Tag Archives: Crisis pregnancy center

Even if abortion becomes illegal, we’ll still need Pregnancy Resource Centers

Pregnancy Resource Centers (aka Crisis Pregnancy Centers) do great things for women, babies and their families — all for free!  They are the anti-Planned Parenthood in every way.  As I like to say, they save lives today and for eternity by giving women a real choice (life for their children!) and by sharing the Gospel of Jesus with anyone willing to hear it. We’ve supported them with time and $$ for over a decade because of the effective work they do.

Just knowing they exist can save lives.  A friend’s son got his girlfriend pregnant and the father of the girl got out a gun and threatened to kill himself if she didn’t have an abortion.  Fortunately, things calmed down.  A mutual friend knew about Care Net Pregnancy Center and called me for information.  Long story short: They ended up having the baby and got married.  They’ll have challenges in life, like everyone does, but in this case no one got killed.  And Care Net was a big part of that.  And the friend who knew enough about Care Net to refer them there was a big part of that. 

So even if you don’t support the centers with your time or money, please pray for them and know where they are.

But even if abortion became illegal, we’d still need these centers.  Why?  Because crisis pregnancies would not go away.

Having said that, I’m thrilled with the legislative progress the pro-life movement* had made.  Abortion clinics are closing all over the country because of new restrictions.  If abortions were really just 3% of the business of groups like Planned Parenthood, why would that impact them so much?

Electing truly pro-life people matters.  Look how aggressively Obama has tried to export abortions, require taxpayer-funding of abortions, etc. and consider how McCain and Romney – even with all their faults — wouldn’t have done that.

Incremental gains such as waiting periods, late-term abortion bans, fetal pain laws, etc. save real lives and remind people that the unborn are human beings.  Pro-abortion groups fight every restriction because they know that each one risks exposing their foundational lie.

Abortions kill over 3,000 innocent human beings per day in the United States.  What political issue could be more important?

The Wintery Knight hasn’t brought out Scheming Unborn Baby for a while, so I’ll note that he says, “Fighting abortions is a multi-front war: Pregnancy Resource Centers, legislative battles, educating people on pro-life reasoning, biblical reasoning and more.  We are winning, so don’t give up!  Every life counts.”

Unborn baby scheming about early church traditions

So please consider supporting Pregnancy Resources Centers with your time, money and prayers. At a minimum, at least know the location of your nearest center so you point people to it when they have a need.  It is a matter of when, not if, you’ll encounter someone in that situation.  

* Or call it anti-abortion if you like.  Abortions kill innocent human beings, and I’m anti- that.

Responding to a pro-abortionist

I barely have time to blog so I really don’t have time to address all the irrational comments that get left here. But now and then I like to analyze one to show just how extreme many of the pro-abortion people are.  Here’s a comment from my latest post.

Abortion may be a personal moral issue, and you are free to think of an abortion you might undergo to be an ‘evil’. But you have no legal right to impose your morality into the legitimate health care concerns of others – others just as capable as you in understanding the moral concerns of these decisions – without undermining the rights you yourself enjoy.

All laws are tied to morality, so the “don’t force your morals on others” slogan is intellectually bankrupt.

And of course, he forgets about the “others” that are crushed and dismembered because of these “rights.” It is ironic that those who supposedly champion “human rights” ignore the most fundamental right of all: The right not to be chopped up in pieces just because someone more powerful than you doesn’t want you around.

Look, if you want to reduce the impetus to use abortion as a method of birth control, then support those methods that reduce unwanted pregnancies.

I do. I support truly comprehensive sex education, which would include:

