This Site Is No Longer Active

Check out RESTITUTIO.org for new blog entries and podcasts. Feel free to browse through our content here, but we are no longer adding new posts.

Aborting Some States


Going off some numbers given here there have been fifty million abortions since 1973. It is hard to understand just how big that number is. So they give you another statistic. Fifty million is the population of these states combined:

I still can’t fathom how we’ve done this. This is way beyond “man is his own God”, or “man is depraved”.

23 Responses to “Aborting Some States”

  1. on 26 Jan 2009 at 9:04 amJohn Paul

    That is really upsetting. A lot of what this comes down to is how little mankind values life.

    I listened to a William Lane Craig Debate recently and it got my mind to come up with an interesting thought on this subject. In the debate, Craig said something to the effect of “saying the universe had a beginning is not a religious statement, it is upheld by the scientific community.”

    Hearing this made me think of the abortion topic and how the statement “life begins at conception” is not a religious statement either, rather it a scientific statement you can find in any biology book on the subject. If ever confronted as a religious zealot trying to impose my beliefs on others with regards to this topic, I would simply ask the person to find me a biology book that disagrees with the idea that life begins at that time.

    As christians I believe we should value life, and this article reminds me to pray about this subject. Pray for those women who have been lied to and told that this is not murder, and pray for those on the grass roots level helping women to not make this horrific decision.

  2. on 26 Jan 2009 at 9:32 amMark C.

    Believe it or not, there are even some who say that “Abortion is NOT murder” is a religious statement. I used to belong to a group that taught that since “life” was defined as “breath,” the beginning of life was the first breath at birth. In addition, they referred to a verse in the OT Law where the penalty for causing a pregnant woman to lose her baby was simply a fine, whereas the penalty for murder was death. You can prove pretty much anything from the Bible if you take things out of context.

  3. on 26 Jan 2009 at 4:59 pmMatt Elton

    To put the statistics another way, 50 million is 17% of the U.S. population, or one in every six people. Imagine one in every six people you know dying. Or to put it another way, for every five people you know there’s a sixth person you would have known if they hadn’t been aborted.

  4. on 26 Jan 2009 at 8:01 pmJohnE

    where is life defined as breath?

    a verse in the OT Law where the penalty for causing a pregnant woman to lose her baby was simply a fine, whereas the penalty for murder was death.

    I’ve read something in the Law that is exactly the opposite of that:

    Exodus 21:22-23 If men struggle with each other and strike a woman with child so that she gives birth prematurely, yet there is no injury, he shall surely be fined as the woman’s husband may demand of him, and he shall pay as the judges decide. But if there is injury, then you shall appoint as a penalty life for life

  5. on 26 Jan 2009 at 11:24 pmSean


    Mark has probably only read that verse in the KJV:

    Exodus 21:22-23
    22 If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman’s husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine. 23 And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life,

    which gives the opposite impression.

  6. on 26 Jan 2009 at 11:28 pmJohnE

    Ha! Good old KJV 🙂

  7. on 26 Jan 2009 at 11:51 pmRay

    If God were to begin to exact some amount of funds from our
    economy on account of those abortions, what might be fair?

    Suppose he was to require from our economy only $1,000.00
    for each of the $ 50,000,000 aborted lives.

    How much would that be?

    Is a thousand dollars too little for a life?

    Then, there’s the matter of how much pornography that comes out
    of America, so called “adult entertainment” etc..

    Jesus said he would come as a thief in the night didn’t he?

    Should we be writing our elected officials? Please join me in this.

    Why shouldn’t we speak up? There’s no better way to run a country than in the fear of God is there?…except in the love of God
    I suppose. How about in the fear of God and out of love for him together?

  8. on 27 Jan 2009 at 5:07 amMark C.


    The group I was formerly involved with taught that life was “soul life” which they incorrectly defined as breath life. If I remember correctly they got that idea from incorrectly interpreting Gen. 2:7, “And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.”

    And Exodus 21:22-23 was quoted from KJV in that ministry, with the understanding that it meant losing a baby wasn’t as bad as losing a life, so abortion wasn’t murder!

