well.”

  • Connect with Christian News

“I am hearing from my faithful, ‘Where am I going to get my birth control if something happens in Washington?’ I’m hearing from my faithful, ‘Planned Parenthood was there for me decades ago when I needed them and I want it there for women today,'” Ross also said.

In light of the activism of Concerned Clergy for Choice and Catholics for Choice, the group New Yorkers for Constitutional Freedoms, which lobbies for pro-life and pro-family causes, urged Bible-believing pastors not to be silent and allow the liberal voices to take over.

“There is nothing unprecedented about the efforts made by Concerned Clergy for Choice to push public policy in the wrong direction in Albany; this group has been active for years. There is, however, an important question that true Christians should ask in response to this news: How many Bible-preaching pastors are visiting the capitol to share the Gospel and speak out for the sanctity of life?” it asked.

According to AbortionWiki, as of 2012, members of Concerned Clergy for Choice included Paula Gravelle of Schenectady, a Lutheran; Jeremy Lopez of Tonawanda, from the United Church of Christ; Rich Rose of Ithaca, an American Baptist; Anne Wichelns of Evans Mills, an Episcopalian; Kaaren Anderson of Rochester, a Unitarian Universalist; Linda Henry Goodman of Brooklyn, from Reformed Judaism; and Laurena Marie Wickham Will of Ogdensburg, from the Presbyterian Church USA.


A special message from the publisher...

Dear Reader, because of your generous support, we have received enough funds to send many audio Bibles to Iraqi and Syrian refugees displaced by ISIS in the Middle East. Many have been distributed and received with gladness. While we provide for the physical needs of the people, we seek to provide the eternal hope only found in Jesus Christ through the word of God. Would you join us by making a donation today to this important work? Please click here to send an audio Bible to a refugee family >>

Print Friendly
  • BuckeyePhysicist

    How tragic. “Catholics for Choice” is an oxymoron. One cannot simultaneously be Catholic and pro-abortion.

    • Chris

      Tell me can someone disagree with you and/or the RC Church and still have a legitimate point of view?

      • Sharon_at_home

        High Five Chris!! Nice one!!

        • Grace Kim Kwon

          You are Non-christian. Proven here.

          • Sharon_at_home

            I’m sorry you are wrong! I follow the gospel. I follow Jesus. I do not make up what I post – it’s in God’s Word.
            I am a Christian in every sense of the word.
            Why would you say that agreeing that you can disagree with someone and still have a legitimate point of view? I can’t see where it makes me a non christian.
            Grace you know me better than that because I’ve never gone against God’s Word in any of our discussions. You know I am a Christian and I have a strong faith and trust in God Almighty.
            I’m not sure whether to be insulted by you, or to think it’s because you don’t agree with my methods. Either way I’d appreciate the same courtesy I give you. We are supposed to love our brothers and sisters in faith. That’s not only people of your faith, it’s about the faith in Jesus.

          • Grace Kim Kwon

            It’s nothing to do with agreement among humans. God prohibited murder and you are not against the abortion-murder. You cannot be Christian and pro-abortion knowingly at the same time.

          • Sharon_at_home

            Where on earth did you get the idea that I am a supporter of abortion? I’ve never ever said that. I think you have me mixed up with another poster. I am in support of tolerance, but that has nothing to do with tolerance. I believe there is nothing we can do to stop what is happening in this world because God has told us in His Word about the way of the world as it approaches the day of Judgement.
            I have never said I support abortion. There are other options that are available if they are not wanting to keep the child. I can never imagine giving away my own child, but obviously others do not feel the same. As a mother, I cannot support it.
            You are welcome to keep trying to find a way to show that I am not a Christian Grace. You will not find it because I am a Christian whether you like the way I believe or not, I go strictly by the gospel, and I follow the commands Jesus gave to us.
            So how then, am I not a Christian. Reread my posts if you must and you will find I say nothing that is not in the bible – even tolerance is from the 2nd command that Jesus gave us, because if you love each other, you will tolerate them.

        • Chris

          Thank you. 🙂

          • Sharon_at_home

            Chris I’m going to take some time off of here. I am getting to the point that I am too frustrated with the other posters that just want to fight and not really listen to what I’m saying at all. I’ve tried so hard Chris and it hurts that I have not gotten anywhere at all.
            I don’t imagine it will be long before I’m back, but I wanted to let you know as you’ve been a good friend. I’m hoping that Parodyx and Ambulance Chaser and the other friends I’ve made here will see this and understand too.
            Take care of yourself Chris. I’ll check back for replies but don’t expect to comment for a while. Bless you for helping me understand about the LGBT and for discussing so much with me. You have taught me a lot and I do appreciate it.

          • Chris

            I consider you a dear friend. You take care.

            As to any info I’ve given I’m glad it helped. Thank you for the ways you have helped me in return. Once again, take care.

  • bowie1

    Isn’t supporting abortion like supporting the holocaust (not that this clergy would support that although who knows)?

    • BuckeyePhysicist

      Yes.

    • Colin Rafferty

      No, it’s not.

      • bowie1

        In both cases human lives are taken away.

