Saturday, October 18, 2008


I am compelled to respond to this anonymous comment…
“You should really step off your high horse. I'm not saying that abortion is right but women should still have the option. Doesn't God say we shouldn't judge. Who are you to tell people how they should live and what to do with their bodies. Women need to have the choice and they will live with that choice when they face God in the end. Not saying abortion is right but who am I to tell people how to live, you wouldn't want someone telling you what to do with your body. Take me for instance, I was raped when I was sixteen and became pregnant from that I had an abortion so go ahead and judge me but I know that God will be the only one who will do that in the end.”
First of all, I really hope I do not come across as on a high horse. I am just a girl who loves the Lord and wants to live a life that reflects that love. I have stated before that the Bible is my standard and so I use it as a plumb-line when making judgments.
The Bible actually does say to judge…“The spiritual man makes judgments about all thing... we have the mind of Christ.” (1 Cor 2:15,16). We are to judge ALL THINGS. I am making a judgment about abortion based on the Word of God. I am not judging this commenter-or people who have had an abortion. I am simply communicating what the Bible teaches about abortion. I cannot vote for Obama because of this.
My reply to the commenter..
I am very, very sorry for the tragedy that you suffered when you were sixteen. I cannot imagine the devastating pain that such an event would bring to the life of a young woman. I agree with you that God alone IS our judge. I also agree that God has spoken to us through His word, which you referred to. It is God’s word that will judge each of us – this is made clear in John 12:48: “He that rejects me, and receives not my words, has one that judges him: the word that I have spoken, the same will judge him in the last day.” God’s word, the Bible, speaks to the issues of life, including when life begins. God said in Jeremiah 1:5: “Before I formed you in the womb, I knew you.” God’s word is clear that the baby in the womb is a precious human life that He loves and cares intimately for. Indeed, He commands us, His children, to speak and stand up for those, like pre-born babies, who have no voice: Rescue those being led away to death; hold back those staggering toward slaughter. If you say, ‘But we knew nothing about this,’ does not he who weighs the heart perceive it? Does not he who guards your life know it? Will he not repay each person according to what he has done?” Proverbs 24:11,12.
Because I, like all of us, will be judged according to God’s word—that is, whether I obeyed it—I must speak up for the life of the unborn. Doing so does not make me anyone’s judge, but simply a sinner who has been saved by God’s grace and is trying to obey his word. I do this out of love, not arrogance. My husband and I are donors to AAA Women’s Services (, which has a ministry called ARISE (, which provides extensive counseling by women, and for women, who have had abortions. Please do not misunderstand my passion for precious human life—which requires me to speak out for innocent human life and against those who would permit the taking of it—as anything other than that of a mom who, while recognizing her own sins and faults, is seeking to follow Jesus Christ… who has given her LIFE.
One last question for you would be… since you said (twice), “I am not saying that abortion is right”…if it’s not right- then what is it?
Hi, this is Tim. “A woman’s right to do what she wants with her body” … I guess the thing that bothers me the most about this line of reasoning is the notion that the person inside the woman’s body is “her body” when biologically it certainly is not. The developing child has a different heart rate than the mother, a different genetic code, and different blood (with Af- hemoglobin). Are the unborn not considered people because they are in the womb (their environment)? Are there any other environments where people are not considered people? Are they not people because they are dependent on their mother (as part of the completely natural and normal process)? Is personhood defined by independence? Or are they not people because of their level of development? If this were the case… is an 8-year old more of a person than a 6-week old? Lets think about it for a second. All of these arguments are completely hollow, and of course are simply coming from people not wanting to be inconvenienced by a pregnancy. So nobody minds if we make laws and say it’s not right to kill people, unless they’re unborn, then all of a sudden we’re narrow-minded people who want to limit the rights of women. There is always adoption… there are so many loving families to take these precious babies. There really never is an unwanted child.
Like my cute wife said-Do not vote for Obama.
Ciao, Tim


Angela said...

Thanks, guys!! Tim, thanks for your perspective as well.

BethAnne said...

Well said.

Nicole said...

I agree with Bethanne...very well said!

Sandi said...

I am having a conflicting moral dilemma. I am all about adoption, very much pro life and agree almost word for word with Steph and Tim. However I am voting for Obama because I want nothing more for my children than to see this great nation have a black leader. They deserve this.

