By Tom Quiner

The onslaught of prayers is rocking the very foundations of Planned Parenthood.

Around the world, men, women, and children of faith show up at abortion clinics. They hold signs. They respectfully pray. They stand tall for the rights and dignity of the preborn. Even more, they pray for the people who perform the abortions and work in the clinics.

These people are part of a devastating movement called 40 Days for Life, devastating because of the impact the movement is having on Planned Parenthood.

Unlike the typical protest, this one is all about love. Participants respect the sanctity of life. They exhibit genuine concern for the workers in these clinics, because they know how many will someday regret what they have done.

Out of nothing but love, they stand in the cold and pray for God to reach out and touch hearts and save lives.

Quiner and friends at Planned Parenthood.

Quiner and friends at Planned Parenthood.

As I recently wrote [“A beautiful morning praying at Planned Parenthood in the rain”], I prayed outside of Planned Parenthood on a cold, rainy morning. The faithful are doing it around the state. We’re coming down the wire on this Spring’s 40 days, and this is when things really start to happen.

Planned Parenthood has already closed two clinics here in Iowa. Now they’re cutting back hours in others says Jim, a 40 Days for Life coordinator in Cedar Rapids:

“Across Iowa, we’ve seen great results this spring. The Planned Parenthood abortion facility here quietly reduced their hours by 25 percent, which included remaining closed on Thursdays, after being open at least five days a week for many years.”

When Thursday came, many clients encountered locked doors. They eventually saw the sign.”

This is happening across the state, as some half of Planned Parenthood clinics have scaled back their hours:

“Those closures cut over 45 more hours from their statewide hours. This makes standing in the colder-than-usual weather worth it.”

In Sioux City, Planned Parenthood’s clinic cut back by 10 hours per week where 40 Days for Life held prayer vigils:

“They also discontinued surgical abortions, due to the lack of an abortionist. Medical abortions, likely via webcam, are still listed.”

They cut back hours in their Red Oak facility, too.

“When God gets involved, the one thing you can count on is that He will keep changing the reason for closures and scaling back of hours. He doesn’t tend to use the same method twice in a row. It will cause the collapse of the abortion industry.”

Yes, Planned Parenthood is under a withering attack. It doesn’t come from angry gestures or profanity or violence. The attack comes in the form dignified, loving prayers from regular folks who believe in the dignity of human life.

 

 

27 Comments

  1. Tom Maly on March 19, 2013 at 11:04 am

    This battle is the Lord’s….and we know His won/loss record. Put Him at the end of your “bracket!”

    • quinersdiner on March 19, 2013 at 11:16 am

      I’m sure not going to bet against Him!

  2. john zande on March 19, 2013 at 1:10 pm

    I thought it said in your About section that you’re a staunch Conservative and believed government should stay out of peoples private affairs.

    Perhaps you should start practicing what you preach…

    • quinersdiner on March 19, 2013 at 1:55 pm

      The sanctity of human life is a public affair, John. We don’t let parents get away with killing their kids on the basis that it is a private affair, do we?

      • john zande on March 19, 2013 at 2:07 pm

        That’s a ridiculous statement, and you know it.

        • quinersdiner on March 19, 2013 at 2:13 pm

          No, it is not a ridiculous statement. Human life begins at conception. It is immoral to kill human life. The value of your life at conception was the same as it is now as it will be when you are 92.

          • john zande on March 19, 2013 at 2:27 pm

            We just went through this, Tom. Nothing can be defined as “life” until it can “die.” To say otherwise is ludicrous. That’s the science. That’s the reality. That’s the Law. Now, if you have objections on religious grounds then I’m afraid that’s just your problem. Laws are not fashioned to accommodate anyone’s superstitions.

            All I see you doing is meddling in people’s private affairs… the exact thing you seem so sure the government shouldn’t do. Now, if you can present a case based in science then I will most certainly listen and consider it with an open mind. That I can promise you.



