The political usage of “judge not” in scripture to support abortion (or any other evil)

September 3, 2019

 

This brief article will address the wicked practice of people using God’s holy scripture to defend sin.

Here’s scripture that is so frequently wrested out of context:

Luke 6.36,37

“Be ye therefore merciful, as your Father also is merciful.

37 Judge not, and ye shall not be judged: condemn not, and ye shall not be condemned: forgive, and ye shall be forgiven:”

For starters, I am not judging anyone, God will do all of the judging of people. I am abhorring evil & reproving the unfruitful works of darkness, (as God tells us Christians to do in scripture, as you will soon see).

I’m also telling the workers of iniquity that God offers them salvation in the risen Lord Jesus Christ by grace through faith. And I’m telling them that if He saved me in my wickedness, then He can do it for you too. If anyone hasn’t come to Him for salvation to be cleansed of their guilt, then they haven’t come to Him legitimately for salvation. We are all dead in our trespasses and sins apart from being saved, (Ephesians 2.1, Colossians 2.13).

[Moreover, if defenders of iniquity really embraced that section of scripture regarding “judge not” (as they define its meaning), then why would any abortion supporter defend the prosecution of any mother who kills one of her toddler children?

(Hypocrites of all ilk) wrest scripture out of context for their personal gain, just as false prophets do].

Why don’t these same people also reference the following scripture?

Isaiah 5.20

“Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!”

Psalm 97.10

“Ye that love the Lord, hate evil: he preserveth the souls of his saints; he delivereth them out of the hand of the wicked.”

Romans 12.9

“Let love be without dissimulation. Abhor that which is evil; cleave to that which is good.”

Ephesians 5.11

“And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them.”

Proverbs 6.16,17

“These six things doth the LORD hate: yea, seven are an abomination unto him:

17 A proud look, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood,”

Killing defenseless children is wickedness, and claiming Holy scripture as a defense to do it is extreme wickedness! It’s blasphemy against God to use His words to defend evil!

Repentance unto God is the solution to these sins, but for such people who will not repent unto the Lord Jesus Christ, terror will overwhelm them at their judgment such as they have never known.

Matthew 24.51

“And shall cut him asunder, and appoint him his portion with the hypocrites: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.”

Hebrews 10.30,31

“For we know him that hath said, Vengeance belongeth unto me, I will recompense, saith the Lord. And again, The Lord shall judge his people.

31 It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.”

All glory to the risen Lord Jesus Christ.

https://logosdot.wordpress.com/2019/09/03/the-political-usage-of-judge-not-in-scripture-to-support-abortion-or-any-other-evil/

https://leeposkey.wordpress.com/2019/09/03/the-political-usage-of-judge-not-in-scripture-to-support-abortion-or-any-other-evil/


Advertisements

VIDEO Former Abortionists Turned Pro-Life Advocates

ONCE LOST
Dr. Robinson received abortion training while on the obstetrics and gynecology service during his residency.  Discussion about the procedures or instructions about alternatives was not part of the training.  Performing abortions required so little effort; everyone was doing it, and they didn’t seem to have a problem with it, so neither did Dr. Robinson.  During this time, he met Noreen, was in her second year of OB/GYN residency and married her in 1981.  “It’s a minor surgical procedure,” says Dr. Robinson referring to the D & C (Dilation and  Curettage), which is not just performed for abortions.  They both began moonlighting at the abortion clinic.  Soon after they finished residency, they moved to Texas to start a family practice with just the two of them.  “We didn’t want to be labelled as the community abortionists in Texas, so we didn’t do them,” he says.

On March 2, 1986, Dr. Robinson attended a Leon Patillo concert where he responded to the altar call.  “That was my rebirthday,” he says. “I was blind and now I see.”  Dr. Robinson says when the Lord comes into your life, your mind is transformed.  “If I would have known abortion was wrong on an academic level, I would still not be saved from going to hell.  Abortion is a sin, but I was already going to hell,” he says.  “God used that to build a testimony to save babies now and bring others to the Lord.”

NOW FOUND
When dealing with mothers having abortions, Dr. Robinson says the women really didn’t want to give up their babies.  “The only reason I was there was for the money,” he says.  “It’s a deep, dark environment and I couldn’t wait to get out of the abortion clinic. It’s not a happy place.”  Today he is a voice for the unborn.  He and Noreen share their testimony nationwide to expose the facts of the abortion industry with 40 Days for Life, a pro-life organization that has saved thousands of babies and empowered 190 workers in the abortion industry to leave the field.  40 Days for Life holds bi-annual community-based campaigns that organize peaceful prayer vigils outside abortion clinics around the world. Their fall campaign starts September 25.  For more info, please visit www.40DaysforLife.com. “For more than 30 years, I’ve had a front-row view of the advances taking place both in the pro-life movement and in the medical field that continues to prove the undebatable value of life inside the womb,” he says.

