Don’t change to accommodate those who will never be pleased

Weber Grills had a fabulous commercial written up in Forbes magazine years ago.  Ironically, they took it off the air because PETA-types complained.  I’m not sure why they cared what the animal rights activists thought, as those folks aren’t exactly your target market for barbecue grills.  Does C. Montgomery Burns seek advice from the Amish on how to run his nuclear power plant?.

The commercial had several serene scenes of sheep, pigs and cows with a peaceful voice-over noting pleasant things about each animal.  The last scene just showed a Weber grill.  The tag-line?  Farm animals: Let’s eat ‘em!

Here’s a more recent example from McDonald’s.  I think a key success factor in life is eating there as little as possible, but I don’t think we need the government fixing their menu.  Via Is the Left slowly killing off McDonald’s?

The whole point here is that McDonald’s is never going to succeed if they think they need to deliver the same level of food which you get at a high end restaurant and do so at drive through prices, and they certainly are not going to prosper if they feel like they have to tailor their menu to a bunch of vegans in the hopes of shutting up Michelle Obama and the talking heads on MSNBC. Those people aren’t buying their food anyway… they just want to see them go out of business. McDonald’s needs to get back to their roots, put the beef tallow back in the fries and tell the vegans to go eat their celery sticks quietly in the dark.

And of course, this lesson is even more important in churches.  The “Christian” Leftists don’t love Jesus.  They deny his deity and exclusivity for salvation, they mock his word and so much more.  They are like the vegetarians telling you how you must cook your beef.  So why have authentic Christians tried for years to accommodate them?  Just preach the word and don’t let the wolves take leadership positions.

Exposing the “Christian” Left Facebook page

Because . . . scientists!

When the “Christian” Left goes along with the anti-human “climate change” Leftist political power grab and the anti-God / anti-science nonsense of Darwinian evolution, they typically point out how many scientists agree with them.  This deliberately ignores the financial and peer pressures that scientists have no immunity to.  History couldn’t be more clear: If you risk your career and reputation for opposing the party line, you are more likely to “believe” the mainstream view.

But it gets worse: The “Christian” Left ignores when scientists are in vast agreement on a host of other issues, including those that are far less controversial and unlikely to be influenced by politics.  Exhibit A: The “Christian” Left insists that Jesus supports killing unwanted children up to their first breath* even though mainstream embryology texts (and common sense) say that a new human being is created at fertilization.  I’m too pro-science to be pro-choice.

And here’s more via Two-Thirds of Scientists Support Building More Nuclear Power Plants.

Apparently 65% of the scientists surveyed think that building more nuclear power plants is a good idea.  That compared to only 45% of the non-scientist American public.

The reasons behind the scientific communities pro-nuclear power attitudes are not explained in the Pew study.  But, given the years that the environmental moment and the entertainment industry have spent attempting to convince the American public that nuclear power is a threat to humanity and not a positive way of improving Americas energy independence, it might give them pause to know that such a big majority of scientists seem to have no problem with expanding the sources of nuclear power in the United States.

Large majorities of the scientists surveyed also believed that it was safe to eat genetically modified foods (88%) and and favor the use of animals in research (89%), unlike the general public.

I’m sure the “pro-science” “Christian” Left will switch views to pro-nuclear, pro-genetically modified foods, etc. now.

*See it in their own pro-abortion extremist words.

Tobacco smuggling and taxation

One of the problems with the indisputable fact that Leftists literally fail at basic economics is that it leads to over-regulation and over-taxation, which leads to police focusing on superfluous issues instead of serious crimes.  Oh, and people getting killed while being arrested for these crimes.  If you raise taxes too much, Prohibition-type behaviors will always creep in.  Via Study: tobacco smuggling now a way of life in high tax states.


So what’s to be done?

Rampant smuggling — and its related ugliness — can be thwarted to a degree by cutting taxes, improving law enforcement operations, or both. We strongly suggest the former route. Higher excise taxes are the root of the problem so lower ones should be at the forefront of a solution.