  3. violetwisp on March 19, 2013 at 1:18 pm

    I think you have to agree that the most important thing for your cause is that you want to change people’s attitudes towards abortion. The only impact pressurising staff to abandon facilities like this will have is making women who *need* an abortion have to travel further to find a facility that will perform it. This will be no problem for rich people with plenty of time on their hands. All you are doing is making it something that’s still easy for rich people, but, as usual, more difficult for poorer people. They will ALL still have an abortion. You should really be ashamed of yourselves. If you really care about the lives of unborn babies, you should be promoting universal, non-judgmental sex education that helps both men and women understand their responsibilities more clearly when it comes to sex and breeding. Stop wasting your time in judgment on a matter which the official book of your deity has nothing to say, and start trying to help people’s lives on the ground. Intelligent people deal with causes first.

    • quinersdiner on March 19, 2013 at 2:03 pm

      The flaw with your term non-judgmental is that it necessitates making a judgement. I don’t want your judgement on what is appropriate sex education foisted on my kids. I think we can better empower our kids by promoting abstinence rather than promiscuity, don’t you think? The over-sexualization of our kids has created an undeniable epidemic of STDs in our youth. An increasing number of these STDs are resistant to anti biotics. Contraception fails. It fails much more frequently amongst our youth. On the other hand,abstinence is 100% effective in helping kids avoid unwanted pregnancy and disease. Since we both share a common desire to protect our kids from unwanted pregnancies, let us unite in promoting the only safe and effective method of accomplishing our mutual objective: abstinence.

      • theguywiththeeye on March 19, 2013 at 2:14 pm

        You can promote abstinence without closing down Planned Parenthood locations. They provide affordable, general health care http://www.plannedparenthood.org/health-topics/general-health-care-32720.htm

        • quinersdiner on March 19, 2013 at 2:23 pm

          You are correct. But the bulk of Planned Parenthood’s revenues come from abortions. They provide minimal health care. They claimed, for example that they offer women mammograms. They were caught in a lie. They do no have mammogram equipment. They refer women elsewhere. And yet they take taxpayer money, ostensibly for mammograms, and use it for abortions. They provide the Pill. There is a link between oral contraceptives and increased breast cancer risk. It is ranked as Group I carcinogens according to a 2005 report released by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (Preamble here), an arm of the World Health Organization. That doesn’t sound like good health care to me. My sister once called them for a routine physical. They wouldn’t take her. Why? Because she needed the physical to adopt a child from overseas, not to get an abortion. No, Planned Parenthood is all about death, not health.

      • violetwisp on March 19, 2013 at 3:33 pm

        “The flaw with your term non-judgmental is that it necessitates making a judgement. I don’t want your judgement on what is appropriate sex education foisted on my kids.”
        No, I don’t either. I don’t want anyone’s judgement foisted on any child. I want them to be given biological facts about sex and the case for every chosen method of birth control that is available in our society. I have no problem with the them learning about abstinence, like I have no problem with them learning about condoms. I would never deny a child the right to information and the chance to consider and develop their own opinion. Children aren’t stupid. Many of them are ignorant, and the Catholic Church certainly helps promote this by constantly feeding its biased, seriously limited and frankly harmful version of ‘life’ on its followers.

        “abstinence is 100% effective in helping kids avoid unwanted pregnancy and disease” Yes, it is. As long as they manage to stay abstinent. What’s the drop-out rate? How many ignorant children promise not to have sex to please their parents or their priest, then find themselves having sex, due to their own biological desires or indeed the pressures of society and a persistent partner, but are left with the odd notion that contraception is ‘wrong’? The Catholic Church until recently sent girls like this to asylums or laundry rooms. I wonder why back street abortions were so popular.

        Decent education that gives people choices is the only way to cut down on unnecessary abortions. Contributing to the closure of clinics doesn’t change the minds of any women who are considering a termination. The main consequence of your actions is likely to be women having abortions further along the pregnancy than they wished for. Concentrate your efforts somewhere sensible.

