Category Archives: Pro-life

Roundup

From the “we’re gonna need a lot of millstones to clean this place up” category: Tax-funded PBS perverts aggressively indoctrinate children – but remember, legalizing oxymoronic “same-sex marriage” won’t impact you! — Alabama Public Television refuses to air Arthur episode with gay wedding


Best of the Bee

‘Abortion Is Healthcare,’ Says Woman Who Apparently Thinks ‘Healthcare’ Means Tearing A Human Being Limb From Limb | The Babylon Bee

Caravan Of Unborn Babies Heads Toward Alabama To Apply For Asylum | The Babylon Bee


The Abortion Discourse in Social Media, Summed Up in One Conversation — The link is golden.  Partial list below.  Please read it all and share.  It really does sum up the abortion debate well.  All the pro-child-killing side has is one fallacious argument after another.

A summary of social media discourse over the last week, as it pertains to the abortion debate.

Me: “We need laws to protect the most innocent and vulnerable among us.”

Them: “You’re so fascist.”

Me: “I don’t think you know what that word means.”

Them: “Men shouldn’t tell women what to do.”

Me: “As a woman, should you tell men not to rape people?”

Them: “Yeah, but that involves hurting somebody else.”

Me: “So does abortion.”

Them: “No, a fetus isn’t a human being.”

Me: “Yeah, but…science and stuff.”

Them: “Don’t force your religion on me.”

Me: “Yeah, but…science and stuff. That’s literally, scientifically, and medically a living human being.”

Them: “But they’re not *really* a human being.”

Me: “Okay, Hitler.”

Them: “You just want to judge people.”

Me: “Is that wrong?”

Them: “Yes, it’s absolutely wrong to judge people.”

Me: “So am I wrong for that?”

. . .


Women Preaching — Excellent biblical analysis on why women shouldn’t be preachers.  This is needed more than ever as the Southern Baptist Convention and others bend to the culture.

The position which permits women preaching to mixed congregations cannot be supported from Scripture. Common descriptive biblical passages do not support the position. First Corinthians 14:34-35 [Open in Logos Bible Software (if available)] and 1 Timothy 2:11-12 [Open in Logos Bible Software (if available)] are the two prescriptive passages in the NT on the issue. Thus, they are the authority on the matter. Exegetically, both passages clearly forbid women from preaching and teaching to men in the local church. Therefore, NT churches must conduct themselves accordingly if they are going to be in obedience to Christ, the blessed Lord of the church.


For those who need a study to know that water is wet: Bombshell study explodes myth that same-sex parenting is no different


Coming soon to a country near you: Illegal Aliens Take Over Paris Airport

African illegal aliens calling themselves “black jackets” made a show of force at the main Paris airport yesterday afternoon, refusing to let passengers board their planes: “France does not belong to the French! Everyone has a right to be here!” one person can be heard yelling into a loudspeaker.It follows that everyone on the planet also has a right to generous French welfare benefits.

 

Responding to the pro-abortion rape/incest argument

With several states doing the right thing and challenging Roe v Wade on its “personhood” distinction, it is a great time to be prepared to calmly and clearly refute pro-abortion sound bites.

Pro-abortion people exploit rape and incest victims to advance their child-killing cause, and they are joined by many pro-lifers who either haven’t thought the issue through carefully or are too scared to make the argument.  They try to paint you as evil for not wanting rape and incest victims to “solve” their problems by killing any children produced during the crimes, but it is false compassion and a red herring because they don’t just want to keep those abortions illegal.  They want all abortions to be legal, up to the child’s first breath.

Don’t shy away from that issue, just respond as follows.

I’m glad you brought up the topic of rape and incest. Those are terrible crimes that we should seek to prevent, and we should ensure that the victims aren’t further victimized and that there is justice for the rapists. If you propose the death penalty for the rapist I’d consider that, but why is it the first option for the innocent child? It is a scientific fact that the unborn are human beings from fertilization.

