Terryl Givens’ excellent article on Latter-day Saints and abortion

Terryl Givens, one of the most prominent LDS intellectuals, has written the best article on abortion I have ever read. Of course it helps that Prof. Givens is a member of our Church and is writing from the perspective we can understand and appreciate as Latter-day Saints. But by any standard, Prof. Givens’ article is well-written and well-argued.

Prof. Givens, who is considered in many circles a “progressive Mormon,” has done an extremely rare and praise-worthy thing: he has gone against orthodoxy among many people in his peer group. It is not brave to do things that will generally win you applause from people who agree with you. It is very brave to “come out” as a conservative on this issue when most academics, entertainers, artists and the media are certain to disagree with you. Prof. Givens has proven himself a brave man.

(I want to make it clear that I don’t know Prof. Givens’ politics, but I do know many, many people who consider him a “progressive Mormon.” I apologize if that description is not accurate).

I cannot do this article justice by extensively quoting from it, but I would like to quote just one section at length because it is so well written and so convincing. The background is that you will often hear people say that they are personally against abortion but not in favor of legislation limiting the act. Prof. Givens destroys that argument:

If abortion is wrong, it is wrong because it involves the intentional destruction of another human being. This is really the heart of the matter. You must ask yourself, why are you personally opposed to abortion? I am not personally opposed to abortion because of religious commitment or precept, because of some abstract principle of “the sanctity of life.” I am personally opposed because my heart and mind, my basic core humanity revolts at the thought of a living sensate human being undergoing vivisection in the womb, being vacuum evacuated, subjected to a salt bath, or, in the “late-term” procedure, having its skull pierced and brain vacuumed out. (I have spared the reader the clinical descriptions of those procedures, although I think those who support abortion rights while willfully avoiding direct confrontation with the specifics of what they countenance are in an indefensible position). According to the Mayo Clinic, an infant in the womb has a beating heart by 5-6 weeks of pregnancy. The first electrical brain activity also appears at this point. Well over two-thirds of abortions are performed at that stage or later. And as we saw above, at a very early, undefined moment in the child’s development, a nervous system responds to the horror of such inflicted suffering. There is no more ethical or logical sense in being “personally opposed, but pro-choice” than in being personally opposed to sex trafficking, slavery, or child abuse, “but” pro-choice regarding the adult’s prerogatives in those cases. Abortion is not like heavy drinking or pornography or blaspheming, where one deplores the action but accords another the right to act immorally. Abortion is of that class of wrongs that entails the willful infliction of pain or killing on another human being.

Ultimately, the pro-life position is not a commitment predicated on sectarian values or God’s precepts. It is the fruit of a more universal commitment to protect the most vulnerable and voiceless. It is a commitment to the most fundamental obligation we have as part of the human family: to defend the defenseless.

As you might imagine, Prof. Givens’ article is being pilloried by his angry progressive friends who seem to think they have been betrayed. I will not link to any of their jeremiads, but Prof. Givens’ son Nathaniel wrote a very good article defending his father that will give you a taste of the battle going on. Nathaniel Givens’ point, which is somehow being ignored by many, is that there IS room for a moderate position in between a total ban on abortion in all cases and current law, which allows abortion up until birth in many states (including my state, Colorado).

If we did away with late term abortion (after 20 or 22 weeks, for example) in most cases, I think the issue would be much less contentious. What pro-choice people seem unwilling to accept is that legal late term abortion is what drives many of us to become activists on this issue. Does a six-week-old fetus have a human soul? Nobody knows for sure, but I think most people believe that a seven-month-old fetus definitely has a human soul. The unwillingness to compromise on late-term abortion is hurting the pro-choice position more than helping.

My stake in Colorado, never involved in politics up to this point, put out a request for Church members to support Proposition 115 this year. This proposition makes most late term abortions (after 22 weeks) illegal. I already voted for Proposition 115. I would also point out that the claim that the Church is somehow pro choice on abortion is contradicted by the Church’s official position on abortion as described here. President Nelson has given several talks about abortion, two of which can be read here and here.

So, I thank Prof. Givens for his excellent article and for his bravery. Bravo!

This entry was posted in General by Geoff B.. Bookmark the permalink.

About Geoff B.

Geoff B graduated from Stanford University (class of 1985) and worked in journalism for several years until about 1992, when he took up his second career in telecommunications sales. He has held many callings in the Church, but his favorite calling is father and husband. Geoff is active in martial arts and loves hiking and skiing. Geoff has five children and lives in Colorado.

