Tag Archives: Essays

Politics, Pro-life

Abortions are bad for the mothers, too

2 Comments

It should go without saying that abortion is unsafe for the unborn, but it is bad for the mothers as well.  See The Case Against Abortion: Abortion Risks, which outlines serious risks such as breast cancer, uterine damage, complications in future pregnancies and death.

The foundational arguments against abortion are not rooted in its potential danger to women. Abortion is immoral and unjust because it kills a living human being. The safety of a particular activity does not make it right or wrong. The impact it has on other people does. With that said, there are two reasons why we survey the medical risks of abortion. First, some women (and men) are not particularly concerned about the violence abortion does to their offspring; far fewer are unconcerned about the violence abortion might do to themselves. A greater understanding of the medical risks may dissuade them from ending their child’s life. Second, the abortion industry’s consistent reluctance to provide women with information that portrays abortion in anything less than a positive light is strong indication that they may care more about money and politics than they do about a woman’s health. If they didn’t have a vested interest in her “choice,” why do they lobby so hard against having to more thoroughly disclose to women what abortion is and does?


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.


Pro-life reasoning

Pro-life responses: Easier than you think.

27 Comments

This pro-abortion site reflexively
used three transparently false arguments. You’ll hear them
from many pro-choicers, even those who (sadly) claim the name of
Christ. Either they know they are false and use them anyway, or
they have used them without thinking critically. Here are
some simple but accurate responses to use when you hear them. 1.
“Pro-lifers oppose the bodily autonomy of women” –
That ignores the bodily autonomy of the human being that is going
to be crushed and dismembered. The argument plays on
the emotional “conservatives want to control women!” theme.
It would only work if it wasn’t a scientific
fact that the unborn are human beings from conception.
The “personhood” argument used to
de-humanize the unborn is a heaping does of philosophical FAIL, but
even if it wasn’t it commits another fallacy by equivocating
between body and personhood. 2. “Pro-lifers oppose
reproductive rights” — Uh, but abortions occur when they have
already reproduced a human
being (there’s that pesky scientific fact
again). We don’t oppose women exercising their right to
reproduce. We oppose the destruction of the human beings they
have already reproduced. 3. “Pro-lifers have a fetus
fetish,” which is a variant of the pro-lifers don’t care about kids
after they are
born
fallacy. Simply ask the person making that claim,
“Do you have to be willing to take complete responsibility for
human beings you are trying to protect? Can you protest the
abuse of the homeless, spouses, children or pets without having to
provide unlimited care for them all?” As noted in the link,
pro-lifers do a great deal with their own time and money to help
women and families in need. Also, unless the pro-choicers
are advocating forced abortions, the same burden to care for the
babies allowed to live falls on them. But the pro-choice
argument fails even if we didn’t help out.

Pro-life

“Too many aborted”–abortion in the black community

1 Comment

I encourage you to visit Too Many Aborted to learn more about what abortion has done in the black community. As you may know, the rate of abortions for blacks is three times that of whites (and Hispanics are double that of whites). Of course, those ratios aren’t high enough for pro-aborts, as they want to have taxpayer-funded abortions so you can help increase them.

The Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice is one of the most vile “religious” organizations in existence. While they can’t agree about who God is, they are certain that all religions support unrestricted abortion and that abortion is swell for blacks. How ghoulish.

If pro-lifers favored an issue that resulted in a dramatically higher mortality rate for blacks it would be on the news every day. Yet most people aren’t aware of this.

To state the obvious, abortions kill innocent human beings whether they are done to blacks or whites.

This isn’t science versus religion, by the way. It is a scientific fact that the unborn are unique, living human beings from conception. Theological liberals oppose science and religion when it comes to life.

(I found the RCRC link from race-baiting 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.)

Roundup

Church fathers and more on the pro-life issue

8 Comments

baby1.jpgStan had a good post (actually, all his posts are excellent . . . be sure to subscribe to his feed if you don’t already) in Winging It: Early Christianity on Abortion.

The early church leaders were very strongly pro-life.  Here are some other quotes by church fathers on abortion. They are part of a delightful post where I show how a pro-choice theological liberal tried to use a quote from a church father to support pure pacifism. Not only did he have to take it out of context to do so, he didn’t realize that his reference included a clear anti-abortion message. Turns out he didn’t really care what that church father said after all.

