Tag Archives: roe v wade

Roundup

Are you equipped to respond to pro-abortion arguments?

1 Comment

With Roe v Wade being back in the news, there is more talk than usual about abortion, and that will only increase from here.  Are you ready to respond to people graciously when they make bad pro-abortion arguments? It is easier than you think. Don’t miss this opportunity.

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.

Using the “trot out the toddler” argument from Stand to Reason is useful in refuting nearly every pro-abortion argument. When the Left — including the “Christian” Left — makes excuses for being able to murder children in the womb, just give a parallel example with a toddler in place of the unborn. Would they approve of killing toddlers to help a woman’s education, career, sexual desires, freedom, etc.? They generally would say no (although they are getting more extreme by the day!). Since the unborn are human children, they deserve the same right to life.

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

Here’s a similar version in text form. Feel free to copy and paste any of this without attribution.

Do you have any idea how much time and money I donate to help the poor or how much I pay in taxes?  [Pause]  Didn’t think so.  So why not stick to the topic, which is whether you should be able to crush and dismember children in the womb?  The “pro-lifers don’t care about those outside the womb/haven’t adopted all the children/etc.” canard is false on many levels. 
1. If people were slaughtering toddlers, the elderly or anyone else the way they do unborn children, I guarantee that we would be protesting that as well.  So we are completely consistent in protecting innocent human lives regardless of location and yes, we do care for life post-birth.
2. You can speak against moral evils all day, every day without being obligated to care for all the victims for life. If mothers were killing toddlers for the same reasons they give for abortions (money, career, love life, pressure from boyfriends/parents, etc.) would you stay quiet? Would you lodge the same criticism at those who spoke against toddler-cide without adopting all the children? Hopefully not. The question is whether the unborn are human beings. They are. At least that’s what all the embryology textbooks say. Just because they are smaller, more dependent, and in a unique environment (formerly synonymous with a safe place) doesn’t mean their lives aren’t worthy of protection.  The right to life is a foundational human right.
3. The premise is false.  Countless pro-lifers help women and children before and after birth with their own time and money.  Pregnancy Resource Centers offer an array of free services. Planned Parenthood and the like make millions via abortion.
4. Asking the government to take money by force from others to supposedly help the poor does not qualify as charity on your part.
5. Do you criticize the American Cancer Society for not working on heart disease?  If not, why are you being prideful about your preferred ministry over what others feel called to?  That is, if you actually do anything for others at all.  Using your logic, William Wilberforce didn’t do much because he “only” cared about abolishing the slave trade (not true, of course, as he did more than that, but it shows how ridiculous the pro-abortion argument is).
6. Unless they want forced abortions, pro-choicers have the same obligations to help that they put on pro-lifers.
7. The claim that we don’t care about the children outside the womb is demonstrably false.  But even if their claim was true, it seems like the greater sin would be to approve of a child being literally crushed and dismembered rather than just not personally feeding someone else’s living child.
8. Imagine saying something similar to justify keeping slavery legal: “You think slavery is wrong but won’t help them get jobs, etc.”
9. Your basic reasoning is this: “It is OK to kill the child but not to risk her being impoverished.”
10. IF you actually help them outside the womb, we could swap labels and dismiss you: “You only help them outside but let them be killed inside.” Still illogical, but that’s what you get.

Or you can use my short version: We are completely consistent on this topic, as we oppose crushing and dismembering children inside or outside the womb. If you were killing your toddlers as well, we’d also oppose that.

I like that response because it is brief and it spells out what abortion does.

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

Roundup

On Roe v Wade . . .

4 Comments

Updates at the bottom

That’s huge news about Roe v Wade if it is true that the case will be overturned. Hopefully, they will find and jail whoever leaked the information, but it is good that it came out earlier versus later. The pro-aborts would lose their minds whenever it happened, and the farther from the elections, the better.

The Molech-worshiping ghouls are gnashing their teeth already because it may be slightly harder to kill their children in some states. They don’t realize that in most states, they’ll still be able to kill their children up to their first breath and without even giving the kids an anesthetic.

Make no mistake: While many states will still have unrestricted abortions, countless lives will be saved, and people will think differently about sex. And that matters. And yes, many organizations will offer to transport women to Leftist states to kill their children, and many companies will do the Molech-math and decide that killing children saves money compared to delivering and insuring them. But the “if legal, then moral” calculus used by many will be upended, and there will definitely be fewer children murdered overall.