        • Colin Rafferty

          So then supporting capital punishment is like supporting the holocaust also. In both cases, human lives are taken away.

          • Moab321

            No, capital punishment is nothing like the holocaust. It is justice by law reserved for the most heinous crimes committed by people who deliberately murder another human being. No justice is served in either the holocaust or the act of abortion.

          • Colin Rafferty

            I agree with you that capital punishment is different from the holocaust. It was the other commenter who says any taking of life is equivalent. I wad pointing out the fallacy of his argument.

          • bowie1

            Capital punishment is usually administered for the crime of murder, the holocaust is for those who were unjustly killed. I believe capital punishment should be also applied to the abortionist since he unjustly takes the life of a human being in the womb.

          • Colin Rafferty

            The only explanation you gave before for why you equated abortion with the holocaust was “in both cases human lives are taken away”. So why is supporting abortion like supporting the holocaust?

          • NCOriolesFan

            Colin, typical liberal; abortion destroys a developing baby human life intentionally w/o any regard for it’s life. Like a murderer has no regard for the life he or she took, the killer is put to death as PUNISHMENT and JUSTICE. Get the difference.

          • Colin Rafferty

            I understand the difference. It was bowie1 who didn’t. Please read the comment in context.

          • Chris

            NCOriolesFan Typical fundie rightie.
            abortion destroys a group of cells without a developed brain.

          • Oboehner

            Do list all of the atrocities the murdered child has committed, after all you are feebly attempting to lump it with capital punishment.

          • Colin Rafferty

            No, bowie1 was lumping in the holocaust with every single instance of human lives being taken away. I gave an example of how he was wrong.

            Please read the context before you jump into the middle of a thread.

          • Oboehner

            “So then supporting capital punishment is like supporting the holocaust also.” Well then give examples of the atrocities committed by holocaust victims.

          • Colin Rafferty

            No really, it would be nice if you read the context. That was in response to bowie’s comment about how abortion and the holocaust are the same: “In both cases human lives are taken away.”

          • Oboehner

            Sounds reasonable.

        • NCOriolesFan

          The murderer’s life taken is justified, killing a developing baby human is NOT justified at all, at least in a civilized society.

          • bowie1

            So would you have a problem taking a close up look of the dismembered bodies with heads, legs, arms, torso…however it came apart at the seams…ripping out of the uterus bit by bit with forceps or hands? It seems images of these are offensive to some…but…maybe it would be okay by you?

      • bowie1

        Would you have a problem with looking at images of dismembered “fetuses” with hands, feet, head, torso all ripped apart and bloody?

        • Colin Rafferty

          Only because I feel squeamish at the sight of blood. It’s a terrible tragedy when a late-term abortion happens, because it’s generally of parents who actually want a child.

          The typical abortion would be a sixteen cell blastocyst that fails to implant on the uterine wall. Does that make you squeamish?

        • Parodyx

          Why do you feel that forcing people to view gory pictures of dismembered fetuses is going to have an effect on their abortion position? When the vegan crowd does the same thing with slaughtering animals, it just angers me that they’d try to be so manipulative.

          • bowie1

            Disturbing video and photos of the Jewish Holocaust have also been shown many times. Do you think that is also manipulative?

          • Parodyx

            No, because they have no ulterior motive in showing them except to show that a terrible thing happened. You look at Holocaust photos and you feel injustice, but justice has now been served. Vegans are hoping that showing you animals being slaughtered will turn you into a vegan, and some pro-life people believe that if you see dismembered fetuses you will turn pro-life. And it doesn’t work.

      • Oboehner

        Because you say so right?

        • Colin Rafferty

          Okay, sure. He asked, and I answered. He didn’t If you disagree, please tell me why. I’ll start: supporting rounding up people by religion and executing them is different from supporting people making their own reproductive choices.

          • Oboehner

            You rounding up people by religion and executing them now too?
            How is brutal murder a “reproductive choice”?

          • Colin Rafferty

            No, I’m not. I’m explaining how abortion and the holocaust are different.

          • Oboehner

            Oh I get it, the Holocaust was killing people based on ethnicity, but abortion is just killing people for convenience.

          • Colin Rafferty

            No, that’s not what abortion is.

            “Hey, you’re taking too long ordering your Big Mac. I’m going to kill you to move forward. It’s more convenient for me.”

            I mean, if you just want to see how much hyperbole you can use to describe something, that sounds like fun. But it’s not an actual discussion.

          • Oboehner

            Don’t see the difference between killing to “move forward” and killing to avoid responsibility.

          • Colin Rafferty

            So if someone saw me shoplift, and I killed him to silence him, that’s “abortion”. Because I’m killing to avoid responsibility.

            If you want to frame “abortion” as something that it’s not, and then argue against that, the term is “strawman argument”.

          • Oboehner

            A living human with a beating heart is brutally murdered because mommie dearest wants to do something else, you’re calling that a strawman? I believe creating strawmen is more your forte.

          • Colin Rafferty

            So before the heartbeat it’s okay then? Glad to know.

            In fact, in locations where it’s convenient to get abortions, it typically happens to a blastocyst. That’s the point of Plan B or RU 486.

