The 3 Least Christian Things Donald Trump Has Ever Said

In an ongoing series of posts about Republican Presidential candidate Donald Trump I want to turn my attention to those of us who are followers of Christ.

I realize that no candidate is perfect. There isn’t a single conservative or liberal candidate out there, running for any office, that will be the perfect Christian candidate. I don’t expect Trump to be perfect. In fact, had he not repeatedly brought up his faith I wouldn’t even write this.  He has said recently that he is a big christian, and no one reads the Bible as much as he does. He even went so far as to say, after the recent debate in Texas, that the reason that the IRS was auditing him might be because of his faith, since the IRS targets religious people/groups. I know that some will think that I shouldn’t “judge” but Matthew 7 does say that people who are religious should be known by “their fruit”.

Back before Iowa, Trump had a few well known pastors endorse him. He has done very well with voters who are evangelical. I’m confused as to how this has happened. You see, there are things he has said. Not things others accused him of, but things he has said (and then said again) that are incongruent with the Christian faith as I know it.

The 3 Least Christian Things Trump Has Ever Said

He said he doesn’t have to ask for forgiveness: At a Family Leadership Summit in Ames, Iowa he said: “I’m not sure I have ever asked God’s forgiveness. I don’t bring God into that picture.” (July 18, 2015)

Later that same month he told Anderson Cooper on CNN:

“I like to do the right thing where I don’t actually have to ask for forgiveness. Does that make sense to you? You know, where you don’t make such bad things that you don’t have to ask for forgiveness. I mean, I’m trying to lead a life where I don’t have to ask God for forgiveness….Why do I have to repent? Why do I have to ask for forgiveness if you’re not making mistakes?”  When pressed, he repeated that he is a member of a church.

Obviously, everyone needs to ask for forgiveness. 20 years ago Trump wrote about affairs with married women: In his 1997 book “Trump: Art of the Comeback” he said: ““If I told the real stories of my experiences with women, often seemingly very happily married and important women, this book would be a guaranteed best-seller (which it will be anyway!).”

Later, in his 2007 book “Think Big and Kick A**” he said, “Beautiful, famous, successfulmarried – I’ve had them all, secretly, the world’s biggest names, but unlike Geraldo I don’t talk about it.”

We Christians know that God can forgive anyone of anything. And I wouldn’t bring up any of this man’s past indiscretions, except to point out two things: 1. He brought them up himself, multiple times. 2. It’s obvious that Trump, like everyone else, needs forgiveness. I suspect that he needs it as much as anyone; every day.

1 John chapter 1 speaks clearly about this:

If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. If we say we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us.” 1 John 1:8-10

He is not consistent on the issue of Life: We all know that Trump was previously pro choice, and had an experience where he became pro life. Christians, in general, are pro life because human life is intrinsically valuable; we are made in the image of God. In multiple debates and interviews Trump has also said that he does not support abortion, but he said in two debates that he thinks that Planned Parenthood does “very good things.” He also repeated the misinformation that Planned Parenthood does mammograms. (They don’t, they refer patients to other clinics for mammograms.). At first he didn’t say he would commit to defunding them, but when it became an issue, he said that he would not allow federal funding for Planned Parenthood as long as they performed abortions.

Praising the largest provider of abortions in America for doing good things is like saying a doctor convicted of serial killing children isn’t so bad because of the adults she helped. Christians, in general, are pro life because humans, created in the image of God, have intrinsic value. (Genesis 1:26). A conservative, pro-life, Christian candidate should denounce the actions of Planned Parenthood- every time, as often as it comes up.

He said he would kill the families of terrorists: In 2015, talking about how to stop ISIS he said,

“And the other thing is with the terrorists, you have to take out their families. They, they care about their lives. Don’t kid yourself. But they say they don’t care about their lives. You have to take out their families.”

Given the chance to clarify this further at the 5th debate on CNN (which was after the terrorist attack in CA), in response to a questions that asked, “How would intentionally killing innocent civilians set us apart from ISIS?” he said:

“You look at the attack in California the other day — numerous people, including the mother that knew what was going on…They saw a pipe bomb sitting all over the floor. They saw ammunition all over the place. They knew exactly what was going on… I would be very, very firm with families,” he added. “Frankly, that will make people think, because they may not care much about their lives, but they do care, believe it or not, about their families’ lives.”

