Looks like Planned Parenthood will get nailed by a series of undercover videos. Again.

And the mainstream media will look the other way.  Again.  And Congress will keep giving them hundreds of millions of your tax dollars.  See After all, sex traffickers need Planned Parenthood, too – Jill Stanek.

This time PP is trying to get ahead of the embarrassment, but they are fumbling because they don’t know the content of the videos.  Apparently they don’t just aggressively and systematically hide statutory rape, they are willing to hide underage sex workers (slaves would be a more accurate term).  Why do people expect decent, law-abiding behavior from those who kill innocent human beings for a living?

P.S. I agree with Planned Parenthood’s view: “An abortion kills the life of a baby after it has begun” At least that was their view in this 1964 advertisement. Did they learn anything about science in the few years after that when they changed their minds? Of course not. Science couldn’t be more clear: A new human being is created at conception.

(Got the picture from Glenn)

82 thoughts on “Looks like Planned Parenthood will get nailed by a series of undercover videos. Again.

    • Hi Alysa,

      I really hope we can get PP de-funded someday, but it won’t be easy.

      Re. CPCs — I’m on the board of one and we do not seek or want government help. Too many strings attached. We’d much rather go it alone, and God has really blessed the ministry.

      • Totally understand about not wanting government funding but I was more referring to CPCs not being recognized as valid places to get prenatal care/help because of them not doing abortions. I guess that will always be the case as long as people are getting paid to do abortions.

  1. Hi Neil,
    You wrote:
    “Why do people expect decent, law-abiding behavior from those who kill innocent human beings for a living?”

    Exactly. The way we should look upon those who support a woman’s right to choose as well. Why trust someone who is willing to kill a child for a perceived right? God has not given us this “right.” We are endowed with certain inalienable rights, killing others is not one of them.

    • Awesome line. Also highlights the absurdity of saying, “But Gosnell was the exception!”. No, he’s the rule, and the “pro-choice” crowd fights every possible statute that would make abortions safer.

      “Safe, legal, and rare”. Now that they’ve thrown the “rare” and “safe” parts overboard, can we all band together and agree that “legal” should be next??

  2. One of the bloggers I read worked on creating a wiki based on the Grand Jury Report about Philadelphia abortionist Kermit Gosnell. You can read it here; and please pass it on to anyone who may be interested in it. I’m afraid that the case hasn’t gotten the national attention it deserves, but hope that through blogs and social networking, we can keep the atrocities committed in Gosnell’s “House of Horrors” strong in people’s minds, so that they keep pressure on elected officials to keep this sort of thing from happening again — both with increased oversight (as opposed to just “overlooking”) of abortion mills and abortionists, and with shutting down of filthy clinics and those who violate the law, as well as pulling funding from these places, among other things.

    • Thanks, Kathy. I’ll be blogging about that soon. I suggest a double approach: Remind people of what our current laws and processes have permitted (e.g., Gosnell & Co.), yet also point out that even without people like him abortion is still wrong and should be illegal.

  3. Hello Neil. You and I have gone around on the arbortion issue before. That is how we became aquainted, as you should recall. Helen has posted another after your governor announced he wants sonograms for all people seeking abortions. I know this is probably your most passionate subject and didn’t know if you were interested in getting into the fray again. I don’t think we will all agree on the abortion issue before Jesus returns. I know it is used as a political football. I was grateful that they were steadily declining until the economy tanked and now there seems to be a slight uptick again.

    I hate abortion and agree we are snuffing out a human life every time one is performed. I don’t need proof, it is common sense. Yet I still think that making them illegal is not the answer. I think that is where we disagree the most.

    I do think PP offers a valuable service to the community aside from any abortions they may support. Forgive the pun “we shouldn’t throw out the baby with the bathwater.” My wife and daughters have used them in the past for gynecological checkups and to obtain birth control prescriptions when they could not afford regular doctors due to no health insurance.

    On a separate note, I know you support crisis pregnancy centers. My question to you is, do any of those offer checkups for girls/women, or are they strictly designed as an effort to convince folks to avoid abortion?

    Not wanting to be combative…

    • poolman,
      Why shouldn’t we outlaw murder of the pre-born; we already outlaw the murder of the born.

      PP give no service that cannot be provided elsewhere. Throw out the baby with the bath water if the baby is a demon, which in this case it is.

      We have CPCs in Iowa City and Cedar Rapids which provide the exact same services, and are even providing sonograms. We don’t need PP at all, let alone supported by taxes.

      • Why shouldn’t we outlaw murder of the pre-born; we already outlaw the murder of the born.

        I guess because murder is determined by the intent of the one who does the killing. Murder is premeditated killing and has historically been associated with individual or multiple persons who are breathing the same air we are and able to function alive as a person or being. A child in utero, no matter at what stage of development, is entirely dependent on the host (mother) to sustain their individual life. In later stages and with modern technology, we can sustain them without the host. This was not possible in centuries past. I think we can actually grow whole children in test tubes today. That would be an entirely different situation and would in no way threaten the life or livelihood of another human being(mother) so is worthy od consideration regarding the subject of murder. It just is not as cut and dry as you would like to make it seem. If it was, we wouldn’t need to debate it. :wink:

        Of course scripture tells us if we intend murder with our words or even in our heart, even if we don’t act on it, it is the same thing in the eyes of God. Now that would be tough to legislate. I think we would convict most of our politicians, pundits, and citizenry if we applied His standard.

