Tag Archives: pregnancy

Why conservative views are better

The title may sound a little brash, but if people are honest they’ll concede that they think their views are better.  Otherwise, why would they hold them?

So why are conservative views better?  They reflect a much better understanding of reality, specifically  human nature (e.g., original sin) and the Law of Unintended Consequences (things don’t happen in vacuums; if you change a law then people will react to that), common sense (why should someone hire you if you can’t help them succeed?) and more.

Just a few examples . . .

Abortion: Crushing and dismembering innocent yet unwanted human beings rarely solves problems.  Yes, it is unfortunate when unplanned pregnancies occur, but killing the unborn is wrong.

Liberals act as if conservatives are not compassionate towards women with crisis pregnancies, but go visit a Pregnancy Resource Center and see if it is funded, managed and staffed with conservatives or liberals.  Liberal “compassion” is to use murder to pretend to solve the problem.

The right to life is a true right.  Social justice begins in the womb.

Gun control: Liberals argue by anecdote that guns are bad and must be controlled.  Conservatives realize that while there will be exceptions, society at large is much better off with the option of being armed against criminals and bad governments.  Human nature is such that bad people and bad governments are less likely to act against potentially well-armed people.  Gun violence is greater where there are more restrictions.  I know from prison ministry that bad guys are similar to the rest of the population in many ways: They want maximum gain with minimum risk.  Why go where people are armed when there is somewhere they are unarmed?  It is foolish to think that disarming law-abiding citizens will improve crime rates.

Poverty: Conservatives want to help those who can’t help themselves, such as orphans and some widows.

Conservatives know that you get more of what you fund.  Give incentives for single mothers?  You get more single mothers.  Give incentives to illegal aliens?  You get more illegal aliens.

Anstudies show that by any measure — giving time, money or even blood donations — conservatives are more generous.  They just don’t lobby Caesar to “give” your money and count it as a good deed on their part.

Sex scandals: Both sides may have them, but Republicans generally kick their perpetrators to the curb (Mark Sanford is an exception, not the rule).  What about the Democrats?  Barney Frank had a male prostitution ring in his home.  Bill Clinton had many affairs, sex with an intern in a white house and strong accusations of rape.  If Monica hadn’t saved the dress he’d still be lying.  But he gets $100,000+ per speech and is still worshiped by countless Democrats.  Ted Kennedy (need I say more?).  The “Reverend” Jesse Jackson had adultery and used his organization’s funds to pay off a mistress.  The Democrats can’t bring themselves to kick out the San Diego mayor.  Anthony Weiner thinks people will overlook his continued bizarre behavior — and he may be right!  And on and on.

War: Neither side likes war.  Conservatives understand the simple truth of peace through strength.  Bullies don’t bully kids who are bigger or better armed.  It is pathetically naive to think you can live in a world without violence.

Words matter: The Democrats are pro-abortion, not pro-choice

I’ve mentioned this before and will probably only mention it six or seven more times, so please read carefully.  Do not let the pro-abortion people get away with using terms such as pro-choice or reproductive choice.  It is easy to show how false those are.  And don’t let them call you anti-abortion or anti-choice without taking the time to explain why they are correct on that claim.  You can take what they mean as a personal attack and use it to our advantage.

I used to try and be charitable and refer to pro-abortion people as pro-choice.  I preferred to get into the facts and logic and didn’t want to get people distracted by thinking we were just calling them names.  But with the latest platform of the Democratic party the most accurate term for them is pro-abortion.  

The Democratic Party strongly and unequivocally supports Roe v. Wade and a woman’s right to make decisions regarding her pregnancy, including a safe and legal abortion, regardless of ability to pay. We oppose any and all efforts to weaken or undermine that right.

We should take the time to explain why pro-abortion is the correct term.  If you insist on taxpayer-funding of abortions, that is the opposite of choice.  Your are forcing pro-life people to pay for abortions.  And you are claiming that we don’t have enough abortions and that society will be better if we have more.  They don’t want them to be rare, they want more of them.  Those claims aren’t pro-choice, they are pro-abortion.

The majority of those who identify as “pro-choice” agree that abortion should be illegal after the first trimester, that women should have a 24 hour waiting period before having the abortion, that parental consent should be required for teens and that taxpayers shouldn’t have to fund abortions.  That makes Obama and anyone supporting the Democrat’s platform the extremists.