And who do we have to thank? Donald Trump! Not Bush. Not all the Republican congresses we’ve had. Yet all the faux-lifers still hate Trump with the heat of a thousand suns, even though he’s been out of office for over a year. A belated thank-you to Justice Ginsburg, a true Molech-worshiping ghoul, for “retiring” when she did.

And the faux-lifers are already out in force. This is such an easy way to spot them. If they cared about child murder, they’d cheer this news. Yet here were are. Example: SBC Prof. KSP Says Having Roe. v Wade Overturned Wasn’t Worth Having Trump as President.

Another example: Kyle J. Howard is ‘Triggered’ by SC Ruling Because White People ‘Sacrificed Black People’s Joy and Flourising’ To Attain it — Abortions kill black children at a rate more than three times that of whites, yet Howard and the other “pro-life” and “anti-racist” “Christian” Leftists are having a sads today. Rachel Held Evans would be proud of people like this.

It is so creepy that Leftists teach their children that it would have been morally permissible to kill them as they were being delivered.

Even if Roe is overturned, the work is not over. We need abolitionist laws, just as with slavery. And abortion is worse than slavery.

Please pray that this is true and that the pro-life judges won’t be intimidated by the death threats and such from the loving, tolerant Left – including the “Christian” Left. And pray that this boomerangs on the Molech-worshipers politically.

Since abortion will be in the news, it is a great time to brush up on your pro-life reasoning! Use this as a time to correct people on all the fallacious sound bites used to support child murder. For starters, when they say, “A woman’s right to choose,” ask them to finish the sentence: A woman’s right to choose to kill her child.” And when they mention reproductive health, point out that every abortion kills a child who has already been reproduced. They are using anti-science arguments. Also, see Abort73.com, a terrific anti-abortion site.

__________

Updates

Biden gets philosophical about aborting ‘a child’ — I’m glad he admitted that abortion kills children. That’s the language I always use. I know what people mean when they say “baby,” but I prefer the precision of “child.” Pro-aborts balk at that, but then I just refer them to the nice folks at Dictionary.com*. He’s wrong about the “major religions” bit, though. Even the non-religious Hippocratic Oath was explicitly anti-abortion for over 2,000 years until the pro-aborts took over the medical community a few decades ago. And Christianity has always opposed abortions until the “Christian” Left started worshiping Molech in the 70s. And you better believe that Muslims aren’t pro-aborts.

*Child: 4. a human fetus: My sister miscarried with her first child at seven months. [Though the Leftist dictionary example could be, “My sister aborted her first child at seven months”]

__________

These white, racist Leftists are freaking out because fewer black children will be crushed and dismembered in the womb. That makes them very sad. Seems kinda racist.

__________

The Left went back to “my body, my choice” rather quickly given their tyrannical vaccine and mask mandate rhetoric, don’t you think? Oh, and abortion still kills another human body and should be illegal.

__________

Well, they are willing to crush and dismember their own children without anesthetic, so I wouldn’t put anything past their dark hearts. Seems like the FBI would be more interested in these threats than the parents politely protesting at school boards, but that’s just me.

__________

9 Myths about Abortion Rights and Roe v. Wade — great summary.

__________

Pro-life

Exodus 21 and abortion

1 Comment

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.

Favorites, Politics, Pro-life reasoning

How pro-life apologetics–and a little common sense–could have swayed the elections

Leave a comment

I’m re-running this in honor of Rand Paul turning the tables on the Left and asking if they are OK with killing a 7 lb. baby in the womb.  I much prefer Cruz or Walker over Paul, but it was a great answer.  We need more of that!  

Also see Turning rocks into softballs where I offer some other tips on how to respond to the questions about rape, incest or abortions in general.  

We need to be shrewd as serpents and innocent as doves!

—–

A few gaffes – most notably by candidates Akin and Mourdock – cost the Republicans two Senate seats and possibly the White House.  But with just a little common sense and some simple pro-life arguments they could have easily turned this to our advantage.  Romney and others could have done the same thing whether the specific rape/abortion questions came up or not.