      • Well, the INTENT is to kill a child who is innocent of any crime – that, my friend, is murder.

        The mother is not just a “host,” which is part of the problem with the abortion mentality.

        The issue of abortion is indeed “cut and dried.” Only in extreme rare cases have the mothers been in jeopardy by carrying a child, and modern technology can usually circumvent that danger. We do not make policy based on rare situations.

      • I could apply the same logic to anyone who aids in the manufacture of weapons of mass destruction. They serve no other purpose but to kill mass populations, innocent and otherwise. Additionally there is the damage to the planet…

        God is the only one who truly knows intent. He is keeping an account. We humans have laws, courts, and juries to hope to administer justice in our humanistic way. We are to obey the laws of the land in which we live, unless they obviously contradict the law of God. God’s law is clear and summed up in two commandments: Love God with all your being. Love your neighbor as yourself. By these simple rules that Jesus declared, my neighbor may be a pregnant mother-to-be, but until her infant is birthed, it isn’t my neighbor yet.

        Judge not, lest you be judged. That applies to other humans that inhabit the same planet we do. In my effort to love others as I love myself, I cannot force morality on them. I can only hope teaching, prayer, and example impact their lives. I can find no scripture in the new testament that allows me to force anyone to comply with my beliefs or life choices. If they are a fellow believer, I can point out their failings (sin) and eventually turn them over to the forces of evil to hope to save their soul. If they are an unbeliever, I have only prayer to turn to.

      • poolman, you just went off the deep end of liberalism. War may be just, and when it is we need the weaponry. That is not the same as murder. God led his own people in warfare. Don’t bring in such liberal red-herrings or apples/oranges bad logic.

        Don’t twist the “judge not…” citation. We are indeed to judge righteously. A woman who is pregnant isn’t a “mother to be,” she is a mother already.

        So, if we outlaw abortion that then becomes forcing our morality on others? Every law we have “forces” morality on people. Should we not outlaw murder because it is forcing morality? Should we not outlaw rape because it is forcing morality?

        You refuse to give the pre-born child the right of personhood. You are looking for excuses why it is okay to murder them.

      • I could apply the same logic to anyone who aids in the manufacture of weapons of mass destruction. They serve no other purpose but to kill mass populations, innocent and otherwise. Additionally there is the damage to the planet…

        Please stay on topic. And besides, you fight to keep abortion legal so the blood of 3,000+ per day is on your hands. I really don’t need peace sermons from you.

        By these simple rules that Jesus declared, my neighbor may be a pregnant mother-to-be, but until her infant is birthed, it isn’t my neighbor yet.

        Now there’s the crappiest bit of liberal theology I’ve seen in a while. You seem to have missed Jesus’ point: The person who was least likely to be the neighbor was actually the neighbor. Same thing here. Just because the human being is in a unique location (i.e., the womb, which was formerly synonymous with safety but now the most dangerous place on the planet) you think she isn’t your neighbor? That’s pathetic.

        Using your literalism we shouldn’t care about those in other countries because we can’t see them. Therefore, they must not be our neighbors. So they are fair game for destruction if we don’t want them.

        Judge not, lest you be judged.

        More bad and hypocritical theology on your part. Re-read your comments and ask yourself why you say not to judge but can’t go three sentences without judging.

        In my effort to love others as I love myself, I cannot force morality on them.

        That’s a cowardly evasion (and yes, I’m judging you). Using that reasoning we’d disband the police force. After all, they are obviously forcing someone’s morality on others. And it is doubly sickening that you pat yourself on the back for being loving as you take the wrong side of the greatest moral issue of our time.

        I can only hope teaching, prayer, and example impact their lives.

        How charming. Only the human beings I’m talking about are already dead, so I don’t think your noble acts will help them much.

      • Good responses, Glenn.

        A child in utero, no matter at what stage of development, is entirely dependent on the host (mother) to sustain their individual life.

        You don’t just get to kill people because they are dependent. Your pro-abort soundbite is fallacious.

        Abortion isn’t murder in a legal sense simply because it is permitted by law. But in God’s eyes it is certainly murder: Don’t shed innocent blood. So sad when Christians and “Christians” carry water for the other side.

      • C’mon, Neil! You forgot the best part of that nonsense.

        Before the invention of infant formula, and in parts of the world where it does not exist, babies who are six months old are totally dependent upon their mothers’ bodies for food.

        Um, I <3 when men say fallacious garbage like "But foetuses are dependent upon a woman's body!", because they have obviously never really considered the ramifications of breast-feeding. I think any woman who puts on a bra in the morning sort of gets it – it's her body, it's a wet nurse's body, it's someone's body.

      • Eek – my last line should have been, “It’s a WOMAN’S body” that sustains infant life for many months after birth.

      • It just is not as cut and dry as you would like to make it seem. If it was, we wouldn’t need to debate it.

        Actually, it is that clear. Scientific fact: the unborn are human beings. Biblical fact: We shouldn’t kill innocent human beings because they are unwanted.

        Just because you can find any number of people on the wrong side of an issue doesn’t mean it isn’t clearly wrong. God is always right, and most of the planet opposes him.

    • Helen has posted another after your governor announced he wants sonograms for all people seeking abortions

      I’m sure it displays her usual critical thinking skills.

      Requiring sonograms is a phenomenal idea. Unless someone disrespects women and thinks they shouldn’t be fully informed of their decisions or can’t handle the truth, what could be more logical than showing them the very “thing” that they are about to destroy?

      I know it is used as a political football.

