Roundup

The Beautiful and Efficient Anatomy of Pregnancy – OK, I admit it, I didn’t expect to see this on the Huffington Post.  I noted some interesting things when examining the comments.  A few committed Democrats (the party of unrestricted, taxpayer-funded abortions) freely admitted that abortion is murder.  They simply couldn’t ignore the humanity of the unborn, and that’s progress.

We should keep emphasizing our simple and clear reasoning: It is a scientific fact (and basic common sense) that a new human being is created at fertilization.  It is simple moral reasoning that it is wrong to take the life of an innocent human being without proper justification, and that is what happens during 99% of abortions.  The situations surrounding abortions are psychologically complex (pressures on the mother to abort, economic concerns, etc.) but morally simple (you don’t kill unwanted humans outside the womb for those reasons, so you shouldn’t kill them inside the womb for those reasons).  Their size, level of development, location and degree of dependency are not reasons to ignore their right to life.

Oh, and the one true God says, “Don’t murder.”

Unfortunately, too many of the commenters were spouting pro-abort sound bites and couldn’t acknowledge indisputable facts.  Here’s an example from one of their super user / moderators:

Me: “Every embryology textbook will tell you that a new human being is created at fertilization. The science is clear.”

—–

clip_image001HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR jessicadevyn

No it doesn’t. Only in anti science made up fundy land.

—–

Me: This is classic. I am making references to mainstream science textbooks and you say I’m the one being anti-science? No, it isn’t fundy land we’re talking about, it is you visiting from stereotype land.

Here’s a sample of what I have to offer. Please provide your own scientific references that prove that the unborn are not human beings.
And even without the science texts, just what do you think the unborn are? What would two human beings combine to create?

“Human development begins at fertilization, the process during which a male gamete or sperm (spermatozoo developmentn) unites with a female gamete or oocyte (ovum) to form a single cell called a zygote. This highly specialized, totipotent cell marked the beginning of each of us as a unique individual. . . . A zygote is the beginning of a new human being (i.e., an embryo).”
Keith L. Moore, The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology, 7th edition. Philadelphia, PA: Saunders, 2003. pp. 16, 2.

“[The zygote], formed by the union of an oocyte and a sperm, is the beginning of a new human being.”
Keith L. Moore, Before We Are Born: Essentials of Embryology, 7th edition. Philadelphia, PA: Saunders, 2008. p. 2.

Her comments got less cerebral from there.

The rate of abortions in the black community is three times that of whites and Planned Parenthood, the nation’s largest abortion provide, was founded by racist eugenicist Margaret Sanger.  And the Democrat’s platform of taxpayer-funded abortions will increase that rate.

But you are a racist if you point those out!

I just finished the Great Gatsby (seems like everyone read it in high school except me) and chuckled at this line from this nearly 90 year old book:

“I read somewhere that the sun’s getting hotter every year,” said Tom genially. “It seems that pretty soon the earth’s going to fall into the sun— or wait a minute— it’s just the opposite— the sun’s getting colder every year.

Fitzgerald, F. Scott (2003-05-27). The Great Gatsby (p. 126). Simon & Schuster, Inc.. Kindle Edition.

Ah, so the “sciencey” hotcoldwetdry climate change sound bites have been around for a long time!  There really is nothing new under the sun (heh).

P.S. One word book review: Meh.  Slightly longer review: If Fitzgerald set out to let us know that high society in the 20’s was full of dislikable, self-indulgent, drunken, self-destructive people then he did a good job.

Rape Exception: Why Do We Kill Babies Instead of Rapists? – I like to pose a variant of that question when people act surprised that I oppose a rape exception.  “So you are favoring capital punishment in this awful situation?  Well, I guess I could entertain that.  Rape is a spectacularly awful and cruel crime.  Oh, wait, you meant capital punishment for the baby?  How does that fix anything?”

A good quote about attacks on Christianity by people like Richard Dawkins.

