Professing ‘Christian’ Couple Refuses Woman’s Pleas Not to Abort Baby replying “We’ve prayed about it”

“I do not want this child. I didn’t even want it when I found out that I was pregnant.

Who did they pray to? Do these “Christians” REALLY believe that God approved or gave them permission to KILL A BABY? If this woman wasn’t “ready to be a mom” yet, WHY DID SHE HAVE SEX??!!! What type of Christian man takes his wife to an abortion clinic to kill his child???? AND…. DOESN’T THE BIBLE SAY THOU SHALT NOT KILL??? 

A viral VIDEO  posted to social media on Friday shows a man and woman who professed to be Christians declining a woman’s pleas not to abort their baby, stating that the child would interfere with their plans and that they had “prayed about” the matter.

While the background behind the video, such as the location of the recording, has not been divulged, the footage captures the nearly seven-minute conversation between the young couple and a woman named Kate.

“You guys aren’t here for an abortion, are you?” called out Kate, who stood on the sidewalk to help abortion-minded women turn from murder.

 

“I am not ready to become a mom,” the young woman responded. “I’ve got so many plans to do and I feel like a child [myself] right now.”

“I totally understand that, but I need to tell you the truth that you already are a mom,” Kate explained. “It’s too late for that. You already have a human child in your womb that’s just as valuable and just as human as you are. And so, what you’re about to do is not to undo that choice, but to kill that human.”

The woman remarked that what she does is her own business. Kate asked if it would likewise be her own business if she killed her one-year-old because the child interfered with her plans. The woman opined that such a situation would be different because the child was already born and the mother had an emotional bond with the infant. She stated that she doesn’t have an emotional connection with her child “at this point.”

Kate warned the young woman that she was about to do something she could never undo.

“Just because your son or daughter is really, really small and you can’t see him, and he’s really weak and defenseless right now, doesn’t make it less terrible to murder him than if he were older, or you could see him. He doesn’t change from a non-baby to a baby as he’s born,” she explained.The father of the child then chimed into the discussion.

“We understand that,” he said. “We’ve sat and talked about this and prayed about it, thought about it.”

“So, you guys are Christians? You’re followers of Jesus Christ?” Kate asked.

“Yes,” the father replied. “And unfortunately, we’ve got ourselves into this situation … and it’s not like we want to do this, but it’s something we feel like we have to [do].”

Kate explained that there was no circumstance that warranted killing their son or daughter.

“You’re going to have to stand before God and give an account for yourself, and He’s going to say, ‘I sent someone to warn you and you killed your son or daughter anyway.’ Please don’t do this,” she pleaded.

“I know that this seems inconvenient, that you have a lot of plans, but I promise you doing the right thing and being faithful to God and being a good mother and father is better, and will result in a good life for you [better] than whatever you have planned that you feel you have to get rid of this child for,” Kate added.

She reiterated that killing a baby in the womb is no different than murdering them outside of the womb because they are inconvenient.

“I understand, but unfortunately, we’ve made our decision,” the father stated.

As Kate continued to plead with the man to take care of both mother and child, he repeated that the two had already made up their minds.

“I get it. And I have my thought process and I’m not saying it’s right, but it’s kind of what I’m doing,” he said.

“So why would you do something you know is wrong?” Kate asked.

“Because I’m a human and I make mistakes,” the father answered.

Kate then warned the couple that they were not simply making a mistake, but intentionally doing what they know is wrong.

“No, no, no. Making mistakes is not intentional. You’re about to intentionally sin against God and against this child,” she said. “That’s rebellion. That’s blasphemy against your Creator.”

“I understand,” the father replied.

He advised that the two would think about it and consider their options. Kate said she was not sure that was so, and that it seemed that the two had their heart set on abortion.

“I’m trying to persuade you not to even go into this place,” she explained.

“You won’t,” the woman replied forthrightly. “I do not want this child. I didn’t even want it when I found out that I was pregnant. So, if you can continue to tell me that I’m making a bad mistake, I’ll make that choice…”

“It’s not just a bad mistake. It’s murder,” Kate noted.

“I understand,” the woman replied.