      So? Just because some people use an issue as a political football doesn’t mean we are excused from the fight.

      I was grateful that they were steadily declining until the economy tanked and now there seems to be a slight uptick again.

      Uh, yeah, 3,500 innocent deaths per day is better than 3,600 innocent deaths per day, I suppose. I suggest making the remaining 3,500 illegal. It won’t stop them all but it will stop many of them and change behaviors.

      I hate abortion and agree we are snuffing out a human life every time one is performed. I don’t need proof, it is common sense. Yet I still think that making them illegal is not the answer. I think that is where we disagree the most.

      I really do appreciate your clarity.

      I think it should be illegal to crush and dismember innocent yet unwanted human beings.

      You think it should be legal to crush and dismember innocent yet unwanted human beings.

      I do think PP offers a valuable service to the community aside from any abortions they may support.

      I don’t care if an organization gives out free puppies and lollipops, if they destroy innocent human lives for a living they should be out of business and should have zero taxpayer support.

      On a separate note, I know you support crisis pregnancy centers. My question to you is, do any of those offer checkups for girls/women, or are they strictly designed as an effort to convince folks to avoid abortion?

      CPCs do many things, including promoting abstinence outside marriage. See http://tinyurl.com/2bv5k4m for more.

      Of course they help avoid abortion, and if that was all they did it would be worth it all. But they also offer post-abortion trauma counseling, provide food, clothes, formula, etc., counseling and more — all for free. And our clinic refuses to seek taxpayer support. We are run solely on contributions. I wish PP’s legions of fans like you and Helen would fund them out of your own pockets.

      It is tragic that pro-legalized abortion Christians and “Christians” don’t support CPCs, but it is enlightening just the same. If they really wanted to reduce abortions they’d support CPCs. After all, employees and volunteers explicitly don’t protest at abortion clinics or lobby the government. They just help women and families in need — the very thing that Helen & Co. claim to want but can’t seem to open their wallets to do. They just want to sit back and let the river of blood continue to flow while they tell themselves how compassionate they are. Pretty sick stuff.

      • This should have read: I don’t care if an organization gives out free puppies and lollipops, if they do the following for a living they should be out of business and should have zero taxpayer support:

        – literally destroy innocent human lives
        – hide statutory rape
        – encourage kids to ignore their religion and their parents and start having sex whenever they think they are “ready” (which, remarkably enough, is usually the same time that they want to have it)

        Better yet, they should be in jail.

      • I forgot one more thing CPCs do for free: Provide post-abortion trauma counseling. Good luck getting that at PP! They’ll tell you there is nothing to feel guilty about (i.e., that you should feel guilty about feeling guilty).

      • Requiring sonograms is a phenomenal idea. Unless someone disrespects women and thinks they shouldn’t be fully informed of their decisions or can’t handle the truth, what could be more logical than showing them the very “thing” that they are about to destroy?

        It is definitely something that would up the ante, for sure. I don’t think it a matter of disrepect to women to not force a sonogram. Honest respect of women would give them the option of having one or not, especially if they were an adult. I don’t know how much more traumatised that would make rape and incest victims feel, yet logic tells me it would probably not be positive and may even increase suicides. Just a guess, though, as no factual data has been gathered to my knowledge.

        Along this same thought process, I would like to see paternal records established and kept. It always takes a man to contribute his DNA to create this new life. He should share in this burden and has often avoided the guilt.

        The next logical question is, who pays for this extra service?

      • I don’t know how much more traumatised that would make rape and incest victims feel

        1. They’ll probably be traumatized either way. Abortions don’t undo the trauma of rape, they compound it.

        2. If they aren’t doing anything wrong, why would it cause trauma?

        3. Will it traumatize the unborn? Oh, right, once again your pro-abortion reasoning ignores the human being getting destroyed.

        4. As with most pro-aborts, you are pressing the emotional case of 1% of the population to rationalize all abortions.

        The next logical question is, who pays for this extra service?

        The one requesting the killing of the innocent human being, I suppose. Or in Obama’s world, the pro-lifers get taxed and are forced to pay.

  4. Pingback: PP Sez: Sex Trafficking Isn’t So Bad As Long as a Condom is Used at Haemet

  5. I can see that logic will not work with you on this topic. I should not have even tried, I suppose. I still hate abortion. I still admit abortion ends a life. I think that it is hypocrisy to support war and the manufacture of killing devices and yet consider yourself pro-life. Call yourself rather a supporter of unbirthed life. Maybe a pro prebirth humanity supporter. And if you can admit that, please don’t tell me you support the Chinese by buying anything made in their country. A country that aborts over 30 million human lives annually. The disconnect is truly appalling. Even this basic logic probably makes your blood boil. It is quite obvious your emotion controls your words and actions.

    • poolman,

      I didn’t see any logic used. You keep comparing war with abortion. Are you trying to say there is never a just war? That God was wrong when he led Israel to war? Pro-lifers usually also find capital punishment to be just. Pro-life, I admit, is a misnomer because it has to be qualified if people don’t recognize the context of abortion. But since you know the context, you are being disingenuous to imply otherwise.

      I personally do everything possible to avoid buying anything made in China – and have done so for decades! I also try not to buy anything from Mexico, India, Pakistan or any other country which abuses its citizenry.

    • I still hate abortion. I still admit abortion ends a life.

      And you still think it should be legal. And you think I’m being illogical?

      And if you are going to play word games, then simplify it and call me anti-abortion. I’m cool with that.

