Tag Archives: partial birth abortion

Roundup

Voter fraud?  What voter fraud?  Nothing to see here, folks.  If you advocate for photo ID for voters then you are obviously a racist.

Ask yourself why the mainstream media isn’t all over this — or doing it themselves!

—–

I am actually a fan of congressional gridlock.  Less cooperation = less new laws to strangle the country and make our lives more complicated.  But sometimes bipartisanship can be good.  What is fascinating is how Obama ran his 2008 campaign pretending to want to unite people, when his career and his presidency showed the opposite.  Yet his supporters don’t seem to notice or care.

Hopefully the independents will notice that Romney has an actual track record of working with people on the other side.  Here’s a thorough analysis of how much better Clinton was at this than Obama.  The potentially good news is that Clinton’s ability to work across the aisle got him re-elected, and Obama’s hypocritical failure to do so may result in his loss.

—–

All these Obama fans at a political rally didn’t have a clue about Benghazi.  But they will totally vote for Obama.

—–

While Obama is trying to milk some ill-advised comments about rape and abortion made by a couple Republicans, what is lost is the pro-abortion extremism of him and his wife.  She actually sent a fund-raising letterbased on her support for infanticide (though they call it “partial-birth abortion.”).  Also see Obama supports late-term abortions, born-alive abortions and sex-selection abortions.  That is extremism.  Even most pro-choicers disagree with those positions.

—–

The media is still playing the race card.  Ann Coulter does a good job of refuting their arguments.  Ever wonder why the media doesn’t report how much higher the black unemployment rate is under Obama?

It’s hard to evaluate Matthews’ slander inasmuch as it contains no facts. But if it’s conservatives and “the white working class in the South” who are burning with racial hatred, why don’t white liberals ever vote for black representatives in their own congressional districts?

Black Democrats apparently can get elected to Congress only from majority black districts, whereas black Republicans are always elected from majority white districts: Gary Franks, J.C. Watts, Tim Scott, Allen West and (we hope!) Mia Love.

How come white liberals won’t vote for a black representative? Why can’t a black person represent Nita Lowey’s district?

Democrats do nothing for black Americans except mine them for votes, ginning them up with tall tales about racist Republicans.

—–

Free Contraception Reduces Pregnancy? An Adventure In Bogus Science — This is a good link to keep, as you’ll be hearing this bit a lot from the gullible.

recent study published in the journal Obstetrics & Gynecology is creating a collective orgasm in the Sandra Fluke wing of the Democrat party. This study purports to show that free contraception reduces not only pregnancies but abortions. This study is a prime example of the politically motivated crap that appears in low impact scientific journals. It is research by press release and agitprop masquerading as science.

The study is a monument to tautology. We often hear that 30 percent of medical costs occur in the last year of life and that most traffic accidents occur within a mile of home. The reasons for this is obvious. Most people don’t receive expensive medical care unless they are near death and about 100% of your driving is done with a mile or so of home. The results of the study are hardly surprising. Women using contraception tend to have a lower rate of pregnancies and because they aren’t pregnant there is no need to have an abortion. I think most of us knew, or at least suspected, that to be the case.

—–

Public School Teacher Assaults Child During Islamic Indoctrination — Why no mainstream media coverage, even though she was charged with assault?  Oh, because it is about Islam and a pro-Obama teacher forcing her religious and political views on her students.

 [teacher Tara] Harris has a disturbing trend of “indoctrinating” students with Islamic teachings. She also said the teacher openly campaigns for President Barack Obama in the classroom.

When Bennett’s daughter couldn’t do the Islamic hand sign for “power and strength” properly after two straight days of instruction in place of reading and math class, Harris lost her patience.

“When she didn’t get it right, [Harris] went over and yanked her hand out of her desk and my daughter’s hand got hung up on the metal wire on her file folder and the skin got caught on it,” the mother explained, her voice cracking with emotion. “The other children saw my daughter’s hand dripping with blood after the teacher had gotten so mad that she went to twist my daughter’s hand into an Islamic sign.” …

The mother said her daughter told her that Harris “prays to Allah in Arabic” around five times a day in front of students and teaches them about Islam and how it is superior to other religions. …

—–

Super freaks: When government runs health care: NHS offers sex tips to children as young as 13.  In the U.S. we have Planned Parenthood fulfilling this role.

Teenagers as young as 13 are being given explicit sexual advice and tips on how to lose their virginity from a taxpayer-funded website and iPhone app.

The respectyourself.info website contains graphic detail about various sexual acts – including those that involve a man physically abusing his partner during sex.