When they were both practicing physicians, Dr. Robinson says they purchased the now-closed Planned Parenthood building and relocated their medical practice.  “Only God can build a story like that to show the redeeming power of Christ.  Former abortionists now pro-life advocates.”  Dr. Robinson retired from practice in June 2019.

https://www1.cbn.com/former-abortionists-turned-pro-life-advocates

The Morality of Abortion

June 9, 2019

 

The discussion concerning the ethics of abortion is one that has been hotly debated for years and is, again, in the spotlight.

Let me be clear where I stand. All human life is created in the image of God.

Therefore, murder is wrong. God tells us this directly.

Life begins at conception, which means abortion, defined as purposefully terminating a pregnancy, is murder and is therefore wrong.

The discussion regarding abortion is a multifaceted one. This post will specifically focus on the morality side of that discussion.

As I’ve made my stance clear, I thought I would take a look at some of the common arguments used to support abortion. I think these arguments fall apart upon further examination, further application, or comparison. However, all of these rebuttals only carry weight because they are rooted in the truth revealed to us by God. If you would like me to specifically expand on what I’ve laid out above or if you have an objection that is not listed below, please let me know!

I found a list of arguments supporting abortion on procon.org. This list was inclusive of any arguments I’ve heard, plus some I hadn’t. I feel some of these carry so little weight that I won’t belabor the answer. Please let me know if you’d like me to expand on anything below.

One final comment before I get started. As open minded as I try to be, there are some things I’m set on. For example, no amount of money could ever outweigh a life. I will run into a few of these topics below, in which I’m too convinced to ever have my mind changed. I apologize if it’s not productive to a conversation, but I want to be honest. That said, I’m always open to hearing an opinion.

Suggested Pro 1: The US Supreme Court has declared abortion to be a “fundamental right” guaranteed by the US Constitution.

This argument would imply that the US government (or worldwide, any government) has the authority on Earth to define what’s right. While they may enforce law, Jesus has all authority.

Thus, our (and any) government should take its lead from Christ. In the US, it’s whatever the democracy says, whatever the majority of people say. We’ve been slipping further and further from “under God” using only this model. We can see in the past how this doesn’t work. Slavery being a prime and horrendous example of man trying to define right and wrong ourselves. While we may “get it right” sometimes, it’s only because when we do, we fall in-line with the standard set by God. We are still prone to disastrously fall outside of this standard if we go it alone.

Therefore, I claim this argument holds no weight as the US government does not hold the proper authority to declare abortion a right. God does and already has spoken on the matter. It’s wrong.

Suggested Pro 2: Reproductive choice empowers women by giving them control over their own bodies.

Let me start by saying that I agree with the idea that women (and men) should have control over their bodies, provided they are not causing harm.

The Bible places a high standard on our bodies

However, what this fails to address is the lack of control given to the little body inside the woman. The life inside the mother was never given a choice.

Therefore, while I support autonomy over your own body, I don’t agree with that control extending to the degree that a woman can end the life of another person within their body.

The only argument I could see against this point is actually the next “pro”. That it’s not actually a person yet.

Suggested Pro 3: Personhood begins after a fetus becomes “viable” (able to survive outside the womb) or after birth, not at conception.

This is a big one and I think it makes sense to start by being specific on “viable”.

Baby Center has the following statistic

“Doctors now consider 22 weeks the earliest gestational age when a baby is “viable,” or able to survive outside the womb. But this is still extremely premature, and a baby born at this age will need a great deal of medical attention.”

Let’s take the earliest possible age, 22 weeks, as “viable” and look at some development leading up to that point:

  • Conception All the genetic material is present that will determine everything about the baby.
  • By week 8 Heart is beating, brain is developing, limbs and hands/feet are developed, and eyes are started.
  • By week 12 All organs are there, and fingernails are growing. The arms and legs are moving and baby can even make a fist.
  • By week 16 Face and heart are fully developed! The eyes will open and that little life will desire to start sucking.
  • By week 20 Fully developed fngerprints can now identify this unique human. Permant, unique, adult teeth buds are there now behind the baby teeth that will emerge first. The baby can also hear things now.