            And since you keep bringing it up, yes, it is about the parents not wanting a child at that point in their life.

          • Oboehner

            Actually life occurs when cells divide.
            Since I keep bringing it up, it’s about the convenience of shirking responsibility. A child must be butchered because of irresponsible “parents”. Now perhaps if the child doesn’t like their parents…, you’d be ok with that too?

          • Colin Rafferty

            I assumed since your argument resting on having a beating heart, that’s what you meant. Sorry about that.

            And I feel no need to defend your unfounded assertion about irresponsible parents, which is why I haven’t bothered. You’ve given no reason to think that everyone who is getting an abortion is doing it for “the convenience of shirking responsibility”.

          • Oboehner

            My argument is about killing children, what possible reason justifies that? Are you going to whip out the old “what about rape” fallacy now? By all means kill the innocent child and coddle the rapist in that .000001% of all abortions!

          • Colin Rafferty

            I never said anything about rape. In fact, I have no respect for people who say “abortion is murder, except for rape an incest”. A fetus produced from an incestuous rape has just as much rights as a product of a Christian marriage. I’m glad to see you’re consistent.

            But getting back to me, I don’t think a blastocyst that has not even attached to the uterine wall is a separate person. It has no more of a “right to life” than a skin tag would. I also think that a full term healthy fetus is a separate person with the same rights as a newborn. And I don’t know where the dividing line is, because there is none. It’s a continuous spectrum, and it’s impossible to put a line.

            Getting back to people who think it’s murder always, I never really understood that. You talk about motivations of people getting abortions, what about the motivations of people who believe it’s murder? If you honestly, truly, believe that it is murder, how do you stand by and do nothing?

            Seriously, here in the US, there are hundreds of thousands of abortions every years. We know who’s performing them. Any one doctors is doing a thousand in a year. How are you letting this happen? Why are you not doing a George Tiller?

          • Oboehner

            “I don’t think a blastocyst” A baby by any other name…
            How quaint your little skin tag analogy, I saw an ultrasound of my son at 10 weeks – arms, legs, head, and all. He was very much a human life moving on his own, so much so the nurse had great difficulty keeping the ultrasound on him. Hardly a “skin tag”, but whatever helps you sleep at night. BTW if that is you and your child in your avatar, look them in the eye and say to yourself “if you had been inconvenient, I would have had you dismembered and tossed in the trash or sold off for parts.” (Now why would people want deceased baby parts if they aren’t any more than a blob, wouldn’t a simple skin tag do?)

          • Colin Rafferty

            I’m sorry if I used a word you don’t understand. A blastocyst is an embryo in just the first week, which still has only two cell types and is basically just a tiny sack filled with fluid. This is what attaches to the uterine wall, and in geographic locations where it’s convenient, this is the stage most abortions happen via Plan B. I equated it with a skin tag because that’s about the best analogy, though it’s much smaller than one.

            As for my son, it is very possible that he would have never existed, if my wife and I had chosen to stop at one child. We would have continued to use birth control and he would have been unlikely to have been conceived. And if he had, he would have never gotten past the blastocyst stage, and certainly not to ten weeks.

            So are you willing to share with me? You seem to feel very strongly about the hundreds of thousands of murders happening in the US every year. You could easily find someone who is murdering thousands of children a year, yet you do nothing to stop it. When in your old age, your grandchildren come to you and ask what you did to stop the holocaust, what are you going to say to them? “I wrote nasty little comments on obscure websites.” Or “I did what had to be done.”

            Seriously, if I thought that there was someone in my neighborhood killing thousands of people a year, and no one was stopping him, I would take the law into my own hands. But I don’t think that’s what’s happening. What’s your excuse?

          • Oboehner

            I under stand full well the weasel word that lamely attempts to de-humanize a life. A “skin tag” is hardly a person. The majority of abortions happen after the first week, how many women even know they are pregnant that early, seriously?

            You skirted the issue (typical) “if you had been inconvenient, I would have had you dismembered and tossed in the trash or sold off for parts.” Be sure to share that with him.

            “yet you do nothing to stop it.” You know this? You don’t know much do you?
            There are millions being slaughtered and you are not only doing nothing, you’re helping by attempting to defend it! So what is your excuse?

          • Colin Rafferty

            No, you see, that’s the difference between you and me. I don’t think there are hundreds of thousands being slaughtered every year. If I did, I would do something about it.

            How do I know you are doing nothing? Because if you did, it would be in the papers. You have someone in your area who you think is killing thousands of people a year, and you are letting him.

          • Oboehner

            Denial doesn’t change anything, sorry.
            Oh, I’m not doing anything? You can prove this?

          • Colin Rafferty

            I haven’t heard any stories of dead abortionists. I know I would not be able to live with myself if I knew that so many murders were going on under my nose, and I did not stop it.

            As for denial, please give me enough respect to allow that I actually believe what I say. I don’t think it’s murder.

          • Oboehner

            Are you really stupid enough to think I support ending one murder with another? You really like to see people murdered don’t you?
            Don’t lie to yourself, when you see the murders all around you, you support them – you don’t deserve respect.

          • Colin Rafferty

            Ok, so don’t believe in the death penalty for premeditated murder. I apologize.