      • God bless you Neil. I don’t want to divide or be combative. Really. I just wish we could all live the golden rule. But alas, I guess it was not to be… That is why Jesus had to save us.

      • Wouldn’t the Golden Rule lead you protect the unborn? I know I wouldn’t want to have an abortion done to me and would want someone to protect me. And I would want someone to talk me out of participating with an abortion. So I do unto others . . .

        Peace, Neil

        Sent from my iPhone

      • I would never tell anyone to consider an abortion. Never. I would counsel against it – or rather with whatever Holy Spirit would direct me in the moment. That is your call to ministry, not mine. God has me busy in other areas and it isn’t pools right now. Peace. Blessings over you and your family.

      • Now you are dodging. You appealed to the Golden Rule and I pointed out a perfect way to live it out: Protect the unborn and warn people against abortions. But you weasel out by saying that you wouldn’t counsel someone to have an abortion (Oh, my hero! What a bold pro-lifer you are! And saying you wouldn’t counsel someone to litter makes you president of the Sierra Club.). Countless pro-aborts would make that worthless claim.

        Voting for pro-life positions isn’t a “call to ministry,” it is simply acknowledging that it should be illegal to crush and dismember innocent human beings.

        Most importantly, you commit the foundational fallacy of most pro-abortion reasoning: You ignore the humanity of the unborn. When you cry “Do unto others” the “others” include the unborn. But you reflexively forgot that in the abdication of your responsibility to protect the weak.

        BTW, Roxanne is an atheist. You probably assumed she’s a Christian because, while still a sinner in need of a Savior, her moral compass is more aligned to the God’s commands than yours. She’ll be annihilating the rest of your arguments in 3 . . . 2 . . . 1 . . .

    • Poolman: those are good reasons for you to be pro-life, not for us to be pro-choice.

      The issues you describe are not entirely clear-cut: if China is more prosperous, it may value women more (most of the babies who are aborted are female). If you kill Saddam Hussein, you are saving lives; remember the mass graves? the children’s prisons? the rape rooms?

      As for the manufacture of “killing devices” – so I’m supposed to give up my kitchen knives because I’m pro-life? Throw the 2x4s in my trunk, which I use to block my tires, in the trash? Not have a gun when I’m older, so that I’ll be the elderly lady with no means of protecting herself? Support policies that leaves the US vulnerable to attack – because the greatest fighting force in the world will not be so, and will no longer deter the slaughter of innocent Americans? Renounce my former career, wherein I made things to keep troops safer (e.g. better bullet-proof vests, better bombers, etc)?

      By what standard are those things necessary for being pro-life? Seems like a lot more killing goes on when China is poor, women have no means of protecting themselves, and the US is weak.

      • Roxeanne,

        Don’t be silly. Just because knives CAN be used as weapons doesn’t mean they are always used that way. Not the same. Missles and depleted uranium ordnance doesn’t serve any other purpose. Our society is in the business of producing arms. Whether it’s software or bullets. Plenty of business are involved. We supply most of the world. We are also the largest imperial force on the planet, with over 730 bases in foreign lands. War IS big business. We spend HUGE amounts of money on war. We are a warring people, and yet we claim to be a “Christian” nation. It doesn’t jive with the teachings of Jesus in any way.

        I really cannot see how anyone can claim to be a believer and serve in our military. It isn’t for the defense of our land, either. We are taking out the enemies of Israel. We do their bidding. Plenty in our government hold dual citizenship. Justify that with our constitution. Justify that with our founders. Justify that with God. It is anti-Christian. Brush up on Matthew chapters 5, 6, and 7, the blueprint for our Christian lives.

        Though Saddam was evil and we helped put him and his regime in power, he kept a check on Iran. Most Iraqis claim it was better under Saddam. Don’t try to tell me that illegal war was in anyway just.

      • I really cannot see how anyone can claim to be a believer and serve in our military

        Protecting people is a virtue. Do you apply that same libel to policeman?

        Pro-choice pacifists nauseate me. They are walking oxymorons. http://4simpsons.wordpress.com/2008/08/03/oxymoron-of-the-century-pro-choice-pacifists/

        If abortion isn’t violent, nothing is violent.

        When I meet a theological Liberal that actually understands the sermon on the mount then he or she will be the first one — http://4simpsons.wordpress.com/2008/12/30/they-wouldnt-like-the-sermon-on-the-mount-if-they-understood-it/

      • Poolman,
        I suppose you think we should have just let Hitler run rampant all over Europe and kill 6 or 7 million more people? I suppose we should have just let the Japanese conquer the free world and exercise the rape of Nanking all over their conquests? As noted previously, God does not condemn war – he has used it often. There are certainly unjust wars, but you can’t condemn all warfare based on unjust ones.
        Jesus didn’t condemn the Roman soldiers for serving, nor did he tell them to leave service. IF it wasn’t for the military you would not have the freedom to spew your nonsense.

        As for Israel, they are the only democratic nation in that area, and if we didn’t help them they would be conquered by Islam by now.

        I’m not going to even get into the current wars other than to say I think our troops should come home. But you have bought into the liberal propaganda machine for about war and military while at the same time sanction war against the unborn.

        I agree with Neil – your ilk nauseates me.

      • Just because knives CAN be used as weapons doesn’t mean they are always used that way. Not the same. Missles and depleted uranium ordnance doesn’t serve any other purpose. Our society is in the business of producing arms. Whether it’s software or bullets.