Consider how many people who identify as pro-choice agree with pro-life positions on specific topics, then consider how radical the Democrats’ platform is (unrestricted taxpayer-funded abortions at any time, including “partial-birth abortions”/infanticide).

Regarding “reproductive choice” or “reproductive health,” just point out the irrefutable scientific fact that a new human being is created at fertilization.  Therefore, abortions are designed to kill human beings who have already been reproduced.  Perverse organizations like the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice have self-refuting names.  It may seem subtle, but explaining how their pet terms are false undermines their credibility and helps point to the science and logic that are on our side.

These suggestions may seem unimportant, but they can make a big difference.  The Left uses terms to their advantage all the time, such as “marriage equality” and the pro-abortion phrases noted above.  Don’t let them get away with it.  By politely pointing out how pro-abortion their policies are and how “reproductive choice” is about birth control and not abortion we can plant seeds and persuade the middle ground about the truth.

Also, use verbal Judo and turn attack phrases such as “anti-choice” or “anti-abortion” back on them.  Just say, “Why yes, I am anti-abortion.  Abortions kill innocent but unwanted human beings without adequate justification, so I oppose them.  Thanks for noticing!  You should oppose them, too.”  I’m beginning to prefer the term anti-abortion over pro-life.  It is accurate and it spells out the word they hate to say: Abortion.

Regarding “anti-choice,” just ask them to complete the phrase and then agree with them: “You are using ‘choice’ in the sense of choosing to crush and dismember an innocent but unwanted human being without adequate justification, so I am against that choice.  You should be, too.  But I favor all sorts of other choices for women: Whom to marry, what career to choose, the freedom to speak out against “same-sex marriage,” whether to fund abortions of other people, whether to own a gun, what size soft-drink to consume, whether to home school, and more.  How do you feel about all of those choices?”

“Entitled to every single solitary operation”

If you vote for Obama/Biden you are voting pro-abortion and anti-religious freedom.  Not pro-choice, but pro-abortion — more abortions, funded by all taxpayers. From the Democrats’ 2012 platform:

The Democratic Party strongly and unequivocally supports Roe v. Wade and a woman’s right to make decisions regarding her pregnancy, including a safe and legal abortion, regardless of ability to pay. We oppose any and all efforts to weaken or undermine that right.

That means they favor:

  • 2nd trimester, 3rd trimester and “partial-birth” (aka infanticide) abortions
  • Taxpayer-funded abortions.  That means that pro-lifers will be forced to pay to have innocent but unwanted human beings killed.  That’s not pro-choice, that’s pro-abortion.
  • Increased abortions — They think that there aren’t enough abortions today, so society as a whole will improve if we make them “free” to the mothers.  Giving abortions away seems like a peculiar way to make them rare.
  • More dead black babies relative to whites — Abortions in the black community are already three times that of whites, and they know that figure will increase with taxpayer-funded abortions.  It is the ultimate racism.
  • Restrictions on religious freedoms — It is inevitable, and already evident with Obamacare, that they want to force religious groups to fund abortifacient drugs and abortions.

Now Joe Biden expands on this, saying:

Maybe where Romney is most sketchy is on women’s rights. I got a daughter and lost a daughter. I’ve got four granddaughters and Barack has two daughters. And this is to our core. Our daughters and our granddaughters are entitled to every single solitary operation, every single solitary opportunity!

Click the audio to see how pro-abortion he and his supporters are.  You see, abortion is an opportunity and an entitlement to them.  And if they are entitled to abortions then that means you are obligated to provide abortions.  (Side note: Joe misses the morbid irony that those daughters and granddaughters wouldn’t exist if the mothers had opted for the abortions they were “entitled” to.)

Note that these “pro-women” pro-aborts oppose a ban on gender-selection abortions, nearly all of which kill females for the sole reason that they are unwanted females.

Note what extremists these people are.  Even the majority of self-identified pro-choicers oppose what the Democrats’ platform pushes.  Never let them get away with labeling pro-lifers as extremists.

It is un-Christian and un-American to not only permit the killing of innocent but unwanted human beings in the womb but to force others to participate.  Destroying religious freedom is also un-Christian and un-American.  No Christian should vote for the Democrats.

Sex out of wedlock = sin. Getting pregnant = not a sin.

That should be obvious, right?  But think about how our society perceives it.  Being pregnant out of wedlock is evidence of a sin, but isn’t a sin itself.  Yet our culture insists that having an abortion to destroy the evidence isn’t a sin.  And countless apostate churches and false teachers agree with the culture.