On the website, which is targeted at those as young as 13, teens can take an ‘Are you ready quiz’ and answer a series of multiple-choice questions to assess whether they are prepared to lose their virginity.

—–

Porn-Free Church: Sex, God, and the Gospel —

This begins with exposing the lie of porn. We sin because we have “exchanged the truth of God for a lie” (Rom. 1:23-25). Porn is no different. Porn makes false promises. . . . We need to expose these lies. Then we need to show how God promises more.

—–

California Official Who Misreported Unemployment Is Obama Donor — Shocking.

—–

The top 5 myths of Intelligent Design — A key to any productive conversation is ensuring you define your terms.  One of the ways that evolution / creation / Intelligent Design conversations get off track is by misstating definitions (whether deliberately or not).  The link has a great list.  My favorite:

MYTH #4: ID uses a disguised form of the “God of the gaps” fallacy.

The true story: ID does not say “We don’t yet know how life emerged from non-life, therefore an intelligence must have done it.” Rather, it makes a two-fold argument: 1) Neo-Darwinian explanations for the emergence and divergence of life are sorely insufficient in their explanatory power and 2) there are features of nature, such as the specified complexity of the digital information in DNA, that are best explained by intelligent agency. We already know from direct experience how to detect intelligence in other branches of science, so inferring intelligence based on the same type of observed effects is completely reasonable. In scientific practice, we infer the existing cause that is KNOWN to produce the effect in question. Since biochemistry contains information, ID theorists infer that there must be an informer, because there are no other sources of information. Ironically, whenever a materialist says, “We don’t yet know how life emerged from non-life, but one day science will explain it,” they are actually using the Science of the Gaps fallacy.

—–

Great video supporting natural marriage.

George Tiller probably won’t RIP

It is between him and God, of course, but killing unborn children for a living hardly qualifies as good fruit — even if you do go to church on Sunday. 

And this guy didn’t just do abortions, he did “partial birth abortions,” AKA infanticide.  The pro-aborts are mourning him and even holding vigils.  Ugh.

And what kind of a church lets a guy like that be a member, let alone serve?

From AP:

Dr. George Tiller, one of the nation’s few providers of late-term abortions despite decades of protests and attacks, was shot and killed Sunday in a church where he was serving as an usher.

As Melinda noted at Stand to Reason, Killing Abortionists Is Wrong. Period.

A friend pointed out the irony of this statement about Tiller:

The family said its loss “is also a loss for the city of Wichita and women across America. George dedicated his life to providing women with high-quality health care despite frequent threats and violence.”

And more irony:

President Barack Obama said he was “shocked and outraged” by the murder. “However profound our differences as Americans over difficult issues such as abortion, they cannot be resolved by heinous acts of violence,” he said.

Of course we shouldn’t resort to killing abortionists, but abortion itself is a heinous act of violence.  If abortion isn’t violent, nothing is.  It should be illegal, just as killing Tiller was illegal.

—–

I saw one Christian writing that the murderer took away Tiller’s chance to repent.  Don’t worry, folks, God is sovereign. No one will be able to claim that they just needed a little more time to repent and believe.

—–

Another writer said to pray for his soul.  Uh, sorry folks, too late for that. 

Hebrews 9:27 Just as man is destined to die once, and after that to face judgment

—–

Also see The Wintery Knight blog, which “strongly condemns all abortion-related violence, whether it’s committed against the born or the unborn,” while asking if it is rational for atheists to condemn his murder.

—–

I subscribe to over 100 blogs.  Well over a dozen have commented on this.  I’ve yet to see one that didn’t condemn the murder, though I’m sure the MSM will ignore the clear and consistent principles of the pro-live movement and try to demonize and broad-brush us with this.

—–

Balance — updated

I wanted to update the post below with some thoughts based on the Zogby poll and an interesting discussion I had with a liberal over the holidays.  I just let him ramble with his pro-liberal, pro-Obama, anti-business rant for a while. 

Instead of pointing out the flaws in his facts and logic, which history demonstrates he would have ignored, I just asked a simple question: How much conservative media do you view or listen to?

His answer?   “None.”  It spoke volumes, and he knew it.

I calmly pointed out what I had mentioned in the post below, namely that I consume plenty of liberal media: My Yahoo feed is from Reuters and I update it many times each day, I read the very liberal Houston Chronicle, etc.

Does that make me right?  No, but it proved beyond all doubt that only one of us takes the time to listen to both sides.

That response saved me a lot of time and frustration.  I hope it planted a seed with him as well.  If he has any intellectual honesty he’ll realize that if he only consumes liberal media then his views are likely to mirror their output.  Brainwashing and indoctrination, anyone?  Any critical thinking going on? 

