Being Pro-Life at Google

The Case for Life is Strong

Is it possible to argue effectively for the rights of the unborn to a secular audience? Just Google it!

Many were surprised when Tim Keller was invited to give a Google Talk back in 2008 about his book, “The Reason for God.” The tech giant, like most denizens of Silicon Valley, has a reputation for being socially progressive and devoted to a set of values that are, shall we say, different than those of conservative Christians. By inviting him to talk to its staff, Google signaled an openness, not only to Christian ideas, but to real and healthy dialogue.

Keller was even invited to speak a second time at Google. But recently, an even more surprising Google Talk speaker than Keller visited their headquarters.

Stephanie Gray is a Canadian pro-life apologist. She travels the world making the case for the humanity and personhood of the unborn. She’s co-founder of the Canadian Centre for Bio-Ethical Reform and now leads a ministry called Love Unleashes Life.

Her talk at Google just a few days ago wasn’t just unprecedented, it was amazing. In fact, within 24 hours, it surpassed the popularity of another talk by Planned Parenthood president, Cecile Richards.

Stephanie opened by comparing the story of Captain Sully Sullenberger, the man who successfully landed a disabled airliner on the Hudson River in 2009, refusing to evacuate until all his passengers were safe, with the captain of the Italian Costa Concordia ship who quickly jumped ship after it wrecked.

We rightly admire people like “Sully,” Stephanie said, because of three qualities. First, their willingness to sacrifice for others, their perspective when faced with hardship, and their commitment to do the right thing, even when it means being the last one out of a sinking airplane.

But abortion flies in the face of these admirable and heroic qualities. It promises an easy way out—erasing the consequences of sex as if nothing—or no one—ever happened.

Stephanie thinks we all know better at a deep level. And she challenged her audience with story after story of women who chose life, even in the toughest of circumstances, and who don’t regret it.

Like my friend, Scott Klusendorf at the Life Training Institute, Stephanie knows that the arguments about choice, bodily autonomy, financial hardship, or special cases are just distractions from the central question that matters the most: Is the unborn human?

At Google, she marshaled scientific evidence to show that our humanity and individuality are fully present from the earliest stages of gestation. She showed that an unborn baby’s moral value is determined solely by the type of thing it is, not its size, level of development, environment, or degree of dependency.

And most importantly, she appealed to her audience’s moral imagination, demonstrating why the others-centered love required to choose life is the kind of thing we admire, the kind of thing we know is right, and the kind of choice no one regrets.

We can learn a thing or two from Stephanie. First, the case for life is strong. Her message was one that even an overwhelmingly secular and progressive audience could understand. She made non-religious arguments—what Chuck Colson would call prudential arguments—for the rights of the unborn. And then she employed an arsenal of stories that reinforce life in a way philosophical reasoning by itself never could. She even appealed to Google’s corporate motto, “Do the right thing,” adding: “even when it’s hard.”

And the second thing we can learn is that the moral realities that Christians believe aren’t just true and defensible. They’re better! So many in our culture these days are wondering not only if Christian truth claims are true, but if they’re good.

We can and should know how to make the case for life just like Stephanie. Come to for a link to her outstanding talk, and to find the book that taught me to make the case for life by Scott Klusendorf, called The Case for Life.


Being Pro-Life at Google: The Case for Life is Strong

We highly recommend you watch the Youtube video of Stephanie Gray’s talk at Google. It will equip you and encourage you to “make the case for life.” Click here for a link to her presentation.


Abortion: From Controversy to Civility
  • Stephanie Gray | Talks at Google | Youtube video
The Case for Life: Equipping Christians to Engage the Culture
  • Scott Klusendorf | Crossway Books Publisher | March 2009

Comment Policy: Commenters are welcome to argue all points of view, but they are asked to do it civilly and respectfully. Comments that call names, insult other people or groups, use profanity or obscenity, repeat the same points over and over, or make personal remarks about other commenters will be deleted. After multiple infractions, commenters may be banned.

  • gladys1071

    No bodily autonomy is NOT a distraction, it is a basic individual right, which most pro-lifers ignore and forget the pregnant woman in the equation. A woman refusing to gestate for 9 months is a valid reason to terminate a pregnancy.

    The pregnant woman is not invisible she has rights to her body, to her life, and her rights should come first, our country is founded on individual rights, becoming pregnant does not mean a woman loses her rights to her body period.

    As far a doing the right thing, that is up to the pregnant woman to decide.

    • Gina Dalfonzo

      So you would concede that it is possible for a pregnant woman to do the wrong thing?

      • gladys1071

        This article is stating that a woman should make the sacrifice and bear an unwanted pregnancy, I say that she does NOT have to , it is up to her to make the decision.

        • Robert Cremer

          The argument is not about a sacrifice to bear an unwanted pregnancy. It is about saving the life of another human being, who is of equal value, which no one else can do but that pregnant women.

          • gladys1071

            that is right it is the pregnant woman’s decision.

          • Sharon Diehl

            Non sentient embryos are not human beings.