  4. rautakyy on March 19, 2013 at 1:43 pm

    Do you think it is due to prayer, that the abortion clinics are closing down in Iowa? Do you think the amount of abortions will be greatly reduced by this chain of events? Does this lead to more abortions by the old fashioned non medical methods? Will it make unwanted pregnancies any less?

    • quinersdiner on March 19, 2013 at 2:05 pm

      Yes. Yes. No. Yes.

      • rautakyy on March 19, 2013 at 2:25 pm

        Fair enough. However, why did your god not close the abortion clinics before you prayed for it? Did your god not care about the fetuses aborted before that, or were they simply instruments to teach you and your fellow believers a lesson on praying?

        And where exactly in the Bible does it say abortion is murder? I do not seem to recall that particular passage. Many devout and sincere Christians seem to disagree on the matter greatly. Who should one believe in this matter and why? God seems to be eager to perform abortions all the time, or what would you call misscarriages?

        How will taking this medical service away reduce the amount of unwanted pregnancies and abortions by the “coathanger” (unless of course if you are rich and can have this service performed for you by medical professionals)? You do know, that those were not at all so rare before abortion became legal medical service? Alltough they were of course a “subjecta non grata”.

        What do you mean by abstinence? As it is practiced in the god fearing Islamic nations? Because that culture, where men are expected to take special responsibility watching over the “innocense” of their women folk, and acting upon transgressions in rather drastic ways, seems to be the only form of abstinence, that can be proven to actually work. Like it was also in the medieval days in Christendom.

        • quinersdiner on March 19, 2013 at 2:43 pm

          For the record, my “God” is your God, whether you acknowledge Him or not. You are one of His creations, as am I. You pose a timeless question. If I may paraphrase: why does God allow evil, whether if it is abortion or something else? I have written on this in the past. Please refer to: https://quinersdiner.com/2012/12/15/a-feeble-attempt-to-understand-evil/ and https://quinersdiner.com/2012/12/16/why-god-permits-evil/

          Regarding abstinence, A comprehensive study was conducted by N Ranjit, A Bankole, JE Darroch, and S. Singh: “Contraceptive Failure in the First Two Years of Use: Differences Across Socioeconomic Subgroups,” Family Planning Perspectives and highlighted on the pro birth control website, Contracept.org.

          They found that 49.8 of teens using spermicides will be pregnant within two years.

          27.5% of those using condoms will be pregnant within two years.

          14% using the Pill will be pregnant within two years.

          Zero percent of those who abstain will be pregnant.

      • rautakyy on March 19, 2013 at 3:24 pm

        Thanks for the link to your other post. I will see it, if I have time to look it out. The concept of why would people think a god who allows evil on helpless victims, be called “benevolent” is a curious one.

        For the record, no your god is not mine. You can not possibly even know if such a god exists. Neither of us can. You may have faith in a particular god, but that only makes it your god, not mine. Not even if that particular deity exists. I have no faith in that, or any other god and no god has appeared to me to prove me wrong.

        Has this study, you refer to, been through any sort of peer review? As it sounds total bogus. I am sorry to say my friend, but it seems you have been had. Only because these implausible results confirm matters as you would choose them to be, rather than how the reality presents them. You really need to look this stuff up from a more reliable source. I recommend the UN records and studies.

        The most obvious flaw in the study you refer to is the final statement. If abstinence works 100% how did the daughter of Sarah Palin become pregnant? Was she not practicing abstinence? It is the equal of saying, that not being born is the most certain method not dying. But that is not how reality works, is it?

  5. Karen Quiner on March 19, 2013 at 2:33 pm

    To the guywiththeeye,

    If you think Planned Parenthood is primarily about affordable, general health care, I have a nice Island in the Bahama’s I can sell you real cheap.

    They are in the very big, very lucrative business of abortion.