Also consider how these Christians knew when life began, even without the aid of ultrasounds and advanced science.  Even the pagans knew that abortion was wrong for thousands of years, as noted in the Hippocratic Oath.  Here’s a great link to use on the “where life begins” debate — it is a series of quotes from mainstream embryology textbooks and even some pro-aborts, all conceding the obvious: a new human being is created at conception.

Hey, even Planned Parenthood used to be pro-life. Seriously, in a 1964 ad for birth control they said:

Is it [birth control] an abortion? Definitely not. 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. Birth control merely postpones the meaning of life.

I wonder what scientific discovery made them change their mind? Or was it a financial discovery (abortions make some people very wealthy) or just philosophical (abortions are required to perpetuate the myth of consequence-free sexual freedom)?

 

Uncategorized

False teacher’s religious values don’t apply to human beings in the womb

Leave a comment

In “Jesus healed the sick, you can stop the cause,” false teacher Chuck “Jesus is not the only way” Currie, who is pro-legalized abortion and wants taxpayer-funded abortions but hypocritically zmentions Jesus’ concern for the “least of these” in many of his posts, really outdoes himself and his fellow pro-aborts.

While parading their religiosity in opposing chemicals, he lists some alleged religious values.  Not how their extreme pro-abortion views mock each of these.

Our Shared Call: Four Religious Values

The world’s faith traditions share values which serve as a foundation for ethical decision-making regarding toxic chemicals.  Four core values shared by the world’s great traditions are as follows:

All life is to be respected.

All life except unborn life, that is.  The unborn are human beings from conception.  Abortion kills them.

People of faith must ensure that air, water, and land – which belong to the Divine – sustain life on Earth.

The unborn are on earth.  They also belong to the divine.  But Chuck & Co. think it is OK to crush and dismember them.  Heck, they don’t even see the need for anesthetic, regardless of when the abortions are performed.  His hero, President Obama, even thinks you can kill them outside the womb if the abortion fails.

Society owes justice and care to its most vulnerable people and communities, and to future generations

Who is more vulnerable than a baby fighting for her life in her mother’s womb?  Why won’t Chuck protect her?

And what could be a more obvious impact to future generations than killing them?

Our faith traditions call us to protect and promote the health of the human body.

Does this look like it promotes health to you?

False teachers like this are the worst of hypocrites.  4,000 human beings were destroyed in the U.S. alone today, with Chuck’s blessing and the blessing of his peers.  That’s just sick.

Uncategorized

Pro-abortion violence against the unborn AND the born

Leave a comment

See The FBI Seems to be Missing the Story on Abortion Clinic Violence | Verum Serum — looks like all that “hate speech” by pro-aborts against pro-lifers is the cause for all these examples of pro-abortion violence.  People like 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, are the culprits here and should be held accountable for their hate speech.

Oh, and don’t forget the violence committed 3,000+ times per day against the unborn.  Their hate speech is also responsible for that river of blood and must be prohibited by the force of law, even if it silences their “pro-abortion Christian” religious speech.

I’m being sarcastic, of course.  I respect Chuck’s free speech rights to be a fake Christian and a pro-abortionist.  I’m just pointing out his hypocrisy in playing the hate card with those he disagrees with instead of using facts and logic.

Roundup

Deadly equivocations

Leave a comment

According to the good folks at Dictionary.com, and equivocation is a fallacy based on the use of the same term in different senses.  Sometimes these are used in comical ways, but other times people use them to twist the meaning of something important.

An abortionist who killed over 20,000 human beings used this sleight of tongue this way:

He calls himself an “abortionist” and says, “I am destroying life.”

But he also feels he’s giving life: He calls his patients “born again.”

“When you end what the woman considers a disastrous pregnancy, she has literally been given her life back,” he says….

Did you notice how the definition of “life” shifted?  When he concedes that he destroys life it was in a literal sense.  That’s what abortion does.  It is a scientific fact that it kills an innocent human being.

But in the next sentence he changes the definition.  He didn’t give these people life in the same sense.  They were already alive.  He just meant that he (seemingly) liberated them from a problem they had.  Having an unplanned child doesn’t kill you.

Now I realize that most readers realize the shift from literal to figurative.  My point is that it is deadly how people let him get away with it.

I know someone who claimed to be pro-life who used the same type of language to rationalize abortion.  He said, “It is better to destroy one life than three.”  The implication was that if the pregnancy was allowed to continue that the lives of the mother, father and child would all be “destroyed.”  But that is an extreme exaggeration.

Yes, there are consequences to actions, and babies are a rather significant consequence of sex.  But it doesn’t automatically cause irreparable harm to three lives if you don’t hurry up and have an abortion, and it certainly doesn’t crush and dismember all three.