            “What I’m concerned with is how you develop. I know that you all think about it perpetually that you come from one single cell of a fertilized egg. I don’t want to get involved in religion but that is not a human being. I’ve spoken to these eggs many times and they make it quite clear … they are not a human being.”–Dr. Lewis Wolpert, developmental and evolutionary biologist, author of “Principles of Development” and “Triumph of the Embryo”

            “I’m also confident that the freshly fertilized zygote is not human, either. There’s more to being human than bearing a cell with the right collection of genes.”–Dr. Paul Myers, developmental biologist

            Every human sperm and egg is, beyond the shadow of a doubt, alive. They are not human beings, of course. However, it could be argued that neither is a fertilized egg. ” – Carl Sagan

            “If the embryo loss that accompanies natural procreation were the moral equivalent of infant death, then pregnancy would have to be regarded as a public health crisis of epidemic proportions: Alleviating natural embryo loss would be a more urgent moral cause than abortion, in vitro fertilization, and stem-cell research combined,” declared Michael Sandel, a Harvard University government professor, also a member of the President’s Council on Bioethics.”

            “The idea that “life begins at conception” is not a scientific one. Since the disproof of ‘spontaneous generation’ (1668-1859), we have known that life only derives from life. Life arose billions of years ago and has continued since as a cycle. Assigning a beginning to a cycle (like the year) is arbitrary.”–Dr. Robert Wyman, neurobiologist

          • Robert Cremer

            Dr. Wolpert is concerned with how the development of the human being goes, not when life begins. Says he has spoken to the eggs and they have responded to him, sounds like he is losing his mind.
            Dr. Myers is making the case for life with his parapraxis. So what is it, if the fertilized egg (the developing human) has all that is necessary stuff making it a human being, if it is not already a human being?
            Mr. Sagan starts with a straw man argument no one is discussing, that the sperm and the egg are not a human. Then he says it “could” be argued that the fertilized egg (a developing human) is not a human. His word “could” says he is not sure what he is saying is right or wrong.
            Dr. Wyman’s argument with spontaneous generation has nothing to do with human eggs that are joined with human sperm that become human beings. His rambling cycle of life statement says nothing addressing when a specific human life begins.
            Mr. Sandel makes an irrational straw man statement. The discussion is not about natural process of embryo loss, but the unnatural forced removal requiring the child to be killed and then disassembled before total removal from the mother’s womb.
            When a mother sees a sonogram of her child inside of her she sees another human being, which is exactly what that baby is before it is born. No one needs to be a PhD, Medical Doctor or a Scientist to know that.

        • jason taylor

          Why not? The possibility of having to make unpleasant sacrifices is inherent in humanity and this decision is pretty obviously traceable to a decision she made. Are you saying perhaps that if the same woman emptied her account at Monte Carlo she should have her money back? Or more to the point, if said woman engaged in a mob hit so her money could be paid are we to be sympathetic? You know, say she HAD to be a hitwoman because Monaco was saying she HAD to pay her gambling debts and everyone was being mean to her because all she did was have fun for a night.

          • gladys1071

            Why should she? sacrifice is a choice, not to be coerced or shamed into or legally compelled. You cannot dictate that to anyone else. Person bearing the pregnancy is the one that gets to decide.

          • jason taylor

            Sacrifice is shamed into or legally compelled all the time and if it was not we could have no society. Taxation is legally compelled. Military service is shamed into and sometimes legally compelled. Traffic regulation is legally compelled and shamed into. Day to day manners is shamed into. The mere avoidance of criminality is both legally compelled and shamed into and is a considerable sacrifice considering the short term advantage that any given person can get by being a criminal. That statement is simply a desire to take advantage without paying for it.

          • gladys1071

            Was Jesus sacrifice coerced, did he not say i give up my life willingly? did he coerce or force anyone to do anything? nope.

            Self-sacrifice is a choice, a woman sacrificing 9 months out of her life/her health/and possible life, SHOULD BE A CHOICE, not be coerced by the state. Do you advocate for gestational slavery?

          • gladys1071

            No, but she can earn the money she lost back, and recover her losses. A pregnant woman can terminate a pregnancy and return to be un-pregnant.

          • jason taylor

            She can earn the money but not do so by immoral means. Clearly murder is an immoral means.

          • Sharon Diehl

            Honey, get over your male problems. Women own their ovaries. Women own their eggs. Women own their uteri. Women own their embryos. Not you.

            In Vitro Fertilization has demonstrated that a woman’s eggs can be fertilized externally from her body in a test tube or petri dish, kept frozen, used, donated to medical research, or discarded.

            A woman’s ownership of her bodily contents and rights as a citizen of the U.S.A.–the same as enjoyed by male citizens, which includes bodily autonomy, medical privacy, and the right to make medical decisions–are not stripped away should she become pregnant. Bible-humping rethugs are certainly doing their best, however, to make pregnant women third class citizens behind a male and a fetus, but so far the courts have upheld women’s basic human rights.

            Your Monte Carlo supposed ‘analogy’ is downright stupid.

        • wcszabo

          So a woman has the right to murder her child because it happens to be inside her body?

          • gladys1071

            she has the right to have it removed from her body.

          • Kathi J

            Not a child and not murder either.

          • Sharon Diehl

            Gelatinous non sentient embryos, of which most fail to implant and are shed from sexually active women, are not “children”.