I bring this up because I don’t see what is so differentiating, regarding personhood, about reaching the viability point. Does the ability to hear and a mouth full of teeth somehow make you a person? A deaf person who has lost their teeth would certain argue against that. Is it about brain development? What about coma patients with no brain activity then? I’m sure when they woke up, they would be happy their doctors didn’t think so. These can’t be the qualifiers for personhood and like examples can be made for the rest. It must be something else.

If not something reached through development, then the specific viability to survive outside the womb must be how they are arguing to define person. If you see another option, please let me know. I honest don’t.

That said, let’s look deeper into this idea of being able to survive outside the womb once “viable”.

But what does it mean to survive? Even in the viability definition above

a baby born at this age will need a great deal of medical attention

By this logic, are babies who are 22 weeks old, but are not able to be at a hospital with the resources to provide that medical attention not people? That can’t possibly be true. So maybe then push the goal posts back?

Maybe set the true viability age, or age we determine the fetus to be a person, to when they can survive outside the womb without being in a hospital with technology and trained professionals.

At 26 weeks, survivability is up from under 5% at 22 weeks to 90%. However, even moving back to this point the baby is still completely reliant on the mother (or others) for survival. Why at the same age, level of development, and fully dependent on others, does being inches further (outside the womb vs inside the womb) suddenly make you a person? Given proper shelter (womb in the unborn case), food, water, and time (excluding outside forces or medical accidents) the fetus will be born. Are those not the same things a newborn needs to reach 1 month old? For a 1 month old to reach a year old, a 1 year old to reach 2, etc.?

Once again, this does not seem to be a reliable means with which we can determine personhood.

Let me know propose the counter to this argument. That life begins at conception when all the genetic material has formed to create this new, unique life. Those genes having encoded within them eye color, baldness patterns, height, hair color, and many, many more things. Everything is already there that determines personhood. Right at the beginning, needing only the same shelter, food, water, and time to experience life as at the later stages. This is the defining difference between life and non-life. Personhood and non-personhood.

Suggested Pro 4: Fetuses are incapable of feeling pain when most abortions are performed.

I’ll make two comparisons. To a coma patient and someone with congenital analgesia (a rare condition where the person doesn’t feel pain). Neither can feel pain, one is conscious the other not. I doubt anyone would argue we have the right to end the life of either person because they can’t feel pain. We don’t have the right to murder anyone for any reason, but for the sake of refuting this argument, I think my comparison was clear.

Therefore, my position is that the ability to feel pain, consciously or not, is a unreliable means to make a decision regarding the life of the unborn. Regarding anyone for that matter.

Suggested Pro 5: Access to legal, professionally-performed abortions reduces maternal injury and death caused by unsafe, illegal abortions.

This arugment sounds good on the surface. However, I think deeper examination will show this to not be a tenable position.

To make this more broad, this would be saying we should make something legal because if it’s illegal people might get hurt or killed trying to do it anyway. That wouldn’t work or fly for SO many reasons that I don’t think I need to go into it. If you would like me to, let me know. Therefore, this argument can’t be a broad rule, but one specific to the abortion discussion.

So, the argument says if we outlaw abortions, people would flock to unsafe, illegal places. This would result in more injury and death to mothers. First, what about the murder of each baby? We should allow murder of one person because another breaking the law may get hurt? I just can’t stand behind that.

Secondly, there would be consequenses to performing abortions. Are we then to assume law enforcement will be able to do nothing to stop these illegal abortions from occuring? And that available doctors willing to risk their careers and freedom would be readily available everywhere?

Therefore, as I stated above, I believe this arugment to be an untenable position.

Suggested Pro 6: Modern abortion procedures are safe and do not cause lasting health issues such as cancer and infertility.

Abortions still cause the death of an innocent baby! The safety of the procedure is not the primary concern, the outcome is.

Think about the “I can do it safely, shouldn’t I be allowed” logic in other areas… It’s horrifying and not a reliable means to determine the legality of murdering the unborn.

Therefore, I reject the idea that the ease and safety of any procedure somehow legitimizes the decision to do it. Make sure it’s the right thing to do in the first place, then figure out how to do it safely before letting people do it, then figure out how to make it more convenient/cheaper/easier.

Suggested Pro 7: Women who receive abortions are less likely to suffer mental health problems than women denied abortions.