    Fortunately I’ve since moved beyond what I learned from them. They had it right about the Trinity though!

  9. on 27 Jan 2009 at 8:58 amFrank D

    …and reinstated by Presidential order Friday, the US government is sending money overseas to help Planned Parenthood do the same in foreign countries.

    Spreading the love…

  10. on 27 Jan 2009 at 9:30 amSean


    I’ve heard a couple of people mention that the US is “supporting” abortions in other countries. What exactly happened on Friday and can you link me to an article or video or something?

  11. on 27 Jan 2009 at 10:12 amJohn Paul


    there you go sean.

  12. on 27 Jan 2009 at 10:33 amJohnO

    The white house actually has a blog and is being very transparent about the executive orders, etc, that the new president is signing.

  13. on 27 Jan 2009 at 12:32 pmSean

    So, I’m still unclear on this matter. The US is sending money to other countries (whilst the gov’t is literally trillions in debt) in order to help them with family planning by killing the unborn babies?

  14. on 27 Jan 2009 at 2:22 pmJohn Paul

    Sean that would appear to be the case. If you read the article, Obama doesn’t even want to talk about it, saying it shouldn’t be a political issue.

  15. on 27 Jan 2009 at 3:30 pmMark C.

    So, I’m still unclear on this matter. The US is sending money to other countries (whilst the gov’t is literally trillions in debt) in order to help them with family planning by killing the unborn babies?

    Sean that would appear to be the case. If you read the article, Obama doesn’t even want to talk about it, saying it shouldn’t be a political issue.

    As with nearly all political issues, it’s not quite that simple, according to the article linked above.

    A few excerpts:

    The policy says any organization receiving U.S. family-planning funds from the U.S. Agency for International Development cannot offer abortions or abortion counseling.

    “It is time we end the politicization of this issue,” Obama said. “In the coming weeks, my administration will initiate a fresh conversation on family planning, working to find areas of common ground to best meet the needs of women and families at home and around the world.”

    Obama’s memorandum reversing the policy comes the day after the 36th anniversary of Roe v. Wade. The landmark 1973 U.S. Supreme Court decision held that a woman’s right to an abortion fell within the right to privacy protected by the 14th Amendment. The ruling gave a woman autonomy over her pregnancy during the first trimester.

    The group Population Action International praised Obama’s move, saying in a statement that it will “save women’s lives around the world.”

    “Family planning should not be a political issue; it’s about basic health care and well-being for women and children,” the group said.

    “Women’s health has been severely impacted by the cutoff of assistance. President Obama’s actions will help reduce the number of unintended pregnancies, abortions and women dying from high-risk pregnancies because they don’t have access to family planning.”

    Republican lawmakers were critical of the new president’s action.

    “Not even waiting a week, the new administration has acted to funnel U.S. tax dollars to abortion providers overseas,” Rep. Tom Price, R-Georgia, said in a written statement.

    “This is a stunning reversal of course from the president’s campaign statements that he hoped to reduce the number of abortions. Just a day after thousands of Americans came to Washington to celebrate the principle of life, President Obama has made it clear that reducing abortions is not one of his priorities.”

    In his statement, however, Obama said he had directed his staff “to reach out to those on all sides of this issue to achieve the goal of reducing unintended pregnancies.”

    “They will also work to promote safe motherhood, reduce maternal and infant mortality rates and increase educational and economic opportunities for women and girls.”


    I agree this should not be a political issue. There is a difference between actively funding abortions and reversing a policy that says “any organization receiving U.S. family-planning funds…cannot offer abortions or abortion counseling.” Especially considering the on-again-off-again nature of the policy over the last several decades.

    In a perfect world, there would be no abortions. But how to deal with things as they are in this world, and how the government can handle these things in a non-partisan, unbiased way make it extremely complicated. Man has brought this world to a very sorry state, and short of the Kingdom of God, there is hardly ever a simple solution.