Enough data has been collected by this point that we can construct a sort of Laffer Curve for the willingness of people to break the law and purchase black market cigarettes based on the tax rate. At a very low tax rate (close to other similarly base priced products) virtually no one is going to risk an encounter with the law to save a few cents and smuggling is not profitable. (And therefore doesn’t happen in measurable amounts.) And, of course, the revenue the state takes in is lower. But you can only increase the tax rate a certain amount before an increasing number of people are willing to take the risk and buy off the black market. By the time you jack up the taxes as high as New York has gone, more than half the cigarettes consumed are black market, you’re on the far side of the bell curve and the state is actually making less money than they would at a lower rate.

Meanwhile, more and more law enforcement resources have to be deployed to fight this “crime wave” rather than dealing with more serious social ills. This is self destructive behavior on the part of these tax happy states and it needs to be curbed.

Exposing the “Christian” Left Facebook page

The “Christian” Left does not care about black people

They pretend to care so they can keep getting their votes, but their actions betray them.  First, they are pro-abortion extremists who support all the policies that result in blacks being killed at a rate three times that of whites.  Then it gets worse: They support the Democrats’ platform of taxpayer-funded abortions which will increase that rate.

And they support illegal immigration that takes the jobs and lowers the wages of existing jobs for low-income blacks.  Check out how many illegals are in these jobs!illegalgraph

If the “Christian” Left really cared about black people they’d oppose abortion and illegal immigration.  

Exposing the “Christian” Left Facebook page

Oh noes! They called Fox News “Faux News!”

One of the sad things about the people who grew up saturated with Leftist education, politics, media and entertainment is how they go into full freak-out mode when confronted with opposing views.  They have no idea how to critically examine them, so they panic and just start calling names.

Exhibit A: Their irrational hatred and dismissal of Fox News (“Faux News!!!!”).  After all, if they can think of a clever name to call their ideological foe then they must be right.

I don’t watch or read Fox (or Limbaugh, etc.).  Not that there’s anything wrong with that!  But it is amusing how many Leftists assume that is my only source of news and how they think they can just dismiss our views with the genetic fallacy (discrediting a claim solely based on its source).

But it gets worse: Fox isn’t that biased, especially compared to outlets like MSNBC that the Leftists consume as pure gospel.

“If viewers spent an equal amount of time watching Fox’s ‘Special Report’ as ABC’s ‘World News’ and NBC’s ‘Nightly News,’ then they would receive a nearly perfectly balanced version of the news,” said Milyo, an associate professor of economics and public affairs at the University of Missouri at Columbia.”

If you look at giving patterns of the media, they are hopelessly biased to the Left and far more extreme than the average viewer.

Here’s an effective way to deal with those on the Left, who rarely, if ever, consume conservative media: Just note that you consume plenty of both sides and then form opinions, then ask how much conservative media they consume.  [Crickets chirping] Then say that while that doesn’t necessarily mean you are always correct, it does mean you have examined both sides more thoroughly than they have.  Hopefully they’ll realize they aren’t as fully informed as they thought.

Bonus: Also point out that if they read some of what we do — even if they didn’t agree with it — they’d notice that unlike the Left, we regularly criticize Republicans and Christians.  Examples: The Left has no idea how much conservatives disliked Bush’s spending programs or how much Bible-believing Christians criticized Mark Driscoll.  Yet the Left only criticizes Obama on the most extreme things, and then quickly changes the subject as to why it is really the fault of Republicans.

Bonus 2: New study: Politifact fact-checker is biased against Republicans.  If you are surprised, then I’m surprised that you’re surprised.

Exposing the “Christian” Left Facebook page

Here’s a conversation you don’t want to have.

Reading the entire New Testament or the entire Bible doesn’t automatically save you, but isn’t it a logical thing for Christians to progress towards?  You want to avoid this:

  • Non-Christian: So, you believe the Bible is the word of God and tells you all about your Savior and such?
  • You: Yes!
  • N-C: Have you read it all?
  • Y: Uh, not as such, no . . .
  • N-C: Not even all of the New Testament?
  • Y: Look – a squirrel!

Another thing to avoid: Talking about the importance of the 10 Commandments but not being able to name them.

