Category Archives: Pro-life

Pro-life reasoning: Simple and accurate responses to pro-abortion sound bites

Be prepared, people! Abortion is going to be a hot topic for some time, and you’ll constantly come across fallacious pro-abortion sound bites. Bookmark this if you like, as I’ll be updating it as I think of other examples. I offered multiple answers to some objections. Let me know in the comments section if you think of others.

I’m using anti-abortion instead of pro-life for a reason. It cuts down on one of the baseless pro-abortion attack lines. Sure, call me anti-abortion, because I am anti-child murder. And I’m using pro-abortion because anyone who demands that others pay for abortions to the child’s first breath is more than just pro-choice. You can soften the snarkiness as you see fit, especially in one-on-one encounters, but sometimes evil ideas deserve mockery.

Whenever you can, “trot out the toddler” and show how most pro-abortion arguments fail when applied to toddlers. Then you point out how the real issue is that the unborn are human beings from fertilization, so the pro-abortion reasoning fails for them as well.

I use some terms interchangeably, such as kill/murder and abortion/crushing and dismembering. They may sound extreme, but so is killing children. Sometimes people need to be confronted with what they are actually supporting.


One example of the stupidity I saw on social media on “No-mo-Roe” day (which should now be a national holiday). Of course, it got lots of cheers from fellow Molech-worshiping ghouls who don’t know how to think critically.

This marks the first time in history that the United States Supreme Court has taken away a constitutional right…

No, the Supreme Court rightly ruled that there had never been a Constitutional right to kill your child.

What happened to the separation of church and state?

This had nothing to do with church and state. It was about what the Constitution says. Try reading it. That said, God is against killing your children. You’ll answer to him for that.

What happened to my rights over my body and what I choose to do with it?

There are countless laws telling you what you can’t do with your body, such as killing your children outside the womb. Now some states will have laws making it illegal to kill them inside the womb. Do what you like, just don’t kill your children. Or live in one of the many states where you can still legally kill your children.

What next? We can no longer purchase contraceptives?

Hold on, drama queen. There is nothing about that in the Constitution, either. It should be left to the states, which are unlikely to ban them.

What about the right to love who you love?

The Constitution has never said anything about who you can love. Oh, you mean whether oxymoronic “same-sex marriage” is enshrined in the Constitution? Yeah, hopefully, they’ll get rid of that silly ruling as well.

What about trans rights?

“Trans” rights? Sure, I suppose you have the legal right to be delusional and mock God’s created order. I’ll defend those rights. But you don’t have the right to push your perversions on children or to force me to lie and say that people can change genders. I won’t violate my conscience that way. And no, the Constitution said nothing about “trans” rights.

Oh, but you can still own an assault rifle and that’s all that matter right???

Yes, because that is in the Constitution! Thanks for noticing.

This ruling won’t end abortions, only the safe ones.

They are never safe for the child you murder. And we are under no obligation to make it safer for you to murder your child. And make no mistake: It will reduce abortions. Every life counts.

This ruling is not a ban on abortions, it’s a ban on women.

LOL that’s just stupid. Yeah, we’ve now banned women. They disappeared.

Sorry but we aren’t going to revert back to being worth less than a man.

So if you can’t legally kill your children you are less than a man? That’s some pretty low self-esteem you have there.

It’s time to fight back.

Too bad the 50,000,000 children you murdered couldn’t fight back.


Pro-abortion: If men could get pregnant, abortion would be a sacrament! (Also: “If men could get pregnant, abortions would be available at Jiffy Lube!”)

Anti-abortion: If men could get pregnant, it would be wrong for them to murder their unborn children.

P.S. You seem transphobic, but thanks for conceding that men and women are different and that men can’t have babies.


PA: If you don’t have a uterus, you don’t get to speak on this!

AA: We can speak any time we like when people are being killed without adequate justification.

So on your logic, we should overturn Roe v Wade because it was decided by men?

Over 50% of abortions kill females, and nearly all gender-selection abortions kill females for the sole reason that they are female. Don’t their uteruses get a say?

Women are more pro-life than men. Go figure.

P.S. You seem transphobic, but thanks for conceding that men and women are different and that men can’t have babies.


PA: But the children might be poor!

AA: Using that logic, you should kill your toddlers or other children who are poor. Also, compared to the U.S. definition of poor, 99% of the people who have ever lived anywhere should have been aborted.


PA: If you don’t like abortions, don’t have one!

AA: If you don’t want people to kill their toddlers, don’t kill your toddler.

Can you see how childish your argument sounds when you ignore the child murdered in the abortion?


PA: Abortions are completely moral acts! They are not sinful.

AA: Do you realize that you are telling everyone – including friends, any children and grandchildren you have, and yourself — that it would have been completely moral to crush and dismember them in the womb rather than letting them live? I pity the children and grandchildren who hear that message!

Seriously, picture someone saying this: “It is very important to Grandma that I fight for the right for mothers to be able to have their children killed. You are safe now, but I wanted your mother to have the right to kill you up to your first breath.”

Yes, I know no one would say it like that, but that’s exactly what their message is.


PA: Girls born today will have fewer rights than those born 50 years ago!

AA: But they will be born.


PA: But the child could impact the woman’s career/love life/education/etc.

AA: On that logic, she could kill her toddler with impunity. None of those reasons are adequate justification to kill her child.


PA: But the children might turn out poor or become criminals.

AA: You could say the same thing about many toddlers in this country, but that wouldn’t justify crushing and dismembering them.


PA: She’s not ready to be a mother.

AA: She’s already a mother; the question is whether she’ll have her child murdered.