  16. on 27 Jan 2009 at 3:41 pmSean


    I read the article and my sentence in comment #13 was my summary. Of course abortion is a political issue because people are asking the government to make it illegal to exterminate the unborn. And, from what I gathered the term “family planning” is code for abortion. I’m still confused though. It’s hard to see through all of the pc terminology. Is it the case that the USA is now sending money to other countries to perform abortions whereas prior to this new change the USA was sending this money with the stipulation that it could not be used to kill babies (a very reasonable request)?

  17. on 27 Jan 2009 at 6:03 pmJohn Paul

    To be fair, I don’t think Family Planning is a code for abortion, but part of family planning would include among other things providing abortion if necessary.

    I personally don’t think its that unreasonable request. I can’t remember any numbers, nor do I care to look them up, but im sure the percentage of people in the nation who feel abortion is murder is no less than 45%, but even if it was 40%, we have 60% of the nation forcing them to contribute towards what they feel is a horrific “procedure.”

    If the government is not allowed to contribute to social programs that incorporate God (do to the oh lets say 10% that care) why is this very tough issue off the table for discussion when there are so many people that care?

  18. on 27 Jan 2009 at 10:59 pmRay

    John E. ,

    It’s interesting to see what the pilgrim reformers believed at the
    time ships came to America to settle it.

    Here’s what Exodus 21:22 says in the 1599 Geneva Bible. I will
    also include the study note which appears underneath for our

    Ex 21:22
    Also if men strive and hurt a woman with child, so that her child
    depart from her and 1. death follow not, he shall be surely punished, according as the woman’s husband shall appoint him, or
    he shall pay as the Judges determine.

    21:22 1. Of the mother or child.

    So the pilgrims that settled America, if they agreed with the study
    notes of their most common Bible, would have agreed that if men
    strive and somehow there is a woman with child in the mix of it,
    and the child is born of her, but death of either the mother or child
    follow not, then a man shall be punished according as the woman’s
    husband shall appoint him, or as the judges, arbitors, deliverers
    would determine….that is to those who were under the law for

    We who live by the spirit of God in Christ, are not under the law
    but we are not above it either. We can still be judged by it when
    we sin (are found to be not walking by the spirit of God). That is,
    the law should judge our conscience and determine our sin before

    Q. Are there other verses from the law of Moses about what the
    penalty of causing the death of a yet unborn in the womb of a

  19. on 28 Jan 2009 at 10:33 amFrank D

    This topic is also the product of media spin. Another source on the same subject:


    Anti-abortion groups criticized the move.

    “President Obama not long ago told the American people that he would support policies to reduce abortions, but today he is effectively guaranteeing more abortions by funding groups that promote abortion as a method of population control,” said Douglas Johnson, legislative director of the National Right to Life Committee.

  20. on 28 Jan 2009 at 12:19 pmBrian

    President Obama is only doing what he said he would.

    The more “liberal–left leaning” (I dislike these labels, but don’t know how else to say it) Christians bewailed the Bush administration propagating war and the death of the innocent. Now the more “conservative–right leaning” Christians bewail the Obama administration in one-manner-or-another propagating the death of the innocent.

    Sort of reminds me of Ecclesiastes– nothing new under the sun.

    BTW if Congress wanted to over ride this sort of thing it is within their power, yet they choose not to. That’s the America we live in in 2009.

  21. on 28 Jan 2009 at 12:23 pmJohnO

    It is a Democratic Congress now… so.

  22. on 28 Jan 2009 at 3:03 pmRay

    I went to my town’s museum today and saw some WWII information. I couldn’t help think about how that war was
    basicly bringing down a system that was into some real oppression,
    misusing, abusing and killing millions for no good reason that could
    be comprehended in any sensible way.

    Wasn’t it for that reason that God blessed America’s economy?

    Wasn’t that one of the reasons?

    I suppose we could say that America’s economy was blessed because of all the money spent and the technology needed for the
    war effort, but it wasn’t just that was it?

    God indeed cares about delivering the oppresssed doesn’t he,
    even if they are still unborn?

    And so let’s continue to write our legislators.