I encourage everyone to read some of the Bible every day.  It doesn’t have to be a lot.  Just do it.  It will make you a better ambassador for Christ.

2 Corinthians 5:20 Therefore, we are ambassadors for Christ, God making his appeal through us. We implore you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God.

Step 1: Listen to false prophet instead of God. Step 2: Get killed by a lion.

It is unwise in the extreme to listen to the “Christian” Left that mocks the word of God while claiming to be getting new and accurate messages I was reading 1 Kings 13 yesterday from him (such as the “God is still speaking;” slogan of the apostate United Church of Christ).

Have you read 1 Kings 13 lately (see below), where a “man of God” initially obeyed a direct command from God but then believed a prophet who falsely claimed that God told him something different?  It didn’t end well.  And by “didn’t end well,” I mean he got killed by a lion.

Now am I saying that if you listen to false teachers about what God “really” says rather than the Bible that you’ll get killed by a lion?  Of course not.  You probably live in North America, so God will use a bear instead of a lion.

Just kidding!  Probably!  While God often uses examples in the Bible to show how serious sins are, such as with Ananias and Sapphira in Acts 5, by his grace and mercy He doesn’t give us all what we deserve.  But that doesn’t mean we should confuse his patience with his approval.

We are commanded to love God with our minds and we should use good discernment when listening to people make claims about God, regardless of their titles or reputation.  Remember to be like good Bereans and test everything in light of scripture (Acts 17:11 Now these Jews were more noble than those in Thessalonica; they received the word with all eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see if these things were so.).  But how can you do that if you aren’t reading the Bible regularly?

If people claim to have heard from God then the burden of proof is on them to back it up.  If they are teaching things that disagree with the Bible (e.g., Jesus isn’t the only way to salvation, we don’t know what God really said in the Bible, pro-abortion, pro-“same-sex marriage,” etc.) then they should be ignored.  If they hold those views and say that God spoke to them then they are lying, just like the old prophet in 1 Kings 13.  False teachers are deadly — not always physically, but certainly spiritually.

Read the Bible, then read it some more.  Every day.  Then you’ll be much more likely to spot the false teachers.

One of the reasons to go through the Old Testament is that otherwise you’ll miss great stories like this!

1 Kings 13 (ESV)

A Man of God Confronts Jeroboam

13 And behold, a man of God came out of Judah by the word of the Lord to Bethel. Jeroboam was standing by the altar to make offerings. And the man cried against the altar by the word of the Lord and said, “O altar, altar, thus says the Lord: ‘Behold, a son shall be born to the house of David, Josiah by name, and he shall sacrifice on you the priests of the high places who make offerings on you, and human bones shall be burned on you.’ ” And he gave a sign the same day, saying, “This is the sign that the Lord has spoken: ‘Behold, the altar shall be torn down, and the ashes that are on it shall be poured out.’ ” And when the king heard the saying of the man of God, which he cried against the altar at Bethel, Jeroboam stretched out his hand from the altar, saying, “Seize him.” And his hand, which he stretched out against him, dried up, so that he could not draw it back to himself. The altar also was torn down, and the ashes poured out from the altar, according to the sign that the man of God had given by the word of the Lord. And the king said to the man of God, “Entreat now the favor of the Lord your God, and pray for me, that my hand may be restored to me.” And the man of God entreated the Lord, and the king’s hand was restored to him and became as it was before. And the king said to the man of God, “Come home with me, and refresh yourself, and I will give you a reward.” And the man of God said to the king, “If you give me half your house, I will not go in with you. And I will not eat bread or drink water in this place, for so was it commanded me by the word of the Lord, saying, ‘You shall neither eat bread nor drink water nor return by the way that you came.’ ” 10 So he went another way and did not return by the way that he came to Bethel.