    • theguywiththeeye on March 19, 2013 at 3:11 pm

      @ karen,

      I didn’t say “primarily” …

      I know COUNTLESS women who rely on it for a number of reasons and not a single one of them got an abortion there. Perhaps none of your friends take advantage of it, which allows you to take a self-righteous, myopic position.

  6. The Arbourist on March 19, 2013 at 2:41 pm

    The sanctity of human life is a public affair, John.

    Except when the wrong people have the audacity to live on top of the oil and other dog-given bounties. Then it seems the sanctity of human life goes down the crapper for geo-political realities.

  7. The Arbourist on March 19, 2013 at 2:51 pm

    Human life begins at conception.

    False. We, and I refer to the “we” that doesn’t abuse the scientific method, do not actually know when “life” begins.

    If, you’re about to bust out the outdated embryology text book citation, please consider finding a source in the correct field. (hint: rhymes with Medical Ethics).

    It is immoral to kill human life.

    So, you’d be against self-defence then? Or did you want to continue to defend absolutist morality, because if you want to see evil prime-time, absolutist morality is the way to go.

    The value of your life at conception was the same as it is now as it will be when you are 92.

    This is a naive assertion. We value life differently as a matter of course. Our enemies lives are worth much less than ours, as are the lives of those who we exploit to maintain our generous standard of living. Certainly, if you’d like to have a Platonic discussion of “life” then go ahead, but do not mix the ideal with reality.

  8. Paul Sharp on March 19, 2013 at 3:16 pm

    It is not superstition or “non-science” to realize that each of us began life at conception. Good grief, what nonsense is used to support abortion.

    • The Arbourist on March 20, 2013 at 11:58 am

      each of us began life at conception.

      Hi Paul,

      It does kinda matter because in this partisan dispute both sides tend to look for ammunition to destroy the others position and often will do so uncharitably.

      The “life begins at conception” because “science”. Is a one argumentative avenue that is used partially as an argument from authority and partially as a ad hominem versus pro-choice advocates.

      Thus, “life begins at conception” is not correct. “Life begins at some point during conception,” is the more accurate statement.

      More importantly, when forced-birth advocates bust this out, it is usually in terms of an ethical “should” argument based on the scientific fact “x”. Implicitly saying, of course, science in on their side and to oppose them is oppose “science”.

      Good grief, what nonsense is used to support abortion.

      Ah, women’s rights….all that nonsense indeed.

      • Karen Quiner on March 20, 2013 at 12:22 pm

        To say “Good grief, what nonsense is used to support abortion.” is a dismissive and insulting thing to say to Paul and shuts down any real dialogue.

        You have to understand, Arbourist, that we firmly believe that the fetus is a human being, a small, and helpless human being from the moment of conception. You don’t believe that and I can accept that.

        But what would you really think of us if that is our belief and we don’t do anything to protect that life. Wouldn’t that make us monsters, even in your eyes? That is what the pro-choice people have got to understand, that we believe that the fetus is a human person, a child. And if we don’t do something to stop it, we are complicit in a great evil, a horrible crime against nature.

        You don’t share the belief that it is a child, so I don’t look at you as a monster.

        What do you think of the people who believed slaves were people just like us, made by God, and owned slaves anyway? Or the people who knew what was going on during the holocaust and didn’t speak up? Or the people who participated in the killing of their neighbors in Rawanda?

        Regarding science, we all have to have “faith” in the science we chose to believe. You can find science to back up both positions.

        For example. neither of us was there at the moment of the big bang, so we have to have faith that what the scientists tell us is true.

      • The Arbourist on March 21, 2013 at 10:54 am

        @Karen Quiner – my apologies, for the out of order threading, but otherwise this post goes to the bottom of the list.

        To say “Good grief, what nonsense is used to support abortion.” is a dismissive and insulting thing to say to Paul and shuts down any real dialogue.

        Please note I did not, in fact, say that. I was quoting what Paul had said in his original post. Please also note that I went on further to explain how this is an uncharitable way to pursue the argument.