Multiple times Trump said that he would kill the families of terrorists, without due process. Just for being related to them and not stopping them. While we might make the case for capital punishment for the terrorists themselves, killing their families…? I cannot believe he stood by this, twice.

In John 13 Jesus tells us how we can identify his disciples:

“A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another: just as I have loved you, you also are to love one another.  By this all people will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another.” John 13:34-35

And if you want to know what love is, you need look no further than 1 Corinthians 13:

 “Love is patient and kind; love does not envy or boast; it is not arrogant  or rude. It does not insist on its own way; it is not irritable or resentful; it does not rejoice at wrongdoing, but rejoices with the truth.  Love bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things.”

1 Corinthians 13:4-7

Does this describe Donald Trump in any way? Try saying it this way… Donald Trump is patient and kind; He does not envy or boast; Trump is not arrogant  or rude. He does not insist on his own way; Trump is not irritable or resentful… 

I’m sure Trump is a decent guy at home. He has a beautiful family. But his public persona, his public witness is not one that fits with a committed follower of Jesus Christ.

None of that means that Christians cannot vote for him. If they like his policies, they can vote for him. But we should all know that his veneer of religiosity is very thin. Fellow Christians, please do not support Donald Trump simply because he says he is a believer.

 

Planned Parenthood Announces They Will No Longer Be Compensated for Fetal Parts

Today, Planned Parenthood announced that they will not longer accept compensation for fetal body parts. They say this is to strip away the “smokescreen” of activists who just want to see abortion made illegal. Oh, and women’s access to healthcare reduced.

That’s an interesting spin, but I think this was done to take the pressure off of Planned Parenthood. With this new policy, we are back to what everyone expects Planned Parenthood to do: provide minimal health care and lots of abortion services. There is no way that the Government will remove federal funding now.(Not that it was likely to anyway)

Convenient interesting timing. Today is the first Democrat Presidential Debate. This gives the media a perfect excuse for barely covering the new PP policy.

This is a win for pro life supporters. But it doesn’t slow the amount of abortions, and it allows these videos to diminish in importance. The behavior they are exposing is no longer happening.

I suspect this issue will fade away now. Laws may have been (read:were) broken, and there could be actual criminal investigations for selling for profit as well as altering procedures (both against federal law) but I doubt anyone will pursue it.

A Prol Life Look at Arguments for Abortion 5

This is the last in a series on some of the arguments for legalized abortion from a pro life view point.This one isn’t specifically about abortion, but is about something that has been coming up a lot in the news recently.

Other posts in this series:

Abortion Argument 1: If abortions are illegal, we will have women dying from back alley abortions.

Abortion Argument 2: If you are so Pro Life, why don’t you care about the kids who are born into families who don’t want them?

Abortion Argument 3: It’s my body, my choice! The life of the mother is more important than the potential life of a fetus.

Abortion Argument 4: It’s not really a child. It’s not human yet, just a bunch of cells/tissue.

Abortion Argument 5: If you defund/close down Planned Parenthood, where will women get health services?

This is less an argument for abortion, and more a general argument for the good, non-abortion services these clinics provide for women who may not have access to other health care sources.

First, doesn’t the Affordable Care Act nullify this argument? Doesn’t the ACA both require and provide healthcare for every single person in America? And every single policy that every single American now has access to provides every single service that any healthcare clinic does, except abortion.

OK, before you fire back that conservatives want to repeal the ACA, which would put us right back where Planned Parenthood is the only option for so many poor women, let’s looks at this more closely.

One of the things that Planned Parenthood claims women will no longer have access to is mammograms. This is a major talking point for them.

meme8

There is not a single Planned Parenthood facility that performs mammograms. At best, they can help get women connected to clinics that do.

Of course, a mammogram isn’t the only thing Planned Parenthood does for women’s health. But then again, there’s not really that many PP clinics.

An article by Charles Camosy notes;

“The first thing to get clear is that Planned Parenthood actually doesn’t provide all that much for poor, vulnerable women — particularly if they don’t live in cities. Indeed, you may remember that, in wake of the Susan J. Komen defunding ridiculousness from a few years ago, lots of charges were thrown around about women losing out on mammograms. But it turns out that Planned Parenthood doesn’t even provide them. As Democrats for Life has pointed out numerous times in recent days, the number of local community health centers outnumber Planned Parenthood clinics ten to one. Rather than the one-size-fits-all franchise approach of Planned Parenthood, these community health centers nicely embody the principle of subsidiarity in responding to the diverse local needs of women — whether in the Bronx, rural Kansas, or southern California.”

Some go further and claim 20 clinics for every 1 Planned Parenthood office.

IMG_6075

It’s obvious that Planned Parenthood isn’t the only choice for women’s health. In fact, there are many more options that provide everything (and more) that a PP clinic does. Except abortions.

IMG_6078

The argument simply doesn’t hold up. Even without the ACA women have more options than Planned Parenthood. And, if the government stops sending tax dollars to PP, they could divert those funds to these other clinics.

Those tax dollars aren’t used for abortions, anyway? Right?

OK, but why not leave Planned Parenthood alone? They can be a small part of helping women stay healthy, why take away their funding?

Let me try to explain the pro life view of this. Assume that you think abortion is murder, it’s abhorrent.

Say there is a doctor that goes into low income areas and checks young women for cancer, and helps them be healthy. She does a lot for the women she runs into. This doctor really helps these women out. She also kills most of the children she encounters. Still think she is a good doctor?

That’s how pro life people see Planned Parenthood. All the good they may be doing is overshadowed by the horrific practice of murdering children. At the very least, we don’t want any tax dollars to go to that organization. As much as possible, we want women to go to other health clinics.

There are other health options, ones that don’t perform abortions that millions of Americans think are wrong. The government can and should divert my tax dollars to these clinics instead of Planned Parenthood. They can do this without impacting the health of women.

Pro Life Review of 5 Common Abortion Arguments

This is a series on some of the arguments for legalized abortion from a pro life view point:

Abortion Argument 1: If abortions are illegal, we will have women dying from back alley abortions.

Abortion Argument 2: If you are so Pro Life, why don’t you care about the kids who are born into families who don’t want them?

Abortion Argument 3: It’s my body, my choice! The life of the mother is more important than the potential life of a fetus.

Abortion Argument 4: It’s not really a child. It’s not human yet, just a bunch of cells/tissue.

Abortion Argument 5: If you defund/close down Planned Parenthood, where will women get health services?

The 5th one is not specifically about abortion, but it is an issue that has been in the news lately. If you believe that human life has intrinsic value, and it begins at conception, then all of these arguments fall flat when examined from a pro life viewpoint.

A Pro Life Look at Arguments for Abortion 4

I’m doing a few posts about some of the arguments for legalized abortion from a pro life view point. I want to really look at them, and try to explain why they are not persuasive for someone who supports making abortion illegal.

Other posts in this series:

Abortion Argument 1: If abortions are illegal, we will have women dying from back alley abortions.

Abortion Argument 2: If you are so Pro Life, why don’t you care about the kids who are born into families who don’t want them?

Abortion Argument 3: It’s my body, my choice! The life of the mother is more important than the potential life of a fetus.

Abortion Argument 4: It’s not really a child. It’s not a human being yet, just a bunch of cells/tissue. It’s not a person.

Frankly, this is the weakest argument for abortion, in my opinion. It is tied to the 3rd argument in this series in that it seeks to strengthen the notion that a woman has control over her body, and anything inside it.

Pro choice advocates will sometimes admit the fetus is “human” but not a human being. The unborn child is human like any part of a body is human, but it isn’t a person yet. They point to historical views of pregnancy, which might not consider a fetus as  person before “quickening”, where the baby moves. Of course, with modern medicine, we know much more about the development of the fetus in pregnancy.

They may say that since the child is inside the mother it can’t be defined as a different person from the mother. An article from the Pro Choice Action Network website states (among other things):

Besides the capacity to experience emotions, we generally think of personhood as possessing the qualities of intelligence, self-awareness, and moral responsibility.

Fetuses do not share these characteristics. On a more practical level however, the term “person” is really a legal and social construction. Persons enjoy legal rights and constitutional freedoms, such as the right to assemble, travel, protest, speak, and believe as they wish. Persons have birth certificates and social security numbers. Persons earn income, pay taxes, and vote, or they are registered dependents of those that do. Under this definition, it is an indisputable fact that fetuses are not persons. They are literally incapable of exercising legal personhood in any meaningful way. Although you could call a fetus a “potential person,” a potential person cannot have personhood rights either, in the same way that a 6-year old cannot obtain a driver’s license just because he’s a potential 16-year old. Potential persons have only potential rights, not actual rights.

When I read that the word “poppycock” comes to mind. In this article, the author asserts that pro life (anti-choice) people “beg the question” when they say that it is a scientific fact that the unborn fetus is a human being. But the author makes the exact same mistake here, when arguing that the legal status of an unborn child is defined by the inability to exercise the rights legally given to a person. If you can’t do the things that legal personhood allows you to do, then you can’t be legally a person.

Pro life people know that a fetus is not legally considered a person. We want that law changed. We know that fetuses can’t currently exercise the rights mentioned above. But does that alone mean they are not entitled to them?

If I choose to not write this article and exercise my 1st amendment rights, does that mean my right to do so does not exist? If I am illiterate, do I forfeit my 1st amendment right to write whatever I want simple because I cannot yet write? I have the potential to learn to read and write. Do I still have those legal rights?

Let’s reverse this, and look at end of life care. An poor, elderly man with alzheimer’s. He is on life support.  He’s not self aware or capable of moral responsibility. He can’t speak or assemble, or travel. He doesn’t contribute to society, he doesn’t pay taxes, earn income or vote. He can’t do any of the things this author says are necessary to be legally considered a person.

If I walk into the hospital room and inject deadly poison into his arm, ending his life, did I murder a person or not? If so, why? If a person is only legally a person because they can do certain things, not because they have the potential to do them, this this old guy is not a person. According to this argument, the fetus isn’t a person because of its current state. This old man’s current state would mean he is not a person either, under this definition.

The fundamental question is this: What makes a person a person?

Does something happen that changes the fetus to a baby in the process of birth? A child that is one minute old is the exact same as it was right before birth. The baby didn’t change.

From conception that little child has 23 different chromosomes and different DNA, it’s a different being. Sometimes the baby even has a different blood type. There is absolutely no evidence to suggest that the unborn child is a part of the mother.

Often the argument of viability comes up… where people say that if a baby cannot live outside the womb it should not be considered murder to kill it. Premature babies are often born without being developed enough to survive outside the womb. Parents put them on machines and hospitals work miracles to keep them alive.

What is the moral difference between a 23 week fetus that is aborted and a 23 week preemie that doctors labor to save? Is it simply that one is wanted and the other isn’t? There is no developmental difference. But one is legally a person and one isn’t. And we should note, the preemie that everyone is trying so hard to keep alive can’t do any of the things on that list any more than the elderly man in the example above.

If someone murders a pregnant women the criminal is sometimes charged with a double homicide. Again, is the only difference whether the child is wanted or not? Is that what makes it a human being?

If you believe that the baby in the womb has the same level of being a newborn infant does, then the argument of viability goes out the window. Whether the child is wanted or not does not impact the fact that the unborn child is a human being. Pro life people will not be persuaded by this argument.

Next up: Abortion Argument 5: If you close down Planned Parenthood/women’s health clinics who do abortion, where will women get health services?

A Pro Life Look at Arguments for Abortion 3

I’m doing a few posts about some of the arguments for legalized abortion from a pro life view point. I want to really look at them, and try to explain why they are not persuasive for someone who supports making abortion illegal.

Other posts in this series:

Abortion Argument 1: If abortions are illegal, we will have women dying from back alley abortions.

Abortion Argument 2: If you are so Pro Life, why don’t you care about the kids who are born into families who don’t want them?

Abortion Argument 3: It’s my body, my choice! The life of the mother is more important than the potential life of a fetus.

This argument centers on the belief that forcing a woman to carry a baby she does not want full term is not right. She should have the right to end the pregnancy. We should not force a woman to endure the pregnancy. We should not force a woman to be a mother, even if she gives the baby up for adoption. It’s her life, her body, she chooses what to do with it.

One part of this argument, that even a lot of conservatives agree with, centers on cases of pregnancy caused by rape or incest and cases that put the life of the mother in danger. Many pro-life conservatives (especially politicians) would give an exception to illegal abortion in these cases.

NCBI said in 1996 that there are over 32,000 pregnancies that result from rape each year.

A book called “Practical Aspects of Rape Investigation: A Multidisciplinary Approach” written by by Hazelwood, Robert R. (Editor)/ Burgess, Ann Wolbert, quotes a 2005 study that 3-5% of rape cases result in pregnancy. It goes on to say that this number may be higher since not all sexual assaults are reported.