I am worried about the repercussions of reversing roe vs wade. I adopted a 24 week preemie that was a product of an at home abortion. He is a miracle. BUT I fear for the babies whose mothers don't panic and call 911. How many of those tiny angels are going to be hurt, suffering and left in a garbage can. I hate the thought of all of it!!
I am proud of you for responding. We all have to stand up for what we believe in. You both responded with love and compassion.

Heather said...

Wow, I have to say I was really moved by Tim's words! And that's hard to do, I'm a cynical hard-hearted, narrow-minded Republican woman ;-). I'm going to get verbose now....

Wait, I decided I needed to write this down in my own blog. I realized that as I weeped writing this story.

So Stephanie, I may be miles away from you with regards to our religions (Lutheran) but I am right with you with regards to what you feel is right and wrong. Good for you for standing up for what you believe in. Oh, and stop posting such stinking cute pictures of your beautiful family! They're causing baby envy in my womb. ;-)

-Heather, Angela's friend from St. Louis

lots_of_love_four_kids said...

Thank you.

Karla said...

I just hopped on here quickly to see what was going on with the Blackiston family since we've been gone a week to Destin. Thanks for shining your light before men and speaking truth in love. Our country would be in much better shape if we all followed your example. Have a great time at the beach, and I hope you have a fantastic, restful, playful time.

Anonymous said...

"coming from people not wanting to be inconvenienced by a pregnancy"

I'm agreeing with the annynomus person. Why would that person want to be 16 and carry the baby of the person who raped her. When people would ask about her pregnancy how would she explain that. Why would anyone want to be reminded of such a horrible crime. Carrying that child would be the last thing I would want to do. Not saying abortion is right but there are sometimes that I do agree with it. Your telling me that if your wife was raped and became pregnant you would want to have that baby..have your wife carry that memory everyday she grows bigger and then give birth to another mans baby? Just something to think about and not all pregnacies are and "inconvenience."

Stephanie said...

If I was raped and became pregnant, I would cry... I would get counseling... I would be devastated...I might consider giving the baby up for adoption, I might fall in love with him/her and keep the child but... I would NOT have an abortion. That is not an option for us. This is a black and white issue.
We can come up with the craziest scenario possible and Tim and I would not choose abortion. There is never justification for taking an innocent baby's life.

maryanne420 said...

thank you both for your posts. once again, i'm down on my knees praying. today at church, we all prayed for our city (los angeles), our state and our nation.

my family and i are often referred to as "the united nation" family. my husband is black and i'm filipino with spanish descent. all my husband and i care about is to see someone who's going to lead this country with morals and standards (according to God's word). i don't care if you're green, brown or black. i would rather see my children see a president who loves Jesus be in office. i'm not voting as a woman, not as an asian woman, not as a woman married to an african american man but as a daughter of the King.

sorry for the long post!

Diana Simpson said...

amen sister. thanks for your brutal honesty! I love you have a great trip! diana

Anonymous said...

You are right. I think it will be wonderful for our nation to have a black leader. I look forward to the day that we even have a woman as VP or Pres, BUT not at the cost of babies lives! Not a chance. My race is not as important as human life!

Melody said...

I totally agree with what maryanne420 said. You took the words right out of my mouth. Tim great post too!!.

"i don't care if you're green, brown or black. i would rather see my children see a president who loves Jesus be in office."

Anonymous said...

As everyone has stated, this is a heated subject. Both sides are usually very passionate. What is being argued though? A decision/inconveinience/burden vs. a human life? When we break it down, how can this be an issue? I know there are extreme cases, and I pray for God's grace on every one of those cases. I became very far right on this when we lost our first child at 23 weeks. I held her and she looked like a 1lb 8 oz Carlisle (my oldest daughter now), with my nose. She had fingernails, lips, toes, hair.....everything like you and me. There was no doubt that she was a living breathing human being, absolutely no doubt. Jennie (my wife) felt her kick and move in her 18th week. Imagining her (or any baby) being ripped apart inside of a womb is too much for me to handle. I can't support that under any circumstance. And, not to mention that at her gestation it would not have even been called a partial birth. The law did not recognize her as a human. She was just like you and me, just a lot smaller, but the law called her a fetus or an embryo. She was no fetus, she was a life. If Barrack Obama is elected, one of his first orders of business will be the "Freedom of Choice" act. This will take the dedcision of abortion from the states and move it to the federal level. Then, he will allow abortions at any stage. This is the same man that voted against the "Born Alive Infant Protection Act" The ONLY senator to do so. Even Ted Kennedy and Hillary Clinton, 2 very liberal senators, did not vote against it. If you can stomach it, go on youtube and look at the pictures and videos of abortions. Horrifying! As one of the previous posts stated, I too would love to see a black man as president, as a matter of fact, If Alan Keyes gets back on the ticket ever, I will vote for him. But for me, race does not trump life. If it does, then we are headed down even faster than I thought. I can waiver on taxes, immigration, vouchers, education, defense, but not on life. God have mercy on our country if killing babies becomes the norm. To date, more babies have been aborted than all lives lost in every war our nation has ever fought.