  23. on 15 Apr 2014 at 3:13 pmAbhirup

    So if it isn’t a human then what do you say it is? It is a fertilized egg that will (likely) bcmoee a human being.. If a biologist were asked to determine the species would he not conclude it to be human? This very much depends on your definition of the word human . Science is a morally neutral tool to discover/explain/describe the natural world using naturalistic explanations. A species is generally defined as a group of organisms capable of interbreeding and producing fertile offspring and has similar DNA. I think a biologist would conclude that egg cells, sperm cells, and fertilized egg cells all have human DNA and are of the human species. I think a biologist would look to her moral judgement based on her religion or philosophy as to whether any of these things are a person i.e. human with rights. It is not science that confers human rights, it is moral judgement based on religious belief or moral philosophy applied to the morally neutral science/naturalistic explanations that confers human rights. So again I ask at what point do you say we earn our human rights? First some distinctions. I don’t think there is a single point of human development at which all human rights are conferred onto a person. I think different rights are earned at different stages. For example, the right to vote: our society has deemed a person must reach the age of 18 which is also the age at which many rights are earned. Even the inalienable right of liberty is restricted to parental control before then. But the most basic of rights I think we all agree is the right to life. I think we would all agree that the right to life is conferred onto all persons from the beginning to end of their person-hood. So when does that which is human (has human DNA) bcmoee a person with at the very minimum, the right to life? This depends on the definition of a person (we have also been using the word human here in this context). Dave has offered some candidate definitions:“Most people agree that what makes us human is our ability to reason and to have complex emotions. This sets us above other life forms as we can learn and grow on our journey.”“Self-awareness, free moral agency, speech and symbolic cognition, conscience and the imagination”Now these of course would not suit a newborn babe, much less the fertilized egg, but I don’t think he was going for that kind of definition. But I think the point is, that human thought is what sets us apart from all other beings. I’ll come back to this.I’ll start from the birth side. Surely there is such little difference the day before birth to the day after birth that we must call it murder to end the life of that fetus the day before birth. And once I concede that birth is not where the line can be drawn, then I’m on the slippery slope of what constitutes a person. Unless I jump to the far other side of conception. But does a destroying a fertilized egg truly make it murder because of its potential to bcmoee a baby? I submit that it does not. It does not because it does not have enough person/human characteristics. DNA is not enough and a potential baby is not enough. I reject always and never. This puts me back on the slippery slope (can of worms) of defining a human based on some kind of criteria.I did a little research on what some religious texts teach. The Jewish Talmud teaches that a fetus is not a person and has no rights. There are still Jews against abortion but it does not fall under the murder rule. The Old and New Testaments contain almost nothing specific to prohibiting abortion. The closest I could find is Exodus 21:22 where if there is a fight and a woman bystander should accidentally be injured and as a result miscarry, the assailant must pay a fine. There is a lot of history on this topic, I was surprised at how much and I am only scratching the surface.If a line is to be drawn, it ought to be drawn conservatively, that is on the early side. And there must need be a line drawn for there to be law in the matter. So where is the line drawn in Roe vs. Wade? The woman’s right to reproductive freedom is protected by constitutional guarantees of privacy. But that right is not unqualified. The woman’s right to privacy and the fetus’s right life must be weighed. And the court weighed those rights and priority was given to privacy in the first trimester and life in the third. Their criteria was viability, whether the baby could live outside the womb. The crux was lung function which is not sufficiently developed until about the 24th week (beginning of the sixth month). I reject viability as a coherent criteria for determining person-hood. It is not the ability to breath which makes us human. Also a morality based on technology seems fragile. What if new incubators come out that make it viable for a 4 month old fetus to live outside the womb? It is the ability for human thought which makes us uniquely human. I submit that the earliest onset of human thought in the fetus should be the criteria. This actually happens after the 24th week so the time framing of Roe vs. Wade should hold in order to draw the line conservatively.Now I have offered plenty of arguable points here. I only ask that amongst your arguments you at least address the question of what the definition of a person/human is. And also why is a fertilized egg a person/human?


Leave a Reply