  • Abstinence is the best policy — see here and here.
  • The scientific fact is that a new human being is created at fertilization.
  • If you don’t have sex out of wedlock and you get a high school diploma then you are very unlikely to be poor, and you are likely to be poor if you do the opposite.
  • Planned Parenthood systematically hides the evils of statutory rape and sex trafficking.
  • Marriage is a union of a man and woman, and is the only combination that can create a child and that can provide a mother and a father to child (the obvious ideal).
  • “Over 70% of poor, cohabiting teenagers using condoms will be pregnant within a year.” — a fact from Planned Parenthood’s stats.
  • Most birth control methods offer offer zero protection against STDs.
  • Birth control offers zero protection against emotional issues.
  • The pill and other methods of birth control can have serious side effects.
  • Surveys demonstrate that married couples have the most satisfying sex lives.
  • Sex is “God’s wedding present” and great when used as designed.
  • It is absolutely ridiculous for schools to dispense birth control. It sends the implicit and explicit message that you expect kids to have sex and that the adults say you should use birth control. Guess which message they will listen to and which one they will ignore?
  • Parents need to supervise their kids. Giving kids unrestricted time alone with the opposite sex is virtually guaranteed to turn out badly.
  • Gays have syphilis and HIV rates over 40 times the rest of the population.
  • Teach the truth about the “hookup” culture, where kids barely know each other and have sex. Girls participating in “hookups” are basically acting like free prostitutes. They have all the risks of pregnancy, disease, crushed self esteem, etc., but they aren’t making any money! Somehow they convinced themselves that they are proving their equality by acting like guys do. And of course there is the associated drug and alcohol abuse required to numb their minds to what they are doing. Sad.
  • Sex is Like Duct Tape — great illustration about chemicals, bonding and the pain of out-of-wedlock sex.
  • Abortion is a terrible thing to do, but it is forgivable through Jesus. Go see your local crisis pregnancy center for free post abortion trauma counseling.
  • Post-abortion trauma is real.
  • You are much more likely to divorce and be in abusive relationships if you have sex out of wedlock and especially if you live together.
  • And more facts just like that!

Support free access to birth control.

Democrats assume that includes abortifacients, but those aren’t contraception, they are abortions. Technically, abortions might be considered “birth control” but only in the most morbid and perverse way imaginable.

Free birth control does not reduce abortions. Look at Planned Parenthood’s own stats and see how high the failure rates are for teens vs. adults.

Support the use of contraceptives. Support educating our youth on these matters.

I do support education, as noted above. I just tell the truth and the whole truth, while you spread lies, pain and disease.

Support open and free access to women’s reproductive health care.

Abortion isn’t reproductive health care. The humans have already reproduced.

Support maternity leave.

Who says I oppose that? Moms should stay home with their kids, at least until they are in school.  But I am not obligated to fund that.  Protesting an immoral act does not obligate you to take care of its victims (even though pro-lifers do many things with their own time and money to help women and children).

Support free health care and income supplements for these mothers with young children.

It is never really free. Once again, Liberals fail at basic economics.

The list goes on. And the reason why the anti-choice crowd needs to put their collective regressive head in a paint shaker and turn it on is because these methods actually WORK to reduce unwanted pregnancies while insuring the best possible health care coverage to mothers AND their young children.

Why do you insist that we get so intimately involved in the lives of others? If you didn’t teach people that they could do whatever they wanted without consequences then they would make better decisions.

And yes, I am anti-choice — that is, anti-choice to kill innocent but unwanted human beings.  And you aren’t pro-choice, you are pro-abortion, because you want to force your extremist views on others and force them to pay for abortions.

But, of course, when push comes to shove, the anti-choice crowd doesn’t want to pay the price for their imposed solution: they want young vulnerable women to pay the price for the anti-choice crowd’s religious tyrannical zealotry while hiding behind such notions as ‘protecting’ the Bill of Rights while advocating to undermine it in the name of divinely inspired morality.

Please preach more to me about vulnerable people!  You seek to destroy the most vulnerable of all

Unborn baby scheming about early church traditions

Streep calls you on it, on this hypocrisy in action, this coercive push to impose misogynistic practice on women.

Yeah, I’m so misogynistic that I oppose gender-selection abortions and you support them. You know, the ones that kill females for the sole reason that they are female.

And you help Planned Parenthood hide statutory rape and sex trafficking. Tell me more about my misogyny.

And I donate time and money to crisis pregnancy centers that help women in need. Tell me more about the misogyny of all the female workers and volunteers at the clinic.

What is astounding is just how insidious the coercion of the anti-choice position when other women try to reduce the rights of their sisters thinking themselves pious rather than the incredibly stupid, arrogant bullies they really are.

Bullies? Heh. Abortion is the ultimate bullying: Literally destroying the weakest members of society. And you are the worst kind of bully: Baiting young people into the physical and emotional pain caused by out of wedlock sex, then forcing pro-lifers to pay to kill the unborn. That’s a special kind of sickness you’ve got there.

Abortion groups try to shut down Pregnancy Resource Centers

See NARAL reveals national strategy to shutter pro-life pregnancy centers | LifeSiteNews.com.