—–

I am always a bit amused when someone accuses me of imbalance on my political reading / viewing habits.  I have heard it from strangers on this blog and from friends and relatives.  But who is really unbalanced here?

I refresh my Yahoo page countless times per day and scan the news headlines and articles.  The source is Reuters, hardly a conservative outlet.  I read the Houston Chronicle, which leans heavily left (they are strong supporters of Planned Parenthood, for example, and their religious section has lots of fluff pieces on pro-gay theology and such).  I read pro and con editorials.  I also read some liberal blogs, though they are virtually indistinguishable from the MSM views – e.g., 90+% pro-legalized abortion.

So while I read plenty of conservative blogs and sites, I get plenty of balance.  I am familiar with the issues on both sides. 

What is ironic is that those who accuse me of imbalance rarely read anything of a conservative nature.  They are just mimicking what the media tells them.

Pray for the President-elect

carenet-walk-05-55.jpgThe Bible teaches that we should pray for our leaders, so I do. 

Along with praying for the safety of them and their families, I’m praying that the dreams of Obama and the rest of the pro-legalized abortionists will be haunted with visions of the carnage of one destroyed human being after another — both the unborn and the women who had abortions, as well as the children who survived abortions but were left to die. 

I pray that it haunts them 24 x 7 x 365.  Maybe after a few months of that they’ll change their views.

I also pray for hope and healing for those who were involved in abortions.  Forgiveness is available in Christ.

A three-front war

baby1.jpgSuper-blogger Marshall Art commented on a recent post that the pro-life movement is fighting a multi-front war.  I wanted to expand on that here.

I see three main fronts or areas of concentration:

  1. Service & support to help people and reduce abortions today
  2. Legal — fight FOCA and all its subsets, more conservative Supreme Court justices, etc.
  3. Education — homes, schools, churches, the media — anywhere!

1. Service & support to help people and reduce abortions today — Crisis Pregnancy Centers (CPCs), which are also sometimes called Pregnancy Resource Centers (PRCs), are the most well-proved and effective way to reduce abortions today.  There are many, many children alive today who would have been destroyed long ago if not for CPCs, not to mention the women and men who would be grieving over their actions. 

Here is a thorough analysis of an article by Time magazine highlighting all the great things CPCs do for women and their families — all at no cost.

Even people who claim to be pro-choice should support CPCs.  After all, these folks claim to want to reduce abortions.  CPCs are non-political and are just trying to persuade women to exercise their option to choose life instead of death and to help the women during their time of need with pregnancy tests, ultrasounds, clothes, formula, all sorts of training (parenting, life skills, auto maintenance, etc.), post-abortion trauma counseling, etc.  They also share the Gospel with those who are interested in hearing it, though everyone receives the same love and care regardless of their religious views.

Churches and individuals should support crisis pregnancy centers like CareNet with prayers, $$ and volunteer service.  They save lives now and for eternity. 

2. Legal — fight FOCA (the disingenuously named “Freedom of Choice Act”) and all its subsets and continue the push for more conservative Supreme Court justices.  I’m not talking about a litmus test as Obama does (he will insist that they be pro-abortion).  I just want people who don’t invent things that simply don’t exist in the Constitution.

We had made tons of progress on the Supreme Court in the last eight years, but the uninformed pro-life Christians and the pro-abortion Christians (must . . . resist . . . urge  . . . to use . . . scare quotes) who voted for Obama set that back decades. 

Some people mistakenly thought that the legal route wasn’t working.  It was actually working well, but we needed to be patient.  It took many decades to stop the slave trade and many more to make slavery illegal.  In the same way, we must continue to fight the evil of abortion in a patient and systematic way.

It is a scientific fact that abortion kills an innocent human being.  Therefore, it should be illegal (except to save the life of the mother, of course).

3. Education — homes, schools, churches, the media — anywhere!  Make sure you are informed enough to defend the pro-life position.  It takes a little time, but it can be done by anyone. 

Pro-abortion reasoning is horribly flawed but with a 90%+ strongly pro-abortion media you don’t get a lot of balance.  People need to be equipped to spot the fallacies behind the pro-abortion arguments.  With a little training you can see the common themes they use.  For example, virtually all pro-abortion arguments ignore the humanity of the unborn, the very thing they should be proving first but can’t.

Our church is giving out Randy Alcorn’s book “Why Pro-life?” on Sanctity of Human Life Sunday (Jan. 25th).  Churches were able to get copies for only $1.60.  