The Prophet’s Disobedience

11 Now an old prophet lived in Bethel. And his sons came and told him all that the man of God had done that day in Bethel. They also told to their father the words that he had spoken to the king. 12 And their father said to them, “Which way did he go?” And his sons showed him the way that the man of God who came from Judah had gone. 13 And he said to his sons, “Saddle the donkey for me.” So they saddled the donkey for him and he mounted it. 14 And he went after the man of God and found him sitting under an oak. And he said to him, “Are you the man of God who came from Judah?” And he said, “I am.” 15 Then he said to him, “Come home with me and eat bread.” 16 And he said, “I may not return with you, or go in with you, neither will I eat bread nor drink water with you in this place, 17 for it was said to me by the word of the Lord, ‘You shall neither eat bread nor drink water there, nor return by the way that you came.’ ” 18 And he said to him, “I also am a prophet as you are, and an angel spoke to me by the word of the Lord, saying, ‘Bring him back with you into your house that he may eat bread and drink water.’ ” But he lied to him. 19 So he went back with him and ate bread in his house and drank water.

20 And as they sat at the table, the word of the Lord came to the prophet who had brought him back. 21 And he cried to the man of God who came from Judah, “Thus says the Lord, ‘Because you have disobeyed the word of the Lord and have not kept the command that the Lord your God commanded you, 22 but have come back and have eaten bread and drunk water in the place of which he said to you, “Eat no bread and drink no water,” your body shall not come to the tomb of your fathers.’ ” 23 And after he had eaten bread and drunk, he saddled the donkey for the prophet whom he had brought back. 24 And as he went away a lion met him on the road and killed him. And his body was thrown in the road, and the donkey stood beside it; the lion also stood beside the body. 25 And behold, men passed by and saw the body thrown in the road and the lion standing by the body. And they came and told it in the city where the old prophet lived.

26 And when the prophet who had brought him back from the way heard of it, he said, “It is the man of God who disobeyed the word of the Lord; therefore the Lord has given him to the lion, which has torn him and killed him, according to the word that the Lord spoke to him.” 27 And he said to his sons, “Saddle the donkey for me.” And they saddled it. 28 And he went and found his body thrown in the road, and the donkey and the lion standing beside the body. The lion had not eaten the body or torn the donkey. 29 And the prophet took up the body of the man of God and laid it on the donkey and brought it back to the city to mourn and to bury him. 30 And he laid the body in his own grave. And they mourned over him, saying, “Alas, my brother!” 31 And after he had buried him, he said to his sons, “When I die, bury me in the grave in which the man of God is buried; lay my bones beside his bones. 32 For the saying that he called out by the word of the Lord against the altar in Bethel and against all the houses of the high places that are in the cities of Samaria shall surely come to pass.”

33 After this thing Jeroboam did not turn from his evil way, but made priests for the high places again from among all the people. Any who would, he ordained to be priests of the high places. 34 And this thing became sin to the house of Jeroboam, so as to cut it off and to destroy it from the face of the earth.

Exposing the “Christian” Left Facebook page

Another “Christian” Left self-parody by Mark “Jesus is not my God” Sandlin

Don’t miss Mark “Jesus is not my God” Sandlin‘s latest self-parody: The Irrationality of Fundamentalism in Progressive Thought.  Summary: You must hold to a certain belief about not holding certain beliefs!

And yet he claims to be the rational one.

I would like to say you can’t have fundamentalist beliefs and also call yourself a progressive – but that wouldn’t be very progressive of me, would it?

Yet that’s exactly what he did. It is like the postmoderns who insist without a hint of shame or irony that it is true that there are no truths. Or the “no creed but Christ” people who didn’t realize they had just made a creed.

“Christians” who deny the deity and exclusivity of Jesus shouldn’t be taken any more seriously than you’d take an atheist who believes in God or a Muslim who loves Jews and pork but hates the Koran and Mohammad.

In contrast, fundamentalist thinking establishes certain bottom lines that must be accepted as truths.

It is logical to have certain bottom lines. Sandlin’s entire piece is his bottom line!

“The teaching is so strong that even when reality, life and love slam up against irrational fundamentalist beliefs like “God hates fags””

It is vile and slanderous of Sandlin to claim that more than a fringe of people agree with Democrat Fred Phelps’ views. What a petty personal attack. I guess that’s what you use if it is all you have.

Yes, those minds may also be fairly certain about particular things (things like “God is love” . . .