30 thoughts on “Terryl Givens’ excellent article on Latter-day Saints and abortion

  1. Geoff,
    Thank you for posting this informative missive. Your comments for perspective about Givens’ secularism (‘Progressivism’) helps the medicine go down. But should I welcome Terryl’s typing?
    I yet don’t think so. Here’s why:

    Says he, “I am not personally opposed to abortion because of religious commitment or precept, because of some abstract principle of ‘the sanctity of life.’”

    This is quintessential ‘Progressive’/Liberal/Secularist separationism. So I disagree—he hasn’t one bit left the Left; he keeps both feet unheroically planted in the house of his Liberal bedmates. He is not being courageous. A humanist would utter his mutter. I am not a fan of his Liberalist plan. In my view from the pew, Liberalism is priestcraft, it is apostasy. I have read their ‘Progressive’ dread ever since late-1970’s Eugene England/Dialogue/Sunstone days. I’ve seen enough, heard enough, read enough to know exactly of what I speak.

    Great article, brother of broadened view! 🙂

  2. Geoff,

    I am very sympathetic to anti-abortion sentiments. However, I sort of wish your stake president had not called on members of this stake to support an anti-abortion measure. Here’s why…

    Fro the official statement linked in the original posting, I note the following words:
    “[The Church] counsels its members not to…”
    “The Church allows for possible exceptions for its members when…”
    “The Church teaches its members…”

    Regarding non-members (fellow citizens in our pluralistic society), here is the entirety of the text: “The Church has not favored or opposed legislative proposals or public demonstrations concerning abortion.”

    So it seems to me that your stake president is getting out in front of the First Presidency, as your stake is officially favoring a legislative proposal concerning abortion.

    I support individual Church members trying to do what is right, and encouraging others to join them in their causes. Best wishes to you.

  3. I appreciate having Br. Givens article shared. And I do agree with his descriptions of why abortion should not be acceptable on the basis of its inhumanity. And he was brave to post it.

    That being said, I do take issue with his comment where he said, “I am not personally opposed to abortion because of religious commitment or precept…” While again, I do agree that abortion is wrong simply because “it involves the intentional destruction of another human being,” it is also very wrong on religious levels. Abortion is an act that tries to abrogate the saving power of The Atonement.

    Although Br. Givens does walk back his previous statement somewhat when he writes,”In fact, early Latter-day Saint understanding of the War in Heaven saw the assault on agency in just those terms: a ploy to absolve humans of the fruits of our own choices, thus obviating most human suffering… Genuine respect for “choice” means we accept responsibility for the natural consequences of choices willfully made.”

    The War in Heaven was a preemptory strike against The Atonement. Abortion remains a modern one. Clearly not in every case, but in many, if not most, abortions at least one of the parties involved with the act of procreation had committed an act that runs contrary to the commandments of God. The issue then becomes one of not “accept[ing] responsibility for the natural consequences of choices willfully made.”

    Rather than relying on The Atonement, an abortion sets aside and diminishes its power and becomes the natural man’s attempt to avoid the consequence of breaking commandments. An elective abortion is an act in defiance of The Atonement.

    I realize that there are certainly exceptions (rape, incest, medical, etc.) where an abortion could be considered. But I think that these are truly the exceptions, not the norm. A study posted at the Guttmacher Institute (definitely pro-abortion) found that “While a small proportion of women who have abortions do so because of health concerns or fetal anomalies, the large majority choose termination in response to an unintended pregnancy.” The study further indicated that when asking the reasons given for having an abortion, “the two most common reasons were “having a baby would dramatically change my life” and “I can’t afford a baby now” (cited by 74% and 73%, respectively” (yes, more than one response was allowed). https://www.guttmacher.org/sites/default/files/pdfs/pubs/psrh/full/3711005.pdf

    In general, outside of the inhumanity of intentionally destroying a human life, abortion is fundamentally wrong on religious principles as it is an attempt to work around The Atonement and eliminate consequences to choices in a manner that does harm to both self and others. And we should not ignore that part of the equation either.

  4. This is one of the reasons I am grateful to live in Canada where abortion has been a settled question for decades now. We occasionally have a social conservative want to open the debate, but they are shot down by their own party because it is an election killer. Most Canadians believe the laws are working fine.