    • SJPadilla

      The woman has every right to her own body, as long as she does no harm to the separate entity within her that has his or her own DNA. As the libertarians say, “Your right to swing your first ends where my nose begins.”

      • gladys1071

        She has a right to remove it from her body, since a woman is not a slave to the fetus/embryo, she can refuse gestation.

      • Kathi J

        Nope. The woman, who is the sole owner of the uterus, gets to make this decision and the embryo/fetus isn’t separate, if it were it wouldn’t be inside her uterus.

    • Lynwood Johnson

      In all kindness, there are points in your argument which you have simply glossed over, starting with “it is up to the pregnant woman to decide.” Women don’t just wake up one day, pregnant – “Oh, my! I wonder how THIS happened!” She knows. She was there. And, there were a number of decisions she made along the way.

      Every woman gets to decide:
      1) Do I choose to exercise my sexuality within and only within marriage, as God prescribed, or will I choose to allow the man of my choice into my life because I’m driven by my feelings and desires?
      2) Will I choose to be responsible and insist on protection against disease and pregnancy in my extramarital sexual liaisons, or just run with my feelings?

      So you see, Gladys, there is a whole string of decisions every woman (and man) has to make, prior to the arrival of a pregnancy, and our culture at large does a very sloppy job of acquainting young women with consequences of their decisions.

      To the case at hand, and the ‘unwanted pregnancy’ situation in America and elsewhere — too many women make a series of very poor choices. Now they’re pregnant, and as you have it, “it is up to the pregnant woman to decide.”

      So human lives with all their tremendous potential are slaughtered on the altar of a woman’s choice and preference, as a consequence of a series of lousy prior choices. In our culture there’s not much detailed talk about that trail of prior decisions.

      This is illustrative of one instance where God and His laws and plans express a much higher level of love and life. Where young couples choose to follow God’s Way and not engage in intercourse until after their marriage, there is no such thing as ‘sexually transmitted infections.’ Nor are there ‘unwanted pregnancies.’

      Bold statement, Gladys — I urge you to ponder it. The more people who consult God’s Word and commit to pattern their lives after its principles, the less we will experience the human wreckage of divorce, broken homes, distanced relationships, child abuse, abortion, substance abuse, el al.

      Said more simply, closer to God, closer to wholeness, completeness, and joy. Farther from God, closer to devastation, destruction, and death.

      • gladys1071

        None of your reasoning above negates a woman right to her body. Married or single women own their bodies/ their uterus and pregnancy or having sex DOES not change that on IOTA.

      • gladys1071

        by the way their are unwanted pregnancies in marriage, being married does not mean all pregnancies are wanted or planned.

      • Sharon Diehl

        1. Re: “as God prescribed”: Which invisible mythological megalomaniac deity are you invoking to bolster your personal dogma? The middle-east one that supposedly slaughtered every pregnant woman and child on earth in the fable of Noah’s Ark?

        2. Obtaining an abortion is the responsible decision for many women. The only body and life you get to control, my dear, is your own.

        Honey, god/nature/he/she/it/whatever is the number one abortionist since upwards of 80% of embryos, half of them perfectly viable, end up flushed from sexually active women into the toilet, or onto hygiene products. Learn a little reproductive biology. Most embryos are never born; it’s doesn’t matter if our bodies naturally abort an embryo, or if we choose to abort.

        • Gina Dalfonzo

          Sharon, please don’t call people here “Honey.” You know their names, use them. Thank you.

    • Sally Newton

      I think you may be missing the point, Gladys, that the issue here is that when a woman is pregnant, she is hosting another human being, which is dependent on her body for nine months, but the fetus is not, in fact, her body; it belongs to another individual. What gives her a right to take the life of another human being? Having sex always comes with it the possibility of conception; that is the decision making moment, not after conception has already occurred. Any woman ( except for victims of rape) has the choice to not become pregnant; don’t have sex.

      • gladys1071

        i agree with what you are saying, and i agree better to prevent pregnancy, but it still does not change the fact, that a woman has a right to REFUSE to gestate an unwanted pregnancy, woman does NOT lose her rights to her body because of conception. I agree the fetus is not her body, but it needs HER BODY to live IN. Since she owns her uterus, she can refuse to let it gestate inside her uterus, how she got pregnant is irrelevent.

    • Brian Collins

      You’ve repeatedly asserted that bodily autonomy is a basic right, and you’ve implied there are no exceptions. Can you outline an argument for these assertions?

      • gladys1071

        I mean this with all respect, bodily autonomy is not something i should have to explain to you. Let’s do a thought experiment. If you had a fork in your hand, now if i asked you to poke your eye with your fork would you do it? I would say you would not, why?

        If our bodily integrity is NOT important, then poking your eye with your fork SHOULD NOT BOTHER YOU. Why do you think torture is revolting to us? because of BODILY AUTONOMY. The right NOT TO HAVE OUR BODIES VIOLATED.

        So pregnancy which is a gestation inside our bodies is a violation of our bodily autonomy , if a woman desires to stop the gestation process inside her uterus and is barred from doing so. We HAVE A RIGHT TO CONTROL WHAT HAPPENS INSIDE OUR BODIES, we have a right not to have our eyes poked, our bodies tortured, our organs harvested, and REFUSE GESTATION INSIDE OUR BODIES

        BODILY AUTONOMY JUST IS, i should not have to explain it to you, but i hope the this helps.