Abortionists such as Planned Parenthood help hide the crimes. They have been caught countless times hiding statutory rape, incest (which is another form of rape) and sex trafficking. If you really care about rape, then protest Planned Parenthood and how they systematically hide statutory rape and sex trafficking.

Unless you can look at an ultrasound and tell if a child was the product of rape or incest, then you shouldn’t let them be killed.

Abortion doesn’t undo the trauma of rape, it compounds it. It is another way of a stronger person abusing a weaker person.

Rapes results in less than 1% of abortions. Those abortions are still wrong, but for the record, would you oppose outlawing all abortions, except those in the cases of rape, incest and to save the life of the mother? If not, then why not admit that you are really just pro-abortion and that you use the rape/incest card to advance your cause?  Stop exploiting rape victims to justify abortion.


Here’s a handy jpeg you can use on social media.

Alyssa Milano’s “sex strike”

It must be exhausting to be a God-mocking, Molech-worshiping Leftist.  You have to prop up all sorts of evil, inconsistent and anti-science ideas all day, every day.  Exhibit A: Alyssa Milano, who called for a “sex strike” by women because some states are saying you can’t kill children with beating hearts.

She was quickly and thoroughly roasted on social media for proving the point of every conservative ever, namely that abstinence works!  Mike Pence will be glad to know Alyssa has joined his side.  And I’m sure her children are comforted knowing that mommy fought aggressively for the right to have been able to kill them.

She also got in trouble with professional feminists who rightly noted that Milano was implying that sex was just a weapon used by women to manipulate men.  Apparently Milano doesn’t really enjoy sex, she just uses it to get what she wants and needs to be able to kill an unfortunate children created by her transaction.

Predictably, she trotted out the anti-science “reproductive rights” canard.  For the 397th time, abortion kills children who have already been reproduced.  Is that so hard to understand?  If they hadn’t been reproduced you wouldn’t have anything to murder!

And of course, she had to apologize to the inevitable “trans” (note: still not a real thing) people with some unintelligible complaints about cisgender or the like.

Never forget that the #1 issue in life for feminists is being able to kill their children up to their first breath and without anesthetic.  Oh, and even beyond that if the abortion fails to kill the child.  Because they insist that the Constitution doesn’t just give you a right to abortion but to a dead baby.

There is a reason they are indistinguishable from the “Christian” Left, whose god says it is OK to kill children to their first breath.  These are the real extremists, as most self-identified pro-choice people – and most Leftist countries – oppose late-term abortions.

Hopefully many women will heed her advice and stop having out-of-wedlock sex and realize how much better life is when doing things God’s way.  The Bible teaches the original “sex strike” — no sex until a one man / one woman marriage.  And the world would be a vastly better place if people heeded that.

The shameless anti-science pro-abortion rhetoric of the Left

Sadly, this illogical nonsense actually resonates with the child-killing Democrats, including the Molech-worshiping “Christian” Leftists who support abortion to the child’s first breath.  It is all quite ridiculous, but go to the 6:00 mark for some scary comments.

These are painful decisions for these women

So?  I don’t care how painful it is for you to decide to murder your child or whether you consulted your doctor or religious advisor, it is still wrong, just as it would be if you killed her outside the womb.

With all of your distortions and horrible tales, I answered it numerous times.  When a woman gets pregnant it is not a human being inside of her.

Uh, that’s not what all those pesky embryology textbooks say, or even what common sense would dictate to even the dullest among us.  What else would two human beings produce, a puppy?  Of course it is a human being.

Even the chryon is fallacious, as it refers to “reproductive rights.”  But reproductive rights have nothing to do with abortion, because a new human being has already been created.  The question is whether you should be able to kill that human being.  Never let the pro-aborts get away with using that term.

As always, I’m too pro-science to be pro-choice.

Exodus 21 and abortion

Pro-abortion “Christian” Leftists and other abortion advocates often refer to a passage in Exodus 21 to support their views.  Don’t let them get away with such terrible and deadly reasoning.

