This guy is my HERO.

Listen to him. PLEASE. He is damn funny and RIGHT ON.

My thoughts exactly.

Aaaannnd... His thoughts on abortion.

I recommend "Pro-Life Answers to Pro-Choice Arguments" by Randy Alcorn for the truth on abortion that the media and the left will never let you hear. Given that we were all once fetuses, we ALL should be outraged when someone tries to say it's OK to kill an unborn child; that it's a "woman's choice." Last time I checked, stopping a life from continuing was the same thing as murder. And yet our Supreme Court deemed it lawful with Roe v. Wade in 1973. Hmmmmm... it defies logic, really.

When I was a senior in high school, I wrote and presented a paper in support of the pro-choice movement. I look back and am outright ashamed of what I thought I stood for, and the ignorance it took for me to think I was standing up for what was best for people. What a selfish, horrendous, disgusting, and violent thing I once believed in.

So go ahead, have at it. I know there are people reading this who disagree and agree. I wanna hear it.


Dana said...

Hi Andrea, it Dana. I was just wondering what you position on the life of the child if the mothers life is in jeopardy?

ae. said...

Oooh... that's a tough one. One of the most excellent resources out there is a book called "Pro-Life Answers to Pro-Choice Arguments" by Randy Alcorn. He covers the entire spectrum when it comes to this issue, including your question. The general rule is when two lives are threatened and only one can be saved, doctors must always save that life- one is not more valuable than the other. More often than not, that life is that of the mother as opposed to the child.

Pregnancy is rarely the actual threat to the mother's life- it is usually an outside cause such as cancer that would place a mother in this situation. When there are circumstances that require immediate attention in order to save the life of the mother that would result in the death of the child, doctors must act to preserve the life of the mother. The death of the child should only be a secondary affect of those actions to save the mother's life and should only be a last resort. I can only imagine being placed in such a situation...

Dana said...

Thank you for your answer. I work at a major hospital in Mesa. I guess I could say that I am aware of situations in pregnancy that do cause severe harm to the mother. Some of the most recent cases are precreta/acreta. This is where the placenta has penetrated partially or all the way through the uterus and in worst cases has attached to another organ, most commonly the bladder. In some cases the babies are saved but are born very premature. With modern technologies most babies born at 27 weeks gestation survive. I am not sure of the percentage. But there are also situations where the baby is too young and won't survive. Because of the complete penetration through the uterus the mother is bleeding internally. These situations may be rare in percentage of population, but since I am at the hospital I hear of it alot. In all cases they remove the uterus as well.