        If you still do not understand it, then i give up.

        • Brian Collins

          But I don’t refuse to poke my eye with a fork or torture others because of the principle of bodily autonomy. I refuse to do so because of the principle of the imago dei. Since unborn humans are also bearers of the imago dei, I see no right to harm unborn humans any more than I see a right to torture born humans.
          We are operating on different principles. If you wish to persuade me, you have to justify your principle of bodily autonomy rather than merely assert it.

          • gladys1071

            I don’t have to justify it, it just IS. You refuse to poke your eye because you value your body, just like i can refuse to gestate for the same reason you an refuse to poke your eye. Don’t need religious reasoning to justify NOT damaging our bodies. Unborn humans do NOT have a right to gestated inside another person’s body without consent. You can take that to any court of law.

            i don’t need to persuade you, the law is on my side, you have to persuade me on why women should lose the rights to their bodies which is a HIGHER right.

          • Gina Dalfonzo

            I’m rather surprised no one has brought up the obvious: You wouldn’t poke your eye with a fork because it would HURT!

          • gladys1071

            exactly! i am dumbfounded too, we don’t like to hurt our bodies, yet nobody has answered that way.

          • Ann Morgan

            I might also point out, that in order for the pro-lifers to get what they want, they can’t merely give the fetus ‘the same rights as all other human beings’.

            They would have to give it a DOUBLE set of rights, in which it owned not only it’s own body, but the woman’s body as well – which as a consequence means that the woman has NO rights.

            This is not only mathematically incorrect, but it is NOT – regardless of what they claim – ‘treating the fetus like a human being’. It is treating the fetus like a GOD.

          • Brian Collins

            My apologies. I thought this was a conversation in which mutual understanding was a goal. In which case you would provide explanations of the principle of autonomy as well as interact with why you find it superior to the principle of the imago dei.

            As to religious reasoning, Michael Sandel has made a persuasive case that we should bring our differing religious and non-religious reasoning into the public square and openly discuss why we reach different conclusions on important public policy matters. He writes: “Liberal political theory was born as an attempt to spare politics and law from becoming embroiled in moral and religious controversies. The philosophies of Kant and Rawls represent the fullest and clearest expression of that ambition. But this ambition cannot succeed. Many of the most hotly contested issues of justice and rights can’t be debated without taking up controversial moral and religious questions. In deciding how to define the rights and duties of citizens, it’s not always possible to set aside competing conceptions of the good life. And even when it’s possible, it may not be desirable. Asking democratic citizens to leave their moral and religious convictions behind when they enter the public realm may seem a way of ensuring toleration and mutual respect. In practice, however, the opposite can be true. Deciding important public questions while pretending to a neutrality that cannot be achieved is a recipe for backlash and resentment. A politics emptied of substantive moral engagement makes for an impoverished civic life.” Sandel, Justice, 243.

          • gladys1071

            The principal of imago dei is religious, we live in a pluralistic society with different religious or non-religious beliefs. Public policy needs to be able to work in a pluralistic society.

          • gladys1071

            our individual rights are based on autonomy, and it applies to the religious and non-religious that is what needs to be reflected in public policy and in our laws. The concept of Imago dei is religious in nature, we cannot legistlate that.

          • gladys1071

            you obviously do NOT understand what bodily autonomy means, I tried to explain it to you, but you don’t grasp it, that is fine.

            compelling someone to gestate for 9 months can be considered a form of torture for some .

          • Bonnie Johnson

            It seems that to you bodily autonomy is not a concept to be rejected, but it must always be understood within a context. We do have choices as it relates to our own bodies, however, with the logic that you are espousing, could you answer a few questions that trouble me? I have a three year old child, but I also have bodily autonomy. If because of my bodily autonomy, I choose to care for myself alone. I feed myself, I bathe myself, I clothe myself but also choose not to do so for my three year old child, why is it fair or legal for the police to arrest me for child abuse/neglect? Why could I not successfully argue before the courts that my bodily autonomy gives me the right to choose to care for myself, but not provide for my child? It seems that civilization recognizes that I have a legal and moral responsibility to this other little body simply because I am the parent. What exactly changes between the little body being gestated and the little body living in my home? Is it just location? Is it non-human before birth, then human after? If it is a matter of viability, a 3 year old has no more viability with the care of another than a 3 month old. If the answer is I chose to have the child birthed (not to terminate the pregnancy) then could not that same logic be applied, I chose to have unprotected sex and invite the body to take up residence? What is the difference?

          • gladys1071

            The child being outside the body IS THE DIFFERENCE. Since the child is outside your body, anyone can care for it. When being gestated inside a body, it cannot be transferred and it is USING your body, organs, blood to live, that is the difference.

            This is not about responsibility, this is about the rights to not have our bodies used/ abused/against our will, that includes the following:

            being a host (gestation)
            organ donation
            blood donation
            being experimented on
            having substances injected into us

            If that does not make sense to you than i don’t know how else to explain it to you.

