Tag Archives: Pro-life

Alyssa Milano’s “sex strike”

It must be exhausting to be a God-mocking, Molech-worshiping Leftist.  You have to prop up all sorts of evil, inconsistent and anti-science ideas all day, every day.  Exhibit A: Alyssa Milano, who called for a “sex strike” by women because some states are saying you can’t kill children with beating hearts.

She was quickly and thoroughly roasted on social media for proving the point of every conservative ever, namely that abstinence works!  Mike Pence will be glad to know Alyssa has joined his side.  And I’m sure her children are comforted knowing that mommy fought aggressively for the right to have been able to kill them.

She also got in trouble with professional feminists who rightly noted that Milano was implying that sex was just a weapon used by women to manipulate men.  Apparently Milano doesn’t really enjoy sex, she just uses it to get what she wants and needs to be able to kill an unfortunate children created by her transaction.

Predictably, she trotted out the anti-science “reproductive rights” canard.  For the 397th time, abortion kills children who have already been reproduced.  Is that so hard to understand?  If they hadn’t been reproduced you wouldn’t have anything to murder!

And of course, she had to apologize to the inevitable “trans” (note: still not a real thing) people with some unintelligible complaints about cisgender or the like.

Never forget that the #1 issue in life for feminists is being able to kill their children up to their first breath and without anesthetic.  Oh, and even beyond that if the abortion fails to kill the child.  Because they insist that the Constitution doesn’t just give you a right to abortion but to a dead baby.

There is a reason they are indistinguishable from the “Christian” Left, whose god says it is OK to kill children to their first breath.  These are the real extremists, as most self-identified pro-choice people – and most Leftist countries – oppose late-term abortions.

Hopefully many women will heed her advice and stop having out-of-wedlock sex and realize how much better life is when doing things God’s way.  The Bible teaches the original “sex strike” — no sex until a one man / one woman marriage.  And the world would be a vastly better place if people heeded that.

Advertisements

Exodus 21 and abortion

Pro-abortion “Christian” Leftists and other abortion advocates often refer to a passage in Exodus 21 to support their views.  Don’t let them get away with such terrible and deadly reasoning.

When men strive together and hit a pregnant woman, so that her children come out, but there is no harm, the one who hit her shall surely be fined, as the woman’s husband shall impose on him, and he shall pay as the judges determine. But if there is harm, then you shall pay life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe. (Exodus 21:22–25, ESV)

The short version is that the key word of the passage is, in rare circumstances, not translated well and says “miscarriage” instead of “children come out.”  They conclude that if it is “just” a miscarriage and the perpetrator only got a fine, then what’s the big deal about abortion?

It you study the original Hebrew it becomes very clear that Moses did not mean that if the child is killed that the penalty is less severe.  But the pro-aborts (rotten) cherry-pick a translation they can twist to justify murder to the child’s first breath.

But that is just one of many problems with their use of this passage.  Here is a full list:

1. They get the text wrong.  This is a pro-life passage, not a pro-legalized abortion passage.  If Moses wanted to say “miscarriage” he could have used a much more specific word for that.

2. They ignore or rationalize away other Biblical texts that they don’t like, such as Leviticus 18:22 (ESV – You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination.)  So why do they find Exodus 21 so authoritative?

They ignore passages like Romans 1 where Paul explicitly declares homosexual behavior to be sinful because they think Paul didn’t know enough about biology and psychology (and they unwittingly tip their hand that they don’t believe any scripture is truly inspired by God).  But if Paul is so ignorant and scripture is un-inspired, why trust Moses to know key scientific facts?  They should dismiss the “miscarriage” term even if it had been in the original text because he didn’t have access to the scientific fact that a new human life begins at conception.

3. They don’t even agree with the other teachings of Exodus 21, such as verses 23-25.

But if there is harm, then you shall pay life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.

They are almost exclusively anti-capital punishment.  So why do they rationalize away the destruction of over a million innocent human beings per year in the U.S. based on a poor translation of a single word and then ignore the rest of the passage which is much more clear?