I feel this to be misleading. The point hinges on a study done comparing women who had abortions with those “denied”. While that is in-line with what the argument says, this does nothing to discuss the devastating, life-long mental consequences of going through with it. Furthermore, I would just like to quote part of what they have written under the “Pro”

“A peer-reviewed study comparing the mental health of women who received abortions to women denied abortions found that women who were denied abortions “felt more regret and anger” and “less relief and happiness” than women who had abortions.”

I think calling logical emotional reactions “mental health problems” is a stretch. I’m not trying to downplay those who have had problems after being denied an abortion. At all. I’m only stating my opinion based off the information gathered above. The emotions of anger and regret were all they mentioned. Even so, I don’t think avoiding anger and regret, to feel more relief and happiness justifies murder! Additionally, so many women have admitted to have regretted getting an abortion for the rest of their lives. I think it’s probably fair to say that if the topic of abortion becomes relevant in your life, you’re not going to make it through without a bump or two (at least). Your life will be changed forever by either decision. I’ve heard mom after mom say having my baby was the best thing I’ve ever done, rough patches and all. I can’t say the same for the other side.

Suggested Pro 8: Abortion gives pregnant women the option to choose not to bring fetuses with profound abnormalities to full term.

They actually use Down Syndrome as an example. I just can’t get around how this doesn’t result in the outcome that one human is determining that another human’s life is not worth allowing to exist because of a disability.

The reasoning they provide?

“Even in the case of nonfatal conditions, such as Down syndrome, parents may be unable to care for a severely disabled child. Deborah Anne Driscoll, MD, Professor of Obstetrics and Gynecology at the University of Pennsylvania, said “many couples… don’t have the resources, don’t have the emotional stamina, don’t have the family support [to raise a child with Down syndrome].”

While I cant imagine the challenges of caring for a child with a profound disability, you cannot determine the value of another human or if that life should be allowed to continue based upon a defect or disability. Ever. This is one of those areas I mentioned in which I will never have my mind changed. I don’t mean to offend, I just think all life has to be valued above earthly struggle.

To be fair, they also listed very rare fatal birth defects. This is a very small minority case where the baby is not expected to survive. As such, it’s out of place in comparison with survivable disabilities. It’s a discussion for another post which I’m happy to have, but not relevant to their stated position.

Suggested Pro 9: Women who are denied abortions are more likely to become unemployed, to be on public welfare, to be below the poverty line, and to become victims of domestic violence.

I think my prior responses and response to the next argument will cover this as well. You cannot use earthly struggle as a means for deciding the worth of life. Being poor or out of work or struggling in other ways does not justify ending a life.

Suggested Pro 10: Reproductive choice protects women from financial disadvantage.

In the sense that not having a baby is way cheaper than having a baby, of course. This is another point in which I will not have my mind changed. The financial status of the mother and/or child can never be used to decide whether or not to take an unborn life. You simply cannot use monetary cost as a means by which to decide to end a life. Ever.

Suggested Pro 11: A baby should not come into the world unwanted.

This is a bit leading to me, given the number of parents who are desperate to adopt a baby. A child may not be wanted by its mother, but there are people out there who care and want that baby.

That said, this is another point where I won’t have my mind changed. I believe the amount a particular baby is wanted by their parents (or anyone) has no correlation with their right to life. Every person has a right to their God given life.

Suggested Pro 12: Abortion reduces welfare costs to taxpayers.

This may very well be true. However, this is another area I will not have my mind changed. You simply cannot use monetary cost as a means by which to decide to end a life. Ever.

Suggested Pro 13: Abortion reduces crime.

I was baffled at first by this one. Procon.org goes into detail by saying

“Because “women who have abortions are those most at risk to give birth to children who would engage in criminal activity,” and women who had control over the timing of childbearing were more likely to raise children in optimal environments, crime is reduced when there is access to legal abortion.”

I don’t have facts or statistics for this one, but this cannot possibly be so clear cut. There is no way that denying the decision of the mother to abort has a direct correlation with higher crime rates. C’mon!

I mean, one more time

Because “women who have abortions are those most at risk to give birth to children who would engage in criminal activity,”

Is this argument then

Your baby is likely going to be a criminal because you want an abortion, so you have the right to kill it?

If you stand behind this, we will be in disagreement then. I will never be convinced. If you have an alternate interpretation, let me know.

Suggested Pro 14: Abortion is justified as a means of population control.

I understand why people may go this route. I know some countries today practice this. If you agree with this idea, we will just have to disagree. I just can’t agree that killing babies to keep the population down is an option that can ever be explored.

