Inadvertently started something

My friend Cheyenne posted a video on a Facebook update of a pro-abortion person berating the peaceful protest of pro-lifers.  Cheyenne was supportive of the pro-abortionist's outrage, even though she's neutral on the issue.  But she inadvertently started a discussion thread concerning the video.  In italics is a friends of hers who responded to the video and then I responded afterwards:
   

"Without talking about the issue of whether aborting the baby was right or wrong, this isn't a very christian way to approach abortion. Even if you believe the act was a sin, it would do well to remember the addage 'hate the sin, love the sinner' and these people have no sympathy or love in them, there is a way to say you disgaree with abortion without acting like this. It's not like they just decided one day, 'hey we should have an abortion and kill a baby'. Perhaps they should have got a second opinion but, working with the information they had their child would have had a brief life of intense suffering, in my opinion the humane thing to do is kill the child. One might argue that we are 'playing god' but if you take that stance why use medicine at all? If god gives somebody cancer, don't treat them they must deserve it. Either way you are altering the 'natural' cause of events Even more puzzling is the pro life camp's stance on stem cell research the US is far behind the rest of the industrialized world (whats new?) in this promising area of research because people are scared of using non-sentient cells that would just be frozen in a lab or discarded. If medical research on stem cells is playing god, then fine, we are gods"

The Christian way to approach the abortion issue is to do so in a loving way, be it protest like this or on a personal level. Don't know about these two women, but I have been to a protest where everyone was civilized on both sides except for a few pro-abortionists who weren't even part of the event. If a person believes that aborting a baby, or for that matter assisted suicide, is an option to "prevent suffering" then it just shows a lack of understanding about the meaning of life and a total disregard of the greater possibility that the "suffering" is temporary, which is usually the case in the abortion decision (check CDC and medical records, in nearly all cases, there is only emotional "suffering" rather than an actual medical emergency). It's not a case of natural vs. preventative, but rather a case of the preservation of life no matter what vs. terminating life because of suffering, or worse, "possible" suffering. This even includes the nonsensical example where you state "why use medicine at all? If god gives somebody cancer, don't treat them they must deserve it. Either way you are altering the 'natural' cause of events."  The issue is beyond the ideas of "if god gives somebody cancer" and "natural cause of events," which misses the point.  The issue is "preservation of life" and the emphasis is seeing God at work through the difficulties and tragedies that we brought upon ourselves from the very beginning and still bring on ourselves today.  To allow this thought process of "preventing suffering" to succeed on a federal level is even more deplorable because it will go down a slippery slope to a worldview in which government will determine life or death and will even hold the information to such a decision. To bring it back to the pertinent, there are always options besides abortion especially if you have more information and not just the opinion of those who believe in their rather limited ideas. Quickly, concerning stem cells, embryonic stem cells aren't effective in treating disease and to keep trying because the theory sounds good on paper is to waste precious resources, not to mention actual lives. Adult stem cells are still the most effective in treating a variety of diseases and ailments and the US is among other industrialized nations ahead in that respect.