The video reveals that the National Institute for Reproductive Health (NIRH) has launched an initiative, known as the “Urban Initiative for Reproductive Health,” to unite city lawmakers across the country against crisis pregnancy centers and disseminate a template gag rule similar to ones already passed in New York, Austin, and Baltimore, Maryland.

For starters, they use the deadly inaccurate “reproductive health” label.  News flash: Abortions can only occur after human beings have reproduced.  Science is not the strong suit of the pro-legalized abortion community.  Abortions are the opposite of reproductive health.

Abortionists hate competition.  They don’t trust women to be able to make decisions on their own, so they do anything they can to steer them from Pregnancy Resource Centers (PRCs), which will let them know that there are alternatives besides killing their unborn children.

Always remember

It is a scientific fact that the unborn are unique, living human beings from conception.  Abortion kills those human beings and is therefore immoral except to save the life of the mother.

Abortion is a sin but forgiveness and healing can be found in Jesus.

When pro-choice really means pro-abortion

More and more I see that those claiming to be pro-choice are really pro-abortion.  A typical example is shown by false teaching “Reverend” Chuck “Jesus is not the only way” Currie.  He really shows how pro-abortion he is in “Fake Clinics: Stop Preying on Women.”

You see, if someone was truly pro-choice — and especially if that someone claimed to be a Christian — he would not oppose and would probably support Crisis Pregnancy Centers (CPCs).  They do many great things for women and families in need, all for free.  We realize people have legal choices, and we’re merely trying to help them choose life.  Oh, and we share the Gospel if they are interested, another thing that a real Reverend would be thrilled about.

So on to the claims made in Currie’s post.  First, make no mistake: People who make lots of money  killing babies don’t mind lying to protect their business.  No kidding!  So I would never take their claims at face value.

A common misperception is that the “Christian position’ on abortion is anti-choice.

Yes, we are anti-choice to crush and dismember innocent human beings.  Like most pro-abortionists, Chuck just doesn’t know how to finish his sentences.

The truth is that many Christian denominations support the right of women to make their own health care decisions.

Double fallacy: No one opposes women making “health care decisions.”  We do oppose women killing their unborn children, who are distinct human beings.  What about health care for the unborn, Chuck?  Why don’t you support their right to make decisions?

I recognize that the issue of abortion is a difficult one and that good people can come to very different conclusions concerning this issue.

But why is it difficult, Chuck?  Please explain.  I know why it is wrong: Abortion kills an innocent human being.  But if you disagree with that fundamental scientific fact, then why is the issue so difficult?

My own belief is that government shouldn’t be in the business of making these kinds of decisions for women.  Women should have a choice.

Tired old fallacious sound bites.  Chuck, should women have a choice to kill their toddlers?  Hopefully not.  So this isn’t about women having choices in any generic sense.  It is about a very particular choice: To have her unborn child killed.

He wants the government to make all sorts of decisions for our lives.  Shouldn’t the primary role of government be to protect human beings?  The government wouldn’t making a choice for the woman, it would be making a choice to protect innocent human life  and protect the “least of these.”

The General Synod of the United Church of Christ has said:

Whereas, women and men must make decisions about unplanned or unwanted pregnancies that involve their physical, emotional, and spiritual well-being; and …Whereas, abortion is a social justice issue, both for parents dealing with pregnancy and parenting under highly stressed circumstances, as well as for our society as a whole;

Yes, it is a social justice issue: You shouldn’t kill innocent human beings.

Therefore, be it resolved, that the Sixteenth General Synod:

  • affirms the sacredness of all life, and the need to protect and defend human life in particular;

But if the life of the unborn is sacred, why not protect her?  There is no question that it is a human life.

  • encourages persons facing unplanned pregnancies to consider giving birth and parenting the child, or releasing the child for adoption, before abortion;

But one of Chuck’s objections is that their are dangers with pregnancy.  If abortions aren’t immoral, then with Chuck’s logic they are safe and effective methods of birth control.

  • upholds the right of men and women to have access to adequately funded family planning services, and to safe, legal abortions as one option among others;

Please explain how an abortion can ever be safe for the unborn human being.

  • urges the United Church of Christ, at all levels, to provide educational resources and programs to persons, especially young persons, to help reduce the incidence of unplanned and unwanted pregnancies, and to encourage responsible approaches to sexual behavior.