PA: Pro-lifers don’t care about children after they are born!

AA: We are remarkably consistent: We oppose murdering children regardless of their location – inside or outside the womb.

More here:


PA: A woman has a right to choose!

AA: If you are talking about school choice, or whether to own a gun, homeschool your children, take vaccines, get married, etc. then I’m with you. But you need to complete the sentence: You think women have a right to choose to murder their unborn children. There is a reason you don’t finish the thought.


PA: It isn’t a child, it is a blob of cells!

AA: Your problem is with the nice folks at, not me.

Child: 4. a human fetus: My sister miscarried with her first child at seven months. [Although in the pro-abortion case, their definition could have said, “My sister killed her first child at seven months.”]

And Joe Biden agrees with me! Joe Biden says abortion would “abort a child.”

I’ve been encouraging people to use “child” instead of “baby” because the former is more precise.

Also, even Planned Parenthood always knew what abortion does. From their 1964 ad:

Is it [birth control] an abortion?

Definitely not.  An abortion kills the life of a baby after it has begun.  It is dangerous to your life and health.  It may make you sterile so that when you want a child you cannot have it.  Birth control merely postpones the meaning of life.

Every related scientific discovery made since then, plus tools like ultrasounds, serve to further that point.

I concede that technically it is a fetus and not a baby, even though that’s what Planned Parenthood called it. I don’t correct people who euphemistically call them babies. But they are human beings at a particular stage of development who have a right to life.


PA: We don’t know when life begins!

AA: Then you should err on the side of life.

Oh, and we do know when life begins: Fertilization. It is basic science and common sense.


PA and some AA people: Women are the victims of abortion, too!

AA: No. If you take out a contract to have someone killed, under no circumstance are you the victim. You may be in a very complex situation and might be getting pressured to do something wrong, but I won’t infantilize you and say you didn’t know what you were doing. If you were killing your toddler for the same reasons no one would consider you a victim.

Many pro-lifers either fear women or are condescending to them by pretending they don’t know what abortion does. The writers of the Hippocratic Oath — which was written well over 2,000 years ago — knew exactly what abortion did, and as late as the 1960s Planned Parenthood said that abortion kills “babies.” And feminists encourage people to “shout their abortions” out of pride for what they have done.


PA: What about victims of rape and incest?

AA: Are you saying that you’d support making all abortions illegal except in the cases of rape, incest, and the life of the mother?  If not, then why are you exploiting rape victims to make your case for unrestricted abortions?

Feel free to punish the rapist, but don’t kill the innocent child. Using your logic, a woman could kill her toddler conceived in rape if it reminded her of the trauma.

Also, abortion is often used to hide the vile crimes of rape, incest, and sex trafficking. What better way to destroy the evidence? Yet Planned Parenthood, which pretends to care for women, has been caught hiding these crimes countless times.


PA: You just want to take us back to the bad old days!

AA: Even the “restrictive” laws of states like Mississippi are more liberal than any European nation. Only North Korea and China have abortion laws as barbaric as those in the U.S. When Europeans think your abortions laws are over the top, you might want to lay off the child-killing just a bit.

But yes, we want to go back to the days when it was illegal to murder your children in the womb.


PA: You are just forcing your religious views on us!

AA: The non-religious Hippocratic Oath, written hundreds of years B.C., was explicitly anti-abortion.

If you saw a toddler being murdered, would you be wrongly “forcing your views” by intervening?

Are the pro-abortion “Christian” Leftists “forcing their religious views” on others when they lobby for abortion to the child’s first breath? If not, then stop using that fallacious argument inconsistently.

I can argue against child murder all day long without referencing the Bible, but I’ll be glad to tell you about how Jesus can forgive all of your sins if you’d like.


PA: You are anti-science!

AA: Science and common sense completely support our foundational premise that a new human being is created at fertilization. Go check out any mainstream secular embryology textbook. What else would two human beings create?

I’m too pro-science to be pro-abortion.


PA: Why do you oppose reproductive healthcare for women?

AA: Abortion kills children who have already been reproduced. Otherwise, there would be nothing to kill. “Reproductive health” is a deadly and illogical euphemism. You should stop using it.


PA: You are anti-women!

AA: More than half of abortions kill females. Nearly all gender-selection abortions kill female children for the sole reason that they are female. Seems misogynistic to me. Our policies would save their lives.


PA: You are anti-choice!

AA: Why, yes, I am anti-choice to crush and dismember innocent human beings. Thanks for noticing.


PA: Women will still have just as many abortions. You’ll just be forcing them to have dangerous illegal “back-alley” abortions.

AA: Cold, hard truth: Society has no obligation to make it easier for you to kill your children, regardless of their location.

Are you conceding that if you ban guns people will still get them illegally?

Sadly, even if Roe v Wade is overturned, you’ll still be able to legally have your child murdered in many states. California is already planning on lots of “abortion tourism.” Now that’s Satanic.

Abortions skyrocketed after Roe v Wade, and Leftists concede that outlawing abortion would “decimate” hook-up culture. Laws greatly influence behavior. Just because laws against stealing don’t stop all stealing, it doesn’t mean we don’t keep the laws on the books. It is the same logic for child murder.

The statistics showing women dying of abortions were wildly overstated pre-Roe v Wade, and even those were typically due to a lack of antibiotics.

Pro-abortion groups aggressively fight safety standards, and pressure law enforcement to ignore the ones in place. See Kermit Gosnell.


PA: That’s so mean to call these women murderers! And it is inaccurate because abortions are currently legal.

AA: As Abraham Lincoln noted, even if you call a dog’s tail a leg, it still has just four legs. Calling something the wrong name doesn’t change reality. In God’s eyes, taking human life without adequate justification is murder.

