Tag Archives: Abortion debate

An easy way to spot a false teacher

Today was Sanctity of Human Life Sunday.  So what did false teachers communicate?

Jim “the Gospel is all about wealth redistribution” Wallis‘ blog had nothing to say about the human beings destroyed around the world each day. Nothing.

That’s typical of the “social justice” crowd.  What could be more unjust than ignoring that 3,000+ human beings are crushed and dismembered each day in the U.S. alone just because they are unwanted?  What about the tens of millions of gender selection abortions that kill females for the sole reason that they are female? What about 90% of Down Syndrome children killed because they are a little different?

Wallis has a big microphone but just uses it to advance his politics-disguised-as-religion wealth redistribution schemes.

I have yet to find a pro-abortion “reverend” who isn’t a fake.  Case in point: Race-baiting Chuck “Jesus is not the only way” Currie.  He and his fellow false teachers aren’t just pro-choice, they are pro-abortion, because they advocate for taxpayer-funded abortions.  These will obviously increase the number of abortions, so he can’t even play the lame “safe (uh, except for the unborn), legal and rare” card.  And his policies will certainly increase the rate of abortions in the black community, which is already 3x that of whites.  It is the ultimate racism.

See “Observe the Roe v. Wade Anniversary by Staying Vigilant and Taking Action” for a shining example.

As the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice celebrates the 39th anniversary of Roe v. Wade, the war on women rages on,

War on women?  What about gender selection abortions that have killed tens of millions of females for the sole reason that they are female?  What about the women pressured to have abortions by family members and the fathers of the children?

and we who trust women and respect their decisions

Those are empty words.  What if the women wanted to kill their toddlers?  Would you trust and respect those decisions?

must renew our commitment to protecting this landmark Supreme Court ruling. On January 22, 1973, the Supreme Court said, in simple terms, that women have a constitutional right to privacy to make decisions about whether to have an abortion. Because this decision involves moral as well as medical considerations, the Court ruled, a woman has the right to consider her personal circumstances and the dictates of her conscience.

Again, if her conscience permits her to kill her toddler is that adequate?  Of course not.  So the only question is, “What is the unborn?”  The scientific fact is that they are human beings.

It’s especially important for the pro-faith community to speak out now.

Read: Fake Christians.

For the past year, zealots in Congress and state legislatures

So trying to save the lives of innocent human beings makes one a zealot, but President Obama’s fight to be able to kill those who survive abortions is not zealotry?   Chuck seems pretty zealous about wanting to have even more unborn human beings killed, at your expense!

– many of whom preach the sanctity of privacy and freedom from government –

Can women kill their toddler’s in private?  No, so privacy isn’t the issue.

“Freedom from the government” ignores that they are protecting a human life who should be free from being crushed and dismembered.  One of the main roles of government is to protect human life.

have relentlessly waged a vicious war on women’s access to health care.

Crushing and dismembering innocent human beings is not health care.

More than 1,000 bills were introduced in state legislatures, including the Ohio “heartbeat” bill banning abortion after the 6th or 7th week of gestation, and numerous bills requiring pregnant women to have ultrasounds. In 2011, 92 anti-abortion provisions were enacted – the most in any year since Roe v. Wade was decided!

Yea!  Keep up the fight, pro-lifers!  That is great progress.

Ask Them What They Mean by “Choice” Day

When people say they are pro-choice, ask them what they mean by that.  Why don’t they finish the sentence?

Pro-choice for education?  Careers?  Whom to marry? Whether to buy health insurance?  Whether to own a gun?  Whether to home school your children?  Whether to pay for the abortions and/or birth control of others?  What size sodas to drink?  What to eat for lunch?  Those are fine.

Oh, you meant, “Pro-choice to kill an innocent but unwanted human being?”  I can’t go for that.

People who favor pro-legalized-abortion are skilled at the name game.  If you didn’t know better you’d think they didn’t know how to complete a sentence.  They will do anything to avoid the word abortion.  It is always, “choice,” “reproductive freedom,” “women’s rights,” etc.  And they call us “anti-choice.”