Anonymous said...

Just for the sake of argument, though, let us assume that there could be a morally meaningful distinction between being "pro-abortion" and being "pro-choice." Who would qualify for the latter description? Barack Obama certainly would not. For, unlike his running mate Joe Biden, Obama does not think that abortion is a purely private choice that public authority should refrain from getting involved in. Now, Senator Biden is hardly pro-life. He believes that the killing of the unborn should be legally permitted and relatively unencumbered. But unlike Obama, at least Biden has sometimes opposed using taxpayer dollars to fund abortion, thereby leaving Americans free to choose not to implicate themselves in it. If we stretch things to create a meaningful category called "pro-choice," then Biden might be a plausible candidate for the label; at least on occasions when he respects your choice or mine not to facilitate deliberate feticide.

The same cannot be said for Barack Obama. For starters, he supports legislation that would repeal the Hyde Amendment, which protects pro-life citizens from having to pay for abortions that are not necessary to save the life of the mother and are not the result of rape or incest. The abortion industry laments that this longstanding federal law, according to the pro-abortion group NARAL, "forces about half the women who would otherwise have abortions to carry unintended pregnancies to term and bear children against their wishes instead." In other words, a whole lot of people who are alive today would have been exterminated in utero were it not for the Hyde Amendment. Obama has promised to reverse the situation so that abortions that the industry complains are not happening (because the federal government is not subsidizing them) would happen. That is why people who profit from abortion love Obama even more than they do his running mate.

But this barely scratches the surface of Obama's extremism. He has promised that "the first thing I'd do as President is sign the Freedom of Choice Act" (known as FOCA). This proposed legislation would create a federally guaranteed "fundamental right" to abortion through all nine months of pregnancy, including, as Cardinal Justin Rigali of Philadelphia has noted in a statement condemning the proposed Act, "a right to abort a fully developed child in the final weeks for undefined 'health' reasons." In essence, FOCA would abolish virtually every existing state and federal limitation on abortion, including parental consent and notification laws for minors, state and federal funding restrictions on abortion, and conscience protections for pro-life citizens working in the health-care industry-protections against being forced to participate in the practice of abortion or else lose their jobs. The pro-abortion National Organization for Women has proclaimed with approval that FOCA would "sweep away hundreds of anti-abortion laws [and] policies."

It gets worse. Obama, unlike even many "pro-choice" legislators, opposed the ban on partial-birth abortions when he served in the Illinois legislature and condemned the Supreme Court decision that upheld legislation banning this heinous practice. He has referred to a baby conceived inadvertently by a young woman as a "punishment" that she should not endure. He has stated that women's equality requires access to abortion on demand. Appallingly, he wishes to strip federal funding from pro-life crisis pregnancy centers that provide alternatives to abortion for pregnant women in need. There is certainly nothing "pro-choice" about that.

But it gets even worse. Senator Obama, despite the urging of pro-life members of his own party, has not endorsed or offered support for the Pregnant Women Support Act, the signature bill of Democrats for Life, meant to reduce abortions by providing assistance for women facing crisis pregnancies. In fact, Obama has opposed key provisions of the Act, including providing coverage of unborn children in the State Children's Health Insurance Program (S-CHIP), and informed consent for women about the effects of abortion and the gestational age of their child. This legislation would not make a single abortion illegal. It simply seeks to make it easier for pregnant women to make the choice not to abort their babies. Here is a concrete test of whether Obama is "pro-choice" rather than pro-abortion. He flunked. Even Senator Edward Kennedy voted to include coverage of unborn children in S-CHIP. But Barack Obama stood resolutely with the most stalwart abortion advocates in opposing it.