Yet those words come from the same book that says this: “Whoever has the Son has life; whoever does not have the Son of God does not have life. I write these things to you who believe in the name of the Son of God that you may know that you have eternal life.” Why affirm one teaching from that book and mock the other? And that question even generously assumes that the “Christian” Left understands what “God is love” really means.

The latter passage teaches the deity and exclusivity of Jesus for salvation and is supported in countless other passages. The teaching that Jesus is the only way to salvation is taught directly and indirectly over 100 times. Just scan the NT and see if anything makes sense if that isn’t the case. The repetition isn’t what makes it true (the evidence for his resurrection does that), but it does mean it is silly to call oneself a Christian and to deny and even mock that teaching.

So, for now, I’ll just say that I have a very hard time understanding how a person can rationally call themselves progressive but have certain fundamental beliefs that they use to define who is and who isn’t Christian.

Yet he just begged the question and used a personal attack in assuming he was rational and his opponents were not (how convenient!). And he did it while holding a fundamental belief about who is really a Progressive “Christian” to criticize those who hold fundamental beliefs about who is really an authentic Christian.

Bonus feature: I am not making this up. This is the caption at the “Christian” Left Facebook page for Sandlin’s post:

On The Christian Left, we always say diversity of theological thought is a strength for us… if only ALL Progressive Christians felt the same way.
As this piece point out: they really SHOULD!

In case you missed the hypocritical irony, note how ALL Progressive “Christians” SHOULD hold the same view on having a DIVERSITY of views.

But remember, they are the rational ones!  You know that because they said so.

Exposing the “Christian” Left Facebook page

“Christian” Leftists are pro-abortion extremists

The “Christian” Left’s official position on abortion is far more extreme than the average person identifying as pro-choice and they make all sorts of fallacious arguments to “prove” that Jesus doesn’t care about abortion.  They are loud and proud about justifying abortion for any reason up to the moment the child takes her first breath.  In their own words:

It really gets old when conservatives show up on this page and say we can’t be Christians because we advocate “killing babies.” First of all, fetuses aren’t “babies.” As the Bible states in many places fetuses become people when they draw their first breath. Secondly, abortion is a made up issue that’s never mentioned in the Bible.

First, fetuses are not babies*.  But they are human beings (scientific fact!) and they are children.

Consider how many people who identify as pro-choice agree with pro-life positions on specific topics, then consider how radical the “Christian” Left’s / Democrats’ platform is (unrestricted taxpayer-funded abortions at any time, including “partial-birth abortions”/infanticide).

Pro-choice views (Gallup, 2011)
–Make abortion illegal in the 3rd trimester – 79%
–Make abortion illegal in the 2nd trimester – 52%
–Ban “partial-birth abortion” – 63%
–Require parental consent for minors – 60%
–Require 24 waiting period – 60%
The “Christian” Left, the rest of the Democrats and the media that advances their cause are the real extremists.
Here is a more thorough explanation of the “Christian” Left’s pro-abortion extremism and blasphemous claims that Jesus doesn’t care about it.  The title itself is a lie: The Bible Tells Us When A Fetus Becomes A Living Being.  The Bible does no such thing!  And their view is completely anti-science.  Read carefully and note how they assume a hyper-literal reading of their proof-texts and that the words are precisely what God wanted to be said. Why do they only view the Bible as truly inspired by God when it supports their pro-abortion extremism?  This is pure Leopard Theology, where people claim that the Bible is only inspired in spots and that they are inspired to spot the spots.  And they just “happen” to like the spots that they think support their pro-abortion views.

Many people think that a human being is created at the time of conception but this belief is not supported by the bible. The fact that a living sperm penetrates a living ovum resulting in the formation of a living fetus does not mean that the fetus is a living human being.

In a more accurate sense, that’s exactly what it means.  Human embryo ==> human fetus ==> human baby ==> human toddler ==> etc.  Same human being at different stages of development.

According to the bible, a fetus is not a living person with a soul until after drawing its first breath.

After God formed man in Genesis 2:7, He “breathed into his nostrils the breath of life and it was then that the man became a living being”. Although the man was fully formed by God in all respects, he was not a living being until after taking his first breath.