Don’t just take it from me. The atheist philosopher of science Michael Ruse says that Dawkins’s arguments are so bad that he’s embarrassed to call himself an atheist. Terry Eagleton, an English literature and cultural theory professor, severely criticizes “Ditchkins”—his composite name for Dawkins and Hitchens. He considers them to be both out of their depth and misrepresenters of the Christian faith: “they invariably come up with vulgar caricatures of religious faith that would make a first-year theology student wince. The more they detest religion, the more ill-informed their criticisms of it tend to be.”

Copan, Paul (2011-01-01). Is God a Moral Monster?: Making Sense of the Old Testament God (pp. 17-18). Baker Book Group. Kindle Edition.

An open letter to a gun grabber by Cylar.  Nice.

Point two: The Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) has affirmed in two separate decisions (Heller vs DC 2008 and McDonald vs Chicago 2010) that the Second Amendment is “incorporated” via the Fourteenth Amendment. In layman’s terms, this means that our right to Keep and Bear Arms shall be construed as an “individual right,” not a “collective right” as in the sense of a militia called up for a time of war. . . .

Point three: I’ll limit myself to a musket when you limit yourself to a printing press and a town crier.

Why We Know That the Story of Sodom Indicts Homosexual Practice Per Se – a thorough analysis refuting the “sin of Sodom was inhospitality” claim.

—–

Borrowed this (“stole” is such a strong word) from Just Say No To Abortion.  I especially like #15.

Given that today is Sanctity of Human Life Sunday, here are 15 things to consider about abortion:

1. Existing fetal homicide laws make a man guilty of manslaughter if he kills the baby in a mother’s womb (except in the case of abortion).

2. Fetal surgery is performed on babies in the womb to save them while another child the same age is being legally destroyed.

3. Babies can sometimes survive on their own at 23 or 24 weeks, but abortion is still legal beyond this limit.

4. Living on its own is not the criterion of human personhood, as we know from the use of respirators and dialysis.

5. Size is irrelevant to human personhood, as we know from the difference between a one-week-old and a six-year-old.

6. Developed reasoning powers are not the criterion of personhood, as we know from the capacities of three-month-old babies.

7. Infants in the womb are human beings scientifically by virtue of their genetic make up.

8. Ultrasounds have given a stunning window on the womb that shows the unborn at eight weeks sucking his thumb, recoiling from pricking, and responding to sound. All the organs are present, the brain is functioning, the heart is pumping, the liver is making blood cells, the kidneys are cleaning fluids, and there is a fingerprint. Virtually all abortions happen later than this date.

9. Justice dictates that when two legitimate rights conflict, the limitation of rights that does the least harm is the most just. Bearing a child for adoption does less harm than killing him.

10. Justice dictates that when either of two people must be inconvenienced or hurt to alleviate their united predicament, the one who bore the greater responsibility for the predicament should bear more of the inconvenience or hurt to alleviate it.

11. Justice dictates that a person may not coerce harm on another person by threatening voluntary harm on themselves.

12. The outcast, the disadvantaged, and the exploited are to be cared for in a special way, especially those with no voice of their own.

13. What is happening in the womb is the unique person-nurturing work of God, who alone has the right to give and take life.

14. There are countless clinics that offer life and hope to both mother and child (and father and parents), with care of every kind lovingly provided by people who will meet every need they can.

15. Jesus Christ can forgive all sins and will give all who trust in him the help they need to do everything that life requires.


This post is adapted from Pastor John’s article on Desiring God.

From Sifting Reality:

gun_deaths_vs_abortion

32 thoughts on “Roundup

  1. Thanks for the pingback on my blog. Good to know I’ve got at least one reader. If you actually took the time to wade through all that, my hat is off to you. I encourage you to read the other guys who blog at Rotten Chestnuts, too – all three of them are bright, articulate people who each have their own unique ways of getting a message to readers.

    I just finished the Great Gatsby (seems like everyone read it in high school except me) and chuckled at this line from this nearly 90 year old book.

    I am among those who DID read that book in high school, and frankly I thought it was awful. (Granted, I hated most of what I was forced to read in high school English class.) You really nailed it with your next lime: “Slightly longer review: If Fitzgerald set out to let us know that high society in the 20’s was full of dislikable, self-indulgent, drunken, self-destructive people then he did a good job.” Pure gold! Makes you wonder if the Depression and World War II were like “just desserts” for their hedonism.