            So why aren’t you willing to believe that I don’t think it’s murder?

          • Oboehner

            Due process anyone? Due process?
            You aren’t willing to look at it for what it is, you have your head in the sand.

    • horatiohornblat

      Supporting abortion is like supporting slavery.
      Humanity is denied in both cases.

      • Chris

        Did the slaves have a functioning brain?

        Do a bunch of cells have one?

        Beginning to see a difference?

  • Amos Moses

    Apostasy ………… /SMH …………

  • V-Ball

    There must be a special place in hell for “Christian” clergy who would promote such a practice. I can understand a Christian taking the position that we don’t have a right to impose our values on unbelievers. But to get out an actively promote abortion and calling yourself “concerned” – that’s truly disgusting.

    • Colin Rafferty

      They are not promoting abortion. They are promoting access to abortion. It’s two very different things.

      You can both support someone’s right to choose, and also have a strong opinion on what choice they ought to make.

      • BuckeyePhysicist

        …and if that choice is murder?

        • Colin Rafferty

          What about it? The difference between “support” and “promotion” exists for any action.

          They are not promoting abortion. V-Ball is factually incorrect to say so.

          • Moab321

            Picking the fly poop out of the pepper over terms where abortion is concerned is a flawed argument. The act itself is wrong and always results in the death of the child. These so called pastors/clergy are, indeed, using their position to both support and promote abortion.

          • Colin Rafferty

            Here’s an example of the difference between supporting something and promoting it. I support anyone who wants to be Christian. However, I think it’s a poor choice, and don’t promote it.

            Claiming they promote it is incorrect, because they don’t.

      • NCOriolesFan

        Supporting the destruction of developing baby humans – that’s real manly of you.

        • Chris

          Replying to an argument with emotional rhetoric is real unthinking of you

      • https://www.facebook.com/doug.bristow3 Doug Bristow

        You’re parsing words to rationalize the murder of a baby. Pro choice is pro abortion and that is pro murdering a baby.

        • Chris

          You’re parsing words to rationalize the propaganda and attempt to manipulate others. Pro fundie is pro propaganda and that is pro lies and manipulation.

        • Colin Rafferty

          Words have meaning, and if you choose to use incorrect words in order to prove a point, you are demeaning the language and yourself.

          The distinction here is between “support” and “promote”, which the original poster confused. The pastors are not trying to convince people to get abortions, but working to be sure they have the option.

          As an analogy, I support the rights of Nazi skinheads to march, but I sure won’t promote it. That’s the same with these pastors and abortion.

          • https://www.facebook.com/doug.bristow3 Doug Bristow

            In this case that option means it is okay to murder a baby and that is morally indefensible. There is nothing else to say.

          • Colin Rafferty

            Whatever your belief of the morality of the act, the pastors are not promoting it. They are supporting it.

            Just as you can support freedom of religion, but not promote Islam.

          • https://www.facebook.com/doug.bristow3 Doug Bristow

            Once again you are wrong.

          • Colin Rafferty

            About what am I wrong, that they are not promoting it, that you don’t promote Islam, or that you support freedom of religion?

    • BuckeyePhysicist

      It’s demonic. There; I said it!

    • NCOriolesFan

      promoting abortion is actually imposing on the developing baby human.

      • Chris

        Isn’t fundieism being imposed on the brains of children?

        You don’t seem to have a problem with that.

  • InTheChurch

    Promoting sin. Telling people where to go sin appropriately and legally. And we are to pay for it.

    • This style 10/6

      Sin is only in your head because you base your thinking on “original sin”. It doesn’t exist in real life.

      • InTheChurch

        When your spouse goes out and cheats on you, don’t complain, get angry or divorce him/her. They did not commit a sin. When your child talks back to you, again, they did not do anything wrong. You just got rid of the bad in the good vs bad discussion.
        just out of curiosity, do you know what was the original sin?

        • This style 10/6

          It has always been a mystery to me, based on a myth, as it is.

          Adultery is unfortunate but not a sin in my book. A kid talking back is a sin in no ones book.

          • InTheChurch

            Good luck then

          • Oboehner

            Myth? Can you prove that?

          • This style 10/6

            Original sin is based on Adam and Eve’s rebellion against god is it not.

          • Oboehner

            “original sin” is a catholic fabrication, A and E were not.
            No rational people believe there was a “common ancestor”. No one can prove there was.

          • This style 10/6

            Many, many people have combined over the last 150 years to show that all life forms are descended from a common ancestor over 4 billion years.

            Adam and Eve are part of the Israelite creation myth.

          • Oboehner

            Good for the popular opinion religious evolution myth, too bad all they have shown is their lack of any proof.
            Adam and Eve are historical figures recorded in old writings, anybody see that mythological “common ancestor”?

          • This style 10/6

            I know that you will never be convinced but the fact of evolution is not popular opinion but solid scientific research and a mountain of evidence.

            Genesis is myth not history.

          • Oboehner

            A mountain of religious belief you mean, a big steamy mountain straight from the bull’s posterior.