  5. Jason, if I had a dollar for every time I heard a Canadian claim his or her laws were so much more reasonable/sane/enlightened than U.S, laws, I would be a very rich man. That appears to be the most common Canadian sport, even more common than hockey, curling and saying “eh.”

    Just kidding.

    Anyway, there are many things I love about Canada, including the cleanliness and safety of the large cities (compared to many American cities) and the incredibly friendly and nice people. I would not enjoy the Canadian laws on health care or abortion, or gun control, or, I am sure many other issues. I think your prime minister is a lunatic even crazier and stupider than Trump. One of the great things about this great world that God gave us is that if you like Canadian laws you can live in Canada, and if I don’t like Canadian laws I don’t have to live in Canada!

  6. First of all I didn’t say our laws were superior, I merely commented it’s nice to live somewhere that we don’t have to fight these battles constantly.

    Second, I made no comment on your political system or your president. So the same courtesy is not too much to be expected.

  7. Glen and Mike: you both make good points from a gospel perspective. But your reasoning only “works” for someone who is already a believer.

    I would like to make the point that we need to consider Givens’ target audience. In spite of the article’s platform, I think his target audience is non-gospel-believing secularists. They don’t see things from a Christian gospel perspective, let alone a Restored Christian perspective.

    If my assumption is correct, he needs to meet them on their territory, and use steps of reasoning that they don’t automatically reject for being based on faith or religion.

    And to whatever degree he is speaking to believers in his audiencr, I think he is “arming” them for dialogue with non-believers.

    Both Givens and Bushman (Rough Stone Rolling) have spoken/written about the need to present ideas in a way that avoids “because God” or “because church” in order to gain and maintain the attention of outsiders.

    They are not the first to do so. BH Roberts did it too, and to the degree that some people have thought he apostatized because they were unaware of his premise and purpose of some of his writings. I think perhaps he did not embed a disclaimer directly in that/those publication(s).

  8. Austin Farrer said it better than I did. I think Givens’ philosophical / rational arguments against abortion fall under what Farrer calls creating a climate for belief.


    “It is commonly said that if rational argument is so seldom the cause of conviction, philosophical apologists must largely be wasting their shot. The premise is true, but the conclusion does not follow. For though argument does not create conviction, the lack of it destroys belief. What seems to be proved may not be embraced; but what no one shows the ability to defend is quickly abandoned. Rational argument does not create belief, but it maintains a climate in which belief may flourish.”


  9. Hi Book:
    Your point is well-taken. Yet I vary a little from it. There is, I think, flaw in what I saw. In-church secularists live and thrive in a kind of smug separateness. They claim courage in showcasing the insidious idea that a disciple’s life can exclude God, that the way to carry the message is to exclude it, to be an ambassador of God by denying Him. The claim is worse than lame, it is toxic to Church culture itself. It is worse than cowardice, it is departure and apostasy, a fake take, a pseudo-discipleship. It is the essence and definition of priestcraft, and the very antithesis of being a witness of God “at all times and in all places.”

  10. Glen,

    I think I’m with you about certain groups or types in the church who water down the Gospel and/or the Restoration. (As Geoff has often said, we encounter them more online than in real life.)

    Yet, I think the point of Geoff’s post here, is that we can still look at the article/essay in question, and say “this is a good thing for a particular audience, and it may serve to nudge or point them in a good direction.”

    I think we can praise something without requiring that it be 100% true and 100% beneficial for all possible audiences.

    Our praise for a particular piece does not constitute 100% endorsement for all past work by the author. I think this is a case where we can give credit where credit is due.

  11. Glen,
    You’ve meted out strong, harsh judgment. Your black and white thinking is yours to have, but it tends to divide the body of Christ which saddens me. I recognize that you likely feel that those who don’t think pretty similar to you aren’t technically a part of the body, so trimming Given’s from the margins (if that is where he actually is) is not dividing the real body of Christ.

  12. Glen, I think your heart is in the right place, but your comment leads me to believe you are missing something crucial: Prof. Givens is listened to and admired by the people we want to reach on the issue of abortion. We can safely assume that progressive latter-day Saints almost never listen to and admire anything I write, but they do indeed pay attention to Prof. Givens. So, he is trying to speak to them in a language they will understand. It is an overwhelming good thing, in fact, an excellent, admirable and praise-worthy thing, for Prof. Givens to try to reach these people. I think it is a mistake to concentrate on the WAY he is trying to reach these people rather than the fact that he is doing something brave in trying to reach them. So, I understand your point, but I continue to admire what Prof. Givens is doing here with this article.

