So much bad pro-abortion reasoning, so little time

As evidence that some people get older without getting wiser, this pro-abortion post by an elderly woman and the accompanying  comments section trotted out one fallacious sound bite after another. I noticed it because it linked to my site somehow.

I could have spent hours there but just left the comment below. No use spending too much time in an echo chamber.  They actually seem to think that their bumper sticker mentality makes sense.

The indented parts are comments from the post and the rest is what I wrote.

—–

Like my husband says, “Whether or not to have a child is a woman’s choice. Period. End of story.”

That ignores that a female is destroyed 50% of the time during an abortion. Actually, over 50%, since virtually all gender selection abortions are performed to kill females for the sole reason that they are female. It is the ultimate misogyny.

All your back-slapping sound bites ignore a scientific fact: A new human being is created at conception — http://tinyurl.com/yfje8lq . That isn’t religion, that is science. And abortion destroys that innocent human being.

And how those a-holes have the gall to call themselves ‘pro-life’ when they are calling for death to anyone who is pro-choice is beyond me.

That is a straw man argument. I know it is convenient to demonize your opponents instead of addressing their arguments, but really now — all pro-lifers call for the death of any pro-choicers? C’mon.

For some women it is a time of great sadness – a pregnancy gone wrong, a wanted child not to be.

Using that logic one could support infanticide.

Against abortion? Don’t have one.

Slave owners used the same nonsensical argument. It is like saying, “Don’t like theft? Then don’t steal.” Once again you ignore the human being in the equation who gets killed.

Have you ever noticed that anti-abortionists don’t give a damn about the baby once it’s out of the womb? That’s when all interest in life ceases with these folks.

I hadn’t noticed that. There are more crisis pregnancy centers than abortion clinics, and they offer their services for free — unlike Planned Parenthood, who charges $400 for abortions no matter how poor you are.

And even if we did nothing to help with our time and money, we could still protest the destruction of innocent human life. If the government was going to solve the homeless problem by killing homeless people, could you protest that without having to take them into your house?

Roundup

Junk DNA – the real story — interesting read about how “junk DNA” isn’t junky at all and how evolutionists viewed it as proof of evolution both when it was considered junk and now that it isn’t.  Convenient, eh?

The ACLU’s concerns about privacy seem to vary with who is in the White House.

Wait, Obama used to claim that they weren’t aiming at universal health care.  He must have been misquoted here.  But you can totally trust him that his Executive Order about abortions will stand.

The Left’s shrill cries about potential violence and alleged racist comments (still no evidence, BTW) are really tiresome.  Both sides have freaks, but the media reporting is hopelessly one sided.  Bart Stupak had plenty of threats when he was pretending to be on the pro-life side, but those weren’t widely reported.  Read the link for many more examples.

Planned Parenthood hates black people

Unconscionable

Pedophiles should be in prison for life or dead.  Their recidivism rate is extremely high and they claim many victims, often ruining them for life.  The Pope and the Catholic church are rightly under fire again for more pedophilia cover-ups.

People in leadership who hide pedophiles should be in jail as well, and fired from their jobs at a minimum.

While much sexual abuse involves straight males and young girls, the Catholic church’s issues do not follow that pattern:

In a statement, read out by Arhbishop Silvano Maria Tomasi at a meeting of the United Nations Human Rights Council in Geneva on 22 September 2009, the Holy See stated that the majority of Catholic clergy who had committed acts of sexual abuse against under 18 year olds should not be viewed as paedophiles, but as homosexuals who are attracted to sex with adolescent males. The statement said that rather than paedophilia, “it would be more correct to speak of ephebophilia; being a homosexual attraction to adolescent males” ……. “Of all priests involved in the abuses, 80 to 90% belong to this sexual orientation minority which is sexually engaged with adolescent boys between the ages of 11 and 17.”

The move angered many gay rights organisations, who claimed it was an attempt by the Vatican to redefine the Church’s past problems with paedophilia as problems with homosexuality.

Play all the word games you like, but that fact is that the majority of the abuse involved adult males having sex with young males.  This shows the danger of political correctness.

This is not just a Catholic problem, of course.  Abuse occurs all over.

And as the Hillbuzz gang points out, the MSM never tells the masses about Islamic pedophilia:

First of all, before we say anything negative about the Catholic Church, we would like to point out the simple fact the MSM does not, ever, report on the millions of young boys who are raped on a daily basis in the Middle East, in the name of Islam, by Muslims who consider sex with young boys to be their right.  All of us here studied Islam in college, and no study of Islam is complete without a look at what Muslim men do to young boys.  “Women are for children, boys are for pleasure” is a very common phrase in Islam. Harems of young boys have things done to them no priest has ever done, in any country.  But, in terms of calling Islam out on its many sins, the MSM issues just the sound of crickets.

They also had some interesting anecdotes about suspected gay kids being pushed into the priesthood.

Roundup

Is Christianity a crutch?  Is atheism a crutch?

Seattle Mom: School Sent My Daughter for Secret Abortion without Telling Me — The government thinks it has the right to kill your grandchild and have surgery performed on your daughter without your consent.  But you can’t send her to school with an Advil or she’ll get suspended.

And people want to give the government more control over their health?

