A Child’s Life

ChildLifeby Anniel10/2/15
Each child is a unique never duplicated person from the instant of his or her conception. A man may not understand this in the way a mother does, if she is true to her nature as a woman. She and the child seem joined, but in reality the child has a distinct and separate life.

At first the signs of pregnancy may not be felt, but before the woman feels the “quickening” of her child she may have “morning sickness” and know something is up. The first hint of a child’s personality can be evident from the time a discerning mother feels the baby’s movements.

Maybe we should take up the Japanese system of age and treat the date of a child’s birth as being his or her first birthday. Our youngest daughter was 14 and speaking good Japanese when she joined her brother on a trip to Yokohama and then to the northern island of Hokkaido. She told me she intended to say she was 15 because that’s when Japanese children become “grownups.” I told her she really was 15 in Japan so no lie was involved. When she returned she confessed she said she was 14 if it was advantageous (cheaper) to do so.

My husband, Bear, and I had five children. The first boy was an “explorer” both in the womb and after. I could feel him touching, questioning and learning everything in his environment. It was no surprise that from birth he has wanted to understand absolutely everything he sees. His favorite phrase was, and still is, “Dad, Mom, I have a question.”

Our oldest daughter, born just 13 months after her brother, was totally different. She moved at a slower pace before birth and took her time to figure things out after she was born. In some ways she felt threatened when she didn’t understand what was happening, so we learned to carefully explain where we were going, what we were doing, and why.

Our second boy was born only 17 months after his sister. Before birth he made large and powerful movements, constantly turning end over end, even when he was just days from his due date. It felt very strange and scared our friend’s children when my smock rose and fell. The pediatrician held the kid up dangling from his thumbs the day after he was born and was amazed at his muscles. He crawled, walked and climbed everything very early. He is still the sportsman in the family and very graceful (he also says he’s the most handsome).

Our third boy was born almost 3-1/2 years later, and I could feel how happy he was, even before birth. He loves everyone and everything so everyone returns the favor. He’s a great big, tall jokester who loves all the grandchildren in the family almost equally with his own three girls. Even in times of trial he pulls through gratefully.

The baby, a girl, was endlessly fascinating, both before birth and after. She was another explorer, born looking around to see what was going on and where she was. She was my only C-Section because she was butt down and could not be turned. She stubbornly held on to her ankles and would not let go. Is she still stubborn? Of course, just like those things called facts.

The fact is that tiny hearts beat, systems and organs form, brains grow, and  hands and feet, complete with tiny nails, begin developing very early in gestation.

The lies that have emanated from the penumbra of Roe v. Wade are pernicious, as are the defenders of Planned Parenthood, whether they be from the organization or the government that supports and maintains it.

This little one was aborted still moving and with a beating heart. Who would he have been and who would he have blessed?

Each baby is a unique gift from our Creator God, to be cherished and protected because it will not come again. • (1288 views)

Share
This entry was posted in Essays. Bookmark the permalink.

39 Responses to A Child’s Life

  1. Ronald J. Ward says:

    That’s a compelling story but as a father of 4 (with the help of my wife of 31 years), a strong anti abortion advocate, and a believer that life starts at conception, I find your attack on Planned Parenthood to ring hollow.

    The arguments from today’s so-called conservatives on abortion have become so abstract that it’s become questionable if they even have a sincere interest in addressing the problem or if they are more interested in political theatrics or more importantly, to exploit the abortion issue to simply use it as a boogeyman to achieve other objectives.

    With that said, let’s break down today’s so-called conservative’s assault on PP to see how precisely it addresses the abortion problem and how it will help the unborn. We do know a few things about PP. About 97% of PP’s services are for sexually transmitted infections, disease testing and treatment, contraception, cancer screening and prevention, pregnancy tests, prenatal services, family practice services, urinary tract infection treatments, and many other services not related to abortions.

    Now it is true that 3% of PPs services pertain to abortion BUT it is also true that none of this 3% is paid for from federal funding. It cannot come out of the federally funded budget so that tab has to be picked up by the patient or from other donors.

    So even while I object to the 3% of the abortions performed by PP, defunding them does not do anything to address the problem as those wanting abortions would simply go elsewhere as they are paying for it anyway and/or those private funds are still available and would simply be solicited by the other clinic.

