Via By Her Own Standards Bristol Palin is Worse Than a Slave Owner – Here’s Why, with my comments that I left there. I have a feeling they may disappear soon!
“The ultimate point is, for all their religiosity and appeal to science, the arguments that Palin and Carson make are neither particularly biblical nor scientifically sound. They are mostly smoke and mirrors, full of sound and fury. And, they signify nothing.”
Of course they are biblical: Jesus is the author of life (Acts 3 and elsewhere). We aren’t to shed innocent blood. We are to protect the weak. And so on.
And the science is 100% on our side. Pro-life reasoning is simple and accurate: It is a scientific fact (http://tinyurl.com/yfje8lq ) and basic common sense (what else would two human beings produce?) that a new human being is reproduced at fertilization. Seriously, go check out any mainstream embryology textbook. I’m too pro-science to be pro-choice. Based on the settled science, it is then simple moral reasoning that it is wrong to take the life of an innocent human being without proper justification, and that is what happens during 99% of abortions.
The situations surrounding abortions are psychologically complex (pressures on the mother to abort, economic concerns, etc.) but morally simple (you don’t kill unwanted humans outside the womb for those reasons, so you shouldn’t kill them inside the womb for those reasons). Their size, level of development, location and degree of dependency are not reasons to ignore their right to life. Arguments about “bodily autonomy” ignore the body destroyed in the abortion.
In other words, it is wrong to take the life of an innocent human being without proper justification. Abortion does that. Therefore, abortion is wrong.
“Even historically in the Church, the idea that abortion is a horrible, no good, very bad thing is an idea that (as another Patheos blogger put it) is younger than the Happy Meal.”
Another lie, inspired by the father of lies, who trusts that his low-information followers will believe him.
Here are a few quotes from early church leaders on abortion. I’m sure the pacifists quote these left and right in their pro-life efforts:
And when we say that those women who use drugs to bring on abortion commit murder, and will have to give an account to God for the abortion, on what principle should we commit murder? For it does not belong to the same person to regard the very foetus in the womb as a created being, and therefore an object of God’s care, and when it has passed into life, to kill it . . . Athenagoras of Athens, circa 180 A.D. from A Plea For The Christians
You shall love your neighbor more than your own life. You shall not slay a child by abortion. You shall not kill that which has already been generated. (Epistle of Barnabas 19.5; second century)
Do not murder a child by abortion or kill a new-born infant. (The Didache 2.2; second century catechism for young Christian converts)
It does not matter whether you take away a life that is born, or destroy one that is coming to the birth. In both instances, the destruction is murder. (Tertullian, Apology, 9.4; second century)
Those who give abortifacients for the destruction of a child conceived in the womb are murderers themselves, along with those receiving the poisons. (Basil the Great, Canons, 188.2; fourth century)
Jerome called abortion “the murder of an unborn child” (Letter to Eustochium, 22.13; fourth century).
Augustine used the same phrase, warning against the terrible crime of “the murder of an unborn child” (On Marriage, 1.17.15; fourth century).
The early church fathers Origen, Cyprian and Chrysostom likewise condemned abortion as the killing of a child.
“In Exodus we learn that if a man causes a woman to miscarriage he is fined, but is he causes the woman to die, he will be put to death.”
No, we don’t learn that in Exodus. That is a mistranslation used by pro-abortion extremists to justify killing unwanted children.
Exodus 21:22–25, ESV — When men strive together and hit a pregnant woman, so that her children come out, but there is no harm, the one who hit her shall surely be fined, as the woman’s husband shall impose on him, and he shall pay as the judges determine. But if there is harm, then you shall pay life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.
The short version is that the key word of the passage is sometimes not translated well and says “miscarriage” instead of “children come out.” 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.
And even if they use their mistranslation, they ignore that a punishment was required, so abortion would still be wrong!
More here, with a listing of all the errors pro-aborts make with this passage: https://1eternitymatters.wordpress.com/2010/01/22/exodus-21-and-abortion/
“For heaven’s sake, they were told to stone disobedient children.”
There you go, folks: Mark Sandlin again mocks the word of the God that he pretends to follow. If you think Sandlin is a Christian you are part of the problem.
“Biblically, life is believed to begin with breath, with breathing. But let’s face it, the Bible was never meant to be used as a science manual.”
No, that isn’t biblical. Even a hyper-literalist shouldn’t take Adam’s creation to support the killing of unwanted children. It was GOD’S BREATH that went into Adam to create life. Genesis doesn’t even mention Adam’s first breath.
And does anyone see the hypocrisy and irony in claiming that the Bible isn’t a science manual then using the creation of Adam — a “slightly” unique human — to justify abortion? Oh, and how about the fact that the “Christian” Left turns around and denies a historical Adam when it comes to original sin, Darwinian evolution, etc. What happened to their literal interpretation? Oh, never mind that. They just use that to justify killing unwanted children. What frauds.
Remember that the “Christian” Left “first breath” reasoning is far more extreme than the average pro-choice belief, which opposes late-term abortions. But the “Christian” Left says Jesus is fine with killing a child even outside the womb for any reason until she takes her first breath.
“How cruel is that? By her own definition, she created life and then allowed it to not receive the sustenance and nurturing that all human life deserves! That’s just despicable. Unbelievable!”
Wow. Just wow. I’ve seen a lot of stupid pro-abortion rhetoric from the “Christian” Left but that one is over the top even for those Molech-worshiping ghouls.
Read slowly, people: 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. Grandma dying in her sleep is not the same as you bludgeoning her to death. Did I really have to just type that? Apparently so.
I think most people can see that they are significantly different. That is, most people who don’t worship death and mock God.
My only encouragement was that even one of his Leftist followers saw how ridiculous his miscarriage argument was.
Ben Carson and Bristol Palin are both right. Abortion is like slavery.
One thought on ““Christian” Left leader Mark “Jesus is not my God” Sandlin goes over the top in promoting abortion”
What’s younger than a happymeal is their concept of Christianity. This new christianity is, surprise, surprise, nothing more than Democrat talking points.
LikeLiked by 1 person