  13. Hi Book – I appreciate your comment, and have enjoyed reading many of your comments. I am going to take some issue with your response to my comment.

    I think that Br. Givens is speaking specifically to believers and in particular to members of the LDS faith. I think that his platform was specifically chosen and also I think that those that have responded negatively towards him have been mainly from the blogernacle type of venues, so largely tied to the faith.

    That being said, after reading your comment I do agree that I think that he has hope that his post will reach out to a more secular audience as well. And that may be why he wrote that his opposition was not religiously based, in order to appeal to this more secular group. But, I would not be surprised if it was truly meant to reach those that have reacted against his post most vehemently so far.

    Clearly my comment was meant more towards a faith based audience. And, as I hope I had indicated, I do respect Br. Givens. And his arguments about the inhumanity of abortion are credible and powerful. I just cannot ignore the religious reasons, either. I think that many look at it as simply a “is it really a human yet or not” argument even within the Church and ignore foundational gospel reasons that are not directly tied to the “when is a fetus really alive” debate. And I think that the additional gospel issues need to be included among the believing, beyond just is it taking a life or not.

    Thanks for your thoughts.

  14. Bookslinger, CarlS, and Geoff:
    My gosh brothers, you pinned me to the mat! 🙂

    But truly, sometimes it’s not rude to exclude. It’s like telling an oncologist not to be offensive to one’s cancer by diagnosing it. Secularism/‘Progressivism’/Liberalism are not benign, and to opine that they are is not being magnanimous or charitable. And very frankly, when I hear that song sung, to me it reeks of virtue signaling.

    Yes, we can learn from others, and I personally love the practice. What I cannot abide is to have Gospel Doctrine teachers or Elders Quorum instructors happily laying out fad philosophies and false doctrines, and to tickle people with Mason/Miller/Ostler/Givenspeak. To say nothing about it is to ascent to it. Not to call it out is cowardice, not virtue. It’s just gummy bear weakspeak.

    I stand by what I wrote regardless of your vote.

  15. Mike:
    “But, I would not be surprised if it was truly meant to reach those that have reacted against his post most vehemently so far.”

    Clarification, please. AFAIK, those who have reacted against his post most vehemently are progressives/secularists, not the orthodox/iron-rodders. Is that how you see it? Or did you mean the vehement reactions are coming from orthodox members?

    There is some hypocrisy (or irony, if that’s the right word) in secularists taking offense from someone using purely intellectual / philosophical / rational (ie, non-religious) argument against abortion. And perhaps a bit of schadenfreude in figurative seeing their hair catch fire in rage.

    I would prefer to see the pro-abortion crowd converted to the gospel, but if not, then at least convert to pro-life for intellectual reasons. And if not even the latter, well… it is interesting to see their contortions against Givens’ logic.


    Glen: “What I cannot abide is to have Gospel Doctrine teachers or Elders Quorum instructors happily laying out fad philosophies and false doctrines, and to tickle people with Mason/Miller/Ostler/Givenspeak.”

    Bro: me too, but that is not what this is about. The target audience is not the folks sitting in church classes.

  16. It’s odd, because I do not recall being taught that abortion is always wrong. But I guess it was a bit like how I was never taught that burning a building is always wrong. I knew these things were almost always a really bad idea, and I looked down on people who chose to engage in these practices.

    After my son was diagnosed with a severe heart defect (one that ultimately did kill him), I recall explaining my logic. What I had been taught is that destruction of the physical body of an unborn child does not destroy the eternal soul of that child. And to me it seems that there is some point at birth which constitutes the commitment of an eternal soul to the physical body. Not that the eternal soul hasn’t been hanging with that physical body in utero, just that an eternal soul whose body never gets a chance to draw breath (or whatever birth process is the “you’re born!” moment) is given another chance to enter mortality. As I said about my son, were his body to have perished before being born, “He’ll try again.”

    In a weird way, characterizing destruction of a pre-viable infant in utero with a pulse and brain activity as fully equivalent to killing of a ex utero Infant somewhat bothers me. Not because I favor destruction of pre-viable infants (much lest viable in utero infants, but because roughly a quarter of all pregnancies end around the 12th week due to “spontaneous” abortion. This is the part of pregnancy where the mother’s body passes maintenance of the pregnancy to the fetus, and about 25% of fetuses can’t maintain the pregnancy.