    PP has simply become today’s so-called conservative’s faux boogeyman to use as a tactic to end what may have been construed as an entitlement program or a welfare program of such, a type of program that’s always first on their chopping block. It will do absolutely nothing to address the problem and in all likelihood, only make it worse.

    • Timothy Lane says:

      I have read, in the various criticisms of PP, that they exaggerate their other services. For example, if someone comes in for an abortion, there may be a few other services involved, each counted separately. Note, too, that most of those services are much less expensive — for example, contraception is cheaper than abortion, and cancer screening is much cheaper than a mammogram (which PP doesn’t perform — and this is why the Komen group dropped PP until the liberal Molochites coerced them into reversing the decision).

      • Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

        Tim,

        Pls see the link below which connects to a site which uses PP’s own publications to make your point as well as others.

  2. Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

    I enjoyed reading Michael Behe’s “Darwin’s Black Box.” Although I think it’s still a clear mystery how life got started and achieved the many forms it has, what Behe makes clear is that most of the ideas about life (and evolution) were solidified long before we had even the vaguest clue of what was going on in all that supposed amorphous protoplasm seen under early microscopes.

    Now we know the cell is enormously complex making the crud theory of Neo-Darwinism seem almost laughable. And so it was to some extent (at least regarding popular opinion) regarding the unborn. Without getting into details that are too graphic or harsh (surely many women knew these details), for most people, the unborn was just an amorphous blob of tissue. Now with sonograms and such, we know better.

    But we probably always knew better to some extent. It’s just now harder to try to pretend that an unborn baby is just a blob. It makes it a bit hard to be sexually libertine and callous, using the lives of the unborn as a form of birth control.

    The argument against abortion does not start with convoluted half-baked arguments such as those from Ron where he says, somewhat like John Kerry “I was for it before I was against it.” If one really is against abortion and is not just putting up a false front, the idea of defunding Planned Parenthood is fairly straightforward, even if there is a politician or two out there grandstanding.

    The argument against abortion starts with realizing what abortion is and not using half-truths, intellectual deceit, and other obfuscations to try to obscure this reality. Abortion isn’t about “women’s health.” It’s not about “keeping your rosaries off my ovaries.” It’s not even about the many convoluted political arguments that Ron has forwarded. It’s about stopping a beating heart.

    Second only to the tragedy of willfully killing the unborn and using them as a political tool is the normalization of obfuscation in our culture. We’ve become intellectual and moral nitwits. We’ve become used to thinking like a Gordian knot. We’ve come to equate the kind of eloquent-sounding baloney coming out of the mouth of Obama and other politicians as some kind of high truth when it is little more than planned deceit, if not outright evil.

    If one wants to live in the kind of perverse morally backward society that devalues people while calling a halt to civilization to save a species of fish, then by all means do so. But be aware of what you are signing onto. You are forfeiting your right to have things make sense. And so we see from all those who are pro-abortion in various ways, we become well practiced at deceit and self-deceit. We become well practiced as saying a lot and not very much.

  3. Bell Phillips says:

    “crud theory of Neo-Darwinism”?

    That’s about right.

    • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

      It was a theory that made some sense back in 1859 — or even later. It was plausible then and is plausible now for some aspects of how life changes (“micro evolution,” in this case).

      But right now even a generous understanding of the complexity of the cell makes random processes implausible given the time frame. So right at the moment our jaws are agape wondering who or what could have caused this. There is no reason to believe that natural process have the power. Intelligent design makes many good points but ultimately until we have more information on the designer, it remains an intriguing idea that is a bit lacking in substance.

  4. Ronald J. Ward says:

    Brad, please explain how my argument on Planned Parenthood is “convoluted”, “half baked”, or how, as you invoked John Kerry, associates me of being for abortion before I was against it (or, something?). Obviously, my argument on defunding PP flew over your head or perhaps you willfully chose not to capture it. To be clear, there’s nothing in my writing to support your argument which ranges from specious to inductive to an outright non sequitur. Let’s simply it would two facts;

    Fact- Abortions account for about 3% of PP’s services while about 97% goes to lifesaving cancer screenings, birth control, testing and treatment of STDs, annual exams and health counseling.