The errors resulted when the candidates tried to articulate theological concepts that can’t be distilled into sound bites and that are virtually certain to be misinterpreted by the media and voters.  If you are running for office you should be skilled at knowing what hot topic questions you’ll get and how to steer the answers to your advantage.

So when the topic of abortions in the case of rape and incest came up, they didn’t need to get theological.  They could have noted any or all of the following.  Consider how simple yet accurate these arguments are and how they would resonate with the average voter – even pro-choice voters, the majority of whom side with pro-lifers on topics like parental notification, late-term abortions and taxpayer funding of abortions.

  • Rape is an incredibly serious crime and I support punishing it to the full extent of the law.
  • Incest, in this case, isn’t about 30-something siblings who are attracted to each other, it is about innocent young girls being abused by relatives.  That means it is rape.  Here’s a perfect example.
  • Statutory rape is rape, and the most rampant kind in our society.  Planned Parenthood has been caught countless times on audio and video systematically hiding statutory rape.  If elected, I will not only fight to stop their Federal funding but I would work tirelessly to hold them accountable for their crimes of hiding these rapes. If a 28 yr. old guy is statutorily raping your 13 yr. old daughter or granddaughter then Planned Parenthood will be glad to destroy the evidence and hide the crime – funded by your tax dollars!  They have also been caught hiding sex traffickers, and the opposition to sex trafficking is one of the few issues where Democrats and Republicans have common ground.   Surely we can all agree that we don’t want our tax dollars to fund organizations that hide that crime!
  • If you want to entertain capital punishment for the rapist then we could debate that, but why would the innocent child have to suffer for the father’s crimes?  It is a scientific fact that the unborn are unique human beings from fertilization.  Go check out any embryology textbook.  Let’s put the focus on punishing the guilty rapists and those who hide their crimes.
  • If you want to understand the theology about God’s sovereignty I’d be glad to share it with you, but that is beyond the scope of this debate and would take some time to explain.  But you don’t have to be a theologian to know that rape is evil and hiding the crimes of rapists is evil.
  • Roe v Wade won’t be overturned and even if it was it wouldn’t make abortion illegal — it would just turn it over to the states.
  • Remember that the official platform of the Democrats is now pro-abortion, not pro-choice.  They want abortions without restriction — which would include partial-birth abortions (aka infanticide) — and they want pro-lifers to fund them with their taxes.  That means Democrats want more abortions, not less, and they want others to pay for them.  Obamacare is already forcing people to pay for some abortions, and it is deliberately violating religious freedoms and conscience clauses.

They could also respond by asking some of the questions the media never asks pro-abortion candidates:

1. You say you support a woman’s right to make her own reproductive choices in regards to abortion and contraception. Are there any restrictions you wouldapprove of?

2. In 2010, The Economist featured a cover storyon “the war on girls” and the growth of “gendercide” in the world – abortion based solely on the sex of the baby. Does this phenomenon pose a problem for you or do you believe in the absolute right of a woman to terminate a pregnancy because the unborn fetus is female?

3. In many states, a teenager can have an abortion without her parents’ consent or knowledge but cannot get an aspirin from the school nurse without parental authorization. Do you support any restrictions or parental notification regarding abortion access for minors?

4. If you do not believe that human life begins at conception, when do you believe it begins? At what stage of development should an unborn child have human rights?

5. Currently, when genetic testing reveals an unborn child has Down Syndrome, most women choose to abort. How do you answer the charge that this phenomenon resembles the “eugenics” movement a century ago – the slow, but deliberate “weeding out” of those our society would deem “unfit” to live?

6. Do you believe an employer should be forced to violate his or her religious conscience by providing access to abortifacient drugs and contraception to employees?

7. Alveda King, niece of Martin Luther King, Jr. has said that “abortion is the white supremacist’s best friend,” pointing to the fact that Black and Latinos represent 25% of our population but account for 59% of all abortions. How do you respond to the charge that the majority of abortion clinics are found in inner-city areas with large numbers of minorities?

8. You describe abortion as a “tragic choice.” If abortion is not morally objectionable, then why is it tragic? Does this mean there is something about abortion that is different than other standard surgical procedures?

9. Do you believe abortion should be legal once the unborn fetus is viable – able to survive outside the womb?

10. If a pregnant woman and her unborn child are murdered, do you believe the criminal should face two counts of murder and serve a harsher sentence?