Suggested Pro 15: Many religious organizations and people of faith support women’s reproductive choice.

I cover other religions elsewhere in the site, so here I’ll only speak on any “Christian” organizations.

They are wrong. Abortion is 100% unbiblical and against God’s Law. Period.

This completes the list of “pros”. I thought it would be worthwhile to also look at some statistics around reasons for abortions. Personally, my perception versus the facts were very different. It seems like a majority of the time is spent discussion reasons which account for the smallest minority of abortions.

Abortion is not something a potential mother does without deep thought. As such, it’s logical that there’s usually more than one reason for deciding to do it. This first picture has recorded statistics for any reasons stated for having the abortions. This is why the percentages don’t all add up to 100%, but it still allows us to see the common reasons. This is useful as it allows for deeper investigation via sub-reasoning as you can see.

Now, let’s see how these reasons change, or don’t, when we look at only the most important reason given. These will all add up to 100% and I believe are a useful set to use when discussing the topic. Again, the first picture is great for adding context to those reasons discussed from the second picture.

Moving down the chart from top to bottom, the top 86% of all abortions stem from financial, personal, or professional interference.

Convenience is defined as

“the state of being able to proceed with something with little effort or difficulty.”.

I am going to say something offensive now, but I truly mean it out of love. I’m sorry if you feel hurt by what I’m about to say, but I feel it needs said.

From the statistics above, it’s my estimation that 86% of the roughly 650,000 US abortions per year (or 559,000 abortions) are done to ensure higher personal convenience while pursuing a previously desired path. Personal happiness and your currently desired outcome for your life (which changes over time) is never a reason to end anyone’s life.

Lastly, the Guttmacher Institute reported that 45% of all women having abortions every year have had at least one previous. I think this is an incredibly relevant statistic to add context to the other statistics above. I think it also speaks to the solidity in the minds of those in our country who believe that abortion should be an equally weighted option. It also further supports that the majority of abortions are not these life and death, wild, and/or horrific cases usually used to justify a pro-choice stance. I will cover these cases in another post. Perhaps it’s time for us to adjust this conversation.

This discussion is commonly one framed around choice. There are four choices that I support. Abstinence (in or out of marriage), use of contraceptive (within marriage), adoption, or parenthood. I will never support the fifth, which is violating the God given right to life of an unborn via murder or “pro-choice”.

If by chance you are reading this and are considering an abortion, please consider talking to some people more knowledgeable and better equipped than me before doing it. To really understand your options, including some you might not be aware of.

A ministry I’m aware of is EndAbortionNow, through Apologia Church. They have put in place something that is doing incredible and important work. Work I believe to be inline with God’s Word. I’ve been personally moved by seeing the children they have saved and hearing the gratitude from the mothers who decided to let their child live! Beyond just delivering God’s Word to those in need, Apologia and other ministries have resources to provide real, tangible support for the women and families who need it. From financial and supply support to even adoption.

If you would like help finding someone to help or need anything, please let me know. I will do my best to help.

Sources

https://abortion.procon.org/

https://www.babycenter.com/404_when-can-my-baby-survive-outside-the-womb_10419991.bc

Torres A and Forrest JD, Why do women have abortions? Family Planning Perspectives, 1988, 20(4):169–176.

Reasons U.S. Women Have Abortions:
Quantitative and Qualitative Perspectives by Lawrence B. Finer, Lori F. Frohwirth, Lindsay A. Dauphinee,
Susheela Singh, and Ann M. Moore.

https://www.hunterdonhealthcare.org/service/maternity/pregnancy-month-by-month/

https://www.onhealth.com/content/1/pregnancy_stages_trimesters

https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2018/11/21/number-abortions-us-hits-historic-low/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.e4c71df25244

https://www.marchofdimes.org/complications/neonatal-death.aspx

https://upholdingthefaith.wordpress.com/2019/06/09/the-morality-of-abortion/

Arkansas Town Passes Measure Calling Itself a Pro-Life City, Tells Planned Parenthood Take a Hike

MICAIAH BILGER AUG 6, 2019

An Arkansas town council recently joined a growing list of U.S. cities that are taking a stand against abortion.

The Arkansas Democrat Gazette reports the Springdale City Council Committee of the Whole voted unanimously Monday to adopt the pro-life statement. The full city council plans to vote on the measure Aug. 13.

The statement declares Springdale to be a pro-life city. It also tells the abortion chain Planned Parenthood that it is not welcome there, according to the report.