    Fact-None of those 3% of abortions are funded by federal dollars.

    Okay, with me? So far so good? PP’s very very small role of abortions are not federally funded so it’s within the realm of reasonable intellect to quickly deduce that defunding them is not defunding abortion. There was never any funding for them in the first place. Defunding PP does not, does not, (it just doesn’t do it)stop abortions. The folks paying for it (because again, Planned Parenthood is not) simply take their business elsewhere. There’s nothing gained.

    The only thing being defunded is access to contraceptives, medical counseling, screenings, and many services that could help young and poor mothers through their pregnancies. Defunding these actually complicates the abortion problem, giving even less hope to oppressed, jobless, or homeless women and families.

    One could enter into the argument that if you oppose legalized abortions, you surely advocate backroom coat hanger abortions. I oppose both. My argument is that today’s so-called conservatives attack on PP does absolutely nothing in the world to deter legalized abortions while actually advocating the latter.

    • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

      Ron, I don’t think you’re being honest when you say you’re against abortion and then go on a long and convoluted diatribe on various justifications for doing nothing about it. I just don’t believe you.

      • Ronald J. Ward says:

        Aside from some concept that I care if you think I’m honest or not, that’s indeed an ultra rich spin.

        Let’s see, I expose factual data exposing the reality that the invented boogeyman of PP does absolutely nothing about abortions and that makes ME somehow guilty of not wanting to do anything about abortions?

        • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

          Ron, I’m just not into the daily drama of some Leftist troll coming on this site and making convoluted arguments for not defunding Planned Parenthood. You say you are staunchly against abortion but then do not follow it in the rest of your words.

          That there are some politicians out there (on either side) who will demagogue an issue is neither here nor there and does not excuse Planned Parenthood or the practice of abortion itself. But you surely seem to. So I don’t take you seriously or think you are being honest. Have a nice day. Go troll somewhere else where they might take your bait and you can have a little fun making people ball up their fists in anger. I just don’t have the time or inclination.

  5. Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

    Here if a link to an interesting website which uses Planned Parenthood’s to analyse and come up with the real numbers regarding abortion services at Planned Parenthood. It also gives further details on some of the claims made by and about Planned Parenthood.

    http://www.whyprolife.com/planned-parenthood/

    The following paragraph from this site sheds some light on the claims of 3%

    Aren’t Abortions only a small Percentage of the Services Provided by Planned Parenthood?
    While Planned Parenthood officials claim that abortions constitute only 3% percent of their services, this figure is misleading. Out of the 10.5 million individual services they provided in 2006, 289,750 were abortions—roughly 3%. But this figure fails to account for the fact that a woman visiting Planned Parenthood for an abortion will receive several services—from a pregnancy test to some manner of counseling to the abortion itself—each of which is counted separately. A closer look at Planned Parenthood’s client and income numbers shows that the abortion figure is actually three times what they claim. Of 3.1 million Planned Parenthood clients in 2006, 9% got abortions. Moreover, abortion accounts for at least a third of Planned Parenthood’s total income from clinic services.

    Source: Planned Parenthood Federation of America. Planned Parenthood Federation of America 2006-2007 Annual Report. http://www.plannedparenthood.org/files/AR_2007_vFinal.pdf.

    It is interesting to note in a recent year PP claims to have performed “4,009,549 contraceptive services, 3,955,926 STD services, 332,278 abortion services”. Note how prescribing contraceptives and anti-biotics are put on par with an abortion.

    As to the claim that not $1 from federal funds is used on abortions at PP, I cannot credit such naivite’ from Mr. Ward. When creating a yearly budget, it would be quite normal to reserve funds from non-federal funding for abortion services equivalent to the amount PP knows it will receive from the government. If PP did not receive government funds, they would not be able to perform such accounting tricks. To claim that government funds are not contributing to funding abortion takes a special kind of sophism or ignorance of accounting and the real world of fungible funds regardless the so-called legal requirements attached to such funds. As I said, I doubt Mr. Ward is so ignorant.

    • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

      I don’t know why if Ron is supposedly anti-abortion that he’s such an apologist for Planned Parenthood. Those last videos show us what the heart (such as it is) and soul of the organization is. Cancer screenings are all well and good. But they also do abortions. That’s enough to justify removing any government money. This money, as Ted Cruz and others have noted, can easily go to those agencies who do cancer screening but don’t do abortions.

      I don’t take Ron seriously and I won’t debate him. It’s obvious that he’s coming up with convoluted reasons to remain supportive of Planned Parenthood when any reasonable person would just be done with them. If we must fund “women’s health,” then there are better places for the money to go. To Ron — who is clearly on the Left and likely little more than a troll — he’s beholden to the idea of Planned Parenthood as an icon of the Left that must be defended and kept alive at all costs.

      • Ronald J. Ward says:

        I’d say Brad, that your last paragraph exposes the root of your denial, that PP is some icon of the left, making it impossible for you to endorse, regardless of facts or reasoning, common sense, or even the fact that defunding them does not address the abortion issue.

        Your wheel of intellect is struck in a profoundly prejudiced rut, unable to free itself from the channel it follows.

      • Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

        I don’t know why if Ron is supposedly anti-abortion that he’s such an apologist for Planned Parenthood.

        Pious lies and misdirection are used to facilitate overarching modern government and its interaction with various parasitical organizations which feed at its trough.

        But as neither my livelihood nor self image are dependent on government and its parasites I do not have to pretend such lies and feints are truth.

        • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

          Daily Drama. Not going there, Mr. Kung, although I appreciate your comments. I’d rather spend time talking about more meaningful stuff where the controversy isn’t staged: such as whether old black-and-white movies should be colorized or not.

          But defunding Planned Parenthood is a no-brainer…unless one has various ulterior motives. And people often do.

          • Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

            I basically agree with you that it is a waste of time to argue with such disingenuous people. But I believe it is imperative that their lies and half-truths are exposed for what they are. Ignoring them leads to many people believing they are the truth.

            • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

              Oh, I agree. But I sure you see my point about trying to engage Ron. Since he doesn’t really have much of an argument, he does what is typically called “baffle them with bullshit.” You get a deluge of words that have very little meaning or substance to them. And I don’t care to try to box with a shadow, for if you do, they’ll just keep moving the target.

              Now, if Ron or anyone else on the hard Left would be forthright and say that abortion is not just necessary but a good (as is the view of the Left), at least we could reach that stage that Dennis Prager talks about: clarity before agreement. We could weigh the pros and cons. But all Ron has is prevarication. And so it’s like trying to eat Jello with a heated fork.

              I won’t thrust and parry with someone who is obviously just trolling and trying to get a rise out of us. Like I’ve said often, Mr. Kung. I didn’t just fall off the turnip truck. And I think a lot of these guys expect the BS they use elsewhere to work here. Well, we’re a little different. We’re a little better.

              • Ronald J. Ward says:

                Yet, you, Kung, et al run from the argument.

                Do you deny that the small percentage of abortions are not federally funded?

                If yes, then it’s obvious you are ignorant of the issue. If no, how does defunding them matter?

                From an argumentive perspective, your tactic seems to be somewhere between a throw-a-rock-and-run and a covering of the ears to sing “la la la”, perhaps to keep with the blog theme of stubbornness.

              • Timothy Lane says:

                “Money is fungible.” In other words, the money that goes into one PP bucket can enable them to put the money that would have gone there into the abortion bucket — as Kung Fu Zu pointed out already, and you clearly somehow failed to notice.

    • Timothy Lane says:

      Very informative article. I understand that Cecile Richards was forced to admit the truth about how much of their money comes from abortion in her testimony this week. One might note that Ward is unwilling to criticize the Demagogues for their willingness to shut down government rather than take money from PP and give it to clinics that provide all those services without doing abortions.

  6. Anniel says:

    Thank you one and all who helped me understand Mr. Ward. I wrote an article about how unique and precious each child is, even in the womb, with one line about funding PP, and the first response was so much gibberish to me. I did hear that Cecile Richards testified that PP is a “Noble Cause.” My answer to both Ward and Richards is: “Huh?”

    • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

      Annie, your appeal about each life being precious was not lost. Your viewpoint is a good one…and a good Christian one. While posting this article I was aghast at the thumbnail photo you provided. But we must bravely face exactly what is going on. Abortion is horrible enough. But Planned Parenthood has put a particularly Mengelian spin on it. There is no excuse for making excuses for that agency.