Run, don’t walk, from “churches” that can’t state the simple truth that it is immoral to kill innocent but unwanted human beings.  The odds are incredibly high that they hold other false views, such as denying the authority and accuracy of scripture, the exclusivity and deity of Jesus, etc.

Always be prepared to point people in crisis pregnancies to your local Pregnancy Resource Center.  They’ll find all sorts of Bible-based support, and you may be helping to save lives today and for eternity.

Personhood, religion and science

While it is a scientific fact that the unborn are unique, living human beings from conception, many pro-legalized abortion advocates try to deny that fact and pretend that it is a religious question.  Mississippi has a “personhood” initiative on the Nov. 8 ballot that even many Democrats in the state are supporting.  This has the pro-abort crowd very, very nervous.  It has the chances of challenging Roe v Wade.

Fake Christians who support the the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice are parroting the Planned Parenthood agenda:

People throughout the country are taking action to defeat Mississippi Initiative 26, the “personhood” initiative. If passed November 8, it will have far-reaching consequences not only for women and men in Mississippi but for individuals throughout the country. It could be the start of a larger “personhood” agenda. We already know that Nevada, Tennessee, and Florida will have a similar measure on their ballots in 2012.

Yea!

By legally defining a human being from the moment of fertilization, MS 26 criminalizes abortion without exempting cases of rape, incest, or life of the pregnant woman.

But it is a scientific fact that a unique human being is created at the moment of conception.  And the scare tactics aren’t working.  People know that women will get treated for ectopic pregnancies.  The former doctor for our Care Net Pregnancy Center even performed those, and he was more than just a little pro-life. Abortions to save the life of the mother are consistent with the pro-life ethic.

RCRC is working with the coalition of physicians, infertility advocates and reproductive health organizations that has mobilized to challenge the measure and to spread the word about unforeseen consequences of the anti-choice movement’s overreach. Mississippians for Healthy Families, the political committee formed in response to MS 26, says that the amendment “puts politics above the health and safety of women.”

That’s just a series of lies.  Even the name of the RCRC is a lie: Abortion isn’t about “reproductive choice” because a new human being has already been reproduced.  And it ignores the lives of the unborn.  What about their health and safety?

The “personhood” initiative raises troubling moral issues, regardless of a person’s view of abortion. Whil religions across the spectrum respect and value life and many have an official pro-choice position, RCRC has identified these issues as of deep concern:

The initiative is one-sided and narrow – it concentrates solely on the fetus and ignores the woman’s life entirely.

It concentrates on the human being who would otherwise be crushed and dismembered because she is unwanted.

Endowing a fetus with legal rights independent of the pregnant woman could set up a conflict that could place the health and dignity of the woman on a lower level.

That’s just gibberish.

People of faith are also concerned that this initiative would enact into law specific religious views about “personhood” and in doing so, violate the foundational principle of religious freedom.

That’s simply false.  All they need to do is point to scientific facts.  Ironically, they are taking what should be a non-religious argument, turning it into a religious argument, and then trying to force their religious views on the rest of us.

They also trot out the rape and incest arguments, but they are wildly inconsistent on those.  They approve of death for the innocent daughter or son of the rapist, but typically oppose capital punishment for the rapist himself.  And abortions for incest typically hide the crime and kill the innocent in the process.

As always, if it isn’t a human being, then she’s not pregnant.  Don’t be fooled by the arguments of phony “religious” people.

Care Net Pregnancy Center Fall Fundraiser & 20th Anniversary — you are invited!

Please join us for our Fall Fundraiser & Silent Auction as we celebrate 20 years of Saving Lives Today…and for Eternity on October 6th.  There is no charge to attend.

Since 1991, Care Net Pregnancy Center of Northwest Houston has served close to 17,000 clients. Last year, we saw almost 1,400 first-time clients. Most came to us for pregnancy testing, and 80% of those tests were positive. We also had the privilege of performing 431 ultrasounds, giving women the first glimpse of their babies

In May 2010, Care Net Pregnancy Center of Northwest Houston began seeing clients at our new location, 14530 Wunderlich Drive in the Champions Area off FM 1960. Follow this link to view a map of our new location. (Please note that FM 1960 is now also named Cypress Creek Parkway.)

Thanks to many in the community that made this purchase of a permanent home possible!