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. (Exodus 21:22–25, ESV)

The short version is that the key word of the passage is, in rare circumstances, not translated well and says “miscarriage” instead of “children come out.”  They conclude that if it is “just” a miscarriage and the perpetrator only got a fine, then what’s the big deal about abortion?

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.  But the pro-aborts (rotten) cherry-pick a translation they can twist to justify murder to the child’s first breath.

But that is just one of many problems with their use of this passage.  Here is a full list:

1. They get the text wrong.  This is a pro-life passage, not a pro-legalized abortion passage.  If Moses wanted to say “miscarriage” he could have used a much more specific word for that.

2. They ignore or rationalize away other Biblical texts that they don’t like, such as Leviticus 18:22 (ESV – You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination.)  So why do they find Exodus 21 so authoritative?

They ignore passages like Romans 1 where Paul explicitly declares homosexual behavior to be sinful because they think Paul didn’t know enough about biology and psychology (and they unwittingly tip their hand that they don’t believe any scripture is truly inspired by God).  But if Paul is so ignorant and scripture is un-inspired, why trust Moses to know key scientific facts?  They should dismiss the “miscarriage” term even if it had been in the original text because he didn’t have access to the scientific fact that a new human life begins at conception.

3. They don’t even agree with the other teachings of Exodus 21, such as verses 23-25.

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.

They are almost exclusively anti-capital punishment.  So why do they rationalize away the destruction of over a million innocent human beings per year in the U.S. based on a poor translation of a single word and then ignore the rest of the passage which is much more clear?

4. They ignore the endless pro-life passages in the Bible.

In summary, Christians (the uninformed kind) and “Christians” (the fake kind) who use Exodus 21 as support for abortion on demand fail on many levels.  If it weren’t for people like them Roe v Wade and the destruction that followed would not have happened.

More here:  The Misuse of Exodus 21:22-25 by Pro-Choice Advocates by John Piper.

Pro-abort Rachel Held Evans uses (false) exceptions to make bad rules

As the saying goes, exceptions make bad rules.  But in the case of pro-abort “Christian” Racist Held Evans, she uses a false exception to make a horribly bad rule.

She plays  on the sympathies of those with children diagnosed in utero with health issues.  In her world, it is much better to kill the child right away because she might have serious health issues when born.  That ignores that doctors and diagnoses are sometimes wrong (I’ve personally met several people who are glad they didn’t heed the advice to kill their children). It also ignores that God doesn’t permit mercy killings (then again, since when did pro-LGBTQX Mrs. Evans care what Jesus said?).

But as bad as that is, faux-lifer Evans isn’t using that argument to make the case to ban all abortions except those in her example  She uses it to justify all abortions at any time, and to have taxpayers pay for abortions for those who can’t afford to kill their children.  She piles evil upon evil.  When pro-aborts make deceptive claims like that, ask them exactly which abortions they want to make illegal.  Answer: None.

And to make it worse, she virtue signals in her pro-abort Tweet.  You see, she is more righteous and caring than you because she would consider killing her child while you wouldn’t.

Source: Pro-LGBT Activist Who Thinks She’s A Christian Defends Abortion – Reformation Charlotte:

In an ultimate display of selfishness, Held Evans, a professing Christian (of course she isn’t a real Christian, but she has many Christian followers), asserts that she isn’t sure what she would do if she were told by a doctor that her unborn child may have a birth defect affecting the “quality” of the child’s life.

The problem here isn’t that Held Evans is concerned with the quality of the child’s life. Held Evans is concerned about the quality of her own life. She — and other abortion supporters just like her — see children not as a gift from God made in the image of God, but as a burden. Further, a child that may need special care and extra attention would, in Held Evans’ eyes, decrease her own “quality of life.”This is the sickness of the pro-choice movement. You can’t call yourself a Christian while holding to anti-Christ beliefs. The gospel calls us to lay our own lives down, pick up our cross, and follow Jesus. Held Evans and the many pro-choice (or undecided) people out there have failed to see the goodness of God and the gift of salvation in Christ. They are, regardless of their claims, unregenerate and need the forgiveness of Jesus Christ found only through repentance and faith.