But there is good news! Abortion is forgivable if only people will repent and trust in Jesus.


PA: Opposing abortion is racist!

AA: Abortion kills blacks at a rate over three times that of whites. If that isn’t an example of “systemic racism,” then nothing is. And that rate isn’t an accident. Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood, was an extreme racist. With our policies, the percentage of black people in the country would be higher. How is that racist? And most abortionists have traditionally been white males getting rich by killing black children.

Bonus answer: Pregnancy resource centers are funded and staffed with mostly whites and they serve mostly non-whites. How is that racist? Same thing for prison ministries.


PA: Women have bodily autonomy! My body, my choice!

AA: That right ends when it comes to destroying the body of another human – especially when it is your child. You have a wildly different obligation towards your own child versus a stranger.

Examples such as the “violin argument,” forced blood or organ donations, etc. are unnatural uses of your body, whereas a uterus is designed explicitly to nurture an unborn child.

Ninety-nine percent of all abortions in the U.S. are performed on women who chose to have sexual intercourse.

Abortion is not just letting an innocent person die, or taking them off of life support. Abortion is an active, violent form of killing.

P.S. You said that about vaccine and mask mandates as well, right? I’m sure you didn’t cheer when people got fired for being unwilling to take the vaccine or when schoolchildren were forced to be masked.


PA: It is between a woman and her doctor!

AA: A woman and her doctor can’t kill a toddler for the reasons given for abortion. So the question is, what is the unborn? Factually speaking, they are human beings. I don’t care if Dr. Mengele is on board or not, you shouldn’t kill the child.


PA: Keep the government out of our bedrooms!

AA: One role of government is to address the wrongful taking of human lives, regardless of location. And most children are killed at abortion clinics, not in bedrooms.


PA: Pro-lifers show those awful pictures of abortions. That is wrong!

AA: What could be more relevant to a debate than images of the procedure in question?

Is it OK to kill unborn humans but wrong to show pictures of the practice?

Which is worse, letting children see those pictures or letting them be in those pictures?


PA: Pro-lifers are extremists!

AA: Killing your own children up to their first breath and without anesthetic, and wanting others to be forced to pay for it, seems extreme to me.

And who are the real extremists? The abortion debate seems to be a 50/50 split until you ask more specific questions. Then the Leftist view becomes the extreme one.

Pro-choice views (Gallup, 2011)

Make abortion illegal in the 3rd trimester – 79%

Make abortion illegal in the 2nd trimester – 52%

Ban “partial-birth abortion” – 63%

Require parental consent for minors – 60%

Require 24 waiting period – 60%


PA: But Jesus said nothing about abortion (or LGBTQX, etc.)!

AA: Logic of those who use this argument: Whatever Jesus did not specifically condemn in the Bible is morally permissible. In the “red letters” (direct quotes of Jesus) He did not specifically condemn abortion. Conclusion: Therefore, abortion is morally permissible.

But the “red letters” also didn’t specifically mention slavery, drunk driving, child sacrifice, gay-bashing, and many other wrongs.

The “red letters” did call murder a sin, and when the Israelites sacrificed their children to Molech and others, God denounced it in the strongest possible terms.

Jesus is divine and agrees with the entire Bible (Matthew 4:4 and more).

In Luke 1, which many people hear every Christmas, 2nd trimester John the Baptist reacted to 1st trimester Jesus. They were both persons in the womb.

The Israelites viewed children as a blessing and abortion wasn’t a major issue in 1st century Palestine.


PA: But your God performs the most abortions! [i.e., miscarriages]

AA: Dying early doesn’t make you non-human. Abortions aren’t miscarriages.  Can they see the difference between these?

  • Human outside (or inside) the womb dies of natural causes
  • Human outside (or inside) the womb killed by a third party

In other words, grandma dying of natural causes is different than grandma being bludgeoned to death.


PA: The book of Numbers shows that God is pro-abortion.

AA: What verse in Numbers 5 says the woman is pregnant? What verse says she has a miscarriage? (The NIV has a mistranslation of the original text, but other, more accurate versions make it clear). Even if she had a miscarriage as a punishment for adultery, how would that mean that God is OK with abortion at any stage for any reason? More here.


PA: Exodus 21 supports abortion because it says that a miscarriage is less valuable than a woman’s life.

AA: Here’s the passage in question:

When men strive together and hit a pregnant woman, so that her children come out, but there is no harm, the one who hit her shall surely be fined, as the woman’s husband shall impose on him, and he shall pay as the judges determine. But if there is harm, then you shall pay life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe. (Exodus 21:22–25, ESV)

The key word of the passage is sometimes not translated well and says “miscarriage” instead of “children come out.” If you study the original Hebrew it becomes very clear that Moses did not mean that if the child is killed that the penalty is less severe.

More here, with a listing of all the errors that pro-aborts make with this passage.


PA: These abortive women have terrible situations!

AA: That may be the case, but don’t confuse psychological complexity with moral complexity. Their personal issues may be complex, but the morality is simple. You shouldn’t kill toddlers for the reasons given for abortions, so you shouldn’t kill unborn children, either.


PA: But the unborn aren’t persons yet!

AA: That is an artificial and false distinction. Using that logic, you could kill infants as well. The size, level of development, environment, and dependency of human beings don’t dictate whether you can kill them.

Whether they have consciousness is irrelevant. Neither do people who are asleep or in comas. To legally remove someone from life support who is not conscious (abortion fails on both counts):

  • You need to demonstrate that you are acting in that person’s best interests, as they would so act if they were conscious
  • That there is little or no hope of recovery.