Our Mission

To demonstrate the love of Christ to those facing an unplanned or crisis pregnancy through the provision of spiritual, physical, emotional, and educational support and by proclaiming the Gospel.
We are committed to providing compassionate counselpractical help, and accurate information to men and women facing unplanned pregnancies or past abortions; to promote premarital abstinence; and to do these in a way that draws people to the Lord Jesus Christ to bring Him honor and glory.

Note: You need to register online by Sept. 26

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.


Abortions are bad for the mothers, too

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.


Lying about lying

See Leonard Pitts’ attempt to broad-brush conservatives as the reigning liars in our political scene.  His lead argument: A misstatement made by Sen. Kyle that was corrected the same day (I’m not defending Kyle, just analyzing Pitts’ larger theme, his lame defense of Planned Parenthood and his sloppy journalism).

Let’s examine some of his points and also consider the things Pitts leaves out of his analysis.  I realize columnists can only include so much information, but these would obviously not fit in with his theme.  And either he is a woefully uninformed journalist or highly deceptive.

  • Why does Pitts list cancer screenings as the first item Planned Parenthood provides, especially while omitting that their CEO falsely claimed that Planned Parenthood provides mammograms and that a loss of Federal funding would end these.?  Note that some politicians repeated this lie.  How many CEOs don’t know what services their organization provides?  Was this incompetence or a deliberate lie about a highly emotional, most-favored-disease issue to sustain public funding for her organization?  Why hasn’t she or the mainstream media, such as Pitts, highlighted and corrected this error?
  • If abortion only accounts for 3% of Planned Parenthood’s services, why don’t they stop them or get rid of them?  I mean, if such a tiny part of their business is causing all this fuss, there are some very simple solutions.
  • Does Pitts not know that while abortions themselves are only counted as 3%, many of the 97% of the other services are associated with the abortions?  It is an accounting game to minimize the portion of abortions.
  • Why didn’t Pitts note that 97% of pregnant women who go inside Planned Parenthood come out not pregnant?
  • Planned Parenthood has been caught countless times, both on audio and on video, hiding statutory rape.  That alone should result in them being not only being de-funded but put out of business.  Businesses who commit serial felonies don’t get to point to other (alleged) good things they do to avoid responsibility.  They have been caught many times hiding sex trafficking, which includes victims of human trafficking.
  • Margaret Sanger, PP’s founder, was a racist eugenicist.
  • Planned Parenthood targets minorities and is the largest provider of abortions in the U.S.  Abortion rates for blacks are 3x that of whites and the rate for HIspanics is 2x that of whites.  Margaret’s dream lives on.  But in Pitts’ mind, he thinks conservatives are the racists.
  • Pitts used Sarah Palin’s “death panels” line as an example of lying, but she has been proved right.  Of course, they aren’t called death panels, but that was never her claim.
  • Too bad Pitts didn’t read Things Planned Parenthood’s ‘Truth Team’ Forgot to Mention with more facts about PP (Hat tip: John)
  • Will Pitts’ next column be about why Democrats are much more likely to be tax cheats?   He’d have more facts for that.

Why does our society destroy 90% of those with Down Syndrome?

Updated with a great video at the bottom, courtesy of Marie

See Life Training Institute Blog: Down Syndrome, Fear, and a Young Man’s Hat.

My friend and founder of Cobb Pregnancy Services Ogden Tabb told me how after his daughter Alison was born with DS and he and his wife became pregnant with their third child the doctor was recommending amniocentesis. When Ogden asked him why the doctor answered, “So you can decide whether you wish to abort the child or not if it has Down syndrome.” He looked across the room at his daughter Alison and said, “So if my next child is like that beautiful, healthy, loving little girl over there you are offering me the option of killing it?” That was all the inspiration he needed to start what has become one of the greatest pregnancy centers in the country.

I previously wrote about prenatal testing for Down Syndrome and one of our World Vision sponsor children who has it .  I’m glad she was conceived in Honduras and not the U.S., or she’d probably be long dead.sindy.jpg

This topic reminds me of a piece I did on Moral Schizophrenia:

I can’t help but think about the bizarre extremes our society goes to when it comes to the disabled. Consider all the positive and noble things done for the disabled:

  • Handicapped parking spaces, accessibility to buildings, etc.
  • Celebration of their accomplishments in events like the Special Olympics
  • Countless technological aids to help them use computers and work
  • Fund raisers and ministries to find cures and to provide care and encouragement

Yet what is society’s general attitude towards unborn humans who may be disabled when born? The current climate is that it is OK, and often preferable, to kill them before they are born. For example, abortion occurs roughly 90% of the time in pregnancies where Down Syndrome is diagnosed. Some babies are even aborted for correctable problems like club feet or cleft palates.