  • Sam Benito

    Gladys, as a latecomer to the dialogue you and others have been having here, I’d be grateful if you’d briefly catch me up on the principles that guide your thought. You’ve asserted that

    1 bodily autonomy is a basic individual right, and

    2 pre-borns have no bodily autonomy or basic individual right(s) because they are not yet human beings

    For the record, if it were proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that pre-borns are human beings, would that change the equation for you? Or would you change your position to “I know it’s a human being, but the rights of some humans trump those of others”?


    • gladys1071

      No, it still does not have a right to be gestated inside an UNWILLING HOST.

      • Sam Benito

        Seems to me if your principle is going to be, “pre-borns do not have a right to a uterus to be gestated in”, it’s only fair that those who don’t want them in their uterus oughtn’t do anything to cause them to be there in the first place.

        Or think of it this way: If I broke into your house uninvited, justice would approve if you chose to kill me. But if you were the one who put me there without my prior consent and then tried to justify killing me for being “an intruder”, you’d be laughed out of court.

        • gladys1071

          No but if you broke into my house, i can have you REMOVED, same principle applies to abortion. If gestation is unwanted, it can be removed.

          • Sam Benito

            But, in keeping with the analogy, you are the one who put me in “your house” by your own sexual intercourse. You are saying that if you decide I’m unwanted, you are justified in removing (i.e., killing) me, even though you put me there without my prior consent.

            Good luck with that kind of moral reasoning.

          • gladys1071

            Actually my reasoning is valid and the court will back me up because the rights to our bodies is higher than someone’s right to life. No court would force a woman or man to gestate another inside their body. Removal is justified.

          • Ann Morgan

            First of all, if you could not survive outside my house, and I ‘put’ you into my house, I am not ‘killing’ you by kicking you out. Your own medical problems are doing that. Every minute you spend in my house is a gift, not a right.

            If you CAN survive outside my house, then there is no problem with my putting you out.

            In order for you to have a case, that you have a right to stay in my house, due to your inability to survive outside my house, you would have to show that I somehow caused harm to something, thereby rendering you unable to survive outside my house. For instance, let’s say I yanked your organs out, and then attached you to a life support machine in my house. You would then have a right to it, because I harmed you by yanking out your organs.

            If you NEVER had organs, and I let you use the machine for a while, you don’t have a right to the machine. Why? Because you never had organs. sucks to be you, but I didn’t yank them out.

            If I let you in my house, and then somehow drastically alter the outside world, say I somehow put out the sun, and only my house is equipped to keep anyone alive after that, then you might also have a right to my house, because I put out the sun. But that does not apply to your fetus, the mother’s getting pregnant does not drastically change condition in the world.

          • Sam Benito

            Ann, you said, “If you could not survive outside my house, and I ‘put’ you into my house, I am not ‘killing’ you by kicking you out.”

            My survival outside your house is moot. You killed me with abortion instruments/chemicals BEFORE you kicked me outside your house.

          • gladys1071

            So you have a problem with the method of removal? The embryo will die because or after removal, so what exactly are you suggesting? are you saying a woman has to stay pregnant against her will?

          • Sam Benito

            Two things. First: if she became pregnant (brought me into her ‘house’) without my prior consent, it is heartless to throw me out knowing full well I will die. The humane thing is to let me stay until I’m able to survive outside.

            Second: In the analogy we’re using, she brought me into her ‘house’ and subsequently decided she wanted me out. But the way she ‘put me out’ was to kill me. The fact that I would likely have died anyway (though not necessarily, since some who are aborted late-term might well have survived ex-utero had they not been put to death preemptively) is secondary to her determination to have me out regardless of whether or not I survive. The point is, her putting me out of the ‘house’ is what killed me, not my inability to survive outside the house. I might well have survived had she not deliberately had me killed. With all due respect to my being there ‘against her will’, it was her actions that put me in her ‘house’ to begin with, not mine. So how can it be just or humane in such circumstances to go ahead and kill me on the presumption that ‘he probably would have died anyway’?

          • gladys1071

            You are incorrect, a 5-6 week embryo will not survive removal no matter what method. It will die because it needs a uterus to live, it needs to be incubated. At 1st trimester when most abortions occur it cannot survive outside the womb, even if removed intact.

            Woman has the right to refuse to be an incubator and house embryo in her uterus.

          • Sam Benito

            I didn’t know we were confining the discussion to 5-6 week pre-borns. My bad. But you’re still stuck with the moral/ethical dilemma of inhumanely killing an unwanted guest in your house (whom, remember, you brought in), rather than letting him/her stay until such time as he/she can be adopted and no longer be a ‘burden’ to you. Forgive me, but I honestly don’t understand how anyone can be that heartless.

          • gladys1071

            Its called we have a right to our bodies NOT be used and or the right to not be an incubator for the benefit of another. If you think that is heartless, so be it. Our rights to our bodies is not based on warm fuzzys.

            Pregnancy is a burden that can actually be life threatening and can cause adverse changes to one’s health. So NO , nobody has the right to be gestated by force even if they dies.

            i have a right to decide whether or not to gestate, it is my uterus in my body, by oxygen, my blood and my body that will be taking on that burden. IT SHOULD BE done willingly.

            You SHOULD BE GLAD that your body cannot be used or harvested for the use of another person. If we can enforce pregnancy/gestation, then organ or blood donation can also be imposed.