Note how this example, as bad as it is, doesn’t come close to proving their claim that the fetus becomes a living human being at the first breath.  The text does not say that Adam was a fetus first!  And it was God’s breath mentioned in the passage, not Adam’s.  So even if they only become alive when God’s breath is in them, then that would be at fertilization (it is a scientific fact that they start human life then).

More importantly, we all know there was nothing unique about his creation, right?  And they deny the implications of a literal Adam and Eve on all other issues, such as marriage, human sexuality, original sin and more. Oddly, they only pretend to believe that truth when justifying abortion and even infanticide (aka “partial-birth abortion”).

And they insist that the “Christian” view is that a child could be 90% delivered and killed for any reason and it would be completely moral.  That’s ghoulish.

In Job 33:4, it states: “The spirit of God has made me, and the breath of the Almighty gives me life.”

Again, note how text doesn’t even prove their point even if you took it in a hyper-literal fashion.  It doesn’t say the human fetus was made alive at his first breath but that the breath of God gave him life.

And do they take the rest of Job literally?

Again, to quote Ezekiel 37:5&6, “Thus says the Lord God to these bones:   Behold, I will cause breath to enter you, and you shall live.   And I will lay sinews upon you, and will cause flesh to come upon you, and cover you with skin, and put breath in you, and you shall live; and you shall know that I am the Lord.”

Do they take this passage literally?  Of course not.  And again, note how even their hyper-literal reading doesn’t prove their point.  This doesn’t relate to human fetuses!

In Exodus 21:22 it states that if a man causes a woman to have a miscarriage, he shall be fined; however, if the woman dies then he will be put to death. It should be apparent from this that the aborted fetus is not considered a living human being since the resulting punishment for the abortion is nothing more than a fine;   it is not classified by the bible as a capital offense.

According to the bible, destroying a living fetus does not equate to killing a living human being even though the fetus has the potential of becoming a human being.   One can not kill something that has not been born and taken a breath.   This means that a stillborn would not be considered a human being either.   Of course, every living sperm has the potential of becoming a human being although not one in a million will make it;   the rest are aborted.=

They should know how thoroughly debunked this pro-abortion view of Exodus 21 is.  The short version is that the key word of the passage is sometimes not translated well and says “miscarriage” instead of “children come out.” And of course that’s their go-to translation!  It you study the original Hebrew it becomes very clear that Moses did not mean that if the child is killed that the penalty is less severe.  More here, with a listing of all the errors pro-aborts make with this passage.

God has decreed, for one reason or another, that at least one-third of all pregnancies shall be terminated by a spontaneous abortion during the first trimester of pregnancy and that a number will be terminated after the first trimester.   It would appear that God does not have any more regard for the loss of a fetus than he does for the loss of a placenta or a foreskin despite the fact that these were living tissue as the result of conception.

Ah, as if the “Christian” Left knows the mind of God!  I encourage those using the miscarriage argument to consider these distinctions:

A. Human being dies of natural causes (inside or outside the womb)

B. Human being is deliberately killed by a 3rd party (inside or outside the womb)

Miscarriages would be in category A and abortions are in category B. I think most people can see that they are significantly different.

Of course, the commandment “You shall not kill” is not present in the commandments written by God on the stone tablets. For those who are not familiar with the commandments on the stone tablets that were placed in the Ark of the Covenant, they are enumerated in Exodus 34. The popular ten commandments that are enumerated in Exodus 20 were spoken by God to Moses who then relayed them to his people; they were never written.

That’s a bizarre twist beyond the scope of this post, but for the record note that they seem to be saying that God never said not to kill.

There is nothing in the bible to indicate that a fetus is considered to be anything other than living tissue and, according to scripture, it does not become a living being until after it has taken a breath.

That is absurd.  There are countless verses supporting the humanity of the unborn, including John the Baptist’s reaction to the presence of Jesus while John was still in the womb.

Many cite the scripture Jeremiah 1:5, “Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born I set you apart; I appointed you as a prophet to the nations.” God is omnipotent. He has known all of us since before creation. This scripture is irrelevant as it pertains to when a fetus becomes a living being.

That ignores that God formed him in the womb!