I’d be OK with any of those labels provided that they completed the sentence for a change:

– Anti-choice to crush and dismember an innocent human being

– Pro-choice to kill an innocent yet unwanted human being

– A woman’s right to have her unborn child destroyed (but not a man’s right)

– Pro-reproductive freedom to kill an innocent human being after she has been reproduced, up to and including partial birth abortion (and after, if your last name is Obama) [Never let them get away with using “reproductive freedom” in relation to abortion, as it is a scientific fact that abortions kill human beings that have already been reproduced.]

– and so on.

And do they really want choice, or do they want abortions?  Courtesy of Duane, read about the 14 yr. old girl who had to sue her family to prevent them from forcing to kill her child — and their grandchild!  Why hasn’t this made front-page news and lit up the pro-“choice” blogs?

A theologically liberal blogger commented on another site about choice:

As to the abortion issue, as ___ raises it, he is exactly right. That’s the whole point of being “pro-choice”. I can’t speak for anyone else, so I’ll just say that, being pro-choice means just that. Gov. Palin and her husband are to be admired for their decision, even after it was revealed the baby would have Down’s, to continue with the pregnancy and add a fifth child at such a late point in their lives. Another couple might have made another choice, and there is nothing inherently wrong with that because I do not live their lives, and cannot make their moral or family choices for them.

As with most pro-legalized-abortion arguments he ignores the obvious: The Palin’s can’t legally choose to destroy the Down Syndrom child once he is outside the womb (at least not yet).  So the only question is, “What is the unborn?”  Hint: Scientifically speaking, he is a human being.  So we shouldn’t give anyone the choice to kill him.

I saw this a while back: Adoption: The choice where no one dies.

Via SUNDAY! Ask Them What They Mean by “Choice” Day – Jill Stanek.

Free debating tips for pro-legalized abortionists

I probably shouldn’t help pro-legalized abortion advocates with their arguments, but our reasoning is so strong that I’m willing to aid them.  Plus, it will save us time in not having to refute so many bad arguments.

Here are some free tips.  Before you type another pro-legalized abortion argument:

  1. Ask yourself what the science textbooks affirm.  Science can be wrong, but it is so unanimous in this case that you should have strong scientific and logical arguments of your own if you are taking the opposite view — especially when the scientific argument is the opposite of the politically correct argument (I emphasized that in anticipation of the  “but you don’t believe in Darwinian evolution” claim).  If you don’t believe the fact of science that the unborn are distinct human beings then I’m not sure why you’d believe anything in science.  And it isn’t like these scientists are biased against abortion.  They probably favor it, but they have the intellectual integrity to state the obvious: A new human being is created at conception.  Therefore, skip any arguments insisting that the unborn aren’t human, are just a bunch of cells that become human later, etc.
  2. Ask yourself whether your argument would also justify killing unwanted humans outside the womb.  If so, you might want to try another angle.  This will eliminate the appeals to viability, dependency, awareness, etc. because infants and others wouldn’t meet some or all of those.  This is the “trot out the toddler” argument.
  3. Ask yourself if the argument addresses the same thing for the rights of human beings in the womb.  If not, you have assumed what you should be proving.  This will eliminate most of your arguments, such as delivering the baby could impact the mother’s economic status / education / career / romantic life / etc. Those reasons may add psychological / emotional complexity to the situation, but they don’t justify killing human beings outside the womb.  Therefore, they don’t justify killing human beings inside the womb.
  4. Remember that your “unborn humans are parasites!” argument makes you look foolish to the middle ground, it fails factually and logically on several levels and it puts you in the position of supporting the killing of fully delivered babies that are still connected to the mother via the umbilical cord (you might be in favor of that, but it isn’t the kind of thing that scores you points in front of undecided people).
  5. Don’t ever play the “most pregnancies end in miscarriage” card, because it fails mightily and contradicts your premise.  First, know that most people understand the difference between someone outside the womb being murdered versus dying of natural causes, and they also understand the difference between deliberate destruction inside the womb and a miscarriage.  Second, using your logic women should never have abortions because miscarriages would be so likely.  Why spend all that money on a risky medical procedure if it will likely happen anyway for free?
  6. Determine whether professional pro-abortionists have already conceded the points you are trying to make.  If so, you probably shouldn’t use those arguments. Here’s an example from one of the most radically pro-abortion people in the country (he even supports infanticide):