      And yet the Republicans (minus a few key figures, such as Cruz and I believe Lee) have decided not to look forthrightly at what is going on. Good gracious, if you can’t draw a line in the sand over butchered children, what will the Republicans fight for?

      Like I said, I renounce them as a party.

      • Ronald J. Ward says:

        It was both a predominantly Republican appointed SCOUTS that gave us the Roe v Wade decision as well as Republicans who voted for this butchering of children you speak of.

        • Timothy Lane says:

          Perhaps that has something to do with why he “renounces” the Republican Party? In any case, Roe v. Wade was a long time ago, when the parties often had very different stances on social issues. No Democrat today would nominate a justice like Byron White.

        • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

          Man, you just can’t lighten up, can you? What part of “I don’t agree with abortion and am no big fan of the Republican Party” don’t you get? It’s guys like you who are so hyper-partisan that drive reason into the ground.

      • Anniel says:

        Most of those who claim they are “Conservatives” seem to change very quickly when they reach the Beltway. When they cannot see evil clearly, they are lost.

        I, too, was aghast when I saw the baby’s photo. I believe the baby is the one that the PP representative joked about being a boy and that it’s heart was still beating and how much his “parts” would be worth. None of the PP members seem to have any conscience left. So much more is known now about life in the womb, but some just shrug and say, “So what?” Such a stain on our nation, and you are right, we need to face it bravely and forthrightly.

        I was just thinking that one step forward is to always call the victims “baby” or “child.” Maybe we could even add “human” to wake up those who forget.

        • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

          None of the PP members seem to have any conscience left.

          This is called a “feature” not a bug in terms of not having a conscience left. The Left tends to make of people moral idiots. Ron here, for example, can’t do anything but parse things into Republican-vs-Democrat while the rest of us here are making the case that, 1) All innocent life is sacred and, 2) Planned Parenthood would have made Joseph Mengele proud.

          Abortion is a complex issue if only because of the nature of reproduction: The mother carries the baby which is a part of herself and yet not a part of herself. I understand that. But little light or clarity comes from the Left on this issue. They’ve just got the peddle to the metal on a kind of deranged ideology.

          Annie, I’ve been thinking a lot about God lately. And my conversations probably resemble many others, but at the same time are unique. What occurs to me from deep contemplation is that human beings are incomplete, unhinged, hair-brained, and morally adrift without reference to something greater (greater than, say, either the Republican or Democrat party).

          Anyone who thinks human “reason” can guide us to a good society is off their rocker. Look at the kind of stuff Ron spews. It’s the kind of soulless politics that is ruining this country. Now, as you know, I’m not the world’s biggest believer. And yet I do acknowledge and have learned that left to our own devices without a Higher frame of reference, what else can we do but argue politics and be moral idiots?

          This issue is pretty simple. If one can’t see that Planned Parenthood deserves (at the very least) defunding and instead one obsesses on nit-picking political points, well..then that’s what I’m talking about.

          • Timothy Lane says:

            HotAir had a link to an article by a scientist arguing that science cannot determine when life begins. At one point he mentions personhood, which is a good question. But if a fertilized ovum is not life, what is it? It may not yet be a person (which in religious terms we can think of as ensoulment), but it certainly isn’t dead. Perhaps this self-professed scientist thinks an ovum is really Schrödinger’s cat.

            • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

              Heading off on another subject, but it does underpin the thinking of the Left who think “science” is the only arbiter of truth.

              When life begins is indeed not a scientific question. It’s a human question. It’s a moral question. Life itself is a continuation. At some point it started — perhaps having many starting points. And then life flows from life.

              For entirely legal purposes, (human) life is declared to be there or not in various situations. This is necessary…and it’s interesting that if an unborn baby is killed via a crime, it counts in some places as murder or at least manslaughter. In other situations, it is deemed okay to kill the unborn…even for profit.

              Because life flows from life, it does not offer us a completely unambiguous picture. Yes, I agree, it begins (as far as individuation is concerned) with conception…and flows from there (perhaps the egg dividing in such a way — or whatever it does — to then produce identical twins).

