More and more I see that those claiming to be pro-choice are really pro-abortion. A typical example is shown by false teaching “Reverend” Chuck “Jesus is not the only way” Currie. He really shows how pro-abortion he is in “Fake Clinics: Stop Preying on Women.”
You see, if someone was truly pro-choice — and especially if that someone claimed to be a Christian — he would not oppose and would probably support Crisis Pregnancy Centers (CPCs). They do many great things for women and families in need, all for free. We realize people have legal choices, and we’re merely trying to help them choose life. Oh, and we share the Gospel if they are interested, another thing that a real Reverend would be thrilled about.
So on to the claims made in Currie’s post. First, make no mistake: People who make lots of money killing babies don’t mind lying to protect their business. No kidding! So I would never take their claims at face value.
A common misperception is that the “Christian position’ on abortion is anti-choice.
Yes, we are anti-choice to crush and dismember innocent human beings. Like most pro-abortionists, Chuck just doesn’t know how to finish his sentences.
Double fallacy: No one opposes women making “health care decisions.” We do oppose women killing their unborn children, who are distinct human beings. What about health care for the unborn, Chuck? Why don’t you support their right to make decisions?
I recognize that the issue of abortion is a difficult one and that good people can come to very different conclusions concerning this issue.
But why is it difficult, Chuck? Please explain. I know why it is wrong: Abortion kills an innocent human being. But if you disagree with that fundamental scientific fact, then why is the issue so difficult?
My own belief is that government shouldn’t be in the business of making these kinds of decisions for women. Women should have a choice.
Tired old fallacious sound bites. Chuck, should women have a choice to kill their toddlers? Hopefully not. So this isn’t about women having choices in any generic sense. It is about a very particular choice: To have her unborn child killed.
He wants the government to make all sorts of decisions for our lives. Shouldn’t the primary role of government be to protect human beings? The government wouldn’t making a choice for the woman, it would be making a choice to protect innocent human life and protect the “least of these.”
The General Synod of the United Church of Christ has said:
Whereas, women and men must make decisions about unplanned or unwanted pregnancies that involve their physical, emotional, and spiritual well-being; and …Whereas, abortion is a social justice issue, both for parents dealing with pregnancy and parenting under highly stressed circumstances, as well as for our society as a whole;
Yes, it is a social justice issue: You shouldn’t kill innocent human beings.
Therefore, be it resolved, that the Sixteenth General Synod:
- affirms the sacredness of all life, and the need to protect and defend human life in particular;
But if the life of the unborn is sacred, why not protect her? There is no question that it is a human life.
- encourages persons facing unplanned pregnancies to consider giving birth and parenting the child, or releasing the child for adoption, before abortion;
But one of Chuck’s objections is that their are dangers with pregnancy. If abortions aren’t immoral, then with Chuck’s logic they are safe and effective methods of birth control.
- upholds the right of men and women to have access to adequately funded family planning services, and to safe, legal abortions as one option among others;
Please explain how an abortion can ever be safe for the unborn human being.
- urges the United Church of Christ, at all levels, to provide educational resources and programs to persons, especially young persons, to help reduce the incidence of unplanned and unwanted pregnancies, and to encourage responsible approaches to sexual behavior.
A reporter from The New York Times who recently visited a Crisis Pregnancy Center notes that she was provided with a pamphlet “about the risks of abortion” that “mentioned breast cancer, a link the National Cancer Institute has refuted, and something called post-abortion syndrome, for which the American Psychological Association, among others, says there is no evidence. As for the physical risks of pregnancy and childbirth? There was no pamphlet to discuss them.”
Gosh, the NCI and the APA would never buckle to political pressure, would they? And people who kill babies for a very profitable living would never lie about it, would they?
Hey, come to think of it, Chuck is a well documented, serial, unrepentant liar. Since when did he get so passionate about the truth? Oh, when it advances the pro-abortion cause.
And Chuck obviously has never met many post-abortive women. One of the many things offered by CPCs is post-abortion trauma counseling. We have the great news of hope, forgiveness and healing in Jesus. Too bad Chuck can’t offer that.
And of course, in his “Christian” counseling he’d tell them that killing their unborn children was blessed by Jesus. What blasphemy!
Some authentic Christians might be pro-choice, though they are deeply, wildly, embarrassingly on the wrong side of the issue and almost universally uninformed about the key issues. One day they will deeply regret that their laziness and refusal to be involved were the reasons abortion was made and kept legal. But you can know for sure that nearly 100% of Christians who oppose CPCs are fake.
CPCs save lives today and for eternity. Fake Christians like Chuck and Co. are tools of Satan trying to destroy lives today and for eternity.
P.S. It is a very, very well documented fact that Planned Parenthood hides statutory rape. If he is so concerned about the truth, why doesn’t Chuck blog about that?