Jocylen Elder, former Surgeon General of the U.S. said abortion “has had an important and positive public-health effect” because it reduced “the number of children afflicted with severe defects.” She pointed out that “the number of Down Syndrome infants in Washington state in 1976 was 64 percent lower than it would have been without legal abortion.” She meant this as a victory of sorts, but what message does this send to the disabled and their families?

Of course we don’t wish medical problems on anyone. There is always an element of tragedy when they occur. Yet what about all the joy and life lessons they bring? And disabled people are less likely to commit suicide, so they aren’t necessarily less happy. We may rationalize that we are “helping” them, but who are we really trying to help?

Parting thoughts:

  • How long will it be until insurance companies pressure people to abortpotentially disabled humans?
  • If autism could be detected in utero as Down Syndrome is, how many fewer autistic people would be with us?
  • I know several people who were encouraged by their doctors to have abortions because problems were suspected. Yet the children in question are alive and healthy!

Bizarre “Christian” pro-legalized abortion logic

Periodic commenter “Poolman” shared his pro-legalized abortion rationale at another blog.  Not surprisingly, some atheist, pro-legalized abortion, bisexual / lesbian commenters really liked Poolman’s “religion,” even though they don’t appear to plan to convert to it or understand it.  They just throw out the word “love” with no context and that’s all they need.

It is amazing how hard pro-legalized abortionists will work to rationalize their positions.  Here are his comments.

Science and logic will all pass away. In the end it will be how well you loved.

I’m not sure how he thinks logic will pass away — though, on second thought, it seems to have passed away for some already.  And I doubt he ignores everything from science because it will “pass away.”  He just ignores it here to rationalize his pro-legalized abortion views.

And in the end it will be whether you repented and trusted in Jesus or not.

Oh, and ignoring the destruction of the weak and defenseless is the opposite of love.

I am confounded how so many fundamentalist “Christians” have come from atheism to doctrinalism. You trade one millstone for another. You need the cornerstone. You miss the whole point of why Jesus came to earth in the flesh. In essence you crucify Him daily with your ignorance. Oh, don’t get me wrong. You are intelligent and knowledgable, but ignorant of the true character of God. Love. A life of sacrifice and service to other humans already sharing the air on this planet. That’s our mission.

I’m not sure how objecting to the crushing and dismembering of innocent human beings is in opposition to that.  Just because the unborn humans don’t directly share the air on the planet he views them as fair game for unlimited destruction.  Wow, that’s a pretty bizarre take on Christianity and one of the most extreme legalistic positions I’ve seen to defend abortion.

He claims that he knows the true character of God and that I am ignorant of it.  Hmmm.  He claims that our service to others only applies to those outside the womb.  Got any Bible verses for that?  I didn’t realize God was against pre-natal care and was pro-legalized abortion.

And note how he throws the fundie label around.  He seems rather fundamental in his views.  Does that make him wrong?

“Are you so foolish? After beginning with the Spirit, are you now trying to attain your goal by human effort?” (Galations 3:3)
“The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned.” (1 Corinthians 2:14)

Ah, there came the random Bible verse generator he litters his comments with.  One day he may pick a winner and have one that applies in context.

Yes abortion kills a human and stops its potential contribution to this world. However, the spirit lives on.

Poolman doesn’t seem to see that by trivializing abortion so broadly that he does the same for murder outside the womb.  And he implies that the value of a human comes from her contribution, not by her nature as being created in the image of God.  That helps people rationalize the destruction of those outside the womb who aren’t “contributing” by the definition of those in power.

This world is not our home. The spirit is eternal, the flesh is temporary.

Yes, more temporary for some of us than others, because Christians like Poolman justify their destruction.  But what is the point of his comment?  Just because we’re here temporarily should we just sit around and be spiritual?  Of course not. He has a big list of things he thinks we should do, but protecting innocent unborn life isn’t one of them.

There are many more evils in this world that are done to humanity. Go spend some time in Palestine or Somalia.

So what?  Just because you think you’ve found a greater evil then you can’t deal with any allegedly lesser evils?  Are thousands of innocent human beings killed in Palestine every day?

Many parents there would consider it a blessing to have never had their children than to rather see them suffer the atrocities they have had to endure.