A reporter from The New York Times who recently visited a Crisis Pregnancy Center notes that she was provided with a pamphlet “about the risks of abortion” that “mentioned breast cancer, a link the National Cancer Institute has refuted, and something called post-abortion syndrome, for which the American Psychological Association, among others, says there is no evidence. As for the physical risks of pregnancy and childbirth? There was no pamphlet to discuss them.”

Gosh, the NCI and the APA would never buckle to political pressure, would they?  And people who kill babies for a very profitable living would never lie about it, would they?

Hey, come to think of it, Chuck is a well documented, serial, unrepentant liar.  Since when did he get so passionate about the truth?  Oh, when it advances the pro-abortion cause.

And Chuck obviously has never met many post-abortive women.  One of the many things offered by CPCs is post-abortion trauma counseling.  We have the great news of hope, forgiveness and healing in Jesus.  Too bad Chuck can’t offer that.

And of course, in his “Christian” counseling he’d tell them that killing their unborn children was blessed by Jesus.  What blasphemy!

Some authentic Christians might be pro-choice, though they are deeply, wildly, embarrassingly on the wrong side of the issue and almost universally uninformed about the key issues.   One day they will deeply regret that their laziness and refusal to be involved were the reasons abortion was made and kept legal. But you can know for sure that nearly 100% of Christians who oppose CPCs are fake.

CPCs save lives today and for eternity.  Fake Christians like Chuck and Co. are tools of Satan trying to destroy lives today and for eternity.

P.S. It is a very, very well documented fact that Planned Parenthood hides statutory rape.  If he is so concerned about the truth, why doesn’t Chuck blog about that?

How to know when “pro-choice” means “pro-abortion”

Every time I think false teacher Chuck “Jesus is not the only way” Currie can’t top his earlier hypocrisy and falsehoods, he proves me wrong.  Chuck is pro-legalized abortion and wants taxpayer-funded abortions but hypocritically mentions Jesus’ concern for the “least of these” in many of his posts.

But he really shows how pro-abortion he is in “Fake Clinics: Stop Preying on Women.” You see, if someone was truly pro-choice — and especially if that someone claimed to be a Christian — he would support Crisis Pregnancy Centers (CPCs).  They do many great things for women and families in need, all for free.  Most take zero government funding and rely solely on contributions and many volunteer hours. I expect Planned Parenthood to hate CPCs.  After all, if you make money by killing babies then anyone with a pro-life mission is your sworn enemy.  But even pro-choicers should support CPCs.

So how about the claims made in Currie’s post?  First, make no mistake: People who make lots of money  killing babies don’t mind lying to protect their business.  Really! And it is a very, very well documented fact that Planned Parenthood hides statutory rape.  Why doesn’t Chuck blog about that?

I wonder if Chuck’s opinion of Planned Parenthood would change if his daughters became clients?  History shows that if they were 13 and pregnant by 27 yr. old men that Planned Parenthood would not report the statutory rape and would coach them to lie about it.  Oh, and they would kill his grandchildren — for a large fee, of course.

Most parents would go nuts over that.  Then again, Chuck the moral freak proudly takes his young girls to gay pride prides.  What a Romans 1 poster boy.

Now to fisk Chuck’s lies and bad reasoning:

A common misperception is that the “Christian position’ on abortion is anti-choice.

Yes, we are anti-choice to crush and dismember innocent human beings.  Like most pro-abortionists, Chuck just doesn’t know how to finish his sentences.

The truth is that many Christian denominations support the right of women to make their own health care decisions.

Double fallacy: No one opposes women making “health care decisions.”  We do oppose women killing their unborn children, who are distinct human beings.  What about health care for the unborn, Chuck?  Why don’t you support their right to make decisions?

I recognize that the issue of abortion is a difficult one and that good people can come to very different conclusions concerning this issue.

But why is it difficult, Chuck?  Please explain.  I know why it is wrong: Abortion kills an innocent human being.

My own belief is that government shouldn’t be in the business of making these kinds of decisions for women.  Women should have a choice.

Tired old fallacious sound bites.  Chuck, should women have a choice to kill their toddlers?  You want the government to make all sorts of decisions for our lives.  Shouldn’t the primary role of government be to protect human beings?  The government wouldn’t making a choice for the woman, it would be making a choice to protect innocent human life  and protect the “least of these.”

The General Synod of the United Church of Christ has said:

Whereas, women and men must make decisions about unplanned or unwanted pregnancies that involve their physical, emotional, and spiritual well-being; and …Whereas, abortion is a social justice issue, both for parents dealing with pregnancy and parenting under highly stressed circumstances, as well as for our society as a whole;

Yes, it is a social justice issue: You shouldn’t kill innocent human beings.