PA: Christians are just repressed sexually, hate women, are greedy, are insane, etc.

AA: Compared to non-Christians, we adopt more children, have better sex lives, are more generous, have better mental health, and treat women better. Oh, and we have been completely forgiven and will spend eternity in Heaven with God. Please seek Jesus for yourself while there is still time! More at 5 Statistics Reveal Christianity Is Good for the World.


PA: You are just against women’s freedom!

AA: We are all for freedom to own guns, home school your children, not take vaccines, etc. If we make it illegal for them to murder their children, they are still free to destroy their lives with all the soul-destroying, disease-spreading illicit sex that they like. I advise against that behavior, but we aren’t legislating it. Just don’t complain to us when they are miserable and unmarriageable cat ladies.

Side question for the PAs: Is Islam correct about women? Asking for a friend.


PA: Abortion is health care!

AA: No, healthcare is when you don’t crush and dismember one of the patients.


PA: It is better to destroy one life than three! [i.e., abortion will destroy the life of the child, but letting her live will destroy the lives of her and the parents]

AA: You’ve used a different definition of destroy in those cases*. Destroying the life of the child means the literal crushing and dismembering of a human being. Destroying the life of all three implies that all of them will now have bad lives, but they will still be alive. And you falsely assume that all of their lives will be ruined**. There are countless stories of lives turning out well. Consider adoption instead of abortion.

Side note: A guy used that exact argument with me. He had pressured his daughter to kill his grandchild. It destroyed their relationship for a time and he was in deep denial over what he had done. By the grace of God, he later repented of it and restored his relationship with her.

* Logical fallacy: Equivocation

** Logical fallacy: Begging the question


PA: Adoption is hard on women.

AA: Perhaps, but at least they can always know they gave their child a better life instead of crushing and dismembering them out of selfishness.

And abortion is hard on the child getting slaughtered.


PA: If women have to bear children, then men have to take equal responsibility!

AA: Short answer: OK.

Longer answer: We already have laws on the books to address that concern. More than that, the deck is so stacked against men that paternity fraud goes unpunished and men can be liable for 18 years if they sign birth certificates for children that aren’t theirs. If you want fairness, get rid of those laws.


PA: Pro-lifers are inconsistent for opposing abortion but being pro-capital punishment!

AA: That’s a great argument, provided you can’t see the difference between a completely innocent human child and a convicted murderer who survived 10+ years of appeals.

Actually, I am OK with unrestricted access to abortions – provided that the unborn get the same 10+ years of appeals as condemned killers. I’m pretty sure that at that stage they won’t want to be crushed and dismembered. As Ronald Reagan said, all the people who support abortion have already been born.

P.S. If you will agree to ban abortions then I’ll agree to ban capital punishment. Deal? Yeah, I didn’t think you’d agree to that.


PA: You are anti-choice!

AA: You got to make your choices: to meet men, to have sex, not to use birth control, and to get pregnant. You got to make all kinds of choices. No, what you’re complaining about is that now you have to live with the consequences of your choices: which you’ll have to do even if you do murder the life that now grows in you.

AA: You got to make choices. The man who got you pregnant got to make choices. The life that now lives in you won’t get to make choices – but will thrive or suffer based on your choices.


PA: It is just a clump of cells! (Or blob of cells, etc.)

AA: You’re still a clump of cells — just a much bigger one. I guess your life can be taken, too! Or are you simply discriminating against people who are smaller clumps than you? Does Shaquille O’Neal have more of a right to life than the rest of us?



Here’s a version with audio and video if you prefer that. Bonus: Lots of Bible verses at the end!

Recapping some “Christian” Left pro-abortion arguments

This is an updated post that I did on Rachel Held Evans a few years back. Her “Christian” Left pro-abortion views are echoed by many others, so I thought this was a good time to repost this. She has since died. She was an enemy of the gospel, so I hope she repented and believed while in a coma. She had posted some ridiculous things on Twitter, which she eventually deleted. She took down her Twitter post, first claiming that she wrestles with doubts on abortion (read her Tweets below and see how “doubt-filled” she really is) and then saying she received too many threats (I read most of the comments and didn’t see one threat).  But I saved her Tweets for you here.

She claimed she was misunderstood.  No, Rachel, the problem is that you were completely understood.

  • Internet: Here’s a racist pro-abortion statement by Rachel Held Evans.
  • Rachel: [Deletes the context]
  • Also Rachel: You took it out of context!
  • Me: I saved the context, which makes it much worse.

False teacher Rachel Held Evans, who mocks the word of God for a living, had an Internet tantrum when she found out that Justice Kennedy was retiring.  It was one fallacious pro-abortion argument after another.  SJWs lie and project, and that’s what she did here, making numerous false statements and projecting her racism on others.  Here are the Tweets she deleted.

Thread: I’m pro-life by conviction, though my views on the legalities of abortion are complex, ever-evolving, & detailed elsewhere.

She starts off with a big lie.  It would have been a bad enough lie if she had stopped there, because her rabid support for Obama and Hillary and all things Leftist already demonstrate how pro-abortion she is.  But she goes on to make her views more clear. 

That said, today I’ve been wondering if most pro-lifers have considered what overturning Roe v. Wade would look like in actuality…  First, it wouldn’t end abortion, which would likely remain legal in several states.

Yep, we’ve known that since 1973.  That should be a consolation to the Leftists freaking out en masse yesterday who didn’t know it.  Don’t worry, you’ll still be able to kill your children up to their first breath and without anesthetic in most states.  Because love is love, right?  Pregnancy resource centers have long said that they’ll be needed even if abortion was made illegal.