          • This style 10/6

            And there is a world wide conspiracy of biologists, genticists, astronomers, astrophysicists, cosmologists, chemists, to put it across us rubes!

          • Oboehner

            And we have the dissenters no one talks about, one would think you people would have more than appeal to authority arguments to back up your myth, all I ever see is blind faith.

  • This style 10/6

    They are also promoting contraception which lowers the rate of abortion.

    • Grace Kim Kwon

      Satan always mix lies and a truth and the whole thing is Satanism.

  • kT TK

    A true Christian is for choice, not callling millions of women murderers.

    • NCOriolesFan

      This so-called ‘christian’ is nothing but a heretic.

      • Chris

        Fundies certainly are.

    • Joel W

      Well if you murder your unborn child, you are a murderer. Words have meaning.

      • Chris

        So when is this unborn ensouled? Until it is it isn’t a human being. So please give me chapter and verse which shows exactly when this happens. Hint: You can’t because it isn’t there.

        So how can fundies claim that a bunch of cells are human from conception when you have no biblical support?

        • Joel W

          Scripture has nothing to do with this topic. Its called science. Its a human at the exact moment of conception. Biological fact. Its not a dog. Its not a cat. It can be nothing but a human considering humans only give birth to humans.

          • Chris

            “Scripture has nothing to do with this topic.”

            So you don’t care if the bible says NOTHING about when some cells become a human being? Interesting.

            “Its called science.”

            Well actually it’s about definition of terms which is philosophy NOT science. Science tells us that cells are alive. But philosophy determines what makes a human being and therefore what meets the definition.

            “Its a
            human at the exact moment of conception.”

            By what definition? Human beings have functioning brains, while cells clearly do not.

            “Biological fact. Its not a dog. Its not a cat.”

            Neither are the cells on our skin but they aren’t human beings either.

            ” It can be nothing but a human considering humans only
            give birth to humans.”

            That would make it a potential human and potential humans can only ever have potential rights.

          • Joel W

            I can’t figure out what you are even trying to get at. None of this has anything to do with anything I wrote. As for humans having functional brain, what about people with brain damage? Are they not human? As for philosophy, philosophy is subjective to the whims of the individual. Science is not.

            So let me ask you the same question you asked me? Because it seems to me you aren’t looking for a discussion, but want to force your warped philosophy down my throat.

            As for the Bible, it says nothing either way. But it does state ‘thou shall not murder.” And there is a mention of something along the lines protecting the most innocent and vulnerable. And what is more innocent and vulnerable than an unborn child, especially at the very early stages?

          • Chris

            “I can’t figure out what you are even trying to get at. None of this
            has anything to do with anything I wrote.”

            Really? I was replying point by point.

            “As for humans having functional brain, what about people with brain damage? Are they not human?”

            They still have a brain do they not? It is still functioning is it not? Unless the damage is so severe that the higher functions of their brain has been destroyed they remain persons.

            “As for philosophy, philosophy is subjective to the whims of the individual. Science is not.”

            Philosophy is NOT subjective. It operates on LOGIC which is objective. You’d know this if you had studied it. I suggest you consult a dictionary next time.

            “So let me ask you the same question you asked me? Because it seems to me you aren’t looking for a discussion, but want to force your warped philosophy down my throat.”

            Nope that’s your shtick. I prefer discussion, evidence, and logic. But please continue.

            “As for the Bible, it says nothing either way. But it does state ‘thou
            shall not murder.””

            Yet it also gives a formula for abortion. Sort of a mixed message huh? Additionally the Jewish and early Christians held that a baby wasn’t a living being until it moved so that murder bit wouldn’t apply would it?

            “And there is a mention of something along the lines protecting the most innocent and vulnerable.”

            That would apply to children already born. We don’t apply that to cells on our arms do we? So why should we apply it to cells in the womb?

          • Joel W

            When I said that I don’t know what you are getting at, I meant, what does any of this have to do with what I originally wrote. I obviously can comprehend what you are writing. As for this;

            “Yet it also gives a formula for abortion. Sort of a mixed message huh?
            Additionally the Jewish and early Christians held that a baby wasn’t a living being until it moved so that murder bit wouldn’t apply would it?”

            I have never read the entire Bible, so my mistake on that one. But, keep in mind, a lot of things in the Bible have been purposely distorted, so until I can read or have translated directly the original Greek version, I will stick with what I said. I could be wrong, but whatever.

            And your last part, again, could be a perversion of scripture.

            Philosophy based on logic. Yes, but still subjective to the individual. Two people, using logic and practical reasoning, can have two different views on the same thing.

            Lastly, my main opposition to infanticide is Constitutionally based more than anything. Due Process. Who is judge and jury to determine that the unborn child committed an offense worthy of death. And speaking of law, if it is not a human at conception, why is one charged with a crime, generally some version of homicide, if one causes a pregnant woman to lose her child, regardless of how far along the pregnancy is? Like I said, scripture really has nothing to do with it.

            And side note, when was the last time you ever heard an expectant mother, upon first learning of pregnancy, say “I’m having a lump of cells.”???

          • Chris

            “When I said that I don’t know what you are getting at, I meant, what
            does any of this have to do with what I originally wrote.”