I saw the Gosnell movie. You should too.

I hadn’t been to a movie in at least a year.  I can’t even remember what the last one was. But I saw Gosnell: The Trial of America’s Biggest Serial Killer tonight.  I hope you do as well.

You know how it ends, so I can’t spoil that. But these comments might tell you more than you want to know ahead of time, so you’ve been warned.

The acting and production values were good, and much better than expected. The guy who played Gosnell was amazing.

They obviously used some poetic license to move the plot along, but to their credit they didn’t appear to exaggerate any of the key facts.  The guy was so over-the-top it seemed like overkill just to describe it.

There were a couple unnecessary things that detracted in a minor way (I’m pretty sure that real coroners don’t hand scalpels to District Attorneys and let them cut up cadavers at all, let alone without gloves and masks).  But you get those in any movie.

While the trial and key players kept making the point that Gosnell was on trial for murder, not abortion, they did make a lot of good pro-life statements.  The “good” abortionist, there to make Gosnell look like a “bad” one,  described a 2nd term abortion in detail, including injecting a needle in the child’s heart to kill her, evacuating the “gray matter” (i.e., brains) to make her skull collapse, etc.  That’s more than most voters have probably ever heard.

Never forget that according to the Left — including the “Christian” Left — Gosnell’s only problem was killing the children a little too late.  They support unrestricted abortions to the child’s first breath and want more of them with taxpayer funding.  And despite their “safe, legal and rare” lies, the government really did prevent inspections from being done at Gosnell’s clinic.

Kudos to everyone involved with the production.  Hope you go see it!

Are you going to see the Gosnell movie? Please spread the word!

I’m so glad to see they made this.  The trailer looks great.  I haven’t been to a movie in over a year, but I may make an exception for this one.

Initially, the government deliberately ignored the greatest serial killer in American history.  Fortunately, someone finally took him on.  But unfortunately, the media did a choreographed embargo on the trial.  I remember searching MSNBC and the LA Times, among other Leftist sites, and getting zero hits for his name.  Zero.  That is active suppression.

When I would teach pro-life reasoning training to new Care Net Pregnancy Center volunteers I’d ask if they had heard of Kermit Gosnell.  Usually only about 25% had — and this was from a group of very committed pro-lifers!  The media was very effective at hiding it.

Not surprisingly, Facebook is choking ads for the film.  You can only imagine what other suppression Twitter and the rest of Big Tech are engaged in.

Make no mistake: Those Molech-worshiping ghouls love abortion.

Please share the word on this movie!  Even if it just gets people to search on the topic it will be worth it.

Are you ready to respond to pro-abortion arguments?

With the impending confirmation of Brett Kavanaugh as a Supreme Court Justice there is more talk than usual about abortion, and that will only increase from here.  Are you you ready to respond to people graciously when they make bad pro-abortion arguments?

The arguments are varied, but the most common ones are easy to refute.  For example, they love to play on people’s  emotions and pretend that we are hostile to rape victims if we don’t let them kill their children.  But just turn it around on them and ask, “So are you saying that you’d support making all abortions illegal except in the cases of rape?”  I guarantee you that the response will be “no.”  Then you simply say, “Then why are you exploiting rape victims to make your case for unrestricted abortions, and why do you support the Democrats’ policies of increasing abortions with taxpayer funding?”  it is just that easy.  Bonus points for reminding them how Planned Parenthood and other abortionists protect rapists and sex traffickers.

And when you get the inevitable “pro-lifers don’t care about children after they are born argument,” share these points.

This is a video where I teach about pro-life reasoning.  I used to give this content to Care Net Pregnancy Center volunteers.