        So software is more like a nuclear bomb than a kitchen knife? Whoa, never knew that as I’m typing this reply to you, I’m engaging in actual, physical warfare, Microsoft version!

        A “weapon” is neither inherently good nor inherently bad, but they can be used for good, neutral, or evil purposes. As Neil and Glenn pointed out, using guns and cannons to stop the Nazis from taking over Europe and committing mass murder is a good thing. I firmly believe that using a gun to stop a would-be killer or rapist is also a good thing. (Imagine what would have happened in Arizona if Gabby Giffords or Judge Roll, big supporters of the Second Amendment, had been packing heat that day. It would NOT have been six innocent dead, 13 more innocent wounded, Loughner without a scratch; it would be Gabby Giffords shot, Loughner dead from a bullet between the eyes, little Christina and others still with us.)

        Most Iraqis claim it was better under Saddam.

        The problem is that you’re debating an engineer-turned-lawyer. I’m all about quantitative evidence, not whatever someone hauls out of his rear end.

        In the spring of 2003, I watched Iraqis run outside, tears streaming down their faces, hugging every American soldier they could find. I remember watching Iraqis grabbing whatever rope they could find to topple Saddam’s statues – then cheering as the American troops wrapped the rope around their tanks and pulled them down.

        I remember seeing pictures of smiling Iraqis, showing off their purple fingers, proud of voting for the first time that voting was not a sham. I remember them risking their lives to vote. I remember the joy in their freedom and the pride in their country, paid for (in part) by the lives of American soldiers.

        So without really hard data about what 2011 Iraqis think of their country pre-and post-War, I’m calling, to put it politely, “Male cow’s #2″.

        Also, if Iran is that bad…. would you approve of war against them? You, by your own admission, approve of a dictator who raped women, imprisoned children, and murdered thousands of his own people, so long as he kept Iran in check; in your world, is rape okay but a just war never so?

        I really cannot see how anyone can claim to be a believer and serve in our military. It isn’t for the defense of our land, either. We are taking out the enemies of Israel.

        Assuming, arguendo, that we’re protecting Israel out of irrational animus towards other countries, or irrational love for it (and not to advance human rights in the Middle East; something tells me that, you, poolman, couldn’t care less if women in the Middle East are being stoned, raped, kept in their homes, and are not given medical care and forbidden to have an education), you’re still in trouble.

        Are you trying to tell me that God is opposed to a country protecting his Chosen People? I’m dying in laughter over here – what next, God doesn’t like us protecting children? God is opposed to charity and visiting people in prison?

      • Rox,

        You are either not serious or you have bought the lie Matthew 24:24 warns. You don’t think companies like Honeywell and IBM write software for weaponry like our drone systems? Israel and the Jews are not God’s chosen, as you claim. In revelation, only 144,000 are going to be sealed for salvation. Jews are anti-Christian. They don’t respect us. We are cattle to them. Goyim, anyone? Zionism is akin to nationalism and racial supremacy. Who did my Lord, while he walked the earth, call the synagogue of satan? Who handed him over to the gentiles to be killed? It wasn’t Arabs. It wasn’t Muslims.

        You go ahead and die laughing, Rox. This country has evil woven in its very fabric that it is difficult to discern the good from it. Holy Spirit has revealed plenty to me and I know whom I have believed, and am convinced that He is able to guard what I have entrusted to Him for that day.

        Facts and truth be damned. You wouldn’t accept either.

      • Steady on Luther. God knows I’m no fan of Israel or US war-mongering, but this type of talk is just downright dangerous. It worries me when people talk like this, whether it’s about Jews, Muslims, or Christians (or any other group of people for that matter) and there’s far too much of it going on lately. Have we learnt nothing from the holocaust, apartheid, Bosnia, Rwanda?

        You can make political observations and criticisms of the activities of nations without resorting to this racist and quasi-religious bullshit. You criticise Zionism, yet in the same paragraph you try to use biblical justification for your bigotry. So what makes you any different to them?

      • The difference is Jesus. He IS my Lord and savior. Why is it you cannot love Jews and still oppose Zionism? Many Jews oppose Zionism. Zionism is opposed to Orthodox Jewry. Anti-semitism is always the cry. Here’s one link that I will share. You can either accept God’s word or the lies that have infiltrated the church. That’s as far as I will go. My experience so far is most of the established church isn’t ready to listen. Do you have ears to hear, eyes to see?

      • Yeah. What I hear and see is someone who’s remarkably inconsistent in their thinking.

        Why is it you cannot love Jews and still oppose Zionism?

        I never claimed that you can’t. But It’s not about “loving” anybody. It’s about opposing an odious political system without dehumanising its promoters by resorting to the same tactics. Bringing up blood libel and referring to Jews as the “synagogue of Satan” might sound all cool and profound where you and I live, but in other parts of the world that gets people killed.

      • poolman,

        I forgot to mention your link. Texe Marrs is a looney tune, conspiracy theorist who finds a demon in every corner. He is not a reputable person to be reading. I gave up on his books when I matured as an apologist. He is not a credible source.

      • poolman,

        Since when are Jews not God’s chosen people? Scripture shows God made an ETERNAL covenant with them. Hello? ETERNAL!

        You speak of Jews being anti-Christian. The only Jews that are Anti-Christian are the liberal Jews, most of whom don’t even practice their faith. I suggest a good book for you to read about how real Jews and Christians should be working together to save this country since we share the same ideology about God: “America’s Real War,” by Rabbi David Lapin, and Orthodox Jew who rips into liberal Jews, especially those who are anti-Israel.