Kate again warned that the couple will have to give an account before God for killing their son or daughter.

“Then I can take that sin,” the woman asserted.

“No, you can’t, ma’am,” Kate answered.

“I don’t care,” the woman bluntly admitted.

“Why don’t you care?” Kate asked. “You guys say you’re followers of Jesus Christ, but you don’t care about innocent children?

“Yes, we are,” the father replied. “We understand.”

He then asserted that all sin is equal.

“Ma’am, I will take your child if you don’t want it,” Kate pleaded as the two began to walk away.

“I don’t want to go through the process,” the woman called out.

Kate continued to urge the couple to love their son or daughter as his or her parents, but the two continued on their way and proceeded to enter the abortion facility. It is not known what happened after that point.

Psalm

 

Judge Blocks Ban on Dismemberment Abortions as ‘Undue Burden’ on ‘Right of a Woman’ to Kill Her Child

“Hence, that all efforts, direct or indirect, to disturb the progress of gestation or to injure the product of conception are criminal, alike violating the laws of nature and of God,”

AUSTIN, Texas — A federal judge appointed to the bench by then-President George W. Bush has struck down a Texas ban on dilation and evacuation (D&E) abortions, also known as dismemberment abortions, finding the prohibition to be an “undue burden” on the “right of a woman” to her child.

Abortion-Procedures-Levatino-DE-NAF-forceps

“An abortion always results in the death of the fetus. The extraction of the fetus from the womb occurs in every abortion. Dismemberment of the fetus is the inevitable result. The evidence before the court is graphic and distasteful,” U.S. District Judge Lee Yeakel acknowledged, but nonetheless added, “But this evidence is germane only to the state’s interest in the dignity of fetal life and is weighed on the State’s side of the scale. It does not remove weight from the woman’s side. And it does not add weight to tip the balance in the state’s favor.”

“The State’s valid interest in promoting respect for the life of the unborn, although legitimate, is not sufficient to justify such a substantial obstacle to the constitutionally protected right of a woman to terminate a pregnancy before fetal viability,” he opined.

Planned Parenthood and the Center for Reproductive Rights had sued in July to challenge S.B. 8, a bill that prohibited dismemberment abortions, except for in the case of medical emergency. 

“‘Dismemberment abortion’ means an abortion in which a person, with the purpose of causing the death of an unborn child, dismembers the living unborn child and extracts the unborn child one piece at a time from the uterus through the use of clamps, grasping forceps, tongs, scissors, or a similar instrument that, through the convergence of two rigid levers, slices, crushes, or grasps, or performs any combination of those actions on, a piece of the unborn child’s body to cut or rip the piece from the body,” the bill read, describing the common second-trimester abortion method.

Baby-aborted-6-months-D-and-E
Baby Aborted 6 Months D&E

According to Yeakel’s ruling, attorneys for the state had argued in court that the law does not block mothers from obtaining second trimester abortions because the bill does not ban the procedure when the child is killed by another method first. 

“The State responds that the Act does not render second-trimester abortions unavailable, because fetal demise can be safely achieved with one of three procedures before a physician performs a standard D&E: (1) use of a hypodermic needle to inject the drug digoxin trans-abdominally or vaginally; (2) an injection of potassium chloride directly into the fetal heart; and (3) umbilical-cord transection,” he outlined.

However, Yeakel opined that these methods are potentially unsafe for the mother and would also delay the abortion.

“The court concludes that whether the court weighs the asserted state interests against the effects of the provisions or examines only the effects of the provisions, Plaintiffs have carried their burden of demonstrating that the Act creates an undue burden for a large fraction of women for whom the Act is a substantial rather than an irrelevant restriction,” he wrote.

“The court concludes the Act is an inappropriate use of the State’s regulatory power over the medical profession to bar certain medical procedures and substitute others in furtherance of the State’s legitimate interest in regulating the medical profession in order to promote respect for the life of the unborn,” Yeakel said.

Attorney General Ken Paxton has vowed to appeal the ruling to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals.