    To feel that this pregnancy that ended in miscarriage is fully a death on the scale of the death of any breathing person seems to me to make a tragic but statistically frequent event even more scarring.

    I had a pregnancy in 2000 where the “Little Critter”, as we called the growing child, had a heartbeat and was wiggling around (indicative of brain activity, or so I tell might tell children who can hear me). Little Critter was only about as big as a grain of rice. But at the next visit, Little Critter was still only about as big as a grain of rice and Little Critter had no heartbeat and wasn’t wiggling around. My body is dumb, so it took my body from 1 October to Thanksgiving of that year to do anything about the fact that Little Critter wasn’t really inhabited by the hopeful soul any longer. In a prior age, I would have died. But thanks to modern medicine, I didn’t die. Which is good.

    I return you to your testosterone-informed discussion. It isn’t that I actually disagree, I just find much of the discussion to be tone deaf, speaking as an individual who has suffered a miscarriage and suffered another infant’s death when he was 8 days old.

  17. Meg, I share some of your concerns. My wife and I had several miscarriages at weeks seven or eight, and I thought to myself each time, “do these young beings have souls yet, and if so, why don’t we do temple ordinances for them?” So, there is a vast middle ground on this issue, which I have been firmly planted in most of my life.
    I also address those concerns in the OP. You may want to re-read the original post, which may perhaps make you feel that people are less tone deaf than you seem to think.

  18. “Bro: me too, but that is not what this is about. The target audience is not the folks sitting in church classes.”

    Book: Why does the message have to change to suit someone? Do you know what you’re saying?

  19. Glen: “Why does the message have to change to suit someone? ”

    a. milk before meat. Missionaries don’t knock on someone’s door and start with “we want you to donate 10% of what you make to our church.”
    That comes later, if at all, as most contacts don’t progress that far.

    b. you have to use language that the audience can process.

    c. Even the prophet, when talking to a big group of non-members is going to use different language than at General Conference.

  20. Glen, do you? Christ taught in parables for a reason. He tailored his message to the audience. Everybody everywhere who genuinely wants to get people to understand something will always everywhere dress their message to suit the audience. That’s a feature, not a bug.

  21. Good for Professor Givens for reminding us of the violence we would rather not look at. Most faithful Latter-day Saints share his views, while realizing there may be exceptions to the normal rule. We should not forget what Brother Givens is teaching us.

    With ACB on the Supreme Court, maybe one day the pendulum can swing towards more life and less violence toward it.

    As for arguments, if the target audience is more secular and feminist, consider the matter of gendercide. As the Economist reported: “Killed, aborted or neglected, at least 100m girls have disappeared—and the number is rising.”

    Kayne West recently noted that “One of the major statistics on the subject of life is that the greatest advocates for the A-word [abortion] are men from ages 31-37….We have a culture of that … In our culture, we’re doped up, and psyched out, and made to kill our children.”

    “West also referenced the comments he made about his daughter North at a rally in South Carolina back in July, where he cried onstage and admitted that he and his wife Kim Kardashian had considered aborting her. He had cried, he told [Joe] Rogan, because he was “gut wrenched.” He noted that at the time they found out they were expecting North, he felt he was “too busy” to become a dad. (In July, he described the incident in raw terms, stating that he had suggested the abortion, but Kim refused: “I almost killed my daughter…My girlfriend called me screaming, crying. I’m a rapper. And she said I’m pregnant. She was crying.”)
    “People saw this clip of me crying and some people didn’t know what I was crying about,” he told Rogan. “But I was crying about that there was a possible chance…that we—Kim and I—didn’t make the family that we have today. That’s my most family-friendly way to word that. The idea of [abortion] just tears me up inside, that I was part of a culture that promotes this kind of thing.”

    He also noted: “There were 210,000 deaths due to COVID in America. Everywhere you go, you see someone with a mask on. With A, the A word, A culture — I’ll say it one time, with abortion culture — there are 1,000 Black children aborted a day. Daily. We are in genocide. More Black children since February than people have died of COVID. And everyone wears a mask. So it’s a matter of where are we turning a blind eye to?”

  22. Bookslinger and Lattertarian—brothers of faithful flame! You’ve both missed my gist. I am saying that Latter-day Saints do not have to resort to secularism to defend a gospel position. I think to believe secularism is necessary in order to speak to people’s understanding or give milk before meat is to buy a sly lie. We’ve never seen the prophet do that, nor our missionaries. And we will never, ever see them do what Terryl Givens did—to blatantly, overtly bar God from a discussion: “I am personally not opposed to abortion because of religious commitment or precept.”