          • Sam Benito

            You say “if we can enforce pregnancy/gestation, then organ or blood donation can also be imposed.” Except that my kidney, etc., isn’t another person possessing his/her own unique DNA from conception. A zygote is.

          • gladys1071

            does not matter Zygote does NOT have a right to a uterus to be gestated in. If the uterus owner wants to provide it great, the zygote does NOT have a right to it. Unique DNA does not matter either.

          • gladys1071

            An unwanted guest in my uterus can be removed at the request of the UTERUS OWNER. It may seem heartless to you, i say oh well, their is no right to be gestated inside an unwilling host, not for the unborn or born person. Having fuzzy or warm feelings for an embryo/fetus does not give it any ‘SPECIAL rights” to be gestated or to use the body of another.

      • Dan Lane

        Would you also hold that an unwilling business owner has the right to expel and unwanted patron?

        • gladys1071

          Yes he sure does.

    • gladys1071

      pre-borns do NOT have a right to uterus to be gestated in. Their right to life infringes on another person’s body that is the issue at hand. You cannot force someone to gestate or be host to another.

  • SJPadilla

    This is really good to know about Google. So many on the Left are so closed minded!

  • Failop Maigret

    To the author: could you refer to names of people in your article in the same manner: last name only or first name? Often, males are more formally referred to by their last names and females are more casually referred to by their first name. It would be ideal if both males and females in the article are referred to in the same way. Thank you.

    • Gina Dalfonzo

      Thank you for pointing that out. I’ve alerted the team, and we’ll be more careful in future.

    • Why does it matter?

  • Gina Dalfonzo

    What about the pro-lifers who give their time, money, and energy to offer free counseling, collect clothes and diapers and furniture and other supplies, hold fundraisers, and more for mothers in need and their babies? Do their sacrifices and their work count for nothing?

    • gladys1071

      Still their choice to give of their time/ resources, nobody is being coerced to do those things, those people give that freely out their heart.

      no offense but giving way giving clothes, diapers, furniture, does not in anyway compare to having to endure 9 months gestation with possible medical complications, taking time off for doctors appointments, loss of wages due to pregnancy, giving birth, being in labor, and hospital bill of $20-30K depending on the insurance, hospital.

      I mean this will all due respect, whatever pro-lifers do is nice, but it is still NOT a sacrifice.

      • Gina Dalfonzo

        And you get to be the one who decides what is or isn’t a sacrifice because . . . ?

        • gladys1071

          If it were me, and i was the pregnant person, i would be grateful for the help, but i would NOT consider that a sacrifice comparible to the one i would be making, sorry but it does not compare.

          definition of SACRIFICE:

          The act of giving up something that you want to keep especially in order to get or do something else or to help someone

          • Gina Dalfonzo

            The goalposts seem to be moving a lot here, Gladys. “Pro-lifers don’t make sacrifices.” “They give up their own time and money without compensation for mothers and their babies.” “That’s not ENOUGH of a sacrifice.”

          • gladys1071

            Aren’t you deciding what a sacrifice is now, so you are doing the same thing?

            I say it is NOT enough, are they giving up 9 months, are they enduring childbirth and labor? the answer is NO they are not.

          • Gina Dalfonzo

            No, I’m not. I’m going by the dictionary definition you provided. Giving up something like your own time or money to help someone is sacrifice. Your own comment says so.

            But now you’re saying it’s impossible to offer sacrificial love and help without actually carrying the baby, which is the one thing a helper literally CANNOT do for the mother? Don’t you think this argument has descended to the level of utter absurdity?

          • gladys1071

            you are the one that wants to compare giving time/clothes/diapers, to the sacrifice the mother has to make, to me that is absurd.

            It is like saying their is a debt of $100K, somebody pays $100 dollars, another pays $95,000, who really paid more and or contributed more the pay the debt?

            I agree the pro-lifers cannot carry the baby so their help is nice and appreciated, but it does not compare. The woman still has to carry the burden pay the $95,000.

            Since the mother is the one having to carry the burden, it should be HER CHOICE to do so or not.

          • Gina Dalfonzo

            I’m not comparing anything. The idea of sacrifice was brought up. You and Ann seem to believe pro-lifers want others to sacrifice, not themselves. I suggested that those who help do make sacrifices of their own. You think it doesn’t count.

          • Sharon Diehl

            Gina, the only person making a “sacrifice” is a woman who decides to gestate and raise a child.

      • Ann Morgan

        Here’s the thing about ‘compassion’, Gladys.

        Most people who claim they want to ‘be compassionate’, actually want no such thing.

        What they REALLY want is a combination of one or more of the following:

        1. They want to FEEL compassionate, or all warm and fuzzy inside. FEELING compassionate is not automatically the same thing as BEING compassionate. For instance, a doctor who amputates a man’s gangrenous foot to save his life is BEING compassionate. But he probably doesn’t feel all warm and fuzzy about the matter. Amputations are a very un-cute act.

        2. They want other people to BELIEVE they are compassionate. You can include a lot of policians looking for votes under this.

        3. They want to be ‘compassionate’ – but with OTHER people’s time and money. Which displays a decided LACK of ‘compassion’ to the OTHER people.