“A five-day trial in district court allowed us to build a record like no other in exposing the truth about the barbaric practice of dismemberment abortions. We are eager to present that extensive record before the 5th Circuit,” he said in a statement. “No just society should tolerate the tearing of living human beings to pieces. We are hopeful the 5th Circuit will respect the will of the Texas legislature by upholding Texas’ lawful authority to protect the dignity of innocent unborn children as they die.”

In his 1854 lecture at the University of Pennsylvania on criminal abortion, obstetrician Hugh Hodge declared, “Human life commences at the time of conception; … the embryo and fetus therefore should be protected during its intra-uterine life as sedulously as after birth.”

“Hence, that all efforts, direct or indirect, to disturb the progress of gestation or to injure the product of conception are criminal, alike violating the laws of nature and of God,” he stated.

Notorious Late-Term Abortionist Opens ‘Advanced Gestation’ Abortion Facility in Maryland

“Offering advanced gestation abortion care starting Tuesday, October 17th!” it reads. Abortion is legal throughout all nine months of pregnancy in Maryland.

BETHESDA, Md. — A notorious late-term abortionist plans to open an “advanced gestation” abortion facility in Bethesda, Maryland on Tuesday—an announcement that has been met with opposition from pro-life groups nationwide.

Leroy Carhart will perform abortions in a suite of the Wildwood Medical Center on Georgetown Road, notes the website AbortionClinics.org.

“Offering advanced gestation abortion care starting Tuesday, October 17th!” it reads. Abortion is legal throughout all nine months of pregnancy in Maryland.

 

A protest and press conference is scheduled for noon as members of the Maryland Coalition for Life, Operation Rescue and others will be present to speak against the new facility.  

Operation Rescue says that the location is not licensed to perform abortions, and Carhart would be operating illegally if he conducts terminations as scheduled. It filed complaints with the Maryland Department of Health and Mental Hygiene, as well as the Maryland Board of Physicians.

“We trust that any effort to open that Bethesda facility without a valid license will be met with swift action on the part of Maryland authorities, who are already aware of the situation,” said President Troy Newman in a statement.

Bethesda Magazine contacted AMR Commercial, a leasing agent for the building, which advised that it had received a number of calls urging that Carhart’s lease be voided.  

However, representative William Montrose noted that it was another management company that leased the suite to the abortionist. He believes that an abortion facility is a “bad fit for the building” because it would generate opposition.

“Typically, with any kind of business, you don’t want any kind of distracting noise outside your door,” Montrose told the outlet.

The website PrayForBethesda.com urges those opposed to the abortion facility to contact Alvin L. Aubinoe, Inc. about Carhart’s lease.  

Carhart became the subject of controversy in 2013 after mother Jennifer McKenna Morbelli, 29, died following complications from the abortion of her 33-week-old daughter, who she named Madison Leigh. Morbelli opted to have an abortion because the baby had fetal anomalies, reports state.

An autopsy later revealed that Morbelli died “due to or as a consequence of Amniotic Fluid Embolism following Medical Termination of Pregnancy,” or the existence of amniotic fluid in her bloodstream, which resulted in clotting.

The Maryland Board of Physicians agreed to investigate the matter following a complaint, but ultimately decided to take no action in the situation.

Carhart was also captured during an undercover investigation that same year likening the lifeless and “mushy” bodies of aborted babies to “meat in a crock pot.”

“So, what makes the baby ‘mushy?’” the woman, who posed as an abortion-minded mother, asked.

“The fact that it’s not alive for 2 to 3 days,” Carhart responded.

“Oh, so I’ll have a dead baby in me?” the woman inquired.

“For three days, yeah,” Carhart said.

“Will it start to decay or something?” the woman asked.

“No,” Carhart said. “It’s like putting meat in a crock pot. Okay? It doesn’t get broken. It gets softer. It doesn’t get infected.”

“Okay, so the dead baby in me is like meat in a crock pot,” the woman repeated.

“Pretty much,” Carhart replied. “Kinda much.”

Carhart also operates an abortion facility in Bellevue, Nebraska, and states on his website that he is a supporter of the abortion advocacy groups Faith Aloud and the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice.

Written by By Heather Clark