    I remember having to write a review of this book after reading it in 12th grade, and I wrote, “I couldn’t understand why Gatsby was so obsessed with the other guy’s wife. Clearly what he wanted was to be accepted and be popular, but there had to have been plenty of single women who would have loved to have him.” If nothing else, it demonstrates that it is possible to be materially rich, but spiritually poor.

    I think about the little kids (and even the adults) met in Uganda, for whom it was exactly the other way around. Some of these people didn’t have two nickels to rub together but were full of hope, joy, and life. They’d hear about Jesus and just couldn’t wait to run out into the city streets to tell other people about what they’d found. They didn’t know anything else about Scripture, but it was almost like they didn’t really need to.

    I wish I could have spent more time among these people; they were so innocent, so eager to understand God’s ways, so full of the Holy Spirit. One of my fellow missionaries observed that God had not sent me to Africa to teach, but rather to learn.

    • SPOILER ALERT – don’t read if you plan on seeing/reading the Great Gatsby.

      Yep, Gatsby was just coveting what he shouldn’t have tried to get. Pretty elaborate scam to try and steal someone’s wife! And Daisy gets to go through life hiding from her husband that she killed his mistress, not Gatsby.

      I had the same experiences in Kenya. Lots more reasons to complain, but much less complaining and more joy for God.

  2. Hi Andrew,

    Thanks for visiting and commenting.

    This is a great point because it brings in the humility that should be present in a situation where you don’t know for sure what you are talking about. You don’t know that conception determines the reality of the soul (at least not from Scripture).

    I think this got off track quickly. I do know for sure why I’m talking about: A new human being is created at fertilization, and we shouldn’t kill human beings for 99% of the reasons given for abortions.

    I didn’t mention the soul, nor do I need to. It confuses the situation unnecessarily. Non-religious people will argue that there isn’t a soul, or that you are just forcing your religious beliefs, etc. Religious people won’t agree on when humans get souls. The Bible isn’t explicit.

    Most importantly, even if the soul as added after conception then abortions before that time would still be wrong. They are human beings whether they have a soul or not. If you disagree, then the burden of proof is on you to explain why it would be OK to kill them AND on precisely when they get those souls.

    So I never use the soul argument when arguing secular or Christian pro-life reasoning.

    If you are going to hang your hat on, Jeremiah 1:5 “Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before,” you have a weak exegetical argument that is isogesis at best.

    I don’t hang my hat on that. It is a great verse but there are plenty of pro-life verses that work better.

    Scientifically, there are many people that would disagree what you had to say in your article.

    Every embryology text I’ve seen (plus common sense) is on my side. Just because some disagree, like the HuffPo moderator, does not concern me.

    I was glad to see you mention the zygote stage of development, but you don’t mention the number of natural abortions that happen because of a hardening of the endometrian wall. Are you aware that the numbers are astronomical and cause a real issue when evaluating God’s plan for eternal life?

    Yes, I’m aware of the frequency of miscarriages (my wife had 5). I’m also aware of the difference between someone dying of natural causes (inside or outside the womb) and someone deliberately ending the life of another human being (inside or outside the womb).

    I don’t have an answer for that question which is another reason that humility is demanded in the discussion.

    Just because someone didn’t know precisely God’s plan for eternal life for miscarried human beings doesn’t mean we’d err on the side of abortion rights. If you weren’t sure, wouldn’t you err on the side of life?

    You also didn’t mention that birth control pills cause exactly this process to occur? Maybe you assumed that was a given and have never used that form of contraception. I honestly didn’t know that until I read an article in a medical journal after a controversial talk I heard at Southwestern Seminary. If you are Catholic, the process of timing you sex life for contraception works on the same principle.

    I wasn’t trying to be exhaustive so I didn’t mention birth control. But you are right, there are issues with pills and other forms of b.c. People should think very carefully about if and what they use.

    I don’t like abortion anymore than it appears that you do, especially frivolous abortion, and I agree that most abortion is exactly that.

    99% of abortions are for the wrong reasons. 1% or less are to save the life of the mother.

    The problem is, we can’t just spout anti-abortion rhetoric without taking the situation in all its complexity.