Notice how he conflates birth control with abortion.  Once conception occurs they have children – they are just small.  Using Poolman’s logic, they should just kill the kids outside the womb to avoid suffering.  Hey, who knows whether any child will suffer?  Does Poolman recommend we abort everyone just to be on the safe side?

Fix what you can with the resources you are given. Quit causing division and pronouncing judgment. Help educate and elevate those around you. Save the lost souls.

So we’re causing division and judging but he is not.  Check.  Ah, the hypocrisy.

If the unborn aren’t important enough to protect, why are they important enough to educate once they are outside the womb?  If we can’t educate them to protect innocent human life, why educate them on anything else?

Love covers a multitude of sins. They will know us by our love, one for another.

Yes, and unborn human beings count as “other,” as do the mothers who deserve better than people like Poolman encouraging them to abort.

Amen. Teach these kids all about sex and the consequences of sex early. We are so backward in this country. To teach our kids about sex and talk about it is taboo. Act like it’s dirty and doesn’t exist. But then to use it everyday in everyway to market product is hunky-dory. We have so perverted love and sex in this nation, IMHO. God help us!

Who said not to teach kids about sex?  The question is what to teach them and when.

It is sad when people like Poolman masquerade as teachers of authentic Christianity.  If the audience thinks they believe what Jesus taught but don’t recognize what that means then you haven’t shared the truth with them.

“Too many aborted”–abortion in the black community

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.)

When pro-choice really means pro-abortion

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.

The truth is that many Christian denominations support the right of women to make their own health care decisions.

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?

How to know when “pro-choice” means “pro-abortion”

Every time I think false teacher Chuck “Jesus is not the only way” Currie can’t top his earlier hypocrisy and falsehoods, he proves me wrong.  Chuck is pro-legalized abortion and wants taxpayer-funded abortions but hypocritically mentions Jesus’ concern for the “least of these” in many of his posts.

But 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 support Crisis Pregnancy Centers (CPCs).  They do many great things for women and families in need, all for free.  Most take zero government funding and rely solely on contributions and many volunteer hours. I expect Planned Parenthood to hate CPCs.  After all, if you make money by killing babies then anyone with a pro-life mission is your sworn enemy.  But even pro-choicers should support CPCs.

So how about 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.  Really! And it is a very, very well documented fact that Planned Parenthood hides statutory rape.  Why doesn’t Chuck blog about that?

I wonder if Chuck’s opinion of Planned Parenthood would change if his daughters became clients?  History shows that if they were 13 and pregnant by 27 yr. old men that Planned Parenthood would not report the statutory rape and would coach them to lie about it.  Oh, and they would kill his grandchildren — for a large fee, of course.

Most parents would go nuts over that.  Then again, Chuck the moral freak proudly takes his young girls to gay pride prides.  What a Romans 1 poster boy.

Now to fisk Chuck’s lies and bad reasoning:

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.

The truth is that many Christian denominations support the right of women to make their own health care decisions.

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.

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?  You want 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 it?  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;
  • 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 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.  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.

In vitro fertilization: Lots of things can happen, and most of them are bad

My twins
Image via Wikipedia

I came across Fertility treatments: Would you get selective reduction? – CNN.com via Paging Mother Nature (read it as well).

The whole CNN piece was a glimpse into the mindset of those who don’t think carefully about matters of life and death, or even insurance, for that matter. Note how many times this worldview is in direct contradiction to reality.

Some segments and my thoughts . . .

Are they one of your success stories?” I asked, pointing behind Dr. H. to a large silver-framed photo of two fat-cheeked babies, identical twins. Dr. H. was my fertility doctor, and this was our first appointment.

“They’re my grandkids,” he explained, then laughed. “But everyone always says the same thing” — he held up his hands, like someone appealing to a higher power, and shook them dramatically — ” ‘We don’t want twins!’ ”

Hilarious, I thought. Dr. H.’s reaction suggested that anyone desperate enough to visit him would take a kid any way she could get one.

“But I really don’t want twins,” I said. “I already have a 3-year-old, and money is tight. One more is all we can handle.”

“Welllll,” Dr. H. replied, “given your age, we need to be aggressive. So I’d recommend going right to IVF. But if you want, we can transfer only one embryo.”

For that privilege, I had my insurer to thank, surprisingly enough: Since my policy covered three rounds of IVF, Dr. H. said, we could be conservative with the number of embryos we implanted each time.