See Abort73.com for an absolutely stellar presentation of the pro-life position.  Share it with friends.  Blog on it.  Add it to your blogroll.  It has persuaded many pro-choicers to reconsider their views.

I enjoy teaching pro-life reasoning classes for CareNet volunteers and any interested local groups.  It is amazing how little people know about how to defend the pro-life ethic and expose the fallacies of pro-abortion reasoning, but I’m always encouraged by how quickly they pick it up and are energized about being informed.

———-

Don’t give up!  The fight for life is worth it.

Pro-abortion myths that just won’t die

carenet-walk-05-55.jpgThese claims came from a post at another blog.

What of the deaths that occur when abortion is illegal?

If some murderers die while committing crimes do we make those crimes legal?  What of the deaths of the unborn that always die with “successful” abortions?

Seems abortions have been going on forever.

So have other forms of murder (see Genesis 4), but that doesn’t mean they should be legal, either.

I would rather my daughter who was raped (just an example) get a legal abortion in a very clean clinic verses a back alley wire hanger abortion.

How about if we kill the rapist instead of the child?  Also, pre-Roe v. Wade most abortions took place in doctors’ offices, not back alleys.  The back alley abortion with a coat hanger is largely an urban legend manufactured by pro-abortionists in the 60’s to advance their cause.  According to the CDC there were 39 deaths due to abortion in the last year of data avaiable for Roe v. Wade, yet it was marketed as thousands. 

The feminists bought it hook, line and sinker, and now consider it mandatory to have the right to kill their unborn children to prove their equality to men.

The clinics you refer to aren’t “totally clean.”  People like Obama fight the standards that hospitals must adhere to. 

Check out RealChoice to learn more about how “safe” abortions are.  The media just doesn’t tell you about the deaths that occur today.

I would rather that a daughter that was sexually abused get a legal and safe abortion than bear a totally unwanted child to term.

Abortions for incest / rape (including statutory rape) often hide the crimes.  Planned Parenthood is notorious for that

Is it moral to destroy unwanted children outside the womb?  Of course not.  So the only question is, “What is the unborn?”  If it is not a human being, then no justification for abortion is necessary.  If it is a human being, then no justification is sufficient (except to save the life of the mother, of course, which is in concert with the pro-life ethic).

I would rather a known badly handicapped/deformed child be terminated instead of bringing a soul into a life of constant suffering.

Is it moral to destroy handicapped / deformed children outside the womb?  Of course not.  See the previous answer for the rest.  Also, disabled people aren’t necessarily less happy than “regular” people, and they have lower suicide rates.

I would rather have the government keep out of, an off of, peoples bodies.

That ignores the human being getting destroyed.  Why shouldn’t the gov’t protect her?

So you are opposed to government funded abortions then?  Because Obama wants to repeal the Hyde Amendment and take away your “choice” of whether or not to fund abortions.

Roundup

Very cool Christmas surprise for the children of a woman on an unexpected Christmas leave from a tour in Iraq

Rick Warren will give the invocation for Barrack Obama.  I’m not a huge Warren fan.  He makes some good points but takes verses out of context too much and has too much social gospel vs. too little real Gospel for my tastes. 

What is interesting is that not only are conservatives upset that Warren is doing this for the radically pro-abortion Obama, but lying false teachers don’t like Warren because he has the audacity to be pro-life and pro-traditional marriage.  What an awful, awful message for a Christian pastor to send, eh?  Apparently “mainstream Christianity” now means “doesn’t take the Bible seriously,” so you wouldn’t want a pastor who even hints at being a Bible believer.

More proof that academia has lost its mind — some of the worst academic abuses of 2008.  Here’s a sample:

1. The free speech “zone.” A student at Yuba College in California was sent an ultimatum by the school’s president: discontinue handing out gospel booklets or face disciplinary action and possibly expulsion. That’s right—gospel booklets. Ryan Dozier, the 20-year-old student, had the audacity to distribute Christian literature without a school permit, which restricts free speech to an hour each Tuesday and Thursday. Yuba College even directs students to where on campus they are allowed to exhibit free speech. In this case, it’s the school theater. Campus police threatened to arrest Ryan if he didn’t comply with the “free speech zone,” oblivious to the fact that students don’t need permission to exercise the First Amendment’s free speech and religious clauses.