It gets worse yet. In an act of breathtaking injustice which the Obama campaign lied about until critics produced documentary proof of what he had done, as an Illinois state senator Obama opposed legislation to protect children who are born alive, either as a result of an abortionist's unsuccessful effort to kill them in the womb, or by the deliberate delivery of the baby prior to viability. This legislation would not have banned any abortions. Indeed, it included a specific provision ensuring that it did not affect abortion laws. (This is one of the points Obama and his campaign lied about until they were caught.) The federal version of the bill passed unanimously in the United States Senate, winning the support of such ardent advocates of legal abortion as John Kerry and Barbara Boxer. But Barack Obama opposed it and worked to defeat it. For him, a child marked for abortion gets no protection-even ordinary medical or comfort care-even if she is born alive and entirely separated from her mother. So Obama has favored protecting what is literally a form of infanticide.

You may be thinking, it can't get worse than that. But it does.

For several years, Americans have been debating the use for biomedical research of embryos produced by in vitro fertilization (originally for reproductive purposes) but now left in a frozen condition in cryopreservation units. President Bush has restricted the use of federal funds for stem-cell research of the type that makes use of these embryos and destroys them in the process. I support the President's restriction, but some legislators with excellent pro-life records, including John McCain, argue that the use of federal money should be permitted where the embryos are going to be discarded or die anyway as the result of the parents' decision. Senator Obama, too, wants to lift the restriction.

But Obama would not stop there. He has co-sponsored a bill-strongly opposed by McCain-that would authorize the large-scale industrial production of human embryos for use in biomedical research in which they would be killed. In fact, the bill Obama co-sponsored would effectively require the killing of human beings in the embryonic stage that were produced by cloning. It would make it a federal crime for a woman to save an embryo by agreeing to have the tiny developing human being implanted in her womb so that he or she could be brought to term. This "clone and kill" bill would, if enacted, bring something to America that has heretofore existed only in China-the equivalent of legally mandated abortion. In an audacious act of deceit, Obama and his co-sponsors misleadingly call this an anti-cloning bill. But it is nothing of the kind. What it bans is not cloning, but allowing the embryonic children produced by cloning to survive.

Can it get still worse? Yes.

Decent people of every persuasion hold out the increasingly realistic hope of resolving the moral issue surrounding embryonic stem-cell research by developing methods to produce the exact equivalent of embryonic stem cells without using (or producing) embryos. But when a bill was introduced in the United States Senate to put a modest amount of federal money into research to develop these methods, Barack Obama was one of the few senators who opposed it. From any rational vantage point, this is unconscionable. Why would someone not wish to find a method of producing the pluripotent cells scientists want that all Americans could enthusiastically endorse? Why create and kill human embryos when there are alternatives that do not require the taking of nascent human lives? It is as if Obama is opposed to stem-cell research unless it involves killing human embryos.
Written by Robert George

Anonymous said...

Stephanie and Tim,
Thank you so much for sharing this and being courageous enough to speak the TRUTH IN LOVE. We, as a nation and people, have been so deceived by the enemy who's sole purpose is to destroy us physically and spiritually. He knows his time is short and he walks this earth seeking whom he MAY (emphasis mine) devour. Thankfully, God has equipment available to us for the fight! His Word!

On November 3, 2006, I was reading in Judges 13:3-5 when the Angel of the Lord came to Manoah's wife to tell her that she would conceive and bear a son. (v5 "For behold, you shall conceive and bear a son.") I could not deny that our Father was speaking directly to me. I wasn't surprised when I learned a few weeks later that I was pregnant. Steve and I didn't learn the sex of the baby before delivery, but again, I wasn't surprised when Jack Kenny was born. Our Father knew my son before he was conceived! For me, it backed up God's unchanging truth of what His word says. He had knit us together in the womb's of our mothers. There is a great documentary that National Geographic put out a few years back. It shows the development of a baby from the moment of conception to birth. (I can't remember the name off hand) We literally have been woven and spun.

Thank you again, Stephanie for your courage to stand up! You've encouraged me to keep standing on my Rock!!

In Christ,