        Boy, you have really, really bought into the liberal propaganda machine!

      • Glenn, I visited your blog. You are close to me in age. I’ve been married since 77.

        The page I linked is scripturally sound. I haven’t followed the rest of Texe Marrs’ stuff. The main point is the Scofield Bible is deception. It makes a false claim that the present nation of Israel is justified in the scriptures. You need to review Luke Chapter 21, for one. Jerusalem is to be trampled by gentiles until the time of the gentiles has been fulfilled.

        The covenant you speak of was through the seed of Abram all the way on down to Jesus. Jesus IS the fulfillment of the ETERNAL covenant. “It is finished” Ring a bell? The kingdom of God is at hand. Don’t be the foolish virgin, Glenn. That is, if you consider yourself a part of the bride.

      • Poolman,
        I don’t know which blog you visited; right now my name links with my conservative commentary blog, but I also have a Christian apologetics blog linking off that one.

        The page you linked to is NOT scripturally sound – it is all interpreted the Texe Marrs way, which has some disputable ideas about what Revelation says. He’s also a KJV Onlyer, and sees satanic conspiracies everywhere. So I don’t take anything he says with any credibility.

        As for Scofield, I don’t know anything about him except that he had a study Bible which was propagated by Moody Bible Institute, and which teaches – so I’m told – theistic evolution and the pre-trib rapture. In fact, it was Scofield’s promotion of the pre-trib rapture, fostered by Moody’s propagation of his Bible, which made that particular eschatology popular. I am a post-tribber – which is all I see in Scripture.

        “It is Finished” has to do with the payment for our sins – it has nothing to the promises of God that Israel will posses the land. Chapter 21 Luke has a combination of prophecies about the end and about AD70. There is so much dispute about eschatological interpretation for the end times, no one can be dogmatic about the order of events besides 7 years of tribulation and a rapture, followed by 1000 years of Christ reigning on earth.

        There is nothing which says Israel’s present position is not part of prophecy. As noted, Israel is the only democratic nation there, and they keep Islam at bay. Unless you have a direct line with God which gives you prophetic knowledge to have the one perfect eschatological interpretation, then you have nothing to back up your claim that Israel should not be supported.

        Just remember that those who curse Israel will be cursed and those who bless Israel will be blessed.

      • Glenn, please show me where in scripture it claims that those who curse the current nation of Israel will be cursed and where those who bless the current nation of Israel will be blessed. All I can find is a blessing for those who bless Abram’s descendants, which would include Ishmael, his firstborn, along with Isaac. That is where the misunderstanding originates, I believe. I have every interpretation of Genesis at my disposal.

      • Apparently you don’t consider “current Israel” as the same people as the OT Israel. Sorry, but Israel has a covenant with God which was never revoke. Jews are still God’s people. Unless you have decided that the Church replaced Israel, which is what it sounds like you believe, unless I’m mistaken.

      • Spirtual Israel vs. the people of Israel, yes. Scripture makes a clear distinction. In a similar way that the new Jerusalem and the city of Jerusalem differ.

  6. Poolman: you said, “Facts and truth be damned. You won’t accept either.”

    Funny – you haven’t offered any for me to accept, just anti-America platitudes.

    You’ve said in one sentence that weapons are used only for the purpose of killing, then in another, called software a weapon, and when I pointed out how silly that is, you acted like I was the one who was wrong.

    You offered a totally unsupported statement about Iraq; I offered supported ones to counter it; now I’m the one who doesn’t accept facts.

    You hate the Jews; you hate war; you hate America; but you don’t care if people in other countries are subjected to mass murder, rape, unjust imprisonment, forced labour, religious tyranny, or other oppression.

    And I’m the one who doesn’t get it? Give me a break.

    • Roxeanne, do you deny that there are no software programs written for weapons systems? Does that make ALL software evil? No, it doesn’t. Just like your knife analogy, this is a childish POV.

      I DO NOT hate Jews, I despise Zionism.
      Yes, I hate war, you don’t? The ONLY war Christians are to be involved in is spiritual warfare. You are not instructed to arm yourself in any other way.
      “Put on the full armor of God…
      “Our weapons are not carnal…
      “Our enemies are not flesh and blood…
      Ring any bells?
      I DO NOT hate America, I despise nationalism, which is fascist and FAR from patriotic.
      For you to claim I “don’t care if people in other countries are subjected to mass murder , rape, unjust imprisonment, forced labour, religious tyranny, or other oppression”, you have no justification or evidence to make such a fallacious claim. I strongly oppose
      everything that opposes the golden rule. This statement proves that yes, you don’t get it.

      • Where does it say in Scripture that the only war Christians are to be involved in is “spiritual warfare”?

        You despise nationalism? It is the nation of the USA which allows you to despise nationalism – how many other countries do you think would allow that? Nationalism does not equal fascism, and it is indeed patriotism to think one’s own country is the best, and to be loyal to it. That is nationalism – keep our nation as a sovereignty and not kowtowing to the UN.

      • Ephesians 6:12 tells us where our battlefield is.

        Anything that sets itself up OVER God/Jesus is idolatry. Nationalism falls right in line with that.

        Fascism describes us rather succinctly. Try looking it up and then visualize our nation as an alien from another world would. Do the same with imperialism. If you can divorce yourself from your preconceived notions momentarily and make an honest assessment, you will see it clearly. Sinclair Lewis warned in 1935:

        “When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying the cross.”