    I have a suggestion. Why don’t we all decide that we simply disagree. You have your points of view, I have mine. Save your bullets and bullet points, and let’s be friends. I am on an airplane with my wife right now returning home from Virginia, and while waiting at Chicago’s airport for a connecting flight we learned that our housing tract in Yorba Linda California has been evacuated because of wildfire. Ward members rescued our car and computer. A house above ours is already in flames and I’m not keen for that here.
    Cheers, my brothers. 🙂

  23. Re Canada

    “…abortion remains one of the most divisive political issues of our time.”

    “Since the 1988 ruling, abortion has continued to be a hot-button political issue. Opinion surveys consistently show Canadians divided on the matter. Opinion surveys consistently show Canadians divided on the matter. In 2010, an EKOS/Globe and Mail survey suggested that a slim majority of Canadians, 52 per cent, were “pro-choice” and 27 per cent were “pro-life” while the remaining 21 per cent would not affiliate with either camp – numbers that were little changed over the previous decade.

    As a result, federal political parties and governments have since 1990 generally avoided abortion as a topic of parliamentary debate, preferring to let the Supreme Court have the last word on the subject, rather than enact new legislation that could either formalize the existing system, or change it in some way. Several individual members of Parliament have introduced private members bills in recent decades – on both sides of the abortion debate –although none have made it through the House of Commons and therefore have not become law.”


    Prior to 1969 abortion was illegal in Canada. Currently, Canada has no legal restrictions on abortion.

    This is not so terribly unlike the United States.

    I do not know how Canadian members of the Church feel about this.

  24. Glen: Oh wow. my heart goes out to you. That certainly makes blog conversations pale in comparison.

  25. Hi Book – happy to clarify. I do not see a vehement reaction to what you might consider the more orthodox group. But if you consider the venue where his son felt he had to respond, I think that it shows that many that feel that they are either affiliated with the Church, or previously affiliated with it and cannot let go, have been outspoken against Br. Givens in this case. That is what I had meant.

    What I was trying to point out, was that I was concerned that Br. Givens was saying that religious beliefs had absolutely no impact in the discussion from his perspective. And while I understand how he might think that reaches out more to a more agnostic or atheistic (or secular) crowd, in reality I think that it does not and likewise weakens his position with those of faith.

    I am also fine with him saying that his opposition to abortion is not “because of some abstract principle of ‘the sanctity of life.’” I agree that it goes beyond that. And I completely agree that we all should join him in being “personally opposed because my heart and mind, my basic core humanity revolts at the thought of a living sensate human being undergoing vivisection in the womb.”

    But I disagree in the idea that there is no religious reason to oppose abortion, as I outlined before. I would much rather that he had said something along the lines of:

    Regardless of any religious tenets that lead me to oppose abortion, I am strongly opposed because my heart and mind, my basic core humanity revolts at the thought of a living sensate human being undergoing vivisection in the womb…

    But that is just my feeling on the importance of realizing how abortion works in opposition to The Atonement.

  26. P.S., you guys:
    We gratefully learn from others. Some of my most cherished quotes are from brothers François Fénelon and Martin Luther. And we of course have other recourse than to merely say “because God said”; there are legion other ways to couch word than to feed God to people using a slingshot, you know. And remember, “at all times and in all places.”

    Brother TG teaches that to relate to the secular world we need to leave God outside in the parking lot: ‘God, be a nice dog and sit right here while I go do something.’ A wrong song. I am not into scholar-worship; I prefer the methods, examples, and words of our Called and Ordained, General Aux Leaders, and reliable writ.

  27. For your consideration. The horrific description of a partial birth abortion.

    Then [the court] went on to quote a nurse who happened to witness the procedure: “The baby’s little fingers were clasping and unclasping and his little feet were kicking. Then the doctor stuck the scissors in the back of his head, and the baby’s arms jerked out, like a startled reaction, like a flinch, like a baby does when he thinks he’s going to fall. The doctor opened the scissors, stuck a high-powered suction tube into the opening and sucked the baby’s brains out. Now the baby went completely limp.”

    Read the whole things at https://theimaginativeconservative.org/2020/09/ruth-bader-ginsburg-canonizing-cain-joseph-pearce.html

Comments are closed.