4. They ignore the endless pro-life passages in the Bible.

In summary, Christians (the uninformed kind) and “Christians” (the fake kind) who use Exodus 21 as support for abortion on demand fail on many levels.  If it weren’t for people like them Roe v Wade and the destruction that followed would not have happened.

More here:  The Misuse of Exodus 21:22-25 by Pro-Choice Advocates by John Piper.

Pro-abort Rachel Held Evans uses (false) exceptions to make bad rules

As the saying goes, exceptions make bad rules.  But in the case of pro-abort “Christian” Racist Held Evans, she uses a false exception to make a horribly bad rule.

She plays  on the sympathies of those with children diagnosed in utero with health issues.  In her world, it is much better to kill the child right away because she might have serious health issues when born.  That ignores that doctors and diagnoses are sometimes wrong (I’ve personally met several people who are glad they didn’t heed the advice to kill their children). It also ignores that God doesn’t permit mercy killings (then again, since when did pro-LGBTQX Mrs. Evans care what Jesus said?).

But as bad as that is, faux-lifer Evans isn’t using that argument to make the case to ban all abortions except those in her example  She uses it to justify all abortions at any time, and to have taxpayers pay for abortions for those who can’t afford to kill their children.  She piles evil upon evil.  When pro-aborts make deceptive claims like that, ask them exactly which abortions they want to make illegal.  Answer: None.

And to make it worse, she virtue signals in her pro-abort Tweet.  You see, she is more righteous and caring than you because she would consider killing her child while you wouldn’t.

Source: Pro-LGBT Activist Who Thinks She’s A Christian Defends Abortion – Reformation Charlotte:

In an ultimate display of selfishness, Held Evans, a professing Christian (of course she isn’t a real Christian, but she has many Christian followers), asserts that she isn’t sure what she would do if she were told by a doctor that her unborn child may have a birth defect affecting the “quality” of the child’s life.

The problem here isn’t that Held Evans is concerned with the quality of the child’s life. Held Evans is concerned about the quality of her own life. She — and other abortion supporters just like her — see children not as a gift from God made in the image of God, but as a burden. Further, a child that may need special care and extra attention would, in Held Evans’ eyes, decrease her own “quality of life.”This is the sickness of the pro-choice movement. You can’t call yourself a Christian while holding to anti-Christ beliefs. The gospel calls us to lay our own lives down, pick up our cross, and follow Jesus. Held Evans and the many pro-choice (or undecided) people out there have failed to see the goodness of God and the gift of salvation in Christ. They are, regardless of their claims, unregenerate and need the forgiveness of Jesus Christ found only through repentance and faith.

I saw the Gosnell movie. You should too.

I hadn’t been to a movie in at least a year.  I can’t even remember what the last one was. But I saw Gosnell: The Trial of America’s Biggest Serial Killer tonight.  I hope you do as well.

You know how it ends, so I can’t spoil that. But these comments might tell you more than you want to know ahead of time, so you’ve been warned.

The acting and production values were good, and much better than expected. The guy who played Gosnell was amazing.

They obviously used some poetic license to move the plot along, but to their credit they didn’t appear to exaggerate any of the key facts.  The guy was so over-the-top it seemed like overkill just to describe it.

There were a couple unnecessary things that detracted in a minor way (I’m pretty sure that real coroners don’t hand scalpels to District Attorneys and let them cut up cadavers at all, let alone without gloves and masks).  But you get those in any movie.

While the trial and key players kept making the point that Gosnell was on trial for murder, not abortion, they did make a lot of good pro-life statements.  The “good” abortionist, there to make Gosnell look like a “bad” one,  described a 2nd term abortion in detail, including injecting a needle in the child’s heart to kill her, evacuating the “gray matter” (i.e., brains) to make her skull collapse, etc.  That’s more than most voters have probably ever heard.