Faux-lifers and loving your neighbor

One of the easiest ways to out faux-lifers (that is, pro-abortion people who pretend to be pro-life) is to keep them talking.  They often claim the name of Christ and that they love their neighbors.  They ever-so-briefly concede the humanity of the child and say how they would never have an abortion and wish they didn’t have to happen.

But they quickly forget about their neighbor in the womb and launch into tortured rationalizations about why they vote for politicians and support groups like Planned Parenthood that fight for unrestricted abortions to the child’s first breath.  They use every sound bite that the professional pro-aborts use.

So just ask them this: If you were in the womb, would you want someone to protect you from being crushed and dismembered?  And if you were going to be destroyed that way, would you at least want to be given anesthetic first?  After all, the faux-lifers fight to keep abortion legal to the child’s first breath and without anesthetic (they know that laws requiring anesthetics would remind people that the children do suffer when being killed, and they must prop up the lie that the children aren’t “really” living until their first breath).

The pro-aborts will squirm and go through all sorts of mental gymnastics to rationalize their inconsistency.  They’ll realize their reasoning is poor, so they’ll resort to attacking you instead. But just keep pointing back to their neighbor in the womb.  If they truly love their neighbors, how can they not try to protect their lives?

I also keep this jpg file handy to share with those who repeat the pro-abortion canard that pro-lifers don’t care about children after they are born.  I find that to be the #1 pro-abortion argument on the Internet.  It lets the pro-aborts pretend to kinda-sorta oppose abortion while attacking the character of pro-lifers.  There are nine things wrong with their sound bite.  Actually more, but the font was getting too small.  Feel free to use without attribution!

Refer to the pre-born as children, not babies

I realize that it is reasonable to call the pre-born babies, and even Planned Parenthood employees have been caught using that term and in an old advertisement they noted that “abortion kills the life of a baby after it has begun.”

But I prefer to use the term children when explaining what abortion does — i.e., it kills children.  Why?  Because it is more precise and it baits the pro-aborts into denying what the dictionary clearly says (even if they don’t realize it yet).  Pro-aborts — especially those from the “Christian” Left — usually 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.

But what do the nice folks at Dictionary.com 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.

child

4. a human fetus.
Idioms

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.

I’ve always noted the scientific fact that the unborn are human beings from fertilization. Check out any mainstream embryology textbook.  When pro-aborts 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 going straight to calling them children is both accurate and effective.

So please use children as often as possible when describing what abortion does.  It has great rhetorical force, it baits pro-aborts into having to agree with the term or showing how they have to disagree with the dictionary to make their case, and it helps demolish the anti-science, anti-God “just a fetus” arguments.

A dialog with a professional child-killer

I’ve taught pro-life reasoning for over 10 years and debated countless people online, but had never dialogued directly with an abortionist until now.  Professional child-killer Willie Parker is not just an abortionist, which would be bad enough, but he claims to be a Christian and that his work is for the Lord.  As an introduction, this Newsweek interview with him has the usual pro-abort rationalizations.

  • He thinks of himself as heroic by aborting the child of an incest victim, as if killing her child solved her problems.  The abortion industry routinely protects sex traffickers, rapists and those who commit incest.  Not only does killing the child not undo the crimes, these abortionists send the victims back to their abusers!
  • He refers to “reproductive justice,” but that’s when you don’t kill the child who has already been reproduced.
  • He says he won’t do abortions for those who express race or gender differences, yet he simultaneous claims that those he kills aren’t people yet.
  • He claims to be a Christian yet says the Bible supports sexism – i.e., he admits to disagreeing with the Bible.
  • He spouts gibberish like this, which of course would justify anything anyone would ever do: “If God is in everything, and everyone, then God is as much in the woman making a decision to terminate a pregnancy as in her Bible.”
  • He says women will do unsafe abortions if he doesn’t do them, ignoring that many women do unsafe abortions even when legal, that making them legal increases abortion rates, and that one is never obligated to make it safer for someone to have her child killed.
  • He gladly performs abortions like these: “women in poverty and women of color. He has seen patients from a recently divorced mother of three, with a 1-year-old at home, to a 21-year-old middle-distance runner trying to trim seconds off her 800-meter time to qualify for the Rio Olympics.”
  • In the Newsweek article he denied that life began at conception, but he admitted it during the Twitter exchange.