The same reasoning applies to Psalm 139:13-14.

I encourage people to read Psalm 139 themselves and see if they draw the same conclusion.

Numbers 5 describes “the Lord” ordering an abortion. Many argue that this is a misinterpretation. It is clearly stated in verse 22, “May this water that brings a curse enter your body so that your abdomen swells or your womb miscarries.”

That’s an epic double-fail.  First, the “Christian” Left insists that the Bible makes no mention of abortion, then they insist that it does.  Then, they use a bad translation (see the theme?) to support it.  That passage doesn’t even say the woman was pregnant, yet pro-aborts use it to rationalize abortion! It shows how desperate they are — as if they actually cared about what the Book of Numbers said.  They are welcome to show me in the Book of Numbers where it says the woman is pregnant (not there). Then they could show where she has an abortion (not there). Then they could show where God taking a life means that we can also take lives in the another fashion for any reason, including those of our own children (not there).  More here.

Before extremists turned the issue of reproductive choice into a political football, views on this matter were weren’t nearly so drastic.  For some history. . .

That not only ignores the Hippocratic Oath (written by non-believers hundreds of years before Jesus and still followed until the mid-20th century when the “Christian” Left helped it be eliminated) and the early church, which was emphatically against abortion. And it ignores the Catholic religion, led by the “Christian” Left’s new BFF, Pope Francis, that unequivocally condemns abortion.  It even ignores that as late as 1964 Planned Parenthood was anti-abortion!  Please tell me more about history, “Christian” Left.

If you don’t like abortion, don’t have one.

Ugh.  What horrible logic.  If you don’t like slavery, don’t have slaves.  And so on.

When women don’t have personal choice over their own reproductive decisions they end up butchered in back alley abortions or thrown in jail for having a miscarriage.

Thrown in jail for miscarriages?  Yeah, that happened all the time pre-Roe v Wade /sarcasm.  Scare tactics much?

And “reproductive freedom/choice/justice/rights/health/etc.” are false, Orwellian, anti-scientific terms. They apply to birth control, not abortion, because abortion destroys a human being who has already been reproduced. That is a scientific fact confirmed by any mainstream embryology textbook and basic logic. It is a deadly and evil phrase. Yes, they have a right to reproduce, but no, they shouldn’t have the right to kill human beings who have already been reproduced.  Never let pro-aborts get away with using that phrase.

Certain types of birth control are outlawed when a fertilized egg is classified as a “person” as well.

Yes!  Because they kill human beings!

In the end, if abortion was such a grievous sin Jesus would have mentioned it.  He said nothing.

And of course, the fallacious argument from silence.  The argument that Jesus never said anything about abortion (or homosexual behavior, etc.) fails on many levels. If a church leader uses it you can be confident that he or she is ignorant and/or malicious. Short version: Yes, He did say something about it, but the theological Left ignores or distorts it as they do with many things about Jesus and his teachings.

Arguing from silence is a logical fallacy. Jesus is God and part of the Trinity that inspired all scripture. Note how Jesus defeats Darwinian evolution, oxymoronic “same-sex marriage” and same-sex parenting arguments in one simple passage. No true follower of him should disagree on any of those topics. Matthew 19:4–5 He answered, “Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’?”  He supported the Old Testament law to the last letter. The “red letters” weren’t silent on these topics in the sense that they reiterated what marriage and murder were.  He emphasized many other important issues that these Leftist theologians completely ignore (Hell, his divinity, his exclusivity, etc.). He was equally “silent” on issues that these folks treat as having the utmost importance (capital punishment, war, welfare, universal health care, taxpayer-funded abortions, etc.). He didn’t specifically mention rape, child abuse, pedophilia, bestiality and other obvious sins though that wouldn’t justify them.  Abortion and homosexual behavior simply weren’t hot topics for 1st century Jews. They actually thought children were a blessing and they had laws against homosexual behavior. And the Gospels never claimed to include everything He said. John specifically notes that the whole world couldn’t hold it all! (John 21:25). And Jesus never said anything about the “sin” of criticizing abortion or homosexual behavior, so it must be OK!

So other than that, the argument from silence is really good.

