About Me

My photo
St. Louis, MO, United States
What the name sez, Christian, conservative, 2nd amendment supporter. Physician, wife, daughter and loving mother.

Monday, October 6, 2008


I admit that I hang out on Twitter. This afternoon, this question was posed for discussion:

Just wondering: Does it matter to Christians whether a candidate is pro-life or pro-abortion? Would Jesus care or make it an issue? Why?

But this question does not lend itself to an answer that can fit into 140 characters. And the discussion that followed often expanded outside of the 140 character box or required multiple boxes to get the point across. I have been pondering this question since it was posted.

I am an unapologetic Pro-life Christian. For me, the Pro-Life position is very important in my choice of political candidates. I want a candidate that will protect the innocents in our country and look on each and every life as an individual with worth. I want a candidate that will not withhold comfort measures to a fetus that has been born alive after a failed abortion. I want a candidate that will not condone the creation of life in order to destroy it for the cells that can be harvested. I want a candidate that will actively look for alternatives to embryonic stem cells.

Today, thanks to our wonderful American medical system, we now put the lower limit of fetal salvage at 24 weeks of gestation. 24 weeks is also the upper limit for legal termination in many states. What happens in 24 hours to make a fetus disposable and the next day worthy of all out efforts to salvage that same life?

In 1973 when Roe v. Wade was crafted our obstetric technology was rudimentary compared to that of today. Ultrasound was in its clinical infancy and the ability to do prenatal genetic testing was still on the drawing board. It can possibly be said that ignorance of the events in early pregnancy made it possible for legalization of abortion on demand to exist, but today, we need to re-evaluate the wisdom of this in light of existing technology that enables us to save babies born remote from term. I want a candidate who is willing to re-examine this topic in light of modern technology.

Even the argument for termination to protect the life of the mother has fallen by the wayside. Today there are almost no situations where the life and health of the mother will be improved or spared by termination of a pregnancy even in the scenario of cancer and chemotherapy. The process of emptying the uterus either by laboring or by opening the uterus to deliver the fetus is no different in an abortion than it is at term, so there is nothing to be gained by not allowing the fetus to reach maturity before delivery. Today there are alternatives to abortion that make it possible for these innocent lives to be spared.

Would Jesus care or make it an issue?? I believe that Jesus would also be unapologetic in His position for life. He demonstrated this by healing the dregs of society, making special time to minister to little children, rejoicing over the prodigal son who squandered his life and then came home and finally making the ultimate sacrifice of His own life to save mankind. As one who placed such value on even the lives of the most outcast, there is no doubt in my mind that Jesus would also stand firmly for the unborn. He would make this an issue just as forcefully as he drove the money lenders out of the temple. And yet, there would also be forgiveness for the repentant and mercy for those who truly were sorry for the choices that they made.

Our society has become numb to the Slaughter of the Innocents that takes place every day all over America as a reflection of how amoral America has become. It is time that we seek a real solution to the problem of abortion in America and give the unborn their voice.


  1. Thank you, thank you, thank you. I am in tears. Thank you for caring, and thank you for writing about it. And thank you for writing as a doctor also. I cannot understand why there aren't more doctors speaking out about this. Your analysis was right on.

  2. Great post! Roe v. Wade is a relic from the dark ages! Let's bring women's health into the 21st Century!

  3. Hi,

    I just poked my head in here from your profile at justtweetit.com.

    I'm kind of confused, and would love clarification if you have time.

    On your profile over there it says: "Just what the name sez; Christian, conservative, 2nd Amendment supporter."

    I guess I don't see how supporting the carrying of guns meshes with this strong pro-life statement. Am I just confused?

  4. Hello Mike--Thanks for visiting my blog.

    The second amendment provides for the right to keep and bear arms for defense of property, life and liberty. In fact, legal gun owners are some of the most respectful people that I have ever met. When one takes the concealed carry course in the Missouri, the point is hammered home that even though you have the right to carry a weapon, you must be respectful of those who do not wish to have a weapon on their property, that there are legally a number of places where one cannot carry a weapon, and that it is preferable to try to get out of danger by any other means than use of your weapon if at all possible. Being a Christian does not negate this right and should make one even more responsible and peaceful as a gun owner.

    Being pro-life is a moral position that does not conflict with responsible gun ownership. To uphold the rights of the unborn, infirm and fragile does not require violence or aggression. Those who do resort to violence in the Pro-Life movement are not to be condoned.

  5. Hi Carolyn,

    Thanks for your reply. Your answer makes some sense to me, but I guess it's something we'll have to agree to disagree on.

    It just seems to me that in carrying a weapon with the destructive possibilities of a gun, you are contributing to and even prepending violence in your environment.

    If human beings are all created in the image of God, it seems at odds to me that Christ's followers would carry on their person a weapon which has a primary purpose of causing serious harm or death to these image-bearers.

    I apologize, as my comments are not 100% on topic with your post, and may be distracting from the points you were focusing on, but thank you for taking the time to clarify your views.

    As I said, I can't really agree, but I have a better understanding now, which is exactly what I was looking for.