Though the statement does not have any legal weight, it sends a message that Springdale supports life, said council member Colby Fulfer, who proposed the measure.

“There’s no way we’re going to ban abortion,” because Roe v. Wade is still in place, he said. “We want to say the government of Springdale supports life from creation to conception to the end stages of life.”

Fulfer said he is concerned about Planned Parenthood opening a new location in their city after it closed its Fayetteville branch in July. The abortion chain said it had trouble with its landlord, and it is looking for a new location.

The city’s pro-life statement is “respectfully asking the abortion provider to find another city,” he added.

According to the local news, Fulfer also brought up programs that the city supports to help families in need.

Springfield is not alone. A growing number of towns and cities have passed resolutions this year in response to the radical pro-abortion agenda that is being pushed on Americans. The Democratic presidential candidates all support forcing taxpayers to fund abortionsand oppose minor, common sense restrictions on abortions after viability.

Several states, including New York, Illinois and Rhode Island, also passed pro-abortion laws this year to allow viable, late-term unborn babies to be aborted for basically any reason.

In response, Roswell, New Mexico city leaders passed a pro-life resolution in March after state lawmakers considered a radical pro-abortion bill to expand late-term abortions. The bill narrowly failed to pass.

In New York state, Batavia city leaders and Putnam County legislators also passed measures condemning a radical new pro-abortion law in their state and supporting protections for the unborn.

Then, in June, the eastern Texas city of Waskom adopted a pro-life ordinance declaring their home a “sanctuary city for the unborn.” In July, another Texas city considered a similar pro-life measure, but the council voted against it after the ACLU threatened a costly lawsuit.

In May, the Riverton City Council in Utah passed a similar resolution, declaring the city a “sanctuary for the unborn.” In June, the Utah County Commission unanimously passed a resolution supporting protections for unborn babies. Then in July, the council in Highland, Utah passed a similar pro-life resolution.

 

Original here


She Was an Abortion Clinic Nurse, Until God Changed Her Life in a Miraculous Way

MICAIAH BILGER AUG 6, 2019

María Martínez Gómez spent years working at an abortion facility, denying the realities of what she saw.

A nurse in Spain, she said she was baptized Catholic, but when she grew up, she began to despise the faith and all it stood for, according to the Catholic News Agency.

During a Catholic conference in May in San Sebastian, Spain, Gómez explained why she quit her abortion work and how God changed her life in a miraculous way.

She said her work at the abortion clinic stressed her out; she spent her days getting women ready for surgical abortions and then trying to comfort them afterward. Gómez said she lied to herself and the women about the unborn babies who were being aborted there.

Once, she remembered, she thought she saw the foot of an aborted baby, but she said she convinced herself that it was just a blood clot, according to the report.

Here’s more:

Gomez said the abortion clinic purposely took steps to ensure that women would not change their minds prior to their abortions. Women would be isolated from their partners, to “remove them from reality,” before their surgeries, and it would be Gomez’s job to hold their hands and keep them calm while the abortion was happening.

Afterwards, she said that sometimes the women were so traumatized by what they had experienced, they thought they had not yet undergone an abortion and begged her to stop it from happening. It was Gomez’s job to inform them that they had in fact already had an abortion.

Eventually, she said she quit because of the stress of the job. She went back to school and earned a degree in physiotherapy.

About that same time, there was a devastating earthquake in Nepal. Gómez decided to move to Kathmandu to help with the relief efforts, the report states.

It was there in that Hindu country that Jesus touched her heart and brought her to the Catholic faith.

One day, she said she was walking in the street when a sister with the Missionaries of Charity grabbed her and urged her to follow. Gómez said she thought about going along just to mock the sisters during Mass, but things turned out very differently.

Gómez spoke Spanish, and the Mass was in English, so she said she did not understand it very well. Then, suddenly, she said she heard a voice in Spanish telling her, “Welcome home.” Confused, she said she heard the voice again, saying: “Welcome home. How long it took you to love me.”

“It was the cross of Christ talking to me,” she said.

Gómez said she laid on the floor and wept, asking for forgiveness.

Later, the sisters told her that they had been praying for someone exactly like her, a physiotherapist, to come to their convent, according to the report.

Gómez said she spent four months with the sisters, teaching them physical therapy and rehabilitation until her visa ran out. Then, she returned to Spain where she has been sharing her conversion story.

“I was a dry bone in that valley, that He decided to revive,” Gomez said. “That is the Mercy of God.”

