• Josh Reading

ABORTION - You should be triggered

Updated: May 6

This blog is a joint blog by Angela and Joshua Reading. It often uses 'I' but we stand together in this.


"Children are a blessing..." Psalm 127:3


I am deeply disgusted that our society thinks killing babies, tens of millions of them is somehow justified, even good.


It is shameful and reflects a society that pretends to care but kills the most vulnerable.


I feel sick that we sacrifice our children nearly exclusively on the hill of sexual license and 'freedom'.


We are in many ways, no better than the pagans who directly sacrificed their children thinking it would bring them greater prosperity and blessing and protect them from poverty. What a foul society we have become. We need to repent deeply.


We have lost what is left of our humanity in celebrating and arguing to protect the killing of our children.


You can love both the mother and the child, don't accept the lie that this is an either / or issue. It is not.


Please, don't give an "I am not pro-murder, I am pro-woman", you can be pro-woman and pro-baby. You can help so she does not have to murder her baby.


There is a lot of things going around social media at present due to the likely dismissal of the Roe V Wade case in the USA. Let us address this. Roe V Wade – USA ruling – likely dismissal


The Roe V Wade case dismissal does not ban abortion. It moves the power back to the legislatures of states noting that abortion is clearly not a constitutional right in the USA.


That is it.


States can then decide their trajectory through democratic processes. Just imagine, legislatures making law. That is their job. It is not the role of courts to make law, simply interpret and apply it.


Abortion kills a child. That is simply fact. They are the most vulnerable of all humanity and at present the most dangerous place for a child in the world is in the womb of a mother.


The mother’s own body is doing everything to protect it, the mother is attacking the very work of herself. A woman aborting her child is not fighting the patriarchy, she is fighting herself, she is fighting matriarchy.


There is something deeply twisted about this. There is nothing less feminist.


Killing innocent people is wrong. No excuse. I AM NOT KILLING BABIES I AM PRO-WOMAN A frequently “Cut and Paste” post has been going around social media and it misrepresents the issue and centres again on killing the innocent in difficult situations.


It misrepresents nearly all law and argument against the killing of children in the womb. So let’s quickly address them.


Argument: "I'm not pro-murdering babies."


Actually, the second one says you should be able to choose to kill a baby, yes you are pro-murder. Whether it is for economic, social, or circumstantial reasons, you are actively supporting the killing of babies. Every year over 40 million innocent children are 'killed' because of abortion. Over 60 million American children have been killed through abortion. Let’s list the excuses or situational arguments as seen in social media…


Argument: "I'm pro-Becky who found out at her 20-week anatomy scan that the infant she had been so excited to bring into this world had developed without life-sustaining organs."


So, the child will die when it is born? There is a deep sadness in this and most law concerning abortion give clauses in regard to clear medical reasons.


That is NOT what Roe v Wade addressed, rather it opened the door to “without reason” murdering of babies. (to use the very words cited above).

Argument: "I'm pro-Susan who was sexually assaulted on her way home from work, only to come to the horrific realization that her assailant planted his seed in her when she got a positive pregnancy test result a month later."


Again, not what Roe v Wade created. Legislatures can make either exception, these cases are in the vast minority of cases. Usually around .25 percent of cases.


HOWEVER, why should a child lose their life because of the terrible sin of a man? Additionally, why can't this child be adopted and raised by a loving family.


I know my own family has offered to do this.


Argument: "I'm pro-Theresa who hemorrhaged due to a placental abruption, causing her parents, spouse, and children to have to make the impossible decision on whether to save her or her unborn child."


Again, not relevant to the Roe V Wade case. Medical intervention to save a mother unfortunately ending the life of a child is not covered at all. Rather, this is a medical act to save a mother not an intentional killing of the child.


Argument: "I'm pro-little Cathy who had her innocence ripped away from her by someone she should have been able to trust and her 11 year old body isn't mature enough to bear the consequence of that betrayal."


As above, Legislatures would have the power to allow an exception if needed. Roe v Wade dismissal DOES NOT CHANGE THIS. However, killing an innocent will not make this child free from the horror committed against her. Our society implicitly encourages degradation through open access to the sexualisation of children and women. If her body could not hold the baby medical intervention could be necessary and the doctor’s imperative is always to save the mother’s (child’s in this case) life. Even if one were to argue for exceptions, they prove the rule, they do not dismiss the reality that killing children is wrong.

Argument: "I'm pro-Melissa who's working two jobs just to make ends meet and has to choose between bringing another child into poverty or feeding the children she already has because her spouse walked out on her."


