Tag Archives: pregnancy

Christian worldview, Politics

Why conservative views are better

3 Comments

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.

Politics, Pro-life

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

5 Comments

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?”

Christian worldview

“Entitled to every single solitary operation”

3 Comments

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.

Christian worldview

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

13 Comments

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.

Christian worldview, Politics, Pro-life

Personhood, religion and science

3 Comments

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.

Pro-life

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

Leave a comment

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 counsel, practical 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

Politics, Pro-life

Classic pro-life story

4 Comments

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.


Politics, Pro-life

Abortions are bad for the mothers, too

2 Comments

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

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


Always remember

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

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


Politics, Pro-life

Lying about lying

7 Comments

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.
Pro-life

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

5 Comments

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!