2. Transgendered activists in, pro-life speakers out. Liberal administrators at the University of St. Thomas, a Catholic institution in Minnesota, censored the appearance of prominent pro-life speaker Star Parker because campus officials felt “uncomfortable” and “disturbed” by previous conservative speakers at the school. The University’s mission statement claims it values “the pursuit of truth,” “diversity,” and “meaningful dialogue.” Except, not really—or better yet, as long as the said “pursuit” doesn’t offend leftist predilections. Meanwhile, within the past year, the same school hosted Al Franken, the bombastic liberal comedian, and Debra Davis, a transgendered activist who believes God is a black lesbian. Realizing they had a public relations disaster on their hands, the head honchos at St. Thomas eventually reversed the ban on Star Parker.

6. You can’t pray here! The First Amendment, is it a bestowed right given from above and protected by our government or a meaningless, antiquated concept to be disposed of? If you’re the folks at the College of Alameda in California, you’d pick the latter. How else do you explain their threatening to expel a student who prayed on campus? It all started when a student, Kandy Kyriacou, visited her professor to give her a Christmas gift. But when Kandy saw that her teacher was ill, she offered to pray for her. The professor agreed. That’s when Derek Piazza, another professor, walked in and freaked out that a prayer—gasp, a prayer—was occurring on college premises. “You can’t be doing that in here,” Piazza purportedly barked. Kandy received a retroactive “intent to suspend” letter from the administration, claiming that she was guilty of “disruptive or insulting behavior” and “persistent abuse of” college employees. Further infractions would result in expulsion, the letter read.

Here’s a good video overview of the Kalaam Cosmological Argument (Whatever begins to exist has a cause and the universe began to exist.  Therefore, the universe had a cause.

It is interesting that the authors of the Bible knew all along that it was created out of nothing, even when many believed it had always existed.  Just a lucky guess, I suppose, sort of like how Genesis notes that there are as many stars as there are grains of sand, unlike the ancients who thought there were roughly 1,000 stars. 

People like Richard Dawkins like to attribute the accuracy of the Biblical account that the universe came into existence to the mere luck involved with a 50/50 chance, as if the authors flipped a coin and got it right.  But if you actually read the Bible you’ll note that the authors are confident throughout that they are speaking for God, and they do so unapologetically.

Obama’s pro-abortion extremism

baby1.jpgI highly recommend this article by Robert George, where he clearly and emphatically annihilates the myth that Obama will reduce or even try to reduce abortions. 

If more people would have understood these facts before the election things might have been different.  But just because he will be our President doesn’t mean we shouldn’t continue to convey the truth on this crucial topic.

George starts by showing that while some people might be charitably considered “pro-choice,” many are not pro-choice at all.  They are pro-abortion, and Obama fits that category — just as someone who claimed to be pro-legalized slavery could be fairly described as pro-slavery even if he didn’t own slaves himself.

Some samples:

Just for the sake of argument, though, let us assume that there could be a morally meaningful distinction between being “pro-abortion” and being “pro-choice.” Who would qualify for the latter description? Barack Obama certainly would not. For, unlike his running mate Joe Biden, Obama does not think that abortion is a purely private choice that public authority should refrain from getting involved in. Now, Senator Biden is hardly pro-life. He believes that the killing of the unborn should be legally permitted and relatively unencumbered. But unlike Obama, at least Biden has sometimes opposed using taxpayer dollars to fund abortion, thereby leaving Americans free to choose not to implicate themselves in it. If we stretch things to create a meaningful category called “pro-choice,” then Biden might be a plausible candidate for the label; at least on occasions when he respects your choice or mine not to facilitate deliberate feticide.

The same cannot be said for Barack Obama. For starters, he supports legislation that would repeal the Hyde Amendment, which protects pro-life citizens from having to pay for abortions that are not necessary to save the life of the mother and are not the result of rape or incest. The abortion industry laments that this longstanding federal law, according to the pro-abortion group NARAL, “forces about half the women who would otherwise have abortions to carry unintended pregnancies to term and bear children against their wishes instead.” In other words, a whole lot of people who are alive today would have been exterminated in uterowere it not for the Hyde Amendment. Obama has promised to reverse the situation so that abortions that the industry complains are not happening (because the federal government is not subsidizing them) would happen. That is why people who profit from abortion love Obama even more than they do his running mate.

But this barely scratches the surface of Obama’s extremism. He has promised that “the first thing I’d do as President is sign the Freedom of Choice Act” (known as FOCA). This proposed legislation would create a federally guaranteed “fundamental right” to abortion through all nine months of pregnancy, including, as Cardinal Justin Rigali of Philadelphia has noted in a statement condemning the proposed Act, “a right to abort a fully developed child in the final weeks for undefined ‘health’ reasons.” In essence, FOCA would abolish virtually every existing state and federal limitation on abortion, including parental consent and notification laws for minors, state and federal funding restrictions on abortion, and conscience protections for pro-life citizens working in the health-care industry-protections against being forced to participate in the practice of abortion or else lose their jobs. The pro-abortion National Organization for Women has proclaimed with approval that FOCA would “sweep away hundreds of anti-abortion laws [and] policies.”