So that’s a little about Willie.  Someone reTweeted him so I commented and he actually responded.  A few of the comments and my replies (multiple Tweets sometimes combined into one):

Dr. Willie Parker‏ — As someone who provides abortions and who witnesses the relief and gratitude of women who obtain them safely, I could say, TOLD YOU SO!, but gloating is overrated. Abortion doesn’t cause depression, but pro-birth zealots sure do. [There was a link to an article alleging that many women don’t feel guilty about having abortions.]

Note how he calls us zealots, yet later whines about alleged name-calling on my part for my precision in calling him a child-killer.  I choose my words carefully.  Some call the unborn babies, and I know why.  But it lets pro-aborts say that isn’t the correct term.  They still try that when I say children, but then I point them to the dictionary.  Same thing when they deny personhood.

eMatters‏ — Whether your conscience is so thoroughly seared that you don’t regret killing your children is irrelevant. It will always be morally wrong.

My reply was actually about whether the mothers felt guilty, but he took it personally.

Dr. Willie Parker‏ — My critics are many. Occasionally, I reply to make a point, like fetuses aren’t people, women are. My reply: If the world were as simple as you think it is, you’d be right. But since it isn’t & since I’ve never killed a child, you didn’t make a point, you stated the obvious.

eMatters‏ — You are wildly ignorant of science. Check any embryology textbook: A new human being is created at fertilization. Must have been too busy learning to kill at school What else would two humans create?! http://www.abort73.com/abortion/medical_testimony/   And see http://dictionary.com . You kill CHILDREN.  Oh, and the seared conscience comment applies to the MOTHERS as well. They should feel guilty for paying you to kill their children, but whether their consciences are seared is irrelevant. I meet lots of unrepentant murderers doing prison ministry. They were still wrong.

Dr. Willie Parker‏ –Insults don’t make your point. Fetuses are human beings, because women don’t give birth to puppies, but to be a human being is not the same as being a person. In my “scientific ignorance” I know the difference between a frog & a tadpole, and an acorn & an oak tree. Do you?

eMatters‏ –Yes, you are ignorant of science. And vocabulary. Once again, the nice folks at http://dictionary.com  can help you out: Person: a human being, whether an adult or child: a human being as distinguished from an animal or a thing.  So your anti-science word games fail you again. You kill human children for a living. That’s sick.  Surely you know the logical fallacies with your acorn / oak tree illustration, right?  https://apologiabyhendrikvanderbreggen.blogspot.com/2008/10/acorns-and-oak-treesand-abortion.html

Dr. Willie Parker‏ — Women die during childbirth, but we don’t outlaw childbirth. Check any person who delivers babies.

eMatters‏ — Gracious of you, as a professional child killer, to put these fallacious sound bites out there for all to see. You’re the pro and that’s all you’ve got? Willie says women can die during childbirth, therefore it is OK to kill children to their 1st breath. Non sequitur much?  Conflating death by natural causes vs. actively killing them? Such great pro-abort logic. Most people can see the difference: 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)  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.

Dr. Willie Parker‏ — Developmentally your argument is that human conceptions are persons throughout: fetuses are babies are toddlers are college graduates. Embryo and fetus are scientific terms, baby and toddler are not. How deftly you switch from science to culture, key for embracing pseudoscience.

eMatters‏ — That’s completely false. Why do you feel the need to deceive like that? I couldn’t have been more clear. It is a human fetus. Human embryo ==> human fetus ==> human baby ==> human toddler ==> etc. Same human being at different stages of development.