How hard would that be?  Instead, Akin, Mourdock et al answered foolishly and cost us Senate seats and possibly the presidency, and they missed an easy opportunity to educate people on the most important moral issue of our time.

Please equip yourself with basic pro-life reasoning and be prepared to share it.

Politics, Pro-life

Q. If Obama likes abortion so much, why won’t he say the word?

3 Comments

A. Because deep down we all know it is murder.

From his recent statement celebrating the Roe v. Wade verdict that has led to the slaughter of 57 million innocent but unwanted human beings.  Count how many times he says the A-word (hint: zero).

Today, as we reflect on the 41st anniversary of the Supreme Court decision in Roe v. Wade, we recommit ourselves to the decision’s guiding principle: that every woman should be able to make her own choices about her body and her health.

That commits the most common pro-abortion fallacy, which is ignoring the unwanted human being killed during the procedure.  What about her choices, her body and her health?

We reaffirm our steadfast commitment to protecting a woman’s access to safe, affordable health care and her constitutional right to privacy, including the right to reproductive freedom.

Never let them get away with the Orwellian term reproductive freedom.  It is a scientific fact that a new human being is created at fertilization, so all abortions kill human beings who have already reproduced.  

And we resolve to reduce the number of unintended pregnancies, support maternal and child health, and continue to build safe and healthy communities for all our children.

If you really want safe communities for children you should stop killing them.  Make abortion illegal and you’ll cut down on a few million murders per year.

Because this is a country where everyone deserves the same freedom and opportunities to fulfill their dreams.

 

Everyone?  How about the unborn?  It takes a special kind of evil for him to say that while fulfilling the Democrats’ dream of increased abortions via taxpayer funding and no restrictions.  From their 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.

Via Obama Celebrates 41 Years of Abortion: Roe an “Opportunity to Fulfill Dreams” | LifeNews.com.

Roundup

Roundup

3 Comments

The NSA is doing in-depth spying on Americans and the IRS is guilty of aggressively targeting Obama’s “enemies” (aka citizens of the United State).  But they would definitely never use the NSA information to target his enemies . . . right?

—

Norma McCorvey of Roe v. Wade Abortion Case Makes First Pro-Life TV Ad — She spoke at our Care Net banquet a few years ago.  Great lady and quite a character!

—

I don’t like Facebook memes that start off with, “You probably won’t re-post this, because you are a selfish jerk and hate the military and kids with cancer and puppies” themes — and especially the “Christian” ones that basically say, “If you don’t re-post this you are worse than Judas.”  If people would stop succumbing to a chain-letter mentality then those memes would cease.  I never re-post those.

—

How to Write a Hugely-Popular Piece for Huffington Post Religion – The author makes some good points.   And if you want to get kicked off HuffPo as a commenter, wade among the vile anti-Christian comments and offer polite but clear comments that make it clear that the authors should not be considered Christians. And use Bible verses in context. They hate that.

In the same way that you wouldn’t take a bacon-loving, Jew-loving, Koran-denying, Mohammad-denying “Muslim” seriously, those authors shouldn’t be considered authentic Christians.

—

Static Snapshots Reveal Nothing About Economics.— True.  It is only in the cynical, hopeless worldview of Liberalism that “currently poor = will always be poor” and “currently poor = always someone else’s fault.”

—

UK: Half a million new STI [STD] infections in 2012 —  My guess is that their sex ed isn’t truly comprehensive and fails to mention the benefits of following God’s plan.

The UK has some of the most aggressive and early sex education of any Western country. But all of this effort to educate young people hasn’t reduced the amount of sexual activity at all. When young people learn about the mechanics of sex, and are taught that recreational sex is normal and healthy, then they have more of it. Young people aren’t able to assess risks like adults can. They think that nothing will happen to them. No amount of sex education can cure youthful recklessness.

—

Three minutes of acts and wisdom on the alleged 77% female/male pay ratio.

—

If we redefine marriage, then what will the schools teach our children about it? — The LGBTQX lobby knows the answer, but sadly, too many naive people haven’t thought it through.

—

World Congress of Families Endorses Russian Bill Banning Homosexual Propaganda to Minors — Good for them.  They are learning from our mistakes.