Therefore, be it resolved, that the Sixteenth General Synod:

  • affirms the sacredness of all life, and the need to protect and defend human life in particular;

But if the life of the unborn is sacred, why not protect it?  There is no question that it is a human life.

  • encourages persons facing unplanned pregnancies to consider giving birth and parenting the child, or releasing the child for adoption, before abortion;
  • upholds the right of men and women to have access to adequately funded family planning services, and to safe, legal abortions as one option among others;

Please explain how an abortion can ever be safe for the unborn human being.

  • urges the United Church of Christ, at all levels, to provide educational resources and programs to persons, especially young persons, to help reduce the incidence of unplanned and unwanted pregnancies, and to encourage responsible approaches to sexual behavior.

A reporter from The New York Times who recently visited a Crisis Pregnancy Center notes that she was provided with a pamphlet “about the risks of abortion” that “mentioned breast cancer, a link the National Cancer Institute has refuted, and something called post-abortion syndrome, for which the American Psychological Association, among others, says there is no evidence. As for the physical risks of pregnancy and childbirth? There was no pamphlet to discuss them.”

Gosh, the NCI and the APA would never buckle to political pressure, would they?  And people who kill babies for a profitable living would never lie about it would they?

Hey, come to think of it, Chuck is a well documented, serial, unrepentant liar.  Since when did he get so passionate about the truth?  Oh, when it advances the pro-abortion cause.

And Chuck obviously has never met many post-abortive women.  Of course, in his “Christian” counseling he’d tell them that killing their unborn children was blessed by Jesus.  What blasphemy!

Some authentic Christians might be pro-choice, though they are deeply, wildly, embarrassingly on the wrong side of the issue and almost universally uninformed about the key issues.   One day they will deeply regret that their laziness and refusal to be involved were the reasons abortion was made and kept legal. But you can know for sure that nearly 100% of Christians who oppose CPCs are fake.

CPCs save lives today and for eternity.  Fake Christians like Chuck and Co. are tools of Satan trying to destroy lives today and for eternity.

Pro-lifers don’t care about kids after they are born?

baby1.jpgOne of the most common sound bites / jokes that pro-choicers make about pro-lifers is that we are infatuated with the fetus but don’t care about kids after they are born.   The message is that if we don’t adopt all unwanted children then we have no right to complain about abortion.  It is an important sound bite to be able to address, because it is very common and even pro-lifers I know are not only intimidated by it but they have used it themselves as a reason to remain silent about abortion.

The “Pro-lifers don’t care about kids after they are born” line is one of my favorite arguments to rebut.  I teach people how to do it in pro-life training sessions in a two step approach.  The tone of the conversation is important.  These arguments are powerful and quite effective if they are laid out in a calm, reasoned approach.  You probably won’t convert the rabid pro-choicers, but most of the middle-grounders will get the point.

First, show that pointing out a moral wrong does not obligate you to take responsibility for the situation.

If your neighbor is beating his wife, you call the police.  The police don’t say, “Hey, buddy, unless you are willing to marry her yourself then we aren’t going to stop him from beating her.”  You can use child or animal abuse as examples as well.  Most people get the point pretty quickly.

Or just use this response: “Can one oppose infanticide without having to raise the unwanted children to adulthood?”  That would be a a good segue to the “trot out the toddler” approach promoted by Stand to Reason and ask if it would be acceptable to object to murdering a toddler even if you aren’t willing to adopt her.  Of course, the pro-choicer will always recognize the moral good to protest toddler-killing.  Then you can point out that killing innocent human beings is immoral and that the unborn are human beings.  So pointing out this moral wrong does not obligate us to do anything further.

Or ask the pro-choicer what they would do if the government decided to reduce the number of homeless people by killing them.  Could he protest that without having to house and feed them all himself?

Or ask if you can protest Michael Vick without adopting all the pit bulls.  So many good choices!

Second, explain that while we aren’t morally obligated to help after the babies are born to be able to speak out against abortion, Christians do many things with their time and money anyway – orphanages, Crisis Pregnancy Centers (CPCs), food pantries, etc.

When I’m teaching CPC volunteers I remind them of all that they and the center do: Pregnancy tests, ultrasounds, food, clothes, diapers, life skill training, parenting training, post-abortion counseling and more – all for free!  And, of course, we share the Gospel with the clients if they are interested (Saving lives now and for eternity!).