 

Original here


In Post-Abortion America, Pro-Life Movement Must Change Attitudes toward Adoption

By Dan Hart Managing Editor

Dan Hart is the Managing Editor for Publications at Family Research Council. This article appeared in the National Reviewon June 7, 2019.

With the end of Roe now in sight, we must prepare more urgently for a future America where adoption is seen as both the lawful option and the loving one.

This is a thrilling and encouraging moment for the pro-life movement in the U.S., as American society shifts further away from abortion in both its attitudes and policies. Last month, Alabama governor Kay Ivey signed into law the strongest pro-life measure in America, and Louisiana and Missouri recently enacted their strongest-ever pro-life laws, bringing to seven the total number of states that have this year banned abortion after six weeks’ gestation.

But with this shift come new challenges for the pro-life movement. If Roe is overturned soon and states continue to criminalize the killing of unborn children, more unplanned babies will be born in America than ever before. This raises the obvious question: Is America ready to fully embrace adoption as the “loving option” the pro-life movement knows it to be?

Already, pro-choice writers are anticipating an adoption-focused future. The Atlantic’s Olga Khazan has written a mildly slanted, yet factually honest, piece exploring available statistics and anecdotal evidence on how unexpectedly pregnant women feel about adoption and their ultimate decisions about their pregnancies:

But even among American women for whom carrying a child to term would be safe, adoption is a remarkably unpopular course of action. Though exact estimates for all women are hard to come by, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reports [sic] that among never-married women, about 9 percent chose adoption before 1973, when Roe v. Wade legalized abortion. (The figure was higher for white women: 19 percent.) By the mid-1980s, the figure had dropped to 2 percent, and it was just 1 percent by 2002, the last year the CDC data captured. In 2014, only 18,000 children under the age of 2 were placed with adoption agencies. By comparison, there are about 1 million abortions each year.

Tellingly, Khazan forgoes explaining why the percentage of women who chose adoption dropped so dramatically after Roe v. Wade. The reason is as plain as day: If something that was once scarce suddenly becomes widely available, more people will choose it. After Roe’s blanket legalization of abortion, more women began to choose abortion, which meant that there were fewer babies to adopt. This tendency has remained disturbingly lopsided to this day: There are about 55 abortions for every one adoption of a child under the age of two in America.

But there is hope. There can be little doubt that once legal abortions become increasingly hard to procure, more and more babies who would have otherwise been aborted will be born and placed up for adoption. How many more is hard to say for certain, but if the 9 percent pre-Roe figure referenced by Khazan begins to take shape after a possible future overturn of Roe, there would be (very roughly) 90,000 more babies in need of adoption per year.

Is America ready to adopt this many unplanned babies? Pro-choice activists insist the answer is a resounding “no,” constantly fretting over imagined horrors that inevitably await “unwanted” children if they are born. But numbers are stubborn things. There are an estimated 2 million infertile couples in the U.S. waiting to adopt a baby. In addition, about 10 percent of American women — 6.1 million — “have difficulty getting or staying pregnant.” A CDC study found that over half (57 percent) of these women, and 81.5 million Americans overall, have considered adoption.

Undoubtedly, Americans can find loving homes for tens of thousands more unplanned babies. That being said, there is a real question that must be faced: How do women with unplanned pregnancies actually feel about adoption, and how does it actually affect them?

Khazan’s article depicts the emotional distress that women experience with adoption. Studies have found that many women feel “guilt” at the thought of leaving their child with an adoption agency without knowing “whether it was being taken care of or who was taking care of it.” Studies also show that virtually all birth mothers feel grief after they place their children up for adoption.

Clearly, the pro-life movement must rethink how it promotes adoption to address the real-world concerns of women with unplanned pregnancies. The practice of “open” adoption has proven particularly healthy and beneficial for both the birth mother and the adopted child; it should be widely discussed and encouraged. Another effective strategy is to amplify the voices of those who have been adopted out of difficult circumstances and are now thriving. Ryan BombergerMelissa Ohden, and Gianna Jessen are just a few such people, but a simple YouTube search reveals thousands more “ordinary” adoption stories that are just as beautiful and inspiring.

Khazan’s Atlantic article reveals that there remains a huge and difficult mountain that must be climbed to transform the cultural view of adoption. With the end of Roe now in sight, the pro-life movement must prepare more urgently for a future America where adoption is seen clearly as both the lawful option and the loving one.