              Fertilized eggs — even quite advanced unborn children — are victims of simple biology all the time. For various reasons, the mother’s body may reject a fetus, an egg my not be implanted in the wall, etc. This is not a rationale for making the unborn disposable, no more than getting accidentally run down by a bus means that we can then kill people at will. But the entire life spectrum is complex.

              It’s also simple. At some point — and quite early on — that “blob” of cells takes on human form. And we also know from the evil the men do, that it can become routine to think it alright to kill that life — up to and including outside the womb, as our immoral president supports.

              Science can give us details which we can then use with our moral senses to make wiser decisions. And it is imperative the we develop that moral sense — which is impeded by purely partisan thinking. Political parties, by and large, are stupid. We can do better and have to do better.

              • Anniel says:

                This has been an interesting discussion in light of the need for something beyond human reason. I expect most people have an inborn sense that is true, but life and conditioning, and now modern education, get in the way. Was it Reagan who said life is simple but that doesn’t mean it’s easy?

                I have been struggling to always remember that God loves all of His children, but that’s a hard concept to keep in mind when evil abounds.

              • Timothy Lane says:

                It occurred to me as I read the article that justifying abortion because of spontaneous abortions is equivalent to justifying murder because of death from natural causes.

  7. Rosalys says:

    I don’t much care about the other services that PP provides. Planned Parenthood’s foundational principal was to keep blacks and immigrants from breeding beyond numbers needed by the elite to scrub their toilets for them. Margaret Sanger was a racist and a eugenicist. PP’s mission easily morphed into aborting as many babies as possible, because there is money to be made – lots of it! – and, today, into the harvesting of body parts, because there is even more money to be made. As for the “good and vital” services, such as cancer screening, treatment for STDs and UTIs, etc., blah, blah, blah, us gals don’t need the services of PP. We live in the United States. We have thousands of medical facilities and doctors’ offices all across the fruited plain to visit. However, PP needs the moral cover of providing a few legitimate services to outweigh the horror of the slaughter that goes on behind their closed doors. Well, Mussolini got the trains running on time, and Hitler gave the world the Volkswagen; maybe we should just forgive them a few of their moral deficiencies and celebrate the good stuff!

    Annie, I remember my children each behaving very differently in utero, and very much in keeping with their individual personality.

    • Anniel says:

      Rosalys, I was sure you would remember and I thought of you when I was writing. I wanted to tell more, to brag even, about each of my children, but I’ve learned a term new to me. It’s called “Humble Bragging,” so I zipped my mind and lips and tried to keep it simple.

      Your thinking is, as usual, very thoughtful and illuminating.

      By the way, the Donald is NOT humble in his bragging by any means, but he sure is entertaining.

    • Timothy Lane says:

      Actually, I’ve read that Mussolini didn’t do as well with the trains as advertised. But one thing I found interesting in The Wages of Destruction by Adam Tooze (which I believe is on the Bookshelf) is that the Nazis certainly didn’t get the trains to run on time — they were too busy rearming to devote sufficient resources to rolling stock.

    • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

      Well said, Rosie! 🙂 You nailed it. I read crap at American Thinker all the time that passes for blog entries. You’re actually good! Stick around. 🙂

  8. Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

    It occurred to me as I read the article that justifying abortion because of spontaneous abortions is equivalent to justifying murder because of death from natural causes.

    I fumbled for the right words, Timothy. But you said it very well. But I’ve read where many do justify abortion because “Hey, the female body spontaneously aborts the unborn all the time.” And that’s true. And it shows you the moral idiocy and trickery of the Left. As William Buckley famously observed,

    “To say that the CIA and the KGB engage in similar practices is the equivalent of saying that the man who pushes an old lady into the path of a hurtling bus is not to be distinguished from the man who pushes an old lady out of the path of a hurtling bus: on the grounds that, after all, in both cases someone is pushing old ladies around.”

  9. Leigh Bravo says:

    I think that our society has lost their way. So many ask when loved ones die of cancer..where is God….Alzheimers strikes and we ask, Where is God. So many diseases, so many deaths. When someone dies of cancer, we must ask ourselves, did God send us someone who could have cured it, and we aborted them?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *