Roe v. Wade v. Same-Sex Relationships—Imago Gei

This month we are continuing the celebrations of Pride Month, as we uplift LGBTQ stories. Today, I, Kendra Arsenault, engage with Spiritual Care Provider Roxan Del Valle to discuss the impact of the overturn of Roe v. Wade on us women along with the impacts this decision has on trans and non-binary lives.

This is a companion discussion topic for the original entry at

Why is the discussion centered on women and not birthing persons?

This is pretty much like listening to people with no idea of the issues. The court gives up power to the states to make their own lives and these women are frightened! If the court says it will make a rule for all of the states, all Americans that apparently is good. Completely backward views here.

The issue is a fundamental one. No governmental agency should be telling a women what she can or can’t do with her body…period.


No that is not the issue! The issue is, does the US Constitution allow or forbide Abortion. Since it does not speak to the issue in any way (even Ruth Bader Ginsberg said that Roe vs Wade was a poor decision) It it is not in the constitution it is the realm of the states! Your view that it government can have no say about abortion laws period is simply a personal opinion. Government has a lot to say about personal actions and they do and by our founding documents, they have the right to make those laws.

The implications for menstruating persons is unquestionably significant. But non-cis persons of color who are pregnant will face an outrageous otherness as they seek to end those pregnancies easily and safely. Those who identify other than female who wish to obtain abortions in those states will face double trauma as they present as non-women and now will travel for cessation. Abortion is a holy right and a sacrament for it is the celebration of choice over the other that takes up unwelcome uterine residence.

People or not, the fetal invader does not get to claim its host body as its own, and capital self-defense and ejection is not inappropriate. Ideally earlier rather than later because the sight of the developing fetus can look very haunting and remind the self-defender of what it would have been had it continued uninterrupted its trajectory into a “baby.” It is the one time, perhaps other than when someone breaks into a home to commit crime, when terminating a human life is not only acceptable but necessary and honorable. That this choice has been ripped apart and will now lead to the questioning of whether couples of other than binary sexuality can be married, is to be expected and should be challenged.

As a church we must celebrate diversity and celebrate the right to terminate the lives of undesired, severely handicapped children, and those that can cause birthing persons health to be compromised, before they are birthed. Abortion is a gift of grace because without it so many would have much harder lives. Grace to accept that some people are just better having not existed - and we see them every day around us - and to know that our world has fewer of those types of people than it otherwise would have had thanks to Roe v Wade.

Very difficult to reconcile your line of thinking with the sixth commandment. Comparison to a home invasion by a thief which the scriptures do allow for lethal self-defense would appear to be an incorrect analogy. The invasive parasite — aka human embryo — did not make an evil adult choice as the home invader did.

Furthermore, the sixth commandment does not define murder as being the killing of only the mentally competent.

1 Like

Roe v Wade stood for the proposition that there is an exception to the sixth commandment and gave birthing persons the grace to reverse a mistake.

Ah, so maybe I’m seeing a parallel in reasoning with dignified euthanasia — that is the taking of life is okay if done graciously.

It can be done painlessly and with minimal complications as we’ve seen with recent assisted suicide techniques. It is a multi-drug cocktail that can be administered with compassion and dignity. The question then becomes whether it is acceptable for children born under protest who would have otherwise been aborted to excuse themselves once they are of age since they were not desired in their households so their birthing parents can live more fulfilling lives. This assumes that the normal “attachments” don’t overcome the right to choose as the choice may change. But with the encouragement of society that there is no shame in making a dignified exit, those frictional factors should diminish. It is not right for a person born against the will of the mother or birthing person to continue to draw resources that were not intended, and that right to choose can transfer to a knowledgeable person who can choose for themselves. It is the ultimate end-run around the anti-choice activists who have assumed their evil control.

“Menstruating persons” “abortion is a holy right, a sacrament”, “a celebration of choice”… You have the most warped logic in favor of abortion I have seen yet. You call an unborn child “a fetal invader” and you call for “celebrating the right to terminate the lives of the undesired.”. Sounds like a through back to Third Reich of Hitler’s desire to have a perfect race.

How can you express such coldness and indifference?


I thought the same. Exactly what I said to my spouse after reading this comment to him.

1 Like

You’re offended at the words I used to describe the same action of fetal euthanasia that many defend. If abortion doesn’t offend you but the rationale does, then you’re the one with the problem.

I didn’t say that I was offended.

Normally when people say that something sounds like what Hitler wanted to do, that means they’re offended by whatever was said. I stand corrected.

1 Like

It’s interesting that two people had the same reaction. You didn’t address Tom regarding his comment. I wasn’t offended, I think taken aback by some of your wording would best describe my reaction. .


This topic was automatically closed after 14 days. New replies are no longer allowed.