        Considering that I was commenting on Paul’s “shutting down of any dialogue” but then you reply to me as if I was the one attempting to do so reveals much about the bias toward people expressing a particular point of view.

        The point about being charitable is important and it may be helpful in the future to take it into consideration.

        You have to understand, Arbourist, that we firmly believe that the fetus is a human being, a small, and helpless human being from the moment of conception.

        You can choose your beliefs, however erroneously they may be, and live happily with them. That is not my concern.

        My concern is when you start bringing your beliefs into the public sphere where suddenly your concern for “life” starts making in-roads into my bodily autonomy. Thus, it becomes necessity to refute your assertions.

        That is what the pro-choice people have got to understand, that we believe that the fetus is a human person, a child.

        That is fine, and I’m here to tell you what horrible state of being that would be for women. By forcing women to give birth you are, in fact, enslaving them to another person. I think we can agree that slavery is not a desirable outcome for anyone involved in the birth equation.

        And if we don’t do something to stop it, we are complicit in a great evil, a horrible crime against nature.

        Forcing women to bear children isn’t exactly going to win you a Nobel prize for human rights either.

        You don’t share the belief that it is a child, so I don’t look at you as a monster.

        Well that is good, I’m fairly unmonsterous for the most part.

        However, as a direct result of your views, the rights to my body are compromised. I become less of a human being and more like a state sanctioned broodmare. And by advocating against legal abortion, you push women even further back in their struggle for their rights.

        No adult human being gets to use parts of my body without my consent. My consent is required,even in death for others to use my body. What you argue for is that somehow the fetus has supererogatory rights, more so than fully formed adults; and that those rights supersede my own rights when it comes what goes on in my body.

        When someone holds power over me, and forces me to use my body for their purposes they enslave me, whether it be an adult or a fetus.

        Slavery is unacceptable in any form.

        What do you think of the people who believed slaves were people just like us, made by God, and owned slaves anyway?

        Since slavery is considered acceptable in the bible, can you blame them? I can get you the chapters and verses where god and company wax eloquently on how awesome slavery is and how to do it properly. So I can’t really blame them when they base their views on a book with notoriously poor ethical qualities.

        Or the people who knew what was going on during the holocaust and didn’t speak up?

        One cannot fathom the soul destroying horror of the sideways glance as the trains rolled toward the crematoriums. I hope never to be placed in such a situation. The atrocity of what was began when people abrogated their rights and became complicit in the system.

        Thankfully, advocates for women and choice are speaking out against the systematic attack on women and their rights in a direct effort maintain women’s status as fully autonomous human beings.

        Regarding science, we all have to have “faith” in the science we chose to believe.

        I see this equivocation of faith and science too often to let this pass. There is no belief involved in science, or the scientific method. In science there is only empirical fact and thus whether I believe a scientific fact to be true or not is irrelevant. Belief has nothing to do with science.

        For example. neither of us was there at the moment of the big bang, so we have to have faith that what the scientists tell us is true.

        Neither of us were in Nepal yesterday either, can you conclusively prove that Nepal exists?

        I do not have faith in what scientists tell us. I look at the evidence presented and then decide if it factual or not. There is no faith involved in the process.

        Please understand that science is not like your belief system at all and trying to understand what science does through a religious lens is problematic at best.

        Every accepted tenet of scientific knowledge has been and is constantly being challenged. When a bit of science is proven wrong, it changes, to conform closer to reality. Nothing like this system exists in dogmatic religious systems, so please do not attempt to conflate the two ideas.

      • Karen Quiner on March 21, 2013 at 11:45 am

        @ The Arbourist

        I stand corrected on thinking that you were being dismissive of Paul. I apologize.

        Regarding your suggestion that anyone is enslaving women for forcing them to have children: Just listen to what you are saying. You used the word child. What is a child but a human person?

        The woman is pregnant with a human child, not always, but often, by her own choices. So what you are saying is that it is ok to get rid of that child because it is going to be inconvenient for the mother.

        She doesn’t even have to keep it. There will be people lining up to take the inconvenience off of her hands, and will even be happy to pay her medical bills.

        “No adult gets to use part of my body without my consent.”

        So when a woman has a child growing in her, the child is “using” her body without her consent? That is a pretty sad statement. If it isn’t the child using her, who are you suggesting is? Do you have any children? If so, was the child growing inside of you “using” you?

        Does it only become a child when the woman wants it? I don’t see how that makes sense.

        I don’t see it as “forcing women to bear children they don’t want” but rather not allowing her to kill a child simply because she doesn’t want it.

        I frankly don’t care who sees the child in the womb as a person worth of rights and protection, I do see see it as a live human being, so since I do believe that, I am a monster if I don’t speak out.

        There are people who honestly believe it is ok to have sex with their children or to beat them. I don’t care if they think it is ok. I know it is wrong and will do everything I can to prevent it regardless of what they believe. It would be monstrous for me to allow it simply on the basis that the other believes it is ok do do so. Even if the law says it is ok, I wouldn’t quit trying to protect that child.

        Regarding the discussion of science, I stand by what I say. You have to have faith in what you have been told about the existence of microwaves. It takes an element of faith in what you have heard because you have not seen them or measured them. Scientists say there is evidence of their existence and you trust the source so you believe it.

        There is plenty of hard evidence of the existence of God. Not only have I seen the evidence in my own life, but I trust other sources and the evidence they have seen.

        I dont’ hope to convince you on this point so you can let it pass.

        I hear people too often say the Bible promotes slavery to let it pass. To say it promotes slavery is to take it literally, which is not the way the bible is to be taken. It was inspired by God, but written by humans for the people of the time. The individual passages cannot be taken out of context or be taken as is but are revealing deep truths. The Bible does not promote slavery but deals with the reality of it in the current culture. And for Christians, the Old Testament is important because it pre-figures the New, and it shows how God is gradually revealing Himself to us over time, but the New Testament is what we use to model our lives after.

        Even in the New Testament, there is reference to slaves, because that was the reality 2000 years ago, but what Jesus talked about is the value and equality of every human life and over time, we realized that because of that teaching, slavery is wrong. The teaching of Jesus never changes, but our understanding of it grows and deepens.

        Jesus continues to reveal Himself to us, and in time, no Christian could possibly use another person as a slave. That isn’t to say it doesn’t happen, but Christ and His Church does not promote it.

        And if you care about women, talk to as many of them as you can who have had abortions. At some point, usually right away but often years later, these women are wracked with guilt and have a hard time forgiving themselves. And to call abortion “health care” is a misnomer. There is nothing healthy about an abortion for a woman or her child.

        You can find one article among many here.
        http://www.frc.org/content/how-abortion-harms-womens-health
        You may dismiss it because of who it came from, but it doesn’t change the facts.

        Thank you for the conversation. You will probably not hear from me the rest of the day, because although it may not appear so, I do have a day job and better get busy about the business of supporting myself.

  9. The Arbourist on March 22, 2013 at 7:51 pm

    @Karen Quiner

    I stand corrected on thinking that you were being dismissive of Paul. I apologize.

    No worries. I save the most of the rancor for my blog when I write on religion.

    You used the word child. What is a child but a human person?

    We, inaccurately, use the term “child” to describe the fetus. It is a familiar enough phrase to have made it into the dictionary, thus I was following common usage. For the purposes of my argument, I propose that we charitably allow you to define the fetus as fully human and having all rights (although when you see a fetus vote or drive a car let me know) that an adult has.

    So what you are saying is that it is ok to get rid of that child because it is going to be inconvenient for the mother.

    The woman, being fully autonomous, has a the right to decide how her body is being used.

    She doesn’t even have to keep it. There will be people lining up to take the inconvenience off of her hands, and will even be happy to pay her medical bills.