    I think you are poisoning the well with that comment by implying that laying out the pro-life case is spouting anti-abortion rhetoric. Why would anyone have to be apologetic for saying this: “It is a scientific fact (and basic common sense) that a new human being is created at fertilization. It is simple moral reasoning that it is wrong to take the life of an innocent human being without proper justification, and that is what happens during 99% of abortions. The situations surrounding abortions are psychologically complex (pressures on the mother to abort, economic concerns, etc.) but morally simple (you don’t kill unwanted humans outside the womb for those reasons, so you shouldn’t kill them inside the womb for those reasons). Their size, level of development, location and degree of dependency are not reasons to ignore their right to life.

    Oh, and the one true God says, “Don’t murder.””

    When we fail to acknowledge reality, people that we are trying to say just shut down.

    Now you are begging the question. Who failed to acknowledge reality? I specifically said, “The situations surrounding abortions are psychologically complex (pressures on the mother to abort, economic concerns, etc.).” That’s reality, but it isn’t adequate justification to kill unwanted human beings.

    We sound like we don’t really care, that we just want to control them.

    Only because too many people have believed their fallacious sound bites. We care about the 3,000+ unwanted human beings that will be destroyed today. We care about the women. We donate and volunteer at crisis pregnancy centers, and more. Don’t play into their hands. No matter what we do they will always say we are just trying to control them.

    To win the person, we must make sure our argument is framed accurately and with humility.

    I agree. But pointing to facts and logic is a loving thing to do. Telling people false things while watching the unborn slaughtered is not.

    • Hi Andrew,

      No problem. I just responded to your specific comments. I inferred that you were at least somewhat pro-life, though the more I read your comments the squishier your position seems to get.

      Yes, I come from a biblical perspective, but I can argue the pro-life cause all day long without referring to the Bible (not that there is anything wrong with that — it is just fun to point that out after people play the “you’re forcing your religious beliefs” card).

      I do think you are muddying the waters. If you want to discuss the issue of how souls work exactly, and the theology of what happens to those who die before the age of accountability, that is fine. But there is no benefit to mixing that up in an abortion discussion. If you think for a second that even a theoretical absence of a soul would make abortion acceptable then you are wrong.

      When the discussion is about whether it is acceptable to destroy and innocent but unwanted human being then the burden of proof is on you — especially from someone like you who is claiming the name of Christ — to show why you are sure it is OK.

      Side note: If all those souls go to Heaven there is no inconsistency. It wouldn’t contradict a thing. It would just be another Job-like situation where we don’t know why God did something, but we know enough about him to trust that it was good.

      I don’t know at what point the configuration of genetic material equates to a soul and that is why I lean towards the pro-life position, but you must acknowledge that you do not either.

      I already acknowledged that. And I pointed out how it was irrelevant to whether abortion was wrong.

      You keep saying “Science says it is fact.” What is your background?

      My background? I’m a VP of Finance / CPA who knows how to read. I said it is a scientific fact that the unborn are human beings from fertilization. Here are at least 10 quotes from mainstream embryology textbooks — http://tinyurl.com/yfje8lq . Also, it is common sense. What else would two human beings create — a non-human?

      Perhaps you thought I was making scientific claims about the soul. I didn’t, and won’t. Science deals with material matters and the soul is immaterial.

      My whole point is that because there are exceptions where abortion isn’t frivolous that we should approach this differently.

      Yes, when the life of the mother is at stake. That’s it.

      I am okay with legislations that decreases frivolous abortions, in fact that would be great, but I am not okay with pretending that I know that which I do not and hurt people who have to make hard decisions is situations where aborition is not frivolous.

      I respectfully say that you are either unaware of the basic scientific and ethical principles at play or you are ignoring the unborn killed in abortions (it would be beyond hyperbole to just call them “hurt people”).

      I am concerned that you are making up a category of “frivolous” abortions. I don’t care if the mother is serious or frivolous when killing her baby for any reason but to save her life, just as I wouldn’t care what the reasons were if she wanted to kill her toddler.