—

Washington DC is ruining our health (but we can reclaim it) — Political payoffs cause all sorts of problems, including food and health areas.  I like using the Fooducate app to understand what is really in the foods we buy (though it can be a bit of a buzzkill sometimes).

—

Eric Holder, U.S. Attorney General is corrupt and incompetent.  Why is he still employed?

  • Holder blowing off and ending the New Black Panthers voter intimidation issue
  • All the agencies involved with Fast and Furious, including the DOJ at the top, were run with Holder as the boss, yet he knew nothing, and stonewalled, and is still stonewalling, Congress. Not too mention the hundreds of dead Mexican citizens and 2 US federal agents
  • Revealed the identities of 9 CIA interrogators.
  • His departments spying on the AP, and he knew nothing
  • Spying on James Rosen and people associated with him, forgetting that he signed off on the warrant, and still he knew nothing
  • Retaliation against whistleblowers, who he is supposed to protect as the nation’s top cop
  • Going after Arizona and other states that passed immigration tightening laws (and admitting he never read the massive 10 page Arizona law), while simultaneously ignoring sanctuary cities which blow off federal law
  • Failing to apply federal law to Colorado and their legalization of marijuana, a federal Schedule I drug
  • Lawsuits against states which violate the 10th amendment
  • The aforementioned prosecutorial misconduct in the Ted Stevens case.
  • The FBI comes under the DOJ: what took them to get so long to Benghazi?
  • As the nation’s top cop, being head of the DOJ, his seemingly inability to have any knowledge as to what goes on in the DOJ, which is known as “incompetence”.
  • And more.

—

If gun registration is required, it is only a matter of time until they are confiscated.  Don’t be naive.

—

I’ll be glad to buy a few of these for people who quality . . .

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?”

Politics

How to expose the false pro-abortion outrage over Kermit Gosnell

7 Comments

While most media outlets, politicians, pro-abortion groups and false teachers are still silent on the Kermit Gosnell infanticide case, some have realized that there is no way around it and are trying to feign outrage and hypocritically and falsely blame pro-lifers. It is your basic damage control, but they shouldn’t get away with it in the way Planned Parenthood gets a media pass when busted for hiding statutory rape and sex-trafficking.

Cases in point are the Planned Parenthood Tweet in the image below and a typical “Gosnell was so bad but it is the fault of pro-lifers” nonsense from wolves in sheep’s clothing.

So how do you “out” these people? Simple. Just point to the facts by saying:

1. Kermit Gosnell was pro-late term and “partial-birth” abortion. So are President Obama, the rest of the Democrats* and Planned Parenthood. Do you agree or disagree with them? If you agree with them, why are you and they so outraged at his actions?

2. The main horror of Gosnell was killing babies 30 seconds after it was legal. Planned Parenthood and Obama are both on record as opposing protections for infants who survive abortions. Please explain the moral significance of those 30 seconds and why one is capital murder and one is merely the morally benign or even morally good choice of the mother. Also explain whether you agree with Obama and Planned Parenthood, and why it isn’t hypocritical for PP to complain about Gosnell.

3. Kermit Gosnell was pro-taxpayer-funded abortion. So are President Obama, the rest of the Democrats* and Planned Parenthood. Do you agree or disagree with them? If you agree, then would you concede that forcing pro-lifers to pay for abortions would be more of a pro-abortion position than a pro-choice position?

4. Democrats and Planned Parenthood have aggressively fought the application of health standards and inspections of abortion clinics. This political pressure resulted in even existing laws being ignored by multiple agencies. Isn’t it hypocritical to now blame the Republicans for Gosnell’s safety issues?

5. Given the complete breakdown in oversight over Gosnell’s activities by multiple agencies and that he was only caught by accident by another agency, what makes you think that all the other abortionists run clean clinics and have adequate oversight when killing innocent but unwanted human beings?

6. Given that the Left plays the race card over all sorts of made-up things, why are they ignoring the real racism of Gosnell, and, presumably other abortion clinics — not to mention the fact that abortions kill blacks at a rate three times that of whites and that taxpayer-funded abortions will increase that ratio?

7. As bad as Gosnell was, there weren’t any documented cases of him hiding statutory rape or sex-trafficking as there have been for Planned Parenthood. They broke many laws. Should they be punished to the “full extent” for running a “criminal enterprise” as they have called for in Gosnell’s case? Should they still receive hundreds of millions of dollars in taxpayer funding?