But if you have an abortion it really does destroy the one life.

If you ever participated in an abortion, please know that forgiveness and healing are possible through Jesus.

Whether you participated in one or not, don’t use sloppy language to rationalize abortion.  It is the greatest moral issue of our time and it would be illegal if it weren’t for all the uninformed and/or lazy and / or wimpy Christians ignoring the topic.

Politics

How radical is the “radical” right?

Leave a comment

no-right.jpg

Given that the political season is in full swing, I’m noticing an increase in the number of “extremist” labels hurled at conservatives in general and Tea Partiers in particular.  Apparently that is easier then addressing the issues and arguments themselves, but it seems more like a concession speech to me.

Those who hyperventilate about the “radical right” (or “extremists,” “fundie nutjobs,” “wacky fundies,” or other eloquent terms of endearment) are either disingenuous or really bad at math, because the majority of Americans share our views on the most controversial topics.  Consider this by Greg Koukl of Stand to Reason:

A poll of readers of the L.A. Times once showed that, in the area of abortion, prayer, in school, homosexuality and traditional family values, the majority of Americans agree with so-called “extreme fundamentalists.” 70% of Americans believe that the traditional family structure is always best; 76% favor prayer in public schools; 55% are against legalized abortion; 61% think that homosexual relations are always wrong. These are the views of the “radical right,” but these are also the views of a majority of rank and file Americans.

Let that bolster your confidence, the next time you’re being marginalized for your conservative moral values. The “radical right” isn’t so radical. It’s actually mainstream.

If they think we’re so extreme, why don’t they just use their faux majority to elect legislators to legalize partial-birth abortion and such?  Then they wouldn’t need judges to ignore their duties and make up their own laws.

It appears to me like the “radical” label is just a cheap way to attack the person and not the arguments, just like they do with the passive-aggressive “intolerant” label (Because whoever yells intolerant first must be the kind, tolerant one – right?).

I submit that if the media, entertainment and education establishments weren’t so outrageously biased the numbers would shift even further to the right.  For example, consider that 90% or more of the media are die-hard pro-choicers and they do everything in their power to spin stories in their favor.  Yet the population is still split pretty evenly on the topic, and the more clearly survey questions are worded the more pro-life the results are.

The only way you can categorize majority views as the radical right is if you are perched comfortably on the radical left.

Uncategorized

Pro-abort Obama pretends to care about the kids

Leave a comment

See Vote: Biggest vomit line from pro-abort Obama’s speech to school kids today – Jill Stanek.

Some of the most revolting lines that pro-abortion President Obama delivered:

1. “Nobody gets to write your destiny but you. Your future is in your hands.”

2. “So, what I want to say to you today – what I want all of you to take away from my speech – is that life is precious….”

3. “This is a country that gives all its daughters and all its sons a fair chance. A chance to make the most of their lives. A chance to fulfill their God-given potential.”

False teachers like Jim “the Gospel is all about wealth redistribution” Wallis and Chuck “Jesus is not the only way” Currie are pro-abortion as well, supporting “partial birth” abortion — aka infanticide (at least in Chuck’s case) — and taxpayer-funded abortions.

Pro-aborts like Chuck, Jim and Barrack are either ignorant of science and/or moral deviants, because it is a scientific fact that the unborn are unique, living human beings from conception.

Oh, wait, Chuck and the other “Christians” claim that “God is still speaking;” and that Jesus is pro-legalized abortion, so I guess that settles it.  Nothing like blaspheming the Holy Spirit to rationalize the crushing and dismembering of innocent human beings.

Read all of the President’s quotes again and add this line: ” . . . unless you are still in your mother’s womb, in which case she can have you destroyed if she wants.”  It reads like this:

1. “Nobody gets to write your destiny but you, unless you are still in your mother’s womb, in which case she can have you destroyed if she wants.. Your future is in your hands, unless you are still in your mother’s womb, in which case she can have you destroyed if she wants.”

2. “So, what I want to say to you today – what I want all of you to take away from my speech – is that life is precious, unless you are still in your mother’s womb, in which case she can have you destroyed if she wants.”

3. “This is a country that gives all its daughters and all its sons a fair chance, unless you are still in your mother’s womb, in which case she can have you destroyed if she wants. A chance to make the most of their lives, unless you are still in your mother’s womb, in which case she can have you destroyed if she wants. A chance to fulfill their God-given potential, unless you are still in your mother’s womb, in which case she can have you destroyed if she wants.”