Just like in the past, wealthy women would travel for abortions & poor women would resort to deadly Gosnell-style “back alley” clinics & home procedures….

Harsh truth: You are under no obligation to make it easier or safer for people to murder their children.  Of course, I don’t want to see women harmed during abortions.  But I really don’t want to see the children slaughtered.

And note how this self-proclaimed “pro-lifer” views abortion as a luxury that only the rich will have.  She views child-killing as a necessity.

At least she acknowledged “Christian” Leftist Kermit Gosnell.  No, wait, she only did so in pretending that he was a “back-alley” abortionist.  Big lie.  He was as mainstream as could be and was protected by politically correct state officials.  They knew he ran a filthy clinic.  His crimes were killing children 60 seconds after the law allowed.  Fact: If he had killed them before they were out of the mother Mrs. Evans would have fully supported him.

…In addition, it’s important to understand that the abortion rate is highest in poor communities of color. The rate among black women is almost 5x that of white women and the rate among Hispanic women more than double…

That was her most laughable line.  I’ve written about the disproportionate rate of minority abortions so many times that I feared I would get carpal tunnel syndrome.  I usually note it as three times the rate of whites to be conservative, but she says it is five, so let’s go with that.  Black children being killed at five times the rate of whites via abortion and Hispanics at twice the rate is the only demonstrable and meaningful example of “institutional racism” there is, yet it’s the one that the “woke” and “non-racist” Left — including the “Christian” Left — aggressively fight for 24×7.  

These ghouls know that it kills minority children in a wildly disproportionate way, yet they want higher rates with taxpayer funding and they focus their anti-racism efforts on things like “micro-aggressions.”  It is a deadly self-parody.

…(Racism, income inequality, lack of access to affordable healthcare & contraception all contribute to the disproportionate rates. Most women who get abortions are already mothers who do so because they feel they cannot afford more children)…

Note how the “pro-lifer” believes that thinking you can’t afford more children is a good reason to have them killed.

…So when I see conservatives celebrating the “millions of lives” that will be saved if Roe is overturned I wonder if they realize a significant percentage of these lives would be in poor communities of color—communities this administration has actively oppressed…

Actively oppressed?  How?  By giving them jobs?  By increasing their wages? By giving them school choice?  By reducing their taxes?  By fighting for their rights to defend themselves?

Mrs. Evans, we know that we are saving minority lives.  Those of us who volunteer at and financially support pregnancy centers know exactly who our clients are.  We would review demographic data at board meetings!  We made special attempts to reach minorities!  You are the one fighting to kill these children.

“Christian” Leftists usually navel gaze and virtue signal about racial reconciliation while Christians are out doing more for race relations than they could ever dream of — just as a byproduct of spreading the Gospel.  If you really want to help race relations, do pregnancy center or prison ministry, where it is mostly whites serving mostly non-whites — sharing the Gospel and serving in love.  But Evans et al would rather sit behind their keyboards and call us racists.

…(If you think Donald Trump actually wants to see a population boom in poor communities of color you haven’t been paying attention! These are the people Trump describes as “infestations” & “breeders.” Just the mention of Hispanics at a rally elicited boos from his audience)…

I’m 99.99% sure that’s a lie.  I’ll bet that he said illegals, not Hispanics.   And it is a fact of history and basic common sense that illegals take jobs and suppress wages for low-income blacks.  You know, the ones you take for granted when pushing your open borders scheme to get more votes.  Side question: Why do Leftists like illegals more than black children?

…Meanwhile, congress is working to defund safety net programs that help mothers provide food, healthcare, and education to their kids.

Logical fallacy: Begging the question – that is, assuming what you should be proving.  Leftist giveaways have been the catalyst for broken families and destroying the black community.  The Left is responsible for separating children from parents with the easily predictable consequences of providing incentives for single motherhood.  The impact to society has been terrible: Generational poverty, crime, drugs, prisons, etc.

So when pro-lifers join Trump in showing disdain or indifference to the poor, to immigrants, & to people of color, no one’s going to believe they are interested in saving anything but hypothetical babies…

Liar.  Again, we know exactly who we are saving and who they are killing.  It is creepy how Evans gets more and more unhinged in wanting to see dead minority children and in projecting her dislike of them onto us.

…Indeed, much of the pro-life literature depicts white, blue-eyed, motherless babies against empty, pristine backgrounds precisely because it is easier to advocate for hypothetical, idealized “babies” than actual people…

Aaaand another lie she uses to justify killing actual minority people.  There are entire campaigns trying to reduce abortions in minority communities.  And does she mean common literature like this?  People have paid for billboards with these messages then pro-aborts protest over them.  Note the white skin and blue eyes.  The literature our CPC produced always reflected the demographics of our center.

black abortion

…My point is: I’m not sure pro-lifers realize that overturning Roe will not create the utopia they imagine. In fact, by aligning with Trump & the GOP, they are creating conditions infinitely worse for the mothers & children who would be most affected……So instead of celebrating, I hope pro-lifers will reject Trump’s racism and partner with progressives to create a “culture of life” by addressing healthcare, income inequality, racial justice, criminal justice reform, family leave policies, etc. We can find comm ground here…

Her foundational lie: “I’ll totally oppose abortion once we achieve utopia and there is zero demand for it.”  Uh, sure, so why don’t we legalize murder, theft, etc. until all the societal factors causing those things are fixed?  Let’s just keep ignoring original sin!

…All your big plans for “millions of saved lives” mean nothing when you show no interest in the actual life of a mom of three, living in an abusive relationship & unable to pay the rent, who can’t miss another day of work and has just seen a positive on a pregnancy test.