            Because I was answering you point by point.

            “I obviously can comprehend what you are writing.”

            I didn’t suggest otherwise.

            “I have never read the entire Bible, so my mistake on that one.”

            Thank you for your honesty. Does you credit.

            “But, keep in mind, a lot of things in the Bible have been purposely distorted, so
            until I can read or have translated directly the original Greek version,
            I will stick with what I said. I could be wrong, but whatever.”

            So what you seem to be saying is even though you have no data you will make a decision until data becomes available. Such an attitude is hardly logical. Would you adopt such a position in any other area of life?

            “And your last part, again, could be a perversion of scripture.”

            The bit about the bible containing a forula for an abortion? I can quote chapter and verse if you like.

            “Philosophy based on logic. Yes, but still subjective to the individual.”

            Incorrect. Each philosophical argument must be based upon logic. If it does not then such an argument is dismissed as irrational. Logic is objective. It has the same principles no matter where I am or who i am.

            “Two people, using logic and practical reasoning, can have two different
            views on the same thing.”

            Correct. But if they are both starting from the same facts then only one’s arguments will be logically sound.

            “Lastly, my main opposition to infanticide is Constitutionally based more than anything.”

            Infanticide is NOT the same thing as abortion. Infanticide may be defined as ‘The practice of killing newborn infants.’ Since zygotes are NOT newborn infants then infanticide is NOT abortion. Additionally it is the Supreme Court’s job to interpret the constitution. They have and have decided that the constitution does NOT have the right to violate abortion rights.

            ‘Due Process.’

            Due process only apply to someone who has already been born.

            “And speaking of law, if it is not a human at conception, why
            is one charged with a crime, generally some version of homicide, if one
            causes a pregnant woman to lose her child, regardless of how far along
            the pregnancy is?”

            Because the law is inconsistent says NOTHING about the logic of defining a life beginning at conception. In any case constitutional law supersedes all state laws.

            “And side note, when was the last time you ever heard an
            expectant mother, upon first learning of pregnancy, say “I’m having a
            lump of cells.”???”

            Side Note Reply: When was the last time you heard the expression ‘sunrise’ or ‘sunset’? Common human expressions are no guide to logic either.

          • Joel W

            Sorry, I’m too obtuse to comprehend any of this.

          • Chris

            No worries. I have been guilty of making hasty judgements on more than one occasion.

          • Joel W

            Maybe don’t do that. Its not that I’m offended, I just prefer mature, civil discourse. And it shows an irritating level of arrogance.

          • Chris

            I thought that was what I was engaging in. I have no insulted you in any way.

          • Chris

            In any case I may be partly to blame. Bad phrasing on my part.

          • Chris

            Allow me to lay out my points and make them painfully clear.

            We accept that a human person’s life has ended when their brain stops functioning. i.e. the higher functions of their brain [what makes them a person] are dead. If this is the case then brain function is central to being considered a living person.

            If this is the case then it would follow that when those higher functions begin to function then we may logically say that a person has begun to live.

            The difficulty with drawing a line is that life begins way before conception. Sperm and egg are alive. But we do not consider them persons. Fertilization is NOT some magical process which confers personhood. It is merely the start of a biological process which will result in a fully formed human person.

          • Joel W

            Too obtuse? Really? You can save the insults for someone else. We were having a nice discussion here, but you have to put that? I don’t speak with those who choose to insult over differences of view points.

          • Chris

            Since I am referring to my argument when I mentioned the term ‘obtuse’ how was this insulting? Obtuse in the way I am using it may be defined as ‘ Lacking quickness of perception or intellect.’

            So I am saying if even my attempt at an argument is lacking quickness of perception for you I suggest you do a search for…

            However if you feel I have insulted you then I unreservedly apologize.

          • Joel W

            How is it an insult? It arrogantly assumes I don’t comprehend your discussion points. And let me say this. The topic is person hood. Two people have two opposing philosophical view points, both using our own logical base. So philosophy is indeed subjective. I’m not trying to prove you wrong or me right. But you appear to have a need to prove me wrong. I see things one way, and I am correct in my view point. You see the opposite, and are correct in your view point. But I still don’t know what the point of all this was, in that when the status of person hood begins. Your sperm & egg argument holds no weight in my opinion. But a sperm & an egg join to form a human. They don’t join to form anything other than that. And I it appears you don’t consider it human until literal birth. So a week prior to birth, when it is absolutely viable, with functioning organs, it is not human in your view?

          • Chris

            “How is it an insult? It arrogantly assumes I don’t comprehend your
            discussion points.”

            No it doesn’t. It, at worst, assumes that you will view my argument as lacking discernment.

            “And let me say this. The topic is person hood.”

            Correct.

            “Two
            people have two opposing philosophical view points, both using our own
            logical base.”

            I thought the topic was personhood. Why are we now discussing the topic of philosophy in general?

            “So philosophy is indeed subjective.”

            Incorrect. Logic is objective. That’s why one philosopher can convince another – by using logic. Additionally science is nothing except ‘logic + evidence’.

            “I’m not trying to
            prove you wrong or me right. But you appear to have a need to prove me
            wrong.”