Peter Singer, contemporary philosopher and public abortion advocate, joins the chorus in his book, Practical Ethics. He writes: It is possible to give ‘human being’ a precise meaning. We can use it as equivalent to ‘member of the species Homo sapiens’. Whether a being is a member of a given species is something that can be determined scientifically, by an examination of the nature of the chromosomes in the cells of living organisms. In this sense there is no doubt that from the first moments of its existence an embryo conceived from human sperm and eggs is a human being.

I hope this helps make your debates more productive!

These pictures were posted on a “NARAL Pro-choice America” Flicker page. Seriously!

NARAL Pro-Choice America is a pro-abortion organization that asked people to send pictures holding a “Stop the war on women” sign.  It was pure hyperbole designed to accuse those who favor de-funding Planned Parenthood of being anti-women.  Among other things, that ignores that many pro-lifers are women and that nearly all gender selection abortions kill females for the sole reason that they are female.  It also falsely implies that other organizations can’t do cancer screenings or dispense birth control.

But here’s the good news:  Their instructions let anyone send in photos to their Flicker page.  Most of the current pages are from pro-lifers, as shown below.  I saw some great slogans, such as “Life begins at conception and ends at Planned Parenthood” and “If it’s not a baby, you’re not pregnant.”

You can post pictures yourself.  It is very easy: Just send an email to hall33ready@photos.flickr.com and attach pro-life pictures.  Whatever you put in the subject line of the email will be the caption.

I was honored to send in the Wintery Knight’s heroic Unborn Scheming Baby with his caption: “Unborn baby scheming about being worth a thousand words.  Stop the war on the unborn!”

Life. The obvious choice.Life. The obvious choice.

thumb-31.gifLife. The obvious choice.

ChoiceLife. The obvious choice.Abortion kills

ChoiceAbortion kills

thumb-25.gif5760023886_7040ff2053_o.jpg

ChoiceFreedom to choose

5759478807_960093b382_o.jpg5759483925_47afca64de_o.jpg

Life. The obvious choice.Life. The obvious choice.

Life. The obvious choice.Life. The obvious choice.

5759915302_45a3340473_o.jpg5759412487_9a88c43d1f_o.jpg

5759411153_681dcb391e_o.jpgFreedom to choose

5759410715_5c9cde2927_o.jpgFreedom to choose

Life. The obvious choice.♥ PRO-LIFE GENERATION STAND UP! ♥

Pics!Pics!

Pics!Life. The obvious choice.

thumb-19.gifChoice

stop the war on women!!5759485269_dec93b05f8_o.jpg

Life. The obvious choice.Abortion kills

Life. The obvious choice.Abortion kills

Protect these little women.WE ARE THE PRO-LIFE GENERATION!! :D

Protect these little women.WE ARE THE PRO-LIFE GENERATION!! :D

WE ARE THE PRO-LIFE GENERATION!! :DWE ARE THE PRO-LIFE GENERATION!! :D

Protect these little women.Protect these little women.

FW:Fw: JANE ROE IS NOW PRO-LIFE

We love you and your unborn child.app_full_proxy.gif

Life. The obvious choice.pro-life

300.gifI choose life

Pregnant?  Need Help?  Call (800) 395-HELPWhat if...?

Over 11 MILLION African Americans have been aborted since 1973!!Another Margaret Sanger quote: "We don't want the word out that we want to exterminate the Negro population"

We are the PRO-LIFE generation. ♥ And we WON'T back down--not when it's a matter of life or death!Stop NARAL's war on life.

Stop NARAL's war on life.Stop NARAL's war on life.

Stop NARAL's war on life.Stop NARAL's war on life.

Stop NARAL's war on life.Legal or illegal, abortion is a nasty business.

Stop NARAL's war on life.NARAL: Taking credit where none is due.

Protect women, not abortionitss!