Once again, pro-abort Evans tips her hand in grand fashion.  If you have a challenging life, the solution is to kill your child.  That’ll fix everything.  Does she think that a woman should be able to kill her toddler for the same reasons?  And of course, we do show interest in those women with our own time and money – though we aren’t obligated to just because we oppose child-killing.

Also, it’s great when crisis pregnancy centers give out free diapers, but please don’t cite this as holistic care for mother & child when it’s the systemic stuff that makes the difference. CPCs can’t address rising rent, unaffordable healthcare, poor family leave policies, etc.

That is one of her greatest slanders.  Pregnancy centers do much more than just give out diapers — though that is more than Evans does.  Remember that Evans is forever “giving” your money away like a good little “Christian” Left Marxist.  And centers always share the Gospel with anyone interested, which Evans doesn’t care about.

And there is no obligation for pregnancy centers to fix every problem in society.  Follow her reasoning: If pregnancy centers don’t completely fix all of your problems, they don’t have value and you need to be able to kill your child for any reason up to her first breath and without anesthetic.  That’s what Evans votes for and fights for.

But most centers are funded by donors (the center where I volunteered for 12 years and was on the board for 6 years refused government assistance because it would come with strings attached) and mostly staffed by volunteers.  Why don’t faux-lifers like Evans start their own pregnancy centers to do all the things they criticize the real centers for?  I know why.  (I admit that she couldn’t have volunteered at Care Net, because you must be an authentic pro-life Christian to do that).


Mrs. Evans boo-hoo’d after deleting her Tweets and expressed her shock that anyone would say that she supports eugenics or racism.  But the Left – including the “Christian” Left – advocates for abortion for many reasons, and one of their core arguments is the “better dead than poor” motif. Their brand of eugenics is slightly softer than Margaret Sanger’s (founder of Planned Parenthood – look her up), but it is just as deadly for the children who get killed.

Being poor wouldn’t justify killing toddlers, so it also doesn’t justify killing children who haven’t had their first breath. And the pro-aborts know that abortion disproportionately kills minorities, so their actions are racist.  To make things worse, most poor today live better than royalty did 200 years ago.  The pro-aborts’ worldview implies that 90% of the world would be better off dead.  But just listen to them tell you how Christian and kind they are.


So once again the faux-lifers out themselves with their own rhetoric.  The number one priority for the Left — including the “Christian” Left —  is ensuring that we continue to slaughter thousands of children per day up to their first breath and without anesthetic – and in their own words and proposals, the more minorities, the better.  And they want more abortions with taxpayer funding.  And they insist that their “Jesus” approves of it.

More here about how the “Christian” Left is loud and proud about justifying abortion to the child’s first breath. They are Molech-worshiping ghouls.

The Hippocratic Oath and Planned Parenthood used to be explicitly anti-abortion

So what happened?

Science is clear that life begins at conception.  Just go read any secular embryology textbook.  Or use basic logic: What else would two human beings create other than a new human being? The pro-abortion forces have had to shift to poorly conceived philosophical arguments to justify the killing of unborn human beings. The alleged pro-science crowd lies and says they don’t know when life begins or what a female is.

But what did doctors and other reproductive professionals such as Planned Parenthood think about abortion before recent scientific discoveries?  Did they think the unborn were just blobs of tissue and that abortion was morally benign?  Let’s see.

First, a look at the original Hippocratic Oath.  The removal of the prohibitions against abortion in the latest revisions of the oath was done in our more “enlightened” scientific days.

The Hippocratic Oath is an oath traditionally taken by physicians pertaining to the ethical practice of medicine. It is widely believed that the oath was written by Hippocrates, the father of medicine, in the 4th century BC, or by one of his students. It is thus usually included in the Hippocratic Corpus. Classical scholar Ludwig Edelstein proposed that the oath was written by Pythagoreans, a theory that has been questioned due to the lack of evidence for a school of Pythagorean medicine. Although mostly of historical and traditional value, the oath is considered a rite of passage for practitioners of medicine, although it is not obligatory and no longer taken up by all physicians.

The original oath:

I swear by Apollo, Asclepius, Hygieia, and Panacea, and I take to witness all the gods, all the goddesses, to keep according to my ability and my judgment, the following Oath.
To consider dear to me, as my parents, him who taught me this art; to live in common with him and, if necessary, to share my goods with him; To look upon his children as my own brothers, to teach them this art.

I will prescribe regimens for the good of my patients according to my ability and my judgment and never do harm to anyone.

If I keep this oath faithfully, may I enjoy my life and practice my art, respected by all men and in all times; but if I swerve from it or violate it, may the reverse be my lot.

To please no one will I prescribe a deadly drug nor give advice which may cause his death.

Nor will I give a woman a pessary to procure abortion.

But I will preserve the purity of my life and my arts.

I will not cut for stone, even for patients in whom the disease is manifest; I will leave this operation to be performed by practitioners, specialists in this art.

In every house where I come I will enter only for the good of my patients, keeping myself far from all intentional ill-doing and all seduction and especially from the pleasures of love with women or with men, be they free or slaves.

All that may come to my knowledge in the exercise of my profession or in daily commerce with men, which ought not to be spread abroad, I will keep secret and will never reveal.

Also, consider that at late as 1964 even Planned Parenthood was publicly pro-life:

Is it [birth control] an abortion?

Definitely not. An abortion kills the life of a baby after it has begun. It is dangerous to your life and health. It may make you sterile so that when you want a child you cannot have it. Birth control merely postpones the meaning of life.