Dr. Willie Parker‏ — Given that your thinking is linear, your arguments circular and legalistic, and your reference materials are Webster’s dictionary and live action news, you get to have the last word, insults and all. I’ll keep honoring women’s decisions, and you can judge them and call me names.

eMatters‏ — Yeah, referring to dictionary definitions and medical textbook citations for the specific words being debated is legalistic. 🙂 Pretty lame dodge, Willie. Live Action was just quoting PP. Your attack is an example of the genetic fallacy.  If I call you a professional child killer, I am being very precise. You get paid, and by medical and standard dictionary definitions, you kill human children. Killing the children when mothers pay you is a peculiar way to honor them.  And you never demonstrated any circular logic. I just pointed to scientific facts: Every fetus you have killed was a human being at a particular stage of development. You tried to weasel word you way out by calling them [non-] persons, then I showed how you were wrong.  I hope you repent and believe someday – and soon, before you kill too many more children. We are all sinners in need of a Savior. If you don’t, you’ll have eternity to be punished for your countless crimes against God.

And it was just as creepy seeing all his fans calling him a hero and such for being so caring.

P.S. And of course, I got the usual pro-aborts chiming in with fallacies about how we don’t help the poor after they are born.  I usually post this when I get those comments.  

 

 

 

 

Leftists — including “Christian” Leftists — are pro-abortion, not pro-choice

The Molech-worshiping ghouls of the Left — including the “Christian” Left — are busy celebrating the “free” (read: tax-funded or government coercion-funded) abortions that will just happen to kill minorities at a disproportionate rate: Governor of Oregon Holds Ceremony to Celebrate Law Making Abortion Free in State.  And note the skin color of those celebrating . . .

When you use the force of government to increase abortions you can no longer pretend to be pro-choice.

This came with the usual pro-abortion fallacy-fest.

To lead productive and thriving lives, Oregonians must have the ability to control their bodies and make informed decisions about their health care,” she said in a statement. “I am proud to sign legislation that expands access to basic reproductive health services for all Oregonians regardless of where they live, where they come from, or how they identify as a person.

So to improve your life you need to be able to kill your children to their 1st breath and to have someone else pay for it.  Check.

The “how they identify as a person” is comical.  Apparently they had to ensure the bill covered women who pretend to be men yet still want to kill their children.

And as always,  “Reproductive health services” is a false, Orwellian, anti-scientific term. It applies 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.

According to the Washington Times, those in attendance “regularly broke into rousing cheers and applause.”

That’s just creepy.  Predicable, but creepy.

It allows an exemption for religious businesses and nonprofits . . .

That will last about 15 minutes, because if killing your children to their 1st breath for “free” is really a right then how dare anyone limit that right?!  But don’t worry, because the state will make your neighbors pay for the murder:

Employees can still obtain the desired contraceptives and abortions . . .

They falsely claim that women have to be able to murder their children to be able to work outside the home and that even if it was true then it would justify child-killing.

Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton similarly said that she believes legalizing abortion has helped to keep women in the workplace, and thus has aided the economy.

Well, OK, then, continue the slaughter.  And they say Republicans are greedy?!

People who slaughter children for a living are capable of lying. No, really!

Planned Parenthood got busted, again, this time with audio and video showing that 92 out of 97 office contact do not offer prenatal care.  The timing is great considering how they just finished the #womensmarch #abortionmarch and were all saying how awesome and important Planned Parenthood is to women’s health.  Plus, the March for Life is in a few days so it will increase awareness of that.

Please watch and share this video.  So many people are deceived about what Planned Parenthood does.   My favorite part is at the 1:40 mark, where the on-hold recording specifically mentions prenatal care and then the employee says they don’t do prenatal care.  And you can see Cecile Richards lying and how so many clinics just kill children.

Planned Parenthood usually pretends to fire “rogue” employees when they get caught on things like this, so they will have a ton of openings across the country next week!

These people kill children for a living, so it is no surprise that they’d lie about doing prenatal care. Hopefully Trump will keep his promise and defund these ghouls.

Also see Planned Parenthood overview.