      • Poolman, you are so into the liberal propaganda, I wonder if you bother studying history for yourself.

        Firstly, Eph 6:12 does not say our only warfare as Christians is spiritual.

        Governments are responsible for restraining evil and protecting citizens (Rom. 13:1-7, 1 Pet. 2:13-14). This may require the service of even Christians.

        As previously noted, God used war often in the Old Testament, leading his people to war against infidels to cleanse the land. He also used other nations to war against Israel as punishment. In Revelation we see God using war also. So there is not an inherent problem with the use of war; the problem becomes what it is used for. Again, Rom. 13:1-7, as well as 1 Pet. 2:13-14, point out that the government was given the sword by God to punish wrong-doers. On the occasions the N.T. mentions military officials they all appear favorable (Matt. 8:5-13; Luke 3:14; Acts 10:1ff). No one told the soldiers to “go and sin no more,” but in Luke and Acts instructions were given on how to do right and to be acceptable to God in their military service.

        Nationalism DOES NOT set itself up against Christ and is not idolatry. That is one of the silliest charges I’ve ever heard.

        The only fascism in the USA is the socialist movement by the liberal left who are attempting to destroy this nation from within and make it part of a one-world government.

      • In his book, “Biblical Ethics,” Robertson McQuilkin has the following to say:
        “So we have in the New Testament the combined affirmation of government force and the lack of condemnation of those exercising that authority, supporting the overall biblical distinction between government and the private individual and the legitimate response of each to evil. Government has a responsibility for restraining evil, protecting its citizens, and maintaining their welfare. If it has a responsibility to protect its citizens from criminals, does it not also have the responsibility to protect them from criminal nations? Christ’s teaching of nonresistance, if it is to be harmonized with the rest of biblical teaching on human authority, was not given to nations, police, or parents in their official capacities. Though the data of the New Testament on the issue of the Christian’s participation in war is not direct nor abundant, the basic principles are clear: To be godlike is to make a sacrificial, loving response to maintain a no vindictive, nonresistant attitude in all personal relationships when one’s own rights are at stake; and human government is responsible, with accountability to God, to use force when necessary to assure righteous behavior for its citizenry.”
        We see from Scripture that war is not inherently wrong, but that it is a responsibility given to the government for protecting against evil.

  7. poolman,
    No more reply room.

    Spiritual Israel includes the Church, but physical Israel still exists and was not replaced by the church. Replacement theology was something brought in by Roman Catholicism, and carried over by Calvinists, Lutherans, Anglicans – all those who protested Rome but kept a large part of the Roman beliefs in their own systems.

    Physical Israel is still heir to the covenants with God; Israel was promised that land forever. Even if Jews are scattered all over the world, and many (liberals) don’t even recognize God, God still knows who Israel is and still holds his promises to them. Call it zionism if you will, but there is nothing wrong with providing a recognized nation for people who never did leave the area, and a home for those in diaspora who have been persecuted throughout history. There never were people known as “Palestinians” until long after Israel established their new nation.

    God keeps his promises.

    • There never were people known as “Palestinians” until long after Israel established their new nation.

      At which time they suddenly appeared, spawned from the underworld.

      • Really? Amazing how prosperous they are in this world system run by their god. (sarcasm) I wonder how come Jews can pray in a Mosque when no synagogues are around? I guess they serve the same god, eh?

      • Whether some Jews pray in a mosque is irrelevant to the fact that Islam is from Satan – Mohammed even said he didn’t know if it was a demon or not who gave him his vision. Besides, a building is a building; many churches have been made into mosques – does that mean Muslims then worship the same God? Absolutely not. There is nothing of God in Islam, and every thing of evil.

    • Galatians chapter 3 refutes your statement. Spiritual Israel IS the church and DOES include any Jews who accept Jesus as Lord and Messiah. Physical Israel was destroyed in 70 AD. It was the second nation of Israel. Scripture tells us the Jews will be scattered among the nations.

      http://www.realzionistnews.com/?p=65

      • Galatians 3 DOES NOT refute that claim. Israel as a nation is NOT the Church. Physical Israel and Spiritual Israel are two different things. There is a raft of covenant promises God made to National israel, and to David and his descendants. You are entrenched in the Roman Catholic/Calvinist/Lutheran/Anglican replacement theology which is not Biblical.

  8. Poolman,
    I am not going to debate the issue further. You are entrenched and the links you give do not prove your case – they merely prove there are more people with your ideology.

    This discussion about Israel has nothing to do with the original post and it is unfair to Neil to run a long comment string on a subject that isn’t connected.

  9. Sometimes it sounds like we too eagerly justify war, particularly when the U.S. is involved. For example, WWII would not have happened if not for the Treaty of Versailles, the intense humilliation fo Germany, coupled with a world-wide depression, made the rise of Naziism much easier. It almost took root here as well, and drew a syumpathetic history in many western European nations at the time.
    IT’s kind of like your teeth. If you take care of teh little things, the only thing you’ll need the dentist for is minor maintenance, but if you don’t you will need major intervention. War is major intervention, not sport by other means. God did a lot of things in the OT that are not a part of the NT, like animal sacrifice, distinctions based on national identity, Worship based upon locality (temple service). There is nothing in the NT that either compels aggressive military actions nor condones it. You always have to go to the OT for that. We are not under that covenant, however, so why do we use it for such purposes?
    Regarding the original question, If you say that abortion is murder, should the dr and the mother be sentenced apppropriately? Is it 1st degree or 2nd degree?