There you have it! Straight from the experts at Planned Parenthood. Read that again and try not to drown in the morbid irony.

So Planned Parenthood used to teach that abortion kills a baby and poses medical risks to the mother, and the “unenlightened” doctors viewed abortion as immoral for a couple thousand years.

What did Planned Parenthood and other medical practitioners learn since the early 1960s that caused them to change their stance on what abortion really does?  What do they know that Hippocrates et al didn’t know 2,000 years earlier?

Could it be scientific advancements such as sonograms and 4-D ultrasounds? No, those do more than anything to promote the pro-life view. Technology is the enemy of pro-legalized-abortionists and it always will be. They might have gotten away with the “blob of tissue” argument in the 60’s, or 400 years B.C., but not today. No, wait, even back then the experts knew better than to believe that silly lie! It took a couple thousand years to convince people to believe the unbelievable.

Could it be the studies showing the impact of abortion on women? No. Despite major political pressure, more studies continue to show the adverse impact abortion has on women – both physically and emotionally.

No, even non-Jewish and non-Christian types like Hippocrates and Planned Parenthood used to know that abortion was wrong.  It takes a lot of effort and deliberate ignorance of scientific facts to rationalize otherwise.


From the “we’re gonna need a lot of millstones to clean this place up” category: Tax-funded PBS perverts aggressively indoctrinate children – but remember, legalizing oxymoronic “same-sex marriage” won’t impact you! — Alabama Public Television refuses to air Arthur episode with gay wedding

Best of the Bee

‘Abortion Is Healthcare,’ Says Woman Who Apparently Thinks ‘Healthcare’ Means Tearing A Human Being Limb From Limb | The Babylon Bee

Caravan Of Unborn Babies Heads Toward Alabama To Apply For Asylum | The Babylon Bee

The Abortion Discourse in Social Media, Summed Up in One Conversation — The link is golden.  Partial list below.  Please read it all and share.  It really does sum up the abortion debate well.  All the pro-child-killing side has is one fallacious argument after another.

A summary of social media discourse over the last week, as it pertains to the abortion debate.

Me: “We need laws to protect the most innocent and vulnerable among us.”

Them: “You’re so fascist.”

Me: “I don’t think you know what that word means.”

Them: “Men shouldn’t tell women what to do.”

Me: “As a woman, should you tell men not to rape people?”

Them: “Yeah, but that involves hurting somebody else.”

Me: “So does abortion.”

Them: “No, a fetus isn’t a human being.”

Me: “Yeah, but…science and stuff.”

Them: “Don’t force your religion on me.”

Me: “Yeah, but…science and stuff. That’s literally, scientifically, and medically a living human being.”

Them: “But they’re not *really* a human being.”

Me: “Okay, Hitler.”

Them: “You just want to judge people.”

Me: “Is that wrong?”

Them: “Yes, it’s absolutely wrong to judge people.”

Me: “So am I wrong for that?”

. . .

Women Preaching — Excellent biblical analysis on why women shouldn’t be preachers.  This is needed more than ever as the Southern Baptist Convention and others bend to the culture.

The position which permits women preaching to mixed congregations cannot be supported from Scripture. Common descriptive biblical passages do not support the position. First Corinthians 14:34-35 [Open in Logos Bible Software (if available)] and 1 Timothy 2:11-12 [Open in Logos Bible Software (if available)] are the two prescriptive passages in the NT on the issue. Thus, they are the authority on the matter. Exegetically, both passages clearly forbid women from preaching and teaching to men in the local church. Therefore, NT churches must conduct themselves accordingly if they are going to be in obedience to Christ, the blessed Lord of the church.

For those who need a study to know that water is wet: Bombshell study explodes myth that same-sex parenting is no different

Coming soon to a country near you: Illegal Aliens Take Over Paris Airport

African illegal aliens calling themselves “black jackets” made a show of force at the main Paris airport yesterday afternoon, refusing to let passengers board their planes: “France does not belong to the French! Everyone has a right to be here!” one person can be heard yelling into a loudspeaker.It follows that everyone on the planet also has a right to generous French welfare benefits.


Responding to the pro-abortion rape/incest argument

With several states doing the right thing and challenging Roe v Wade on its “personhood” distinction, it is a great time to be prepared to calmly and clearly refute pro-abortion sound bites.

Pro-abortion people exploit rape and incest victims to advance their child-killing cause, and they are joined by many pro-lifers who either haven’t thought the issue through carefully or are too scared to make the argument.  They try to paint you as evil for not wanting rape and incest victims to “solve” their problems by killing any children produced during the crimes, but it is false compassion and a red herring because they don’t just want to keep those abortions illegal.  They want all abortions to be legal, up to the child’s first breath.

Don’t shy away from that issue, just respond as follows.

I’m glad you brought up the topic of rape and incest. Those are terrible crimes that we should seek to prevent, and we should ensure that the victims aren’t further victimized and that there is justice for the rapists. If you propose the death penalty for the rapist I’d consider that, but why is it the first option for the innocent child? It is a scientific fact that the unborn are human beings from fertilization.

Abortionists such as Planned Parenthood help hide the crimes. They have been caught countless times hiding statutory rape, incest (which is another form of rape) and sex trafficking. If you really care about rape, then protest Planned Parenthood and how they systematically hide statutory rape and sex trafficking.

Unless you can look at an ultrasound and tell if a child was the product of rape or incest, then you shouldn’t let them be killed.

Abortion doesn’t undo the trauma of rape, it compounds it. It is another way of a stronger person abusing a weaker person.