For starters, why should insurance cover IVF at all?  Think about it.  I would gladly pay less for a plan that doesn’t cover wildly expensive and largely unsuccessful and unnecessary treatments.  This is the costly fallacy of many health care discussions.  Just because a procedure exists doesn’t mean you have a “right” to it and that others are obliged to provide it.  If you can’t have kids and don’t want to adopt, then pay for IVF yourself.  We had fertility issues before we were blessed with kids and we would not have used IVF.

“Great,” I replied, with a sigh of relief. “Then let’s get started.”

I left the consultation feeling excited and optimistic. Here was a science so precise that Dr. H. could choose among outcomes — you don’t want twins? Fine. I’ll just implant one embryo.

I was in control, finally. I’d spent months taking my temperature, monitoring my cervical mucus, and visiting an acupuncturist, wondering all the while if these efforts were any more effective than chanting a spell: Bibbity, bobbity, boo!

What if we did just one embryo?

One thing I’d somehow forgotten to ask Dr. H. about was my chance of becoming pregnant using a single embryo. According to research I’d done before seeing him, I knew that the live birth rate for in vitro fertilization for a 43-year-old like me was less than one in 20, and that was when the average number of embryos implanted was three. So going with only one had to worsen the already poor odds, didn’t it? But I kept silent.

Short version: She comes to realize that if she doesn’t implant multiple embryos that her odds of conceiving go down.  No kidding.

And we seemed to have luck on our side: The crappy health plan supplied by my husband’s nonprofit employer paid for three IVF cycles. As I said to him after meeting with Dr. H., what did we have to lose?

Again, note how a system that provides three IVF cycles is “crappy.”  I’d say providing more than zero is a waste.

. . .  “You’re pregnant. In fact, your levels are quite high.” He paused. “And I’m afraid it might be twins.” He sounded apologetic; maybe he’d registered my objections after all.

I reminded him that when we did the insemination, he’d said that although I’d produced four follicles — as opposed to the one generated naturally — it was “highly unlikely” that more than one of the eggs would be fertilized.

“We won’t know anything for sure until we do a sonogram,” Dr. H. tried to reassure me. “And a third of the time, one of the twins vanishes anyway. So it’s too early to tell. But you’re pregnant — that’s the important thing…. Congratulations.” It came out sounding like an admonition.

Or perhaps he was opposed to abortion and trying to steer me away from the procedure known as “selective reduction,” in which one or more fetuses in a multiple pregnancy is terminated. I had no way of knowing.

I hope he was opposed to abortion.

It happened to be my husband’s and my anniversary. We’d been together long enough that we didn’t feel obliged to mark the occasion with flowers or candlelit dinners, but as he walked in the door that night, the timing suddenly seemed serendipitous. “Happy anniversary!” I said, pressing my lips to his. “I’m sorry I didn’t get you anything. Oh, there is this one little thing….” I stared coyly up into his face.

He lifted his eyebrows. “You’re pregnant?”

I nodded, but already my choice of words, “one little thing,” rang ominously in my ears. I trapped my bottom lip between my teeth. “Apparently my levels are high. He thinks it might be twins.”

My husband pulled back from me with the abruptness of someone who’s just learned he’s been betrayed. “Bettina, we can’t handle twins,” he said firmly.

“Well, we could if we had to. People have a toddler and twins all the time.”

“I told you when you started all this that I didn’t want twins.”

What about adoption instead of selective reduction (i.e., abortion)?  This option was not even mentioned in the article.  It reminds me of the deadly pride and selfishness of a boyfriend of a Care Net client I spoke to.  He was pushing for abortion.  When I raised the possibility of adoption, this “macho” guy got serious and said, “There’s no way I’m going to let someone else raise my kid.”  Uh, yeah, but you’ll pay someone to kill her?

I nodded. He had said that. Unlike me, he’d been reluctant to have a second child. Our son was everything we could’ve wished for — funny, smart, a source of regular joy. As he got older, our lives got easier.

We took trips and found time for exercise and going to movies; we even had space in our two-bedroom apartment for guests. But at that moment, I didn’t want to hear any of that. I’d always wanted two children, and I countered with my best argument: Preserving our lifestyle seemed like a self-centered reason to deprive our son of a sibling.

Sadly and ironically, she will destroy one of his siblings to preserve their lifestyle.