The True Cost Of Government Involvement — If history is any indication, Obamacare won’t cost $1 trillion — which would have been insanely high to begin with — it will cost anywhere from $2 trillion to $17 trillion.

Read Ann Coulter’s follow up about her Canada speech that was canceled due to riots — riots fueled by people who hate her.  The irony is so spectacular, yet the Left doesn’t see it.

Obama’s Executive Order is Invalid — But everyone knew that, right?  At least Planned Parenthood knows it.  Faux-lifers like Sojourners pretend it means something, but they are bad actors.

Another faux-lifer / pro-abortion “social gospel” person — she claimed that “Nobody lobbies for powerless little children, other than the “social justice” people!” which is false enough by itself, but she doesn’t lobby for powerless little unborn children.  They consider this to be justice.

She also said, “The question the Social Justice Christians ask, IMO, is “what must I DO to be saved”?”  I pointed out that the question was asked and answered in the Bible in the story of the Philippian jailer:

Then he brought them out and said, “Sirs, what must I do to be saved?” And they said, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household.” (Acts 16:30–31, ESV)

That is the opposite answer of what she gave.  So there’s another “social justice” person teaching a false gospel.

Jim Wallis & wealth redistribution

I don’t watch Glenn Beck but I am glad to know he was highlighting Jim Wallis’ false teachings.  Glenn is a Mormon but he knows the Bible better than Wallis & Co.  Here are videos of Beck talking about Wallace (Hat tip: Christine).

From a January 13, 2006 radio interview with Interfaith Voices:

Host: Are you then calling for the redistribution of wealth in society?

Wallis: Absolutely, without any hesitation.  That’s what the Gospel is all about.

That is classic false teaching.  I’d heed the words of Paul before the words of Wallis:

But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed. As we have said before, so now I say again: If anyone is preaching to you a gospel contrary to the one you received, let him be accursed. (Galatians 1:8–9, ESV)

Galatians 1:10 also applies to these world-lovers:

For am I now seeking the approval of man, or of God? Or am I trying to please man? If I were still trying to please man, I would not be a servant of Christ. (Galatians 1:10, ESV)

More background on Wallis here.  His politics are bad enough, but what really is deceptive about him is is faux centrism.  They milk the “God is not a Republican . . . or a Democrat” sound bite but they don’t believe a word of it.

He was a keynote speaker to the 2008 ACORN Convention.  In a great slip of the tongue, he is almost introduced as Jeremiah Wright.

You can’t change the politicians, you need to change the direction, and ACORN is an organization that can change the direction of the country by pressing from the outside and I have no doubt ACORN will be making their voices heard regardless of who occupies 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.

Lovely.

Faux-lifers

Faux-lifers are the self-identified “pro-lifers” who supported the health care bill.  They fought having the Stupak Amendment added and/or they risked the bill’s passage to ensure that taxpayer-funded abortions would be included.  From now on I consider them pro-abortion, not pro-life or even pro-choice.

These folks claimed that they wanted to reduce abortions.  But you don’t reduce abortions by increasing abortions, and that is what this bill will do.  They’ll insist that better health care will reduce the need for abortions, but under no circumstances does giving away free abortions reduce abortions.

Social justice Christians like Jim Wallis and the Sojourners claim to be pro-life, but they celebrated the passage of the bill. They are pretending that the Executive Order by Obama actually means something. Even Stupak knew it meant nothing.  Do they know something that Planned Parenthood doesn’t know?  Because PP thinks the EO was symbolic and that they will be increasing abortions soon.  And why did they champion the bill all along and not fight for the Stupak Amendment?

False teachers like Chuck Currie specifically cheered the abortion coverage.  That is a twisted but predictable response from someone who claimed to want to reduce abortions.

I would love to be wrong on this, but anyone who thinks that the pro-aborts who fought that long and hard are going to give up because Obama signed an unenforceable piece of paper are either naive or foolish.

They play the fallacious safe, legal and rare card and the “I’ll oppose abortions once there is absolutely no demand for them” line of reasoning.  But they have un-masked themselves permanently: If they weren’t on record strongly fighting for the Stupak Amendment, you know they are really faux-lifers.

Roundup

Ann Coulter files hate speech claim against Canadian university —  where you can speak your mind as long as no one (on the Left) gets offended.  Coming soon to a country near you!

Hillary Clinton is OK with abortions, just not gender-selection abortions — but if they don’t kill innocent human beings, why does the motive count?  (hat tip: Chance)

Great summary on the health care debacle by Marshall.

I should be overjoyed at ACORN calling it quits, but they are obviously just changing their names and reorganizing.  They won’t go far, and they’ll still get their funding.

Bart Stupak and the myth of the “pro-life Democrat” — I can’t tell you how many “pro-life Democrats” I know who voted for Obama, the most pro-abortion President ever.

False teacher considers taxpayer-funded abortions to being part of a “beloved community” — no surprise there.

Did everyone sign the health care bill? You know I did!

Seriously,  I will grant that Obama & Co. do a much better job of influencing people than the Republicans.  It is proven — though not that well known — that even getting people to do small gestures like signing a document or donating $5 dramatically increases their commitment to a candidate or program (even a horrible, horrible candidate/program like this one).