    • What lay behind WWII two decades earlier couldn’t be fixed – it was done and gone. So in your mind because the root of the rise of HItler was caused by the European nations, we should then just have let Hitler go?

      The OT isn’t just about the covenant with Israel – it is also a history of Israel and the nations around her. God’s character is revealed, and his character does not change. The NT doesn’t discuss war because that is not a subject it is concerned with. But when it does speak of soldiers, there is no condemnation of them.

      The law dictates punishment for crime. If the law allows abortion, then there can be no punishment. If the law changes to protect the unborn, then, yes, the “doctor” and the mother should be sentenced appropriately.

  10. There is plenty of evidence that the attack on Pearl Harbor was known by the administration and allowed to happen to get us involved in WWII. The FOIA has produced proof of that fact. There is also much proof that Zionists aided Hitler’s efforts. Much of it was to force the creation and population of a nation of Israel.

    There is discussion of war in the NT. Luke 14:31. Matthew chapter 24. Start with 23 and read through 24. Maybe through 25, if the Spirit does lead. Revelation talks of war quite extensively starting in chapter 6. You are trying to run on the OT rules. Jesus changed them. Much of the talk i

  11. There is plenty of evidence that the attack on Pearl Harbor was known by the administration and allowed to happen to get us involved in WWII. The FOIA has produced proof of that fact. There is also much proof that Zionists aided Hitler’s efforts. Much of it was to force the creation and population of a nation of Israel.

    There is discussion of war in the NT. Luke 14:31. Matthew chapter 24. Start with 23 and read through 24. Maybe through 25, if the Spirit does lead. Revelation talks of war quite extensively starting in chapter 6. You are trying to run on the OT rules. Jesus changed them. Much of the talk i

  12. Ooopps. Hate this keyboard! Did not mean to double post and wasn’t finished. I am at the mercy of Neil, the host, to delete one.

    Much of the talk in Paul’s clarifies that. The OT no longer applies in terms of the law or how we, as believers relate to God. He came to FULFILL the law. Period.

    • The OT is NOT just about the Law of Moses. Jesus did not come to fulfill the history of Israel, to terminate the nation of Israel, etc. The Law of Moses has nothing to do with God leading His people in warfare. NT discussions of wars is just prophetic about what will be. As noted above, the gov’t has been given the sword and Christians may be called to serve the gov’t lawfully. The character of God does not change from OT to NT in relation to the sometimes need for war.

      A lot of “proof’ of zionists helping Hitler is the same genre as the “proof” that our gov’t was to blame for the 9/11 attacks, that it was really bombs, etc.

      Nevertheless, you are still not sticking to the topic of the post.

      • Agreed. Abortion IS the topic. I still think education and birth control is the best way to reduce them in this country. There will ALWAYS be reasons to perform them, like when the mother’s life or health demands it. I still say if you want to penalize women for them, you must also EQUALLY penalize men who are just as culpable.

      • Written like a true pro-abort. Let’s break it down.

        I still think education and birth control is the best way to reduce them in this country.

        First, why reduce them if they don’t kill innocent human beings and are safer than pregnancy (as the pro-aborts claim)? If they do kill innocent human beings, why not protect the unborn?

        Go do some research and see how many abortions are the 2nd (or more). Then see how many occur when people know of and even use birth control. The numbers for both are huge. Your approach is pure fantasy and rationalization.

        Oh, and I seriously doubt you do anything with your own time and money in support of your “best way”

        There will ALWAYS be reasons to perform them, like when the mother’s life or health demands it.

        More pro-abort propaganda. I don’t know a single pro-lifer who opposes them when the mother’s life is at stake. That is consistent with the pro-life ethic and easily accessible information. Yet pro-aborts still make that point to try and misstate pro-life views. Pathetic.

        Re. the mother’s health: True weasel words that pro-aborts use as a catch-all to justify any abortions at any time, including partial-birth abortions.

        I still say if you want to penalize women for them, you must also EQUALLY penalize men who are just as culpable.

        How sneaky. Who says we want to penalize women for them? And yes, the men are just as culpable and often the ones pressuring the women to have the abortions — and with your blessing! The best way to “punish” the men (read: hold them accountable) would be to have them be responsible for raising the children they fathered.

      • Preach it, Neil.

        Men LOVE abortion. All the good times, none of the responsibility. As a young man I know once said, “Of course I would rather help pay for an abortion. That’s a one-time payment, not 18 years!”

        Reality is that the vast majority (something like 95%) of women who abort wish that they had alternatives. If men who got women pregnant immediately had their paychecks attached to a court order, before she’s even over her morning sickness (perhaps with the money into escrow if he disputes paternity), immediately had her and the baby under his health insurance to pay for baby-associated health costs (e.g. prenatal care, labour and delivery), and he were otherwise held responsible, fewer women would abort – and a LOT fewer women would get pregnant, because a man would think, “Is it really worth it to be strapped to this woman for the rest of my life if this condom doesn’t work?”.

        As it is now, men have NO responsibility for sex. None. Push her to abort, and then go on their merry ways. Use her body, tell her to “take care of it” if her body does as it is designed, and then play the “It’s a woman’s choice” card. Disgusting.

      • Still an expert at twisting my words, I see. You certainly are consistent. I’ll give you that.

      • I made very specific criticisms and claims. Once again, as Dan pointed out, you respond to Roxanne and me with meaningless, unsupported comments that anyone could use at any time.

So, what do you think?

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s