“She heads for the clinic and she gets some static walkin’ through the doors;
They call her a killer, and they call her a sinner, and they call her a whore;
God forbid you ever had to walk a mile in her shoes;
‘Cause then you really might know what it’s like to have to choose.”

~ Erik Francis Schrody (Everlast), from the song, “What It’s Like.”

Ah, but to choose what?  Oh, to kill an unwanted human being.  Some choices should not be legal options — especially for those claiming the name of Christ.

So their claim that the Bible says that human beings aren’t really alive until the first breath fails on every count.  It shows their desperation and hypocrisy to pretend that they believe the Bible is the precise word of God when they think it supports their pro-abortion claims and then to mock and discredit that same word when they don’t like what it says. 

And in case that all wasn’t clear enough, here’s a more recent quote from them:

Fetuses aren’t people until they’re born, mmmkay? Women ARE, mmmkay? Get OVER IT, mmmkay?

Again, that’s killing children right up to their first breath.  And they posted it the day after Christmas.  They think that Jesus was OK with killing Jesus up to his first breath!

Those ghouls worship abortion.

To see an example of the pro-abortion extremism of a typical “Christian” Left denomination, here is the “Reproductive Justice” (a deadly misnomer itself, as abortion kills human beings who have already been reproduced) page for the UCC (United Church of Christ, aka Unitarians Considering Christ).

*Though perhaps people use “babies” because that is what Planned Parenthood sometimes calls them.  “An abortion kills the life of a baby after it has begun. It is dangerous to your life and health. It may make you sterile so that when you want a child you cannot have it.”

At least that was their view in this 1964 advertisement. Did they learn anything about science in the few years after that when they changed their minds? Of course not. Science couldn’t be more clear: A new human being is reproduced at conception. What PP learned is how profitable abortions are. Rich, mostly white, mostly male abortionists tricked women into thinking they needed the right to kill their children to be “equal” with men.

And here’s a more recent example where they say it is a baby and “it’s another boy” as they chop him up to sell for profit.

Also note that “children” is an accurate description of the human beings killed by abortion.

Eternity Matters Facebook page

Do not hesitate to call the unborn “children”

I try to use the term children when explaining what abortion does — i.e., it kills children.  Pro-aborts — especially those from the “Christian” Left — balk at that term.  Those ghouls are far more extreme than the average “pro-choice” person, as the former insist that life begins at the first breath* and concludes that you can kill a child at any time until she is 100% out of her mother.  So they hate it when you refer to the unborn as children and they pretend that the word is being misused.

I’ve always noted the scientific fact that the unborn are human beings from fertilization. When they say it is “just” a fetus (or embryo, etc.) I note that the fetus in question is a human being at a particular stage of development: Human embryo ==> human fetus ==> human baby ==> human toddler ==> etc.  Always human and always worthy of protection.

But what do the good folks at have to say about the term children?  Is it legitimate to use that to describe the unborn?  Yep.  Just because it isn’t the first use of the word doesn’t mean it isn’t accurate.


4. a human fetus.
11. with child, pregnant:

She’s with child.
Examples from the web for child
British Dictionary definitions for child
3. an unborn baby related prefix paedo-
4. with child, another term for pregnant
Word Origin and History for child
Old English cild “fetus, infant, unborn or newly born person,” from Proto-Germanic *kiltham (cf. Gothic kilþei “womb,” inkilþo “pregnant;” Danishkuld “children of the same marriage;” Old Swedish kulder “litter;” Old English cildhama “womb,” lit. “child-home”); no certain cognates outside Germanic. “App[arently] originally always used in relation to the mother as the ‘fruit of the womb'” [Buck]. Also in late Old English, “a youth of gentle birth” (archaic, usually written childe). In 16c.-17c. especially “girl child.”

Online Etymology Dictionary, © 2010 Douglas Harper

2. An unborn infant; a fetus.

So please use children as often as possible when describing what abortion does.  It has great rhetorical force and helps demolish the anti-science, anti-God “just a fetus” arguments.

* à la Adam, as though the “Christian” Left affirms a real Adam when it comes to any other theological issue!