It gets worse. Obama, unlike even many “pro-choice” legislators, opposed the ban on partial-birth abortions when he served in the Illinois legislature and condemned the Supreme Court decision that upheld legislation banning this heinous practice. He has referred to a baby conceived inadvertently by a young woman as a “punishment” that she should not endure. He has stated that women’s equality requires access to abortion on demand. Appallingly, he wishes to strip federal funding from pro-life crisis pregnancy centers that provide alternatives to abortion for pregnant women in need. There is certainly nothing “pro-choice” about that.

But it gets even worse. Senator Obama, despite the urging of pro-life members of his own party, has not endorsed or offered support for the Pregnant Women Support Act, the signature bill of Democrats for Life, meant to reduce abortions by providing assistance for women facing crisis pregnancies. In fact, Obama has opposed key provisions of the Act, including providing coverage of unborn children in the State Children’s Health Insurance Program (S-CHIP), and informed consent for women about the effects of abortion and the gestational age of their child. This legislation would not make a single abortion illegal. It simply seeks to make it easier for pregnant women to make the choice not to abort their babies. Here is a concrete test of whether Obama is “pro-choice” rather than pro-abortion. He flunked. Even Senator Edward Kennedy voted to include coverage of unborn children in S-CHIP. But Barack Obama stood resolutely with the most stalwart abortion advocates in opposing it.

Please find time to read the whole thing and link to it.

Also see Barack Obama – pro-partial birth abortion, among other things.

Reducing abortions in Russia?

Courtesy of Marshall, this piece on reducing abortions in Russia:

Authorities in Novorossiysk, a city near the Black Sea, have declared this week to be a “week without abortion.” Doctors won’t conduct termination operations except in “the most extreme cases.” In addition, at the city’s maternity clinic psychologists and gynecologists will work with pregnant women to prepare them for motherhood. More astounding, the city’s universities will screen films describing the detrimental effects of abortions. And a representative of the city’s government says that “doctors will do everything they can to stop women from doing the irreparable.” 

Too bad our universities won’t show films like that.

Re. “doing the irreparable” — That is one of the things the pro-legalized abortionists ignore. People change their minds sometimes, and woman often do so during their pregnancies when they are feeling very stressed or unsupported.

But you can’t undo an abortion.

Marshall also made a good point about Social Security. The scientific fact that abortion destroys an innocent human being is all the reasoning we need to demonstrate the immorality of the practice, but there are many other negative consequences as well, including the absence of tens of millions of people in our economy.

Roundup

naked-gun2Please go read The Naked Gun on the theology of ministry at Patrick’s blog.  If nothing else, you’ll laugh at a great clip from the movie.

Sanctity of Human Life Sunday will be January 18th this year (as well as January 25th in some places).  Last year I was able to speak at a couple Sunday School classes at a large local church.  I’m going to be the Board President for CareNet in 2009 so I’m hoping there will be more speaking opportunities to educate people on all the great things CareNet does for women and their families, as well as how to articulate the pro-life message.

Randy Alcorn is an amazing pro-life apologist (among other things) and is offering his book Why Pro-life? for only $1.60 each (in case quantities) to help churches equip people with the pro-life message.  Let your pastor know that these are available!  It would be a great way to educate people.  Randy is a very winsome and persuasive author.

Here’s some good news: The Love Dare book from the Fireproof movie is #2 on the NYT Best Seller list.

People Said to Believe in Aliens and Ghosts More Than God – This is sad but also amusing, especially with people insisting that it is the advanced education of the West that keeps them from an “irrational” belief in God. They make nice bookends for the deliberately unclear “thinkers” on the other end of the spectrum who insist that there is no truth.

Going rate to kill a pastor: $250 – Hindu extremist groups are offering money, food and alcohol to anyone who murders Christians and destroys their homes.

Obama, Can You Spare Blacks A Proclamation? – this is quite a list!

Predictably, the Abortion President is putting together a seriously anti-life, anti-family Cabinet

Who is really anti-choice?

circle-slash.jpgWhen Liberals refer to me as “anti-choice” I realize it is a predictable personal attack to make it sound like I’m anti-freedom.  As usual, they aren’t finishing their sentences (anti-choice to do what?) and they are ignoring that another human being gets killed when one of the alternatives is chosen. 