    • Ann Morgan

      Gina, while their giving ‘donations’ is nice and probably makes you feel warm and fuzzy inside, here’s the problem. It’s one example where *insufficient help* is worse than NO help.

      For a classic example of this, consider a practice of some first world baby formula companies in Africa (and other 3rd world countries). They would give new mothers a nice big box of baby formula. How charitable, they’re helping the new mother!!

      Just one problem… they were only giving the ONE box. Babies require far MORE than one box of formula to drink, before they are weaned.

      The main result of their ‘charity’? The babies got several nice feedings of formula. Just long enough for the mother’s breast milk to dry up. After that, they got NOTHING.

      It would have been better for the mother to get NO charity. Then she would not have been tricked into not breastfeeding, her breast milk would not have dried up, and the baby wouldn’t starve.

      In your case – are your ‘CHARITIES’ giving sufficient ‘help’ to the recipients to cover the entire cost of raising a child from birth to age 18? Or longer if the child has disabilities? Or are you giving JUST enough to convince her to give birth, and a little help afterwards, and it amounts to about 1% of the total amount she will need to care for the child, JUST enough to convince her not to abort, then the 99% of the cost of the child, the REAL sacrifices, are for her to figure out? While you go home and feel warm and fuzzy about your fetal fantasies, and your insufficent ‘help’?

      And cupcake? For the future, don’t talk to me about ‘sacrifices’. I’m helping to take care of a disabled family member. Trust me, you and other ‘pro-lifers’ haven’t the slightest concept of what ‘sacrifice’ is. And I’ve got the numbers to back that up, 80% of pro-lifers make a mad rush for the nearest abortion clinic when THEY are diagnosed with that DS fetus. The REAL sacrifices, the ones that aren’t fun little fundraising social events, are always for OTHER people.

      • Gina Dalfonzo

        Number one, the burden of proof is on you to show that volunteer work and charitable efforts are NOT helping the way they’re supposed to help, since you made the suggestion. Number two — for the future, don’t call me cupcake.

        • Ann Morgan

          Are you giving $250,000 to each new mother?

          If not, it’s not helping the way it needs to help.

          As for the proof – if the charity was helping the way it is supposed to help, there would be far fewer abortions, wouldn’t there.

          And spare me the next whimper of: “Oh, so it’s pay up or the kid gets it!”

          The real situation is: Someone is going to get it. There isn’t enough money for everyone, and the mother does not have to choose the fetus before herself or her born children. If you don’t like the mother’s decision, then yes, pay up so that someone doesn’t have to get it.

          • Gina Dalfonzo

            When you say “gets it,” you’re referring to death. When you’re talking about what the mother has to go through, you’re referring — in most cases — to hardships, which can indeed be very hard, but are not the same as death. Apples and oranges.

          • Ann Morgan

            **When you say “gets it,” you’re referring to death**

            The death of mindless cells.

            **hardships, which can indeed be very hard, but are not the same as death. Apples and oranges.**

            And embryoes, which can indeed have a lot of human DNA, are not the same as thinking, feeling, people. Apples and oranges.

            Tell me this: How many times a month do you spend cleaning up a ‘bathroom’ mess made by a 40 year old man? Or wiping his arse?
            Do you get interrupted on dates or even during sex with a phone call to come deal with a problem created by a disabled sibling, because your mother isn’t physically strong enough to deal with the matter?

            Or do you just pay lip service to the ‘hardships’, while you yourself get to gaze at cute pictures of fetuses, enjoy your nice party life, and salve your conscience with a few social-event fundraisers for diapers every year?

            Don’t like that question? Here’s another one you aren’t going to like:

            Let’s say I have a tachyon laser. Which I can use to destroy selected, very small objects in the past.

            I decide to eliminate you from the timeline, because I find you ‘inconvenient’. I have two choices:

            1. I can destroy the zygote that becomes you, 2 seconds AFTER the magic moment of ‘conception’.

            2. I can destroy the unfertilized egg that will become the zygote that becomes you, 2 seconds BEFORE the magic moment of ‘conception’.

            I would like you to explain to me if you are good with removing you from the timeline with option 2. If not, why, since you insist that the unfertilized egg may be handwaved away.

          • Gina Dalfonzo

            My nice party life? ROFL! You must have a SUPER weird definition of “party.” 😀

          • Ann Morgan

            Oh, and Gina?

            I do so hope, my dear, that you are getting your internet access at the local library, and are living in a small room with 5 other people on a diet of cheap staples, and donating 95% of your income to charity.

            If you are not doing this, there are 3rd world children who are DYING. right now. Because if you are keeping most of your income so you can have a nice comfortable lifestyle, then you are choosing ‘Death for them, so there is no ‘hardship’ for me’ while hypocritically condemning others for making the exact same choice…. Except of course what you are doing is definitely far WORSE than abortion, because abortion only kills mindless cells. Your choice kills thinking, feeling people.

            What does the bible say about hypocrites?

  • gladys1071

    Yes religious reasons due need to be ruled out because the law has to apply to the non-religious too, so using concepts of Imago Dei need to be left out. We cannot impose our Christian view on others via law.