    Err…this isn’t really relevant because what is at stake is women’s rights. Forced birth advocates could offer the world to women – but taking away their fundamental right to decide what goes on in their body is still a gross violation of their human rights. It is like giving your (hypothetical) field slaves a nice comfy house to live in – a nice gesture – but you’re still enslaving them.

    So when a woman has a child growing in her, the child is “using” her body without her consent? That is a pretty sad statement.

    The embryo once implanted secretes enzymes that shut down the woman’s immune system so it is not rejected. The fetus uses the mothers, food and organs to dispose of waste, grow, etc.

    I think it is reasonable to assert that a child uses her mother’s body. And this is a fine state of affairs, if the mother consents to it, as it is her choice.

    If it isn’t the child using her, who are you suggesting is? Do you have any children? If so, was the child growing inside of you “using” you?

    I’m not sure where you’re going with this as my personal reproductive choices are precisely that, my own and not within bounds of this debate.

    Does it only become a child when the woman wants it? I don’t see how that makes sense.

    As mentioned earlier, ascribe whatever level of rights and humanness you see fit to the fetus.

    I don’t see it as “forcing women to bear children they don’t want” but rather not allowing her to kill a child simply because she doesn’t want it.

    Pregnancy is dangerous. There is a long list of complications and side effects that can permanently alter a woman’s body. She has to be the ultimate arbiter of how her body is used – if she does not want her resources to be used in pregnancy then her wishes must be respected, because no one has the right to use her body without her consent, whether it be an adult or a child in any form.

    I frankly don’t care who sees the child in the womb as a person worth of rights and protection, I do see see it as a live human being, so since I do believe that, I am a monster if I don’t speak out.

    I am equally compelled to speak out against people who would strip women of their rights and status as full human beings. I am equally passionate about speaking out against people who advocate forced birth aka slavery for women.

    It takes an element of faith in what you have heard because you have not seen them or measured them.

    Err… The empirical evidence of microwaves is what convinces me that they exist. I may believe small feisty unicorns are responsible for warming my burrito, and thus my faith in unicorns is reinforced when I have the tasty bean extravaganza on my plate, but my belief has nothing to do with the facts behind what makes microwaves or how they work. We’ve discovered them and how they work through rigorous experimentation, explicitly with no faith involved.

    Scientists say there is evidence of their existence and you trust the source so you believe it.

    Please do not speak for me, especially when you construct a poorer version of my argument to which you would refute. This is known as the informal fallacy of constructing a strawman.

    I do not believe in “science”. I can examine the experiments they have made and then using my critical faculties, choose to agree or disagree with the evidence they have provided. There is no belief, no matter how much you’d like to falsely equivocate faith and science, involved in the process.

    There is plenty of hard evidence of the existence of God.

    In that same realm the evidence that Astrology, Numerology and Alectryomancy is similarly “hard”.

    I dont’ hope to convince you on this point so you can let it pass.

    That your argument isn’t convincing to rational people should be a sign there is something wrong with the argument. However, consider a pass taken.

    To say it promotes slavery is to take it literally, which is not the way the bible is to be taken.

    So, I am to take your word, over the word of God, that despite him never uttering the phrase “Slavery is Evil” and instead gives directions on getting a fair price and how to sell your daughter. Hmm….no the bible condones slavery and no amount of interpretation can remedy that.

    The teaching of Jesus never changes, but our understanding of it grows and deepens.

    The witches in many parts of the world, but not all, thank the powers that be that some parts of christianity have changed.

    There is nothing healthy about an abortion for a woman or her child.

    Actually, getting an abortion is safer than giving birth.

    You can find one article among many here. You may dismiss it because of who it came from, but it doesn’t change the facts.

    Oh indeed, when you accept my link, I’ll accept yours.

    Thank you for the conversation.

    Thank for the opportunity to discuss such contentious issues.

Leave a Comment