My first reaction is that I am not ashamed to be anti-choice, provided that they mean “anti-choice to crush and dismember innocent human beings (regular abortions) or anti-choice to stick a sharp instrument in a baby’s head and suck out her brains (partial-birth abortions, aka infanticide) or anti-choice to let born-alive abortion surviving babies die in closets (the method of infanticide protected by Barack Obama).”

The ironic thing is that other than the legalized destruction of innocent human beings these folks are really the ones who are anti-choice:

Anti-school choice (whether it is the choice of which public school to attend or the option of home schooling)

Anti-choice of parents to know if their children are receiving birth control at school

Anti-choice of parents to know if their children are having an abortion, which involves great physical and mental risks to their daughters in addition to destroying their grandchildren

Anti-choice for medical professionals not to perform abortions or dispense abortion pills

Anti-choice to own guns

Anti-choice of the unborn to determine if they can live

Anti-choice for secret union ballots

Anti-choice to access conservative radio shows

Anti-choice to teach the flaws of Darwinian evolutionary theory

Anti-choice of people to choose how they want health care insured or provided

Anti-choice on the voters of America to decide social issues democratically

Let’s just say that consistency on the “choice” topic isn’t their strong suit.

What others am I missing?

The real haters and responding to their inconsistency

hate.jpgMs. Green has some videos of truly hateful behavior by the anti-Proposition 8 folks.  Yet it is the Christians who are continually referred to as haters.  Sure, Fred Phelps and his ilk are haters and they call themselves Christian, but their behavior displays about as much fruit as their counterparts on the Left.  And the demonstrators on the Left far outnumber the Phelps-types. 

The Left uses the “hate” accusation reflexively to try to demonize and silence the opposition.  It is amazing that the hate label sticks to us when we actually take a live and let live approach to gays. We just don’t like it when they shove their agenda down our throats.

I’ve known for a long time that their theme of “tolerance” was an upside down use of the word.  You can only tolerate those you disagree with, and these people show no tolerance at all.

Here is one line of thinking to use in responding to the spurious “hate” personal attacks. 

If you want to disarm the liberals, just point out that if homosexuality could be detected in utero that you would be against those abortions, and ask them if they would agree to make those abortions illegal.  If heterosexual parents abort for Down Syndrome, gender, inconvenience, etc. I guarantee you that most parents would abort rather than have a potentially gay child (I wouldn’t).

I’ve asked this question many times and I have yet to find a heterosexual liberal who doesn’t love abortion rights more than gays. So this argument is a great way to make them squirm and to point out how ridiculous it is for them to label you as a homophobe. After all, they think it should be legal to destroy gays in the womb (even hypothetically) while you think they should be protected.

The most I’ve ever seen them say in response is that I’m against all abortions, so specific protections for gays isn’t meaningful. But I point out that if this was the only restriction made that I’d favor it.  You shouldn’t kill an innocent human being because he is gay or even might be gay.

It also forces them to reconsider their pro-abortion views, because it points out how the unborn are real human beings. That is one reason they fight any exceptions, even for gender selection abortions. They know that once you concede the humanity of the unborn for any reason then other abortions wouldn’t be justified.

If you do Venn diagrams of pro-legalized abortionists and pro-gay agenda folks, you’ll see virtually concentric circles. 

Authentic Christians do not hate these people.  Watch the videos and see.  But the truth sounds like hate to those that hate the truth.  And those that are pro-legalized abortion and pro-gay marriage are in deep rebellion to God.

I explored this more in a hypothetical dilemma.

I know that the “rights” talk makes for a good sound bite, but what rights are we talking about? The right to relationships? They have them. The right to be married? Uh, sorry, but they already have the right to marry a living being of the opposite sex of the same species under certain conditions (i.e., no incest, bestiality, polygamy or necrophilia). And who are they to pull up the drawbridge after gays get these “rights” and leave the other groups hanging?  Do they hate them?  Why else would they oppose their rights?

I thought this was a great summary by Invictus, who previously had been inclined to try and support gay civil marriage:

You know, I’m not really inclined to support the creation of a new “right”–one that has never existed in all of human history–on behalf of a people who so easily take up the mantle of thuggish oppression as soon as they are given space to do so.  Does anyone (idiots and liars excluded) really think that teams of police would be required to escort gay couples safely out of neighborhoods full of violent Mormons screaming death threats?

These are the people that elected Obama

This is very important to consider.  The point isn’t just finding people who were woefully uninformed.  That would be like shooting fish in a barrel and could be done with voters from either party. 