The workers are mostly volunteers and the leaders make below-market wages because they believe in the cause.  Most centers receive no government funding, so all the money comes from donations.  There are far more Crisis Pregnancy Centers than there are abortion clinics.

When I tell people about CPCs the typical reaction is, “I had no idea.”  Most people aren’t aware of all the good being done there.  In theory, CPCs are something pro-choicers could support as well.  After all, if women choose to keep their child this is a great way to help them.  But Planned Parenthood et al consider them public enemy #1 because we take away some of their business.

You can also ask pro-choicers what Planned Parenthood and the like do for hurting women once the babies are born.  It is a really, really short list.  Do they provide free post-abortion counseling? (Of course not, because who would need that, right?)  Do they give diapers, formula, etc.?  Hey, they don’t even give free abortions (though they would love for your tax dollars to fund some).

Having said all that, I do think the church can and should be doing even more in the area of adoptions and support for orphans.  Not because having pro-life views requires that, but because it is the right thing to do regardless of whether abortion is legal or illegal.  Sponsoring a child from World Vision or a similar organization is a great way to start: For only $28 per month you can feed, clothe, educate and correspond with a needy child.

Here’s a bonus argument: A recent Stand to Reason Podcast brought up another good point that I hadn’t thought of.  Here’s an additional response to use: Unless someone concedes to being truly pro-abortion (i.e., they expect women to always have abortions or raise the children with no help from the public), then the pro-choicers are obligated to adopt the children as well.  Either that, or give up espousing their pro-choice views.  After all, if you claim to be pro-choice and the women choose life, then the same care giving obligation falls on you.

Think about it.  It may seem subtle at first, but it is a completely consistent argument.  Pro-lifers don’t think it should be an option to kill the unborn, so pro-choicers use the false logic that we can’t complain about abortion if we won’t adopt all the kids and raise them to adulthood.  But if the woman decides to choose life, then the pro-choicer would have the same moral obligation to raise the kids.

Here’s how I played this out in this comment thread:

Pro-legalized abortion commenter: Hard decisions belong between a pregnant woman and her caregivers, not “holier than thou” intruders, unless they personally are willing to raise, including medical care, education, and life care, all those fertilized eggs.

My response: Another canard.

Answer me this: Let’s say the government decides to solve the problem of homelessness by killing homeless people. Can you protest this without being willing to house them yourself?

You can also substitute other examples (Can you call the police if your neighbor is abusing his wife and children without having to marry her and adopt the kids?).

It is a simple question designed to point out the primary error of your argument: You don’t have to take ownership of a situation just because you protest a moral evil.

And even though I don’t have to raise those human beings (the ones you like to call fertilized eggs) just because I protest the evil of abortion, I actually do a lot with my own time and money via CareNet Pregnancy Center.

And by the way, unless you are truly pro-abortion, then you are obligated to help as well. After all, if you claim to be pro-choice and the women choose life, then the same caregiving obligation falls on you.

So that argument self-destructs in at least three ways.

Finally, consider if the child was outside the womb. Do the women and her caregivers get to decide if the toddler lives or dies? Of course not. So the only question is whether the unborn is a human being. Since it is a scientific fact that she is, then people shouldn’t get to decide whether to kill her. And Christians especially shouldn’t support anyone’s right to kill her.

Other commenter: BTW, half of fertilized eggs don’t implant in the uterus, so is it illegal for a woman to have mensus?

My response: Are you seriously claiming that you don’t see the difference between the following?

1. Human being dies of natural causes.

2. Human being is crushed and dismembered by another human being.

I think most people can see the difference, whether 1 and 2 occur inside or outside the womb.

I’ve heard all the pro-legalized abortion sound bites many times and will be glad to debunk more for you. I hope that you are intellectually honest and reconsider your position on this crucial issue.

In summary, pointing out the moral evil of abortion does not obligate one to adopt all the babies.  But pro-lifers do help anyway.  A lot.  And they do it with their own time and money, not their neighbors’.

When pro-legalized abortion people try to put you on the defensive by asking how many kids you have adopted, use the reasons above to respond.  Also, you can ask how many they adopt from orphages.   If they haven’t adopted any, then according to their logic they couldn’t protest their destruction.

Big hat tip: Stand to Reason pro-life training materials