You can be pro-Melissa and pro the baby. There is NO scenario in which a child should die because of a materialist self western definition of poverty. I grew up under the poverty line by Australian standards, I work with refugees who grow up poorer than nearly any child in the west yet none of them deserve to have their lives and potential taken from them. Why is killing poor children ok?


If Melissa loves her child and can't afford to keep them, there are always families who can either help her directly or adopt the child.


No need to kill the innocent. The killing of a child in this instance is an extreme response to a financial problem and shows how obsessed the world has become with money and the value of material items. Apparently, money, food, clothing, and material objects are more valuable and more desirable than human life. Should we start killing 2-year-olds if we can’t afford to feed them?


Argument: "I'm pro-Brittany who realizes that she is in no way financially, emotionally, or physically able to raise a child."


Oh dear, western selfish entitled arrogance comes through with this one. This angers me because it is entirely subjective and assumes there is no support when there is. It would be easy for any mother to think at times that she can’t raise her child. The idea that just because a mother thinks she is incompetent means she can kill her baby should be sickening to our stomachs.


As said, above. Brittany can absolutely put a child up for adoption. The amount of children being sort for adoption is far more than the number of children being put up for adoption.


Argument: "I'm pro-Emily who went through IVF, ending up with SIX viable implanted eggs requiring selective reduction in order to ensure the safety of her and a SAFE amount of fetuses."


Safe for who? How is killing a baby safe? Calling it a fetus, which simply means 'young of' makes it no less a baby.


Argument: "I'm pro-Christina who doesn't want to be a mother, but birth control methods sometimes fail."


Christina can solve this very easily. However, all the sexual revolution has done in this matter is tell men and women they can do what they want without consequence. It is a lie. There is biological consequence, there is emotional and mental consequence.


Killing a child is not the answer to 'Christina' simply not wanting a child.


Argument: "I'm pro-Jessica who is FINALLY getting the strength to get away from her physically abusive spouse only to find out that she is carrying the monster's child."

Becoming a monster by snuffing out life is no way to respond to a monster.


There are MANY mothers and children that are now thriving despite their fathers being monsters. A child is a blessing despite their fathers sometimes being burdens. I would hope that just because a person had a monster of a parent we don’t judge them as unworthy and give them a life sentence of death too before they even have a chance to live.


Argument: "I'm pro-Vanessa who went into her confirmation appointment after YEARS of trying to conceive only to hear silence where there should be a heartbeat."


So... why is this being used? It is manipulative and clearly has nothing to do with abortion. 'Vanessa' has the heartbreak of likely being unable to have a child.


Unfortunately, one of the other above women killed their child when 'Vanessa' could have become a wonderful mother and adopted one of theirs.


Argument: "I'm pro-Lindsay who lost her virginity in her sophomore year with a broken condom and now has to choose whether to be a teenage mom or just a teenager."


Consequence. It is time we reembrace the reality of consequence.


We must stop medicating our ways around it, pretending that what we do has no appropriate consequence. We have disconnected our real choices from real consequences in most areas of life and it is destroying people.


Being a teenage mother is not the end of life for 'Lindsay', but aborting the baby is the end of its life.


'Lindsay' is now a teen mother of a child whether she bears it or buries it and the father is a father.


Again, no need to kill the child. An adoption is always an option.


Argument: "I'm pro-Courtney who just found out she's already 13 weeks along, but the egg never made it out of her fallopian tube so either she terminates the pregnancy or risks dying from internal bleeding."


Again... this is NOT what Roe v Wade nor what the vast majority of anti-abortion legislation addresses. I have personally worked with people in this exact situation. Medical procedure to save the life of "Courtney" unfortunately ending the life of the child is a far cry from just aborting the baby.


In this case both the baby and mother are likely to die.


Sorry but virtually all these cases show short-sightedness and the selfishness of a Western society that is wealthier then ever and hates its children more then ever.


Argument: “You can argue and say that I'm pro-choice all you want, but the truth is:

I'm pro-life.

Their lives.

Women's lives.

You don't get to pick and choose which scenarios should be accepted.

Women's rights are meant to protect ALL women, regardless of their situation. And women's rights are HUMAN rights.”


Of course we get to choose.


This is why I can’t walk down the street and kill someone who may take my job because such a scenario may threaten my financial stability yet in the context of war, protecting my family, possibly through death is considered, within strict parameters ok. Not preferable but ok.