It was that they were completely uninformed about Obama, Reid, Pelosi, etc. while they knew lots about Sarah Palin – and generally not the truth, but rather the falsehoods and exaggerations communicated by the mainstream media.

Also, when asked questions about negative things (Obama and the 57 states, Bill Ayers, Biden and plagiarism, Obama and bankrupting the coal industry, etc.) they almost always attributed them to McCain or Palin.  The 18-to-1 bias against Palin by the Big 3 obviously had a big impact. 

The people interviewed were generally wrong across the board:

  • Ignorance of basic facts such as which party currently controls Congress
  • Believing lies about Republicans
  • Unaware of the truth about Obama / Biden

It was an ugly but very successful hat trick for the media.

See some statistics here, such as how 86.9 % of those polled thought that Palin said that she could see Russia from her “house,” even though came from Tina Fey, while “81.8% could NOT correctly say Joe Biden quit a previous campaign because of plagiarism (25% chance by guessing).”

It is funny and painful.  Watch it all.

P.S. Is it me, or is the Obama song really, really creepy?

Viability, health and other pro-abortion lies

pro-choice-baby.jpgThe Freedom of Choice Act — which, ironically, denies all freedoms to the unborn human beings — is a case study in liberal double-speak.  While pretending to provide limits for abortion it actually removes them all.  Here is the language:

It is the policy of the United States that every woman has the fundamental right to choose to bear a child, to terminate a pregnancy prior to fetal viability, or to terminate a pregnancy after fetal viability when necessary to protect the life or health of the woman.

Viability is basically a feel good term to make the pro-aborts sound like they have some standards.  But as commenter Marshall Art pointed out, it is a deliberately ambiguous term.  If the line keeps moving with technology, and at any point in time varies with the invidiual human being in question, the quality of health care in the area, etc. then those should be clues that it isn’t a good criterion for whether abortion should be allowed. 

Also, you never know the viability of a child until she lives.  Even if you knew a concrete time period for viability, newborns can’t live without care and we (currently) don’t permit infanticide. 

Also, as a commenter pointed out, viability means she is living in one environment and could live in another as well.  But even if she isn’t viable outside the womb yet, she’d be viable if you’d leave her there a little longer!

But with respect to FOCA, the viability phrase is completely irrelevant.  The key word in the Bill is “health,” which is inserted to invalidate everything that came before it, including the viability claim.  Health can mean anything and everything, including the risk of depression for someone who wants a partial birth abortion.  So the Bill is typical liberal-speak.  It sounds like it is making restrictions but is really saying that there are none.

partial-birth-abortionAnd think carefully about this: Under what circumstances does a partial birth abortion improve the health of the woman?  At a point in the operation the baby will be positioned as in the picture to the right.  The claim of the pro-legalized abortion lobby is that temporarily stopping the delivery to pierce the baby’s skull and remove her brains is necessary for the mother’s health.  But why not just deliver a live baby? 

The pro-abortion movement was founded on lies and is being perpetuated based on lies. 

Shame on anyone who supports this Bill, and especially on anyone claiming to be a Christian.

Please go here to sign a petition to fight the Freedom of Choice Act.

Only in California

pro-choice-baby.jpgProposition 2 passed, meaning that farm animals will have more reasonably sized cages.  No objections there.

Proposition 4 failed, meaning that girls under 18 can get abortions without parental consent.

Chickens can now move about more freely while the destruction of unborn human beings continues.  The children of California parents can have extremely serious medical procedures and their grandchildren can be destroyed, all without their knowledge.

Now if the girls were carrying chickens instead of human beings, it would be a different story.

To enable our children to take a single Advil at school, we had to take an original bottle there and fill out a form. If we wanted to retrieve the unused pills at the end of the year, we had to return to school. That seems overly cautious to me, but given the drug problems in schools I suppose I can understand it.

But contrast that with those who oppose parental notification laws for abortions performed on minors. They want public school officials to be able to whisk your daughter off to have surgery which would risk her physical and mental health in addition to killing your grandchild. The surgery would take place at a clinic with lower standards than hospitals have. They might be covering up a statutory rape as well, as that is often the case with teen pregnancies.

32 percent were worried about the risk in notifying parents, even though emergency clauses and notification of an adult relative are included. 

The typical argument put forth by those opposing these laws is that the girls might get abused if the parents were notified. But that is really poor reasoning. Using that logic, teachers couldn’t send home progress reports, report cards or disciplinary notes because the parents might abuse the children. Police couldn’t even arrest teens who committed crimes.

Of course, I’m against child abuse and think it should be punished. But the risk of it is hardly an excuse not to have parental notification laws, especially when there are emergency clauses in place.