Selective reduction had been my contingency plan, yet I’d never thought — or felt — through actually using it. I didn’t even know how the procedure was done. Now I was horrified at the idea of terminating one of the fetuses growing inside me by injecting potassium chloride into his or her heart.

Yes, that is horrifying.

With my son, I’d witnessed the step-by-step progress from blip to eight-pound, two-ounce boy, marveling at the increasingly recognizable sonogram images, poring over the weekly e-mail announcements from a pregnancy website: Your baby now has fingernails, your baby is now the size of a lemon, a banana, a melon. … And while I strongly believed in women’s right to have an abortion, the unlucky fetus destined for elimination wasn’t merely an abstract potential life, or an accident.

He or she was the product of my love for my husband, a life we’d made together on purpose. This fetus had an identity, not least as someone’s twin. “Selective reduction” was Orwellian; I knew I was ending what could be a life.

She comes close to honesty there.  She knew she was ending what is a life.  It is a scientific fact that the unborn are unique, living human beings from conception.

I also worried that the surviving child would be scarred by the loss. Perhaps the fetus would register the cessation of the heartbeat in the neighboring sac, the stilling of the fluttery movements.

Bizarre.  She doesn’t even know which one to kill yet, and is worried about the survivor’s reaction.  But if she isn’t a life yet, that makes no sense.

Could the proximity of decaying fetal tissue infuse my womb with the specter of death? If the chosen one ended up with mental illness or autism, would I always blame myself for having a reduction? All this may seem melodramatic, but I’ve heard about identical twins holding hands in utero; I’ve seen the secret language and private reality shared between even fraternal twins.

. . .

“But neither of us even likes our brothers and sisters that much,” my husband persisted. In fact, if it weren’t for the affection between our son and his cousins, he went on, we’d rarely see our siblings.

. . . .

During my weekly visits to Dr. H.’s office over the next month, I watched the two little sacs on the sonogram darken and grow, develop heartbeats and vaguely human outlines. “Can you turn the screen away, please?” I asked, tears pooling in the corners of my eyes. “I don’t want to get attached.”

. . .

My husband was convinced that twins would radically change our lives for the worse. We’d have to leave our beloved neighborhood for a place with cheaper rents and better public schools — there was no way we could afford private education for three kids.

Meditate on that, folks: They think it is better to kill one child than to have to send them all to public schools.  The pro-teacher union / pro-abortion folks must be tied up in knots over that one!

We’d kiss goodbye any hope of career advancement, at least for the foreseeable future. To his list, I added the loss of my income, necessary to meet our expenses. I couldn’t see how I’d be able to resume working after the birth since we could never afford full-time help, and — no matter how well they napped — two infants wouldn’t leave much time for anything else.

Trot out the toddler time: Could they kill any child outside the womb for those reasons?  Of course not.  So the only question is, “What is the unborn?”

My husband told me he’d support whatever choice I made, but for him, there really was no choice. Our twins weren’t part of God’s plan, he reasoned (or rationalized?). They were the product of artificial insemination.

Yeah, they are all about following God’s plan here.

If we’d become pregnant with twins naturally, would we be making the same decision? I didn’t know. All I knew was that ultimately, I didn’t think we could have twins and remain an intact, happy-enough family.

Boo-hoo.  Seriously.  Has this lady ever stepped out of her Liberal enclaves to see the rest of the world?  People endure far more than she could dream of, and many do it with much more joy.

After another stretch of silence, I asked, “Could you say a prayer when they’re doing it?”

He glanced at me, looking slightly surprised. “Sure. Of course.” Neither of us is very religious, but I wanted God to know that he or she, or whatever form God took, hadn’t been forgotten.

I hope they learn to think more carefully about God.  It is their only chance at true joy and forgiveness.  I doubt this marriage lasts very long after this.

Our doctor told us that she’d take into account any gender preference if the CVS determined that both babies were equally healthy. Now as she examined the ultrasound, she asked whether gender mattered to us. “Well, we have a boy at home, so I guess we’d prefer a girl,” I said, realizing with a start that since she gave us a choice, I must be carrying a boy and a girl, and I’d just chosen to terminate a boy.

One of the rare gender selection abortions that destroys a male.  Usually this “pro woman” practice results in dead females.

What a sad story.  I hope they find forgiveness and peace someday.  And I hope this cautionary tale makes people think more carefully about IVF and reproductive issues in general.  You do not want to put yourself in a position of having to make life and death choices like that.  And if you do, choose life.  Don’t buy into their bleak worldview.