If women's rights are meant to protect ALL women's rights then the right to free and ‘safe’ abortion is failing miserably. It is not protecting the rights of the female in the womb who are being aborted before they have a chance to speak, before they even get the chance to have a name referenced in a Facebook post like those listed above. We must speak up for those who cannot speak for themselves. The child in the womb, in this situation is the one.


There is no such thing as a ‘safe’ abortion for the child killed. A successful safe abortion always kills.


It is not protecting the many women who would desperately love to be mothers but their only option is adoption and due to the huge number of abortions adoption is now an incredibly long, difficult and expensive journey and for some is a dream never realised. It is failing as a human right as it is not protecting the fathers and families who might have been aunts and uncles, grandparents and cousins. In many of these situations the father is never even told he is a father, shouldn’t he have a right to know?


No, you are not pro-life and if you believe the killing of over 20 million women in the womb every year is ok, just own it.


The celebration of the right to kill over 30 million women in the USA over the period of Roe V Wade is not something that I will be raising a glass to.


You are NOT pro-woman you are anti the inconvenient child. What a tragedy. If you are a woman, you have it in your very biology to bring forth life, don't advocate for death.


Argument: Abortion is healthcare. Calling abortion healthcare is like calling Hitler and the Nazi's demographic population projection engineers.


It is ludicrous and offensive.


Killing innocents is killing innocents.


As said, every “safe successful abortion” ends in DEATH. Every single one.


That is not healthcare, that is more akin to the gas chambers of Auschwitz. It is the mass extermination of the next generation.


Argument: And for a country like the United States, who is watched so closely by the rest of the world, and has such a powerful influence over triggering global cultural standards, yes, this week I am incredibly angry at conservative lawmakers for the sheer AUDACITY to think they have the right, to take away that of 166 million women.” This is argument is wrong legally, it does not remove any right. That is the point legally, it simply returns the matter to legislatures at a state level.


In terms of influence on the world, possibly but unlikely. Hopefully this does trigger discussion about protecting the most vulnerable in society, children and protecting their mothers whatever the circumstance. One does not have to affirm the free destruction of new life to protect mothers.


You can love both.


Temporary problems Final solutions


I have campaigned against mistreatment of the most vulnerable in society constantly. from refugees in detention, to looking after those in war torn regions of the world, working for both government and NGO organisations to help people in the difficult situations of life.


Abortion, in the vast majority of cases is a terrible final solution to temporary problems.


I am deeply disgusted that our society thinks killing babies, tens of millions of them is somehow justified. It is shameful and reflects a society that pretends to care but kills the most vulnerable.


To ‘Pro-Choice’ Christians.


Allow me to be clear, someone who is pro the killing of Children is not a Christian. The scriptures tell us “Children are a blessing…” Psalm 127:3


When you argue for their destruction and disagree with God arguing they are just a burden in a situation, you are committing idolatry. You have made yourself greater than God. This is blasphemy.


From the very beginning of the Church, Abortion has been banned, the vulnerable protected and those who aborted a Child or oppressed the poor or vulnerable would be removed from the Church. We see this particularly clearly in the Didache, an early Church document outlining Christian living written at the same time as the New Testament. Someone who pretends they are pro-life personally but pro-choice legally should never be against any form of abuse so long as the recipient of that abuse is dependent. There should be no laws protecting them. What fools we have become.


The law cannot change the heart but in parapharased parallel to Martin Luther King Jnr's words, it can stop them "from lynching me". Law plays a part, one part in helping nameless children see the light of day. The Prophet Isaiah speaking to a corrupted Israel said:

"Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter. 21 Woe to those who are wise in their own eyes and clever in their own sight.” Isaiah 5:20 – 21

Hear this clearly, particularly to those who have fallen for the corrupted ‘wisdom’ of the world. This evil is being proclaimed as good and there is nothing more wicked then doing so. God will judge those who oppress the poor, the vulnerable, the least and the last.


Among the most vulnerable, babies in the womb. Repent today and return to life. Don’t be fearful in standing in front of people, be fearful that one day you will have to stand in front of God as he asks you why you called blessing burdens to be removed.


Return to life for the woman as she is protected and cherished in community, life for the baby as a new story is written for their future. Don't miss our last thought This discussion only exists because our society has built itself upon rebellion against God's plan for the family and sexuality. Our society is living out of it's rebellion and now it not only justifies evil but calls it good. We must rebuild the family of God, biologically, relationally, and Spiritually. Love the women, the woman 'with child' and the young woman inside. (or young man of course) Note: An additional post will be coming outlining the logical, medical, biblical and historical view of this subject in the body of Christ.


162 views0 comments

Recent Posts

See All