    • Brian Collins

      But the point is that *somebody’s* moral framework is being imposed by law. If we pretend those frameworks are neutral than we are simply not being honest. Once we acknowledge that that no framework is neutral and stop excluding certain frameworks on dishonest grounds, then we can begin to have a public conversation among people of goodwill from various positions. The goal is persuasion. Perhaps some will be persuaded to my view. Perhaps some won’t be persuaded to my view, but their see affinities between my view and theirs which can lead to public policy agreement even if there is still religious disagreement. Sadly, instead of these kinds of generous conversations we have polarization and exclusion.

  • gladys1071

    I agree with you about minimizing the risk, and people should use birth control and such. It still does not negate mitigating the consequences such as pregnancy. Just like you eat candy, even if you brush your teeth, you can still get a cavity, would you go to the dentist or just let it fester?

    Becoming pregnant does not mean one has to STAY pregnant.

    • Gina Dalfonzo

      Interesting choice of analogy. A cavity is unequivocally and always a bad thing.

      • gladys1071

        Pregnancy can also be a bad thing depending on the circumstances and the person. We mitigate consequences all the time for all kinds of things, gaining weight, cavities, car accidents, lung cancer (due to smoking), etc…

        • Gina Dalfonzo

          But a human life is not a disease.

          • Ann Morgan

            **But a human life is not a disease.**

            The symbiotic bacteria in your gut are not a ‘disease’, either. In fact, they are a GOOD thing under a lot of circumstances.

            But not all. There are circumstances under which they are NOT good, and places they are not wanted, and you would want to get rid of them. Such as: If they were injected into your bloodstream.

      • gladys1071

        stop imposing your view that pregnancy is always welcome and a good thing. If i got pregnant i would hate it and run to the nearest abortion clinic and I am happily married, I would hate to gestate for 9 months and would find it be a gross violation.

        You cannot tell someone that that pregnancy is always good , for many it can be a nightmare.

        • Gina Dalfonzo

          I never said it was always welcome. But I’m a little perplexed by the way you seem to think it’s always bad. Am I misunderstanding your view?

          • gladys1071

            No i don’t, like i said some would welcome and be happy and others would not. So we should not impose our view that it is always good or always bad and let each person decide for themselves. Each person is different, each person’s circumstances are different.

            That is why everyone should have the freedom to choose whether or not to continue a pregnancy.

      • Ann Morgan

        **Interesting choice of analogy. A cavity is unequivocally and always a bad thing.**

        Not always. Such as in the novel ‘Prostho Plus’. One of the characters in the book deliberately nurtured a very large, nasty cavity in his teeth for a very good reason.

        Specifically, he was the Dean of an intergalactic school of Dentistry. He nourished the cavity, and disguised himself as a beggar, then went around asking the new freshmen in the school to treat him.

        For free.

        Why? He wanted to see which Freshman had enough compassion for his pain to give him at least SOME treatment for free. That was the freshman that he wanted to take on as his special apprentice.

  • Ann Morgan

    As the saying goes – He who pays, says. If the forced birthers want other people to gestate, then they better pay for it, 100%. Otherwise they don’t get to ‘say’.

    They remind me of my classmates in some liberal brainwashing class I was in back when I was a kid . And btw, it’s interesting how they accuse pro-choices of being ‘liberals’, because it’s actually THEM behaving like liberals in the case of the fetus, and demanding the money and other resources be taken from the actual owner and handed over to their pity object of choice.

    But I digress. The brainwashing class was meant to try to convince all the students how ‘selfish’ and ‘unfair’ the United States was to the rest of the world. The example they gave was:

    There are 20 people at a party. A pizza is delivered. One person – representing the US – immediately grabs 3/4 of the pizza for himself, leaving the other 19 people to squabble over the remaining 1/4 of the pizza, and isn’t that ‘unfair’ and ‘selfish’ of the one person who grabbed so much?

    Of course the elephant in the living room, oh-so-carefully not mentioned, is the following question: “Who paid for the pizza?”

    If the one person paid for 3/4 of the pizza, then taking 3/4 is ‘fair’. In fact, if the 1 person paid for ALL of the pizza, leaving ANY of it at all for anyone else is arguably ‘unselfish’ of them.

  • Pobretano

    Bodily rights discussions? Oh, such a boring.

    There is just a single problem with it: it isn’t possible for dead people enjoy bodily rights. Ontologically, “bodily rights” (whatever it means, because it is mostly brought into the picture in an ad hoc manner) are very subsequent to the right of life.

  • Gina Dalfonzo

    Sharon, I deleted another version of this comment yesterday, because it didn’t follow the rules. But I don’t want to keep having to delete it again and again, so I will post it just for the opportunity to remind you that name-calling and bashing are not allowed, and that in the future ALL such comments will be deleted. Abide by the comment policy, or go elsewhere. Your choice.

    • Sharon Diehl

      You don’t like me using terms-of-endearment, so I did delete them.

      • Gina Dalfonzo

        I also don’t like you calling people “wannabe womb regulars” and the like. Don’t do it again.

        • Gina Dalfonzo

          And no, that was not an invitation to repost the entire comment with one change. It’s posted. It’s done. Move on.

          • Gina Dalfonzo

            I am now having to delete comments left and right because of bashing. Seriously, people? A bunch of adults have to behave like kindergarteners in a public forum?