            Incorrect. If you are not trying to produce an argument why did you put forward the proposition that ‘life begins at conception’ and then seek to defend it.

            As to needing to ‘prove’ you wrong I am aware that the subject of discussion is not one capable of being ‘proved’ either way. At best it is one where probability reigns.

            “I see things one way, and I am correct in my view point. You see
            the opposite, and are correct in your view point.”

            Isn’t such subjectivity the very thing you accuse philosophy of?

            I take a different tack. There is but one reality. Thus we cannot both be correct though we may both be wrong. You could argue though that there is insufficient evidence to show any particular argument to be true.

            “But I still don’t know
            what the point of all this was, in that when the status of person hood
            begins. Your sperm & egg argument holds no weight in my opinion. But
            a sperm & an egg join to form a human.”

            Incorrect. The cells on my arm are human. They aren’t human persons though. But since they come from me and I am human then my cells must also be human.

            “They don’t join to form
            anything other than that. And I it appears you don’t consider it human
            until literal birth.”

            The sperm and the egg are human too. They come from humans so they must also be human. They are just not human persons. That is the key. When does personhood begin.

            “So a week prior to birth, when it is absolutely
            viable, with functioning organs, it is not human in your view?”

            Incorrect. I take a gradualist stance on this. Does the fetus have brain with it’s higher elements functioning? If the answer is yes then it is a person. If the answer is no then it is not. The existence of its organs is irrelevant. Dead people have organs but they are no longer persons since it doesn’t have a functioning brain.

          • Joel W

            Ok, fair enough on everything. Let’s agree to disagree. I’m at the end of a 12 hour shift at work and its 530 AM where I’m at. I’m losing the coherence to have such a in depth discussion on a matter as deep as this. And seriously, all good on the obtuse thing. If you meant no harm, no worries. Again, I was a bit tired so seem to have mistaken what you were saying exactly. And I must say, that aside, this was definitely one of the more interesting discussions I’ve ever had, in person or online. I fully get your debate points, and see where you are coming from with them. I just happen to disagree. But that’s the beautiful thing about America. For now, disagreement is not a crime. At least for most people. That being said, I’m gonna review this whole thing at a later time when rested to take it all in properly, as you do make some very valid arguments. Good day sir & God (or whatever you believe in) bless.

          • Chris

            “Ok, fair enough on everything. Let’s agree to disagree.”

            I can agree to that. 🙂

            “I’m at the end of a 12 hour shift at work and its 530 AM where I’m at. I’m losing
            the coherence to have such a in depth discussion on a matter as deep as
            this.”

            I’ve been in a similar situation. My brain seems to only work part of the time when I’m tired.

            “And seriously, all good on the obtuse thing. If you meant no harm,
            no worries.”

            I’m glad. Believe it or not but I don’t like upsetting people.

            “And I must say, that aside, this was definitely one of the more interesting discussions I’ve ever had, in person or online.”

            You’ve made an old teacher pleased. Thank you.

            “I fully get your debate points, and see where you are coming from with them. I just happen to disagree.”

            Fair enough.

            “But that’s the beautiful thing about America. For now, disagreement is not a crime. At least for most people.”

            I’m an Aussie. Same over here.

            “That being said, I’m gonna review this whole thing at a later time when rested to take it all in properly, as you do make some very valid arguments.”

            Very gracious of you.

            “Good day sir & God (or whatever you believe in) bless.”

            Good night to you. Pleasant dreams and may God bless you also.

          • jennifermonti

            ” Because it seems to me you aren’t looking for a discussion, but want to force your warped philosophy down my throat.”

            you summed it up nicely the same can be said for colin

    • https://www.facebook.com/doug.bristow3 Doug Bristow

      There is no moral ground for the choice to murder a baby or not murder a baby.

      A true Christian knows that God hates the murder of babies.

  • grand inquisitor

    Awesome!

    • Tree Kangaroo

      Death is?

      Homosexuals don’t exactly have a track record of respecting human life.

      • Colin Rafferty

        Examples, please. I would say the number of practicing homosexuals who have had an abortion is pretty close to zero. For obvious reasons.

  • Ginger

    Jeremiah 17:5 “Thus saith the LORD; Cursed be the man that trusteth in man, and maketh flesh his arm, and whose heart departeth from the LORD.” [KJV]
    Too many people wanting to go down the Primrose path. A lot of these “so-called” preachers are more interested in the offering plate then the souls of the people to really teach them. We have to do it ourselves in many cases. True teachers are few and far between.
    Christ teaching Matthew 7:13 “Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in therat:” [KJV]

    • Chris

      So you’re quoting Jeremiah [a man] to argue that we shouldn’t trust men.

      Can you see a problem?

  • Joel W

    Well I been saying it for years, but people just accuse me of being anti-whatever. Most ‘Christian churches’ are run by satanists. And here is proof.

    • NCOriolesFan

      Replace ‘most’ with some.

      • Joel W

        Nah, I’m gonna stick with most. Too many ‘progressive’ churches these days that relish in perversion of scripture.

        • NCOriolesFan

          They aren’t ‘progressive’, they are REGRESSIVE with their abortion propaganda.