Always remember

It is a scientific fact that the unborn are unique, living human beings from conception.  Abortion kills those human beings and is therefore immoral except to save the life of the mother.

Abortion is a sin but forgiveness and healing can be found in Jesus.


Classic pro-life story

This is a classic story, but still valid at pointing out that the unborn are human beings worthy of protection.  I made some slight edits, but the key point is the same: Whether the killing is done inside or outside the womb, a human being is destroyed.  Hat tip: Marilyn from Facebook

A worried woman went to her gynecologist (who was also a female), and said, “Doctor, I have a serious problem and desperately need your help! My baby is not even 1 year old and I’m pregnant again. I don’t want kids so close together.”

So the doctor said, “‘OK,  and what do you want me to do?’

She said, “‘I want you to end my pregnancy, and I’m counting on your help with this.”

The doctor thought for a little, and after some silence she said, “‘I think I have a better solution for your problem. It’s less dangerous for you too.” She smiled, thinking that the doctor was going to accept her request. Then she continued, “You see, in order for you not to have to take care 2 babies at the same time, let’s kill the one in your arms. This way, you could rest some before the other one is born. If we’re going to kill one of them, it doesn’t matter which one it is. There would be no risk for your body if you chose the one in your arms.”

The lady was horrified and said, “No, doctor! How terrible! It’s a crime to kill a child!

“I agree,” the doctor replied. “But you seemed to be OK with it, so I thought maybe that was the best solution.” The doctor smiled, realizing that she had made her point. She convinced the mom that there is no difference in killing a child that’s already been born and one that’s still in the womb. The act is the same!

Always remember

It is a scientific fact that the unborn are unique, living human beings from conception.  Abortion kills those human beings and is therefore immoral except to save the life of the mother.

Abortion is a sin but forgiveness and healing can be found in Jesus.


Recycling: Good for newspapers, bad for lousy pro-legalized abortion arguments

Last week I taught a session on pro-life reasoning and the biblical basis for the sanctity of life to a group of Care Net volunteers.  One of the points was debunking the canard that pro-lifers don’t care about kids after they are born.

With perfect timing, false teacher Chuck “Jesus is not the only way” Currie (who is pro-legalized abortion and wants taxpayer-funded abortions but hypocritically mentions Jesus’ concern for the “least of these” in many of his posts, including this one) published “The G.O.P.’s Abandoned Babies”.  Apparently Charles M. Blow (is that a real name?) and the NY Times thought they could get some more mileage out of that fallacious reasoning.

The GOP – the “pro-life” party – has shown their hypocrisy on the political wedge issue of abortion with the adoption of the GOP-controlled House budget.

Some may use it as a wedge issue, but many people authentically disagree with Chuck and other pro-abortionists who believe it is completely moral to crush and dismember innocent human beings just because they are unwanted — and worse yet, that Jesus is pro-legalized abortion.

And false teacher Chuck and the author don’t anticipate the obvious counter-title: “The Democrats’ Dead Babies.”

To recap, the argument used by the pro-aborts fails in three ways (And yes, if someone is pro-legalized abortion and pro-taxpayer-funded abortion then I refer to them as pro-abortion.  I wouldn’t consider someone to be pro-choice on slavery if they thought slavery should be legal but didn’t want to own slaves):

1. Objecting to a moral evil doesn’t obligate you to take complete ownership of it forever.  Can these pro-aborts protest infanticide without having to adopt all of those children?  Can they oppose spousal abuse without having to marry all the women?  Can they oppose the (hypothetical) destruction of homeless people without having to personally house them?  Can they oppose animal abuse without having to adopt all the cats and dogs?  And so on.  It is ridiculous to claim that pro-lifers have to go along with every nanny-state proposal for those outside the womb to avoid the hypocrisy charge.

2. In addition to the irrefutable logic of item 1, pro-lifers do a lot more for the unborn with their own time and money than the pro-aborts do for the women before or after they are born.  There are more crisis pregnancy centers than abortion clinics, and most operate completely on donations (the Care Net Pregnancy Center where I am a board member refuses to take taxpayer funds).