Never forget that according to the Left — including the “Christian” Left — Gosnell’s only problem was killing the children a little too late.  They support unrestricted abortions to the child’s first breath and want more of them with taxpayer funding.  And despite their “safe, legal and rare” lies, the government really did prevent inspections from being done at Gosnell’s clinic.

Kudos to everyone involved with the production.  Hope you go see it!

Are you going to see the Gosnell movie? Please spread the word!

I’m so glad to see they made this.  The trailer looks great.  I haven’t been to a movie in over a year, but I may make an exception for this one.

Initially, the government deliberately ignored the greatest serial killer in American history.  Fortunately, someone finally took him on.  But unfortunately, the media did a choreographed embargo on the trial.  I remember searching MSNBC and the LA Times, among other Leftist sites, and getting zero hits for his name.  Zero.  That is active suppression.

When I would teach pro-life reasoning training to new Care Net Pregnancy Center volunteers I’d ask if they had heard of Kermit Gosnell.  Usually only about 25% had — and this was from a group of very committed pro-lifers!  The media was very effective at hiding it.

Not surprisingly, Facebook is choking ads for the film.  You can only imagine what other suppression Twitter and the rest of Big Tech are engaged in.

Make no mistake: Those Molech-worshiping ghouls love abortion.

Please share the word on this movie!  Even if it just gets people to search on the topic it will be worth it.

Are you ready to respond to pro-abortion arguments?

With the impending confirmation of Brett Kavanaugh as a Supreme Court Justice there is more talk than usual about abortion, and that will only increase from here.  Are you you ready to respond to people graciously when they make bad pro-abortion arguments?

The arguments are varied, but the most common ones are easy to refute.  For example, they love to play on people’s  emotions and pretend that we are hostile to rape victims if we don’t let them kill their children.  But just turn it around on them and ask, “So are you saying that you’d support making all abortions illegal except in the cases of rape?”  I guarantee you that the response will be “no.”  Then you simply say, “Then why are you exploiting rape victims to make your case for unrestricted abortions, and why do you support the Democrats’ policies of increasing abortions with taxpayer funding?”  it is just that easy.  Bonus points for reminding them how Planned Parenthood and other abortionists protect rapists and sex traffickers.

And when you get the inevitable “pro-lifers don’t care about children after they are born argument,” share these points.

This is a video where I teach about pro-life reasoning.  I used to give this content to Care Net Pregnancy Center volunteers.

Faux-lifers and loving your neighbor

One of the easiest ways to out faux-lifers (that is, pro-abortion people who pretend to be pro-life) is to keep them talking.  They often claim the name of Christ and that they love their neighbors.  They ever-so-briefly concede the humanity of the child and say how they would never have an abortion and wish they didn’t have to happen.

But they quickly forget about their neighbor in the womb and launch into tortured rationalizations about why they vote for politicians and support groups like Planned Parenthood that fight for unrestricted abortions to the child’s first breath.  They use every sound bite that the professional pro-aborts use.

So just ask them this: If you were in the womb, would you want someone to protect you from being crushed and dismembered?  And if you were going to be destroyed that way, would you at least want to be given anesthetic first?  After all, the faux-lifers fight to keep abortion legal to the child’s first breath and without anesthetic (they know that laws requiring anesthetics would remind people that the children do suffer when being killed, and they must prop up the lie that the children aren’t “really” living until their first breath).

The pro-aborts will squirm and go through all sorts of mental gymnastics to rationalize their inconsistency.  They’ll realize their reasoning is poor, so they’ll resort to attacking you instead. But just keep pointing back to their neighbor in the womb.  If they truly love their neighbors, how can they not try to protect their lives?

I also keep this jpg file handy to share with those who repeat the pro-abortion canard that pro-lifers don’t care about children after they are born.  I find that to be the #1 pro-abortion argument on the Internet.  It lets the pro-aborts pretend to kinda-sorta oppose abortion while attacking the character of pro-lifers.  There are nine things wrong with their sound bite.  Actually more, but the font was getting too small.  Feel free to use without attribution!