          • Joel W

            Well that I can agree with you on. Hence the quotes around progressive. They call themselves progressive, but the only thing they progress in is leading the flock astray.

          • Sharon_at_home

            That is why my religion sticks to what the bible says only – if it’s not in the bible, it’s not truth.

          • Joel W

            I hear that. Never was into Sunday school/church, or anything related to religion most of my life. Then one day, mostly out of intellectual curiosity, decided to start reading the Bible myself, without some charlatan’s interpretation. Well, that changed everything. And when I came across Matthew 23, it perfectly made sense why I felt the way I did prior to taking matters into my own hands. The warnings were right there. But understandably, the modern day scribes & pharisees would never touch on the subject.

          • Sharon_at_home

            That’s a wonderful story Joel! Not many people have said they had been able to read the bible on their own and become a follower. (if that is what you meant)
            Matthew 22:37-39 has been my favorite scripture since I read it the first time.
            I have found though, that some of the information in the bible is not obvious without some help to see it. If you find a church that believes only in the Word and not in embellishing it, you will likely find it to be even more fascinating since you have read it on your own.
            I did not go to Sunday School other than a few years. All I remember is the colouring of the pictures of the major stories in the bible. I did not remember the stories necessarily, just the enjoyment of the colouring!
            There are some faiths that pick and choose what scriptures they will focus on, with their own interpretation rather than the one that is valued by the scriptures. I too see some of the churches that remind me of the modern day scribes and Pharisees.
            We have always been critical of people who say Do as I say, not as I do. It’s hypocritical.
            I’m glad that you have found a way to see things in a different way so you can enjoy the bible.
            I am always here if you have any questions. I can help you with what I know, and if I don’t know there are others here that do. Take care and keep smiling!

          • Joel W

            “…become a follower. (if that is what you meant)”

            Exactly what I meant. I wouldn’t call myself a Christian, at least not in conventional terms. In fact, most ‘Christians’ would probably consider me a heretic for the way I view the whole thing, but most of them have been led astray in my opinion. But I do consider myself a devotee to the actual words and deeds of Jesus. Speaking real truth to power. And just living the most righteous life I can achieve. Obviously I’m not perfect, as only God is. But I do what I can. Which, in my opinion, is the way he meant his ministry to be. And thank you for the offer. I will keep that in mind. God bless.

          • Sharon_at_home

            Well you are certainly sound like you are doing a good job for yourself and are happy about your life as a follower. I’m really glad for you!
            God bless and know I am praying for you!

  • NCOriolesFan

    Heretics!!!!!!!!!!!!

    • Chris

      Fundies certainly are.

  • Grace Kim Kwon

    No abortion. Abortion is murder. No true clergy would support it.

    • Ginger

      There are a lot of biblically illiterate people in the pulpits, example spouting the rapture theory. When our Father is against it Ezekiel 13:18-22 KJV I did not need to use my Strong’s Concordance to understand it. That idea came from the mouth of an ill Scottish woman in 1830 and a couple preachers found some scripture they could mistranslate to make it up, then the Scofield Reference Bible peddled to the seminaries completely omits Ezekiel 13 when this doctrine was being put into place. Know our Father’s primary enemy Satan was involved.

      Proverbs 6:16-19 KJV “These six things doth the LORD hate: yea seven are an abomination unto Him; A proud look, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood, An heart the deviseth wicked imaginations, feet that be swift in running to mischief, A false witness that speaketh lies, and he that soweth discord among brethren.”
      A babe in the womb or out is totally innocent-it is murder! But how eroded has our Christian heritage become? People would rather remain silent while all sorts of evil rages around them. It will be the few that the Lord will bless for giving the truth.

      • Chris

        A better translation is ‘magic bands’. What do magic bands have to do with abortion?

  • Robinske2

    The 12 disciples represented the 12 different human characters- Brash Peter, easy going and faithful John, doubting Thomas and so on. One of the twelve was a traitor so it stands to reason that 1 of every 12 in the clergy has a character that can betray.

  • James Bryson

    Come Lord Jesus, come.

  • mahrlh2

    They aren’t really “clergy” – just a bunch of “pastors” trying to justify their corrupt practices. Their father, Satan, leads the charge. They need to read the Bible and see how Jesus loved the little children. Bunch of PHONIES!

  • Antiques

    The above-named “Christian Churches” reps are really not Christian, as they are supporting EVIL, and that amongst a few other sins that they have not repented of. They should READ what Jesus said, and compared it to what the OLD TESTAMENT said… because most of his teaching actually was pre-priesthood… meaning that the PRIESTS were “those Jews” who were criticised by Him. You really want to start knowing WHAT mistakes most churches make? – Start with Genesis-2… and go to Exodus 20… and read all up to where YHWH describes just WHO are His people, and He their GOD. If we don’t fix that issue of “coming OUT of (OUR) Babylon” of errors… then we do not belong to Jesus either, as He was WITH GOD, not the ENEMY! – And that is mostly the reason why we are in such a predicament today…. and it is getting WORSE.

  • Tins17

    “Vengeance is mine; I will repay,” saith the Lord. {Romans 12:19}.