Not everyone agrees with these numbers. Some pro-life sources claim numbers that are under 1000 per year.  Susan Perry from Minn Post wrote, condemning people who claim that there are not a lot of pregnancies from rape/incest:

“In a 1996 study, researchers at the Medical University of South Carolina set out to determine the rape-related pregnancy rate in the United States. They estimated that about 5 percent of rape victims of reproductive age (12 to 45) become pregnant — a percentage that results in about 32,000 pregnancies each year.

“Rape-related pregnancy occurs with significant frequency,” the researchers wrote. “It is a cause of many unwanted pregnancies and is closely linked with family and domestic violence.”

Four years later, another study, this time conducted by researchers at the University of California, San Francisco, estimated that rape led to as many as 25,000 pregnancies in the U.S. each year.

“Pregnancy following rape is a continuing and significant public health issue,” concluded the authors of that study.

Furthermore, in a 2004 national survey of a representative sample of women who had undergone abortions, 1 percent of the women indicated that they had been victims of rape. In addition, slightly less than half a percent said they became pregnant as a result of incest. At the time of that survey, an estimated 1.3 million women were undergoing abortions annually in the United States, according to the Guttmacher Institute.

The survey thus suggests that each year about 19,500 U.S. abortions are undertaken to end pregnancies that occurred as a result of rape or incest.

There is definitely a lot of swing in the numbers (1,000-32,000+), but we can all agree that any pregnancy that comes as a result of rape or incest is traumatic for the woman involved. I can’t imagine if someone I loved were forced into this situation.

But we can also agree that if we think the unborn child is a human being, then they are innocent of the crimes of the father. I know that many women may not be able to live with the knowledge that they are carrying the child caused by this brutal assault. I see that. It’s that fact that causes many pro life people to make exceptions for rape and incest.

As for the life of the mother, even if we hold (as I do) that the unborn child is a human being; if the life of the mother is threatened, then the mother should have the option to abort. No one can make another person risk their life for anyone else. If I’m walking along a cliff and see someone hanging off, about to fall, I should not be legally compelled to put my life in danger to try to save that person.

I respect the decision of any woman who is faced with the choice of their life or the child’s. I hope I never have to walk through that choice with my family.

But that’s about the only exception I can definitely agree to. A young women who just doesn’t want to carry the child, or maybe it’s inconvenient timing… I’m sorry but sex sometimes causes pregnancy. If you make the choice to have unprotected sex, then you might get pregnant. Those of us that believe the child is a human being even in the womb will never excuse killing that baby for convenience.

The whole “it’s my body” argument fails flat when you realize that from conception that little child has 23 different chromosomes and different DNA, it’s a different person. You gave up some of your rights the moment you became pregnant. (I’m stealing my thunder for the next argument)

I know we live in a world that glorifies sex and sexual identity. We live in a world that encourages sexual experimentation and sexual freedom. The freedom to have sex when you want with who you want has consequences. One of those might be unplanned pregnancy. If you are not ready to accept that, don’t have sexual intercourse. That is your choice, and that is when you have the power over your body.

But once that child is conceived, you are no longer responsible for just your own body. A choice was made that brought a new person into being. That little baby is just as much a human as anyone already born. What you do to it isn’t something you do to your own body. Abortion kills a human being. Abortion doesn’t kill part of the woman’s body, doesn’t remove an unwanted chunk of cells. It kills a person.

For the pro life person, the baby is a human being from conception. And the argument that  the woman’s body is hers to do with as she wants falls flat if you believe that the unborn baby is a complete person. And the argument that the mother’s life is more important that the baby’s life doesn’t work either. Both the mother and child are people. I believe they both have value if for no other reason than they are both made in the image of God. For one to kill the other because she doesn’t want to be pregnant is wrong.

Coming soon: Abortion Argument 4: It’s not really a child. It’s not human yet, just a bunch of cells/tissue.

A Pro Life Look at Arguments for Abortion 2

I’m doing a few posts about some of the arguments for legalized abortion from a pro life view point. I want to really look at them, and try to explain why they are not persuasive for someone who supports making abortion illegal.

Other posts in this series:

Abortion Argument 1: If abortions are illegal, we will have women dying from back alley abortions.

Abortion Argument 2: If you are so Pro Life, why don’t you care about the kids who are born into families who don’t want them? Abortion stops kids from being born into horrible situations. And helps kids already in families who cannot support another child.