Rapes results in less than 1% of abortions. Those abortions are still wrong, but for the record, would you oppose outlawing all abortions, except those in the cases of rape, incest and to save the life of the mother? If not, then why not admit that you are really just pro-abortion and that you use the rape/incest card to advance your cause?  Stop exploiting rape victims to justify abortion.

Here’s a handy jpeg you can use on social media.

Alyssa Milano’s “sex strike”

It must be exhausting to be a God-mocking, Molech-worshiping Leftist.  You have to prop up all sorts of evil, inconsistent and anti-science ideas all day, every day.  Exhibit A: Alyssa Milano, who called for a “sex strike” by women because some states are saying you can’t kill children with beating hearts.

She was quickly and thoroughly roasted on social media for proving the point of every conservative ever, namely that abstinence works!  Mike Pence will be glad to know Alyssa has joined his side.  And I’m sure her children are comforted knowing that mommy fought aggressively for the right to have been able to kill them.

She also got in trouble with professional feminists who rightly noted that Milano was implying that sex was just a weapon used by women to manipulate men.  Apparently Milano doesn’t really enjoy sex, she just uses it to get what she wants and needs to be able to kill an unfortunate children created by her transaction.

Predictably, she trotted out the anti-science “reproductive rights” canard.  For the 397th time, abortion kills children who have already been reproduced.  Is that so hard to understand?  If they hadn’t been reproduced you wouldn’t have anything to murder!

And of course, she had to apologize to the inevitable “trans” (note: still not a real thing) people with some unintelligible complaints about cisgender or the like.

Never forget that the #1 issue in life for feminists is being able to kill their children up to their first breath and without anesthetic.  Oh, and even beyond that if the abortion fails to kill the child.  Because they insist that the Constitution doesn’t just give you a right to abortion but to a dead baby.

There is a reason they are indistinguishable from the “Christian” Left, whose god says it is OK to kill children to their first breath.  These are the real extremists, as most self-identified pro-choice people – and most Leftist countries – oppose late-term abortions.

Hopefully many women will heed her advice and stop having out-of-wedlock sex and realize how much better life is when doing things God’s way.  The Bible teaches the original “sex strike” — no sex until a one man / one woman marriage.  And the world would be a vastly better place if people heeded that.

The shameless anti-science pro-abortion rhetoric of the Left

Sadly, this illogical nonsense actually resonates with the child-killing Democrats, including the Molech-worshiping “Christian” Leftists who support abortion to the child’s first breath.  It is all quite ridiculous, but go to the 6:00 mark for some scary comments.

These are painful decisions for these women

So?  I don’t care how painful it is for you to decide to murder your child or whether you consulted your doctor or religious advisor, it is still wrong, just as it would be if you killed her outside the womb.

With all of your distortions and horrible tales, I answered it numerous times.  When a woman gets pregnant it is not a human being inside of her.

Uh, that’s not what all those pesky embryology textbooks say, or even what common sense would dictate to even the dullest among us.  What else would two human beings produce, a puppy?  Of course it is a human being.

Even the chryon is fallacious, as it refers to “reproductive rights.”  But reproductive rights have nothing to do with abortion, because a new human being has already been created.  The question is whether you should be able to kill that human being.  Never let the pro-aborts get away with using that term.

As always, I’m too pro-science to be pro-choice.

Exodus 21 and abortion

Pro-abortion “Christian” Leftists and other abortion advocates often refer to a passage in Exodus 21 to support their views.  Don’t let them get away with such terrible and deadly reasoning.

When men strive together and hit a pregnant woman, so that her children come out, but there is no harm, the one who hit her shall surely be fined, as the woman’s husband shall impose on him, and he shall pay as the judges determine. But if there is harm, then you shall pay life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe. (Exodus 21:22–25, ESV)

The short version is that the key word of the passage is, in rare circumstances, not translated well and says “miscarriage” instead of “children come out.”  They conclude that if it is “just” a miscarriage and the perpetrator only got a fine, then what’s the big deal about abortion?

It you study the original Hebrew it becomes very clear that Moses did not mean that if the child is killed that the penalty is less severe.  But the pro-aborts (rotten) cherry-pick a translation they can twist to justify murder to the child’s first breath.

But that is just one of many problems with their use of this passage.  Here is a full list:

1. They get the text wrong.  This is a pro-life passage, not a pro-legalized abortion passage.  If Moses wanted to say “miscarriage” he could have used a much more specific word for that.

2. They ignore or rationalize away other Biblical texts that they don’t like, such as Leviticus 18:22 (ESV – You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination.)  So why do they find Exodus 21 so authoritative?

They ignore passages like Romans 1 where Paul explicitly declares homosexual behavior to be sinful because they think Paul didn’t know enough about biology and psychology (and they unwittingly tip their hand that they don’t believe any scripture is truly inspired by God).  But if Paul is so ignorant and scripture is un-inspired, why trust Moses to know key scientific facts?  They should dismiss the “miscarriage” term even if it had been in the original text because he didn’t have access to the scientific fact that a new human life begins at conception.

3. They don’t even agree with the other teachings of Exodus 21, such as verses 23-25.

But if there is harm, then you shall pay life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.

They are almost exclusively anti-capital punishment.  So why do they rationalize away the destruction of over a million innocent human beings per year in the U.S. based on a poor translation of a single word and then ignore the rest of the passage which is much more clear?

4. They ignore the endless pro-life passages in the Bible.

In summary, Christians (the uninformed kind) and “Christians” (the fake kind) who use Exodus 21 as support for abortion on demand fail on many levels.  If it weren’t for people like them Roe v Wade and the destruction that followed would not have happened.

More here:  The Misuse of Exodus 21:22-25 by Pro-Choice Advocates by John Piper.