Please ask those things as nicely as you can to let people have a “dignified surrender” and acknowledge how wrong they are on the greatest moral issue of our time.

Reminder: Keep Tweeting #gosnell as much as you can — such as with this post!

* If you vote for Democrats, you are now pro-abortion, not pro-choice. And not just pro-abortion, but pro-“partial birth” abortion (aka infanticide). From their 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.

If you want to require taxpayer-funded to increase abortions then you aren’t pro-choice, you are pro-abortion. Forcing pro-lifers to pay for abortions = pro-abortion. Wanting to increase the number of abortions = pro-abortion. If you are pro-“partial birth” abortion then you are really pro-legalized infanticide.

Politics, Pro-life

Guns vs. abortions

11 Comments

This post about Purchasing A Gun vs. Purchasing An Abortion made some excellent points about the many inconsistencies in how the Left approaches the Constitution, regulations and life issues.  Hat tip: My favorite blogger

Let’s take a look at the differences and similarities between purchasing a gun and purchasing an abortion.

Both guns and abortions are goods or services which are produced and purchased on the free market.

When a gun is purchased, there’s a 99%  chance that gun will never result in the death of a single individual. When an abortion is purchased, there is a 99% chance the abortion will result in the death of an individual.

My tax dollars aren’t used to purchase a gun for someone who can’t afford it. My tax dollars are used to purchase an abortion for a woman or a girl who can’t afford it.

You can legally use a gun to kill an attacker in self-defense, if your life is threatened. You can legally use an abortion to kill a baby for any reason, including the mother’s life being threatened by the baby.

You can get suspended from school for drawing a picture of a gun. Read here. You can get the morning after abortion pill from the school nurse.

There is a background check and a waiting period in order to purchase a gun. There is no waiting period or back ground check to purchase an abortion. For a girl under 18 there are 6 states that require at least one parents permission 24 to 48 hours before the abortion.

. . .

On the one hand the left worked to create and expand a nonexistent right, which forced their morality concerning abortion on the states and the people, and on the other hand, they want to restrict and take away a clearly stated right concerning fire arms, which would also force their morality on the states and the people.

I guess the lesson to be learned is, the left wants to force their morality on us through government coercion, rather than trying to persuade people to accept their morally superior ideas as gospel.

I encourage you to read the entire post to pick up the points about the Constitution..

Pro-life

“But they might be poor!”

6 Comments

There are lots of bad pro-abortion arguments, but one of the worst is that the unborn might end up poor.  Here are a few things wrong with that.

1. Even if that would be justification to kill an innocent but unwanted human being, that uses the wrong definition of poor.  There are very, very few truly poor people in this country.  Most of the poor (who, as Roxanne notes, are only poor because someone has to be on the left side of the Bell curve) live better than even royalty did 200 years ago.  Some people are so “poor” that they can’t afford to work because they’d be taking a pay cut from their benefits.

That definition of poor would mean that 90% of the world should have been aborted.  Ask anyone using that argument how many Third World countries they have visited.

2. Even if they really would be poor their entire lives and even if that would be justification to kill an innocent but unwanted human being, note the word “might.”  It is the sadly pessimistic but false view of Liberals that once your family is poor that you always stay that way.  But people often move between economic classes.  Hey, just graduate high school and don’t have sex out of wedlock and you are very unlikely to be poor, even by the U.S. definition.

Killing them because something “might” happen sounds like Dr. Nick Riviera from The Simpsons (“Just to be on the safe side, we better pull the plug.”)

3. As with nearly all pro-abortion arguments, it ignores the right to life of the unborn.

4. Using that logic we could do poor people a favor by killing them outside the womb, too.  After all, the size, location, level of development and degree of dependency have no bearing on the value of a human being.  The world just rationalizes it so they can kill unwanted human beings.

—

Sadly, many of those using this argument claim the name of Christ.  A woman in a Bible study once used that as her justification to be “pro-choice,” even though she had been in church her entire life.  The notion that the author of life (Acts 3:15) would be pro-abortion is ridiculous.

If you want to help poor people, that’s great.  But killing them is a dubious way of going about it.