Dan Hart is the Managing Editor for Publications at Family Research Council. His writing has appeared in such outlets as National Review, The Federalist, First Things, The Stream

https://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=PV19F01


Narrow Path Ministries is in the process of opening an orphanage. An Endowment fund has been established  to fund the orphanage.


Free Adoption Self-Help Manual

https://www.adoptionservices.org/adoption_manual/index.htm


State Adoption Laws

https://www.adoptionservices.org/child_adoption_laws/adoption_laws.htm


Powerful New Photos Show Women Who Desperately Regret Their Abortions But Found Christ’s Forgiveness

MICAIAH BILGER AUG 6, 2019

Angela Forker is giving a voice to women in a society that increasingly is trying to silence their stories.

Her new photography project, After The Abortion, uses powerful images and quotes to share post-abortive women’s testimonies. Through the photos, Forker shows the women’s struggles, their pain and grief, and their journey to healing.

“Something is happening in America, and those who are in the middle, they need to make a choice,” Forker told LifeNews.com.

At a time when women are encouraged to brag about how good their abortions were and silenced if they regret them, Forker said she hopes the After The Abortion project will “touch hearts and show them the truth behind abortion. Who can argue with their experience?”

Forker said her background is in baby photography and missions. She and her husband used to serve as missionaries in Germany and Italy before they returned to the United States a number of years ago.

Earlier this year, she said she felt God calling her to begin the After The Abortion project.

But she hesitated.

Forker said she had been praying that God would use her photography to help people come to Him. But the answer was not what she had expected.

“He stretched me in a way I never thought possible,” she said. “He told me to photograph post-abortive women and tell their stories, I basically said no to God. I argued with Him because I was doing baby photography.”

Between her photography business, ministry work and her Precious Baby project (another one of her pro-life ministries), Forker felt too busy to start something new. She also confessed that she was worried that people would think that she had had an abortion.

“In an instant, God showed me His great heart of love and compassion for these women, and I just started crying,” she remembered. “I asked Him to forgive me, and promised to do it for Him.”

Since February, Forker has completed about a dozen photography sessions with women who have had abortions. In each case, the women contact her about participating.

To begin, she asks the women to share their stories with her, and then she creates unique photo sessions around their experiences. Some women tell her of struggles with depression or denial, others with substance abuse, broken relationships or suicidal thoughts. Some of her sessions involve the fathers of the unborn babies, too – because abortions affect every member of the family.

Their stories tell of bitterness and grief and the realization that they aborted their own children. But Forker believes they also are a testament to the healing power of Jesus.

My  abortion almost killed me,” one woman, Meg, told Forker. “I had an acute awareness of my daughter’s soul leaving the room. And, as if in a cartoon, a black cloud moved over me. Guilt. Shame.”

Another woman, Jenna, told Forker that she carries a walnut with her to remind her of her unborn baby. When she had the abortion, Jenna said she felt her baby, about the size of a walnut, pass out of her body.

“Something in my head said, ‘Don’t forget about me,’” Jenna remembered. “I won’t ever forget. There was nothing worse than killing your own child.”

During each session, Forker also prays with the women. She said she asks that their stories will help other mothers choose life and other post-abortive mothers and fathers find healing and forgiveness.

After she is finished, she posts them on her public Facebook page, After The Abortion. Each is a unique piece of art, a series of photos and quotes that poignantly capture each woman’s experience.

In just a few months, their stories have reached thousands of people across the world. Forker said she has received many messages from women asking how they also can find forgiveness and healing after their abortions. She directs them to post-abortion healing ministries like Rachel’s Vineyard and Surrendering the Secret.

Her project speaks to a time where women are encouraged to “shout” their abortions, where the abortion industry tells women that aborting an unborn baby is “normal.” Post-abortive women who experience profound grief and regret often feel silenced and alone — as if they are the only ones who feel that way. But they are not.

The stories told through Forker’s project remind our culture that abortions are not normal or brag-worthy. They are damaging, destructive. They kill unborn babies and leave countless mothers and fathers struggling with an immense weight of grief and pain.

But there is hope.

Women facing unplanned pregnancies can find help and support. Women and men who have lost their unborn babies to abortion can find healing in Christ. These are the messages that Forker hopes to reach the world with.

“It’s just been incredible,” Forker told LifeNews. “It has touched so many lives around the world. And I’m just blown away.”

To be considered for the project, email Angela Forker at preciousbabyphotography@outlook.com.

 

Original here


Narrow Path Ministries is in the process of opening an orphanage. An Endowment fund has been established  to fund the orphanage.