And it is well established that Conservatives give more than Liberals, especially when you check the “giving” of people like Obama, Biden, Kennedy, etc.

So even though we aren’t obligated to help outside the womb just because we oppose abortion, we help because we want to.

3. Unless someone concedes to being truly pro-abortion (i.e., they expect women to always have abortions or raise the children with no help from the public), then the pro-choicers are obligated to adopt the children as well.  Either that, or give up espousing their pro-choice views.  After all, if you claim to be pro-choice and the women choose life, then the same care giving obligation falls on you.

—–

If false teachers like Chuck, the UCC and other pro-abortion organizations really cared about women and children they’d be funding their own crisis pregnancy centers (they couldn’t volunteer at Care Net because our statement of faith requires that they believe the Bible and hold pro-life views, among other things).  But why couldn’t they use their own money to carry out their goals and to reduce the abortions as they claim they want to?  That’s what the pro-lifers do!

Another irony in the faux compassion of the pro-aborts is that they want to spend the money of people who can’t vote or aren’t even born yet.  We have to borrow every dollar that they want to spend.  It is just irresponsibility piled on irresponsibility.

Here’s another example of the morbid irony of the false teachers pretending to hold life sacred:

The General Synod of the United Church of Christ, which has taken pro-choice positions on the issue of abortion, is also deeply concerned about life.  Our General Synod has affirmed, for example, “the sacredness of all life, and the need to protect and defend human life in particular”

You can’t claim to care about the sacredness of all life and wanting to defend human life “in particular” if you favor legalized abortion, including partial-birth abortion, taxpayer-funded abortions and if you fight crisis pregnancy centers.  But that’s the shameless hypocrisy you’ll get from them.

Don’t let people use the lousy arguments that pro-lifers don’t care about those outside the womb.  That is a recycled cheap trick that pro-aborts use over and over to silence us.  Get informed and set the record straight.  We give our own time and money before and after birth to help, whereas they support killing the unwanted with the taxes of pro-lifers and they want to confiscate your money to “give” to their pet projects.

I’m too pro-science to be pro-choice

pro-choice-baby.jpgThe shirt says, “Now that I’m safe I’m pro-choice” ==>

I was thinking of this post this week and decided to run it again.

One of my favorite techniques to use when debating pro-choicers is to highlight how pro-life views are in concert with science and how their views are not.  It is easy to demonstrate the scientific fact that life begins at conception.  They may try to argue that but will look pretty foolish when confronted with all the mainstream embryology textbooks that state otherwise (not to mention common sense as well as concessions of the point from so many people on their side).

Then they may shift to “personhood” arguments (i.e., “OK, the unborn are human beings, but they aren’t persons yet so abortion is morally neutral or even a moral good”).  Then you just point out that they are using philosophical arguments – and weak ones at that – and have ignored the clear facts of science.

You, on the other hand, are firmly on the side of science.  Note all the good things you’ve accomplished:

1. It bursts the myth that you’re anti-science.

2. It bursts the myth that you just are just pushing your religious beliefs on them.  You haven’t even mentioned Jesus (Though if they want to talk about him you’d be glad to).

3. It shows them how they have taken an anti-science position on this vitally important topic and have completely abandoned the “we only trust what science tells us” falsehood.

Remember that these are powerful arguments.  Don’t use them in a heavy handed way . . . unless you are dealing with a really irritating person on a blog.  Just kidding!  Probably!

Seriously, politely weave them into the conversation and see it if resonates with them.  Remember that members of the media are 90+% strongly pro-abortion so people have gotten away without being challenged on bad pro-abortion reasoning for a long, long time.  It may take them a little time to see the light and admit their errors.  At a minimum you’ve given them something to think about and disarmed them of some of their favorite bad arguments against you.

Just calmly tell them, “I’m too pro-science to be pro-choice.”

P.S. Yes, I’m aware that my critics will respond with comments like this one.  I’ll be explaining just how wrong it is in a future post.

You’re “too pro science to be pro choice.” Well, sure. Science agrees with you on that topic. Funny how science goes out the window on others, though.

As always, remember that forgiveness and healing are possible for those who have participated in the abortion process.