I’m probably going to tip my hand here, but put another way from a Pro Life perspective, this argument claims it would better for a child to be killed than to be born into a difficult or harmful life.

Back in July, 2015 Daily Kos ran an article that quoted a Nun: Sister Joan Chittister, O.S.B

“I do not believe that just because you’re opposed to abortion, that that makes you pro-life. In fact, I think in many cases, your morality is deeply lacking if all you want is a child born but not a child fed, not a child educated, not a child housed. And why would I think that you don’t? Because you don’t want any tax money to go there. That’s not pro-life. That’s pro-birth. We need a much broader conversation on what the morality of pro-life is.”

Sister Chittister is exactly right. If the extent of your pro life views ends at the birth of a child, then you really are just anti abortion, not pro life.

Here are some fact about kids in tough family situations:

  1. There are almost 400,000 kids in the foster care system, just over 100,000 are available for adoption. Same article states: “As of 2012, more than 58,000 children in the U.S. foster care system were placed in institutions or group homes, not in traditional foster homes.”
  2. From PBS: “While inter-country adoption may be the most visible category, the majority of American adoptions actually involve children adopted out of foster care. About 135,000 children are adopted in the United States each year. Of non-stepparent adoptions, about 59 percent are from the child welfare (or foster) system, 26 percent are from other countries, and 15 percent are voluntarily relinquished American babies.”
  3. There are several pro life websites that reference a quote from something called “Business Library” which says “there are up to 36 couples waiting for every one baby placed for adoption.” The problem is that this website these articles link to doesn’t exist anymore. So we can’t verify anything about the source. Several other pro life websites claim that there are 1-2 million infertile couples who want to adopt.
  4. Childwelfare.gov site has a PDF which says that “Of women who had considered adoption, about 2.6 million (14.3 percent) had actually taken concrete steps toward adoption.” and went on to say that only 614,000 had completed an adoption.
  5. It can cost up to $50,000 to adopt a child. The average cost of adoption in the US is $30,000.

What does that mean?

1.There are millions of people who want to adopt. Many more who want to adopt than children who are available for adoption.

2. The adoption process is difficult and expensive.

It’s time to reform the adoption process in the US. It’s crazy to think that there are literally millions of people who want to adopt, but can’t afford it.

Back to the argument at hand, I know several families who have adopted, are adopting, are foster care homes. These are loving couples who provide a home for kids who need one.

I know, not every child gets placed in a good home. Not every unwanted child is lucky enough to be placed anywhere. How many times have we heard about children who are abused?

The world is one messed up place. But there are people who want to take in these unwanted children, love them provide for them, and raise them.There is hope for any unwanted child. If we are truly pro-life and not just anti abortion, we should help make that happen.

Many of the churches I have attended have ministries to help young women with unplanned pregnancies. They provide physical and financial assistance, and either continue help the new mother after the birth, or help the child get placed in a loving home. Not everyone has the same opinion about these sort of ministries. Do a search for “crisis pregnancy center” online and you will see a lot of articles from pro-choice organizations claiming all kinds of things about them. But my experience has been that the people who see in these ministries want to help young women in difficult situations.

But let’s assume there is no option for a mother who doesn’t want her child. She can’t get any help, cannot let others adopt her kid. Let’s assume that the baby is going to be born into the absolute worst situation ever… And look at it from a pro life, the fetus in a human life perspective. Here are a couple of horrific scenarios:

-If the baby is born they will have parents who physically, sexually abuse them. 

So, if the parents are going to commit crimes, the answer is to kill the child?

-The family cannot afford to have another child. This extra mouth to feed, person to clothe, etc… will make it so the entire family suffers.

So, even though there is both government and private non-profit assistance available, let’s kill the child?

Can you see how any sort of reasoning that argues for killing an innocent child because of outside circumstances or the potential actions of the child’s parents (or others) can never persuade someone who thinks the unborn fetus is a human life? 

Now, let me address a question you might have. Would I, a religious conservative, support a gay couple who was trying to adopt. That’s a simple answer for me: While I do believe that the ideal family situation is one man and one woman raising children, if the alternative is to murder innocent kids, then yes I support adoption by single people or same-sex couples. If you’re going to kill the baby unless I let them be raised by a gay couple, that’s not even a choice. Human life has value because we are made in the image of God.

As I said before, every life is precious. Mother and child. This article doesn’t address all arguments for why someone might want to have an abortion, but this argument will never persuade a pro life person.