      To answer the person who responded below, I don’t think the number of people in heaven is restricted and I hope there are as many there as possible. Both of your refernces to all the Scriptural material that supports abortion as murder, I notice that you don’t quote any?

      LOL. Flip open the Bible and read a few pages either direction. You’ll find plenty. I teach classes at CareNet on the biblical basis for the sanctity of human life, so I know a “few” verses, and I know the verses that pro-abort “Christians” twist to rationalize their evil. With all your theological training I’m sure you know that abortion isn’t explicitly mentioned in the Bible, just as many other ways to kill innocent but unwanted human beings aren’t listed.

      You see, the scientific fact that the unborn are human beings from conception is all you need to know that all references to murder apply to them as well (just like most states consider it murder to kill an unborn child — unless mom is paying a “doctor” to do it).

      Scripture clearly says that we should support life and be against murder, but the writers of Scritpure had no idea what a zygote was and they don’t address it directly.

      I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that was a typo. The writers of scripture were the people who physically wrote it AND God. The originals turned out exactly the way both parties wanted it to. I’m sure you aren’t claiming that God didn’t know what a zygote was.

      They didn’t mention lots of crimes, so anything not specifically mentioned must be ok, right? Arguing from silence is a logical fallacy — http://4simpsons.wordpress.com/2011/05/24/what-jesus-didnt-say-3/ .

      Please don’t use your theological training and intellect to look for loopholes to rationalize abortions.

      • Andrew, please stop claiming to represent a Christian view. I didn’t claim it was dictation, that is a straw man. Your weasel words rationalizing abortion disgust me.

        I obviously understand science, canonization, Jesus’ views of scripture, common sense, and logic far better than you do.

        You can lie to all the mothers you like. I’ll love them enough to tell the truth, along with the truth that Jesus can forgive them.

        If you “don’t know for sure” then err on the side of life.

        If you comment again, use some line breaks and quotations. I got tired of trying to figure out which words were yours so I didn’t read them all.

        The relevant science is settled. Your vagueness about the soul is outside the realm of science.

    • the writers of Scritpure had no idea what a zygote was and they don’t address it directly.

      In addition to what I already wrote, the writers didn’t have the scientific knowledge that we have, but they weren’t stupid. They knew where babies come from and you don’t need an embryology degree to know that two humans would make another human that develops from a smaller human to a larger human. Even the non-Christian writers of the Hippocratic Oath were anti-abortion, as was even Planned Parenthood until they figured out how profitable it would be — http://4simpsons.wordpress.com/2009/06/09/planned-parenthood-vs-planned-parenthood-2/

    • Another important reason to ignore the false argument that if the soul isn’t there (as if you could know for sure) then abortion is OK — See http://carm.org/are-you-christian-woman-who-has-had-abortion for a very important message for anyone involved in the abortion process (or any other sin, for that matter). One of the most important things that Pregnancy Resource Centers do is to offer post-abortion counseling. Contrary to the myths of the world, they are full of grace and good news. But if you pretend that some abortions aren’t “frivolous” (the mothers and the children surely know better) then you could be withholding an important healing message from them.

  3. “Are you aware that the numbers are astronomical and cause a real issue when evaluating God’s plan for eternal life? ”

    This question confuses me. Are you suggesting their are limits on the number of souls that God can fit in heaven? Nothing about miscarriages makes me change my faith in two Biblical truths:

    1. Life begins at conception.
    2. Children are innocent and therefore have a secure home in heaven with God if their earthly life is cut short (including in vitro).

    • You are wrong on both points. However, based on your responses to Neil I can see it would be a waste of time to discuss this further with you. Your mind is made up. So I will keep my pearls rather than cast them at this time.

  4. I remember you keep asking me to read more Bible, but don’t blame me for this. You can blame my Parents because they don’t read the Bible and they teach me nothing about Jesus. Don’t blame me, Blame Satan.

    • Hi -I wasn’t blaming anyone. I was encouraging you to read your Bible. If you have access to this blog, you have access to the Bible.

      I am blaming you for an off-topic comment. No apologies, necessary, just ensure that future comments apply to the post.

  5. Andrew, I’m always confused by the “but nature causes so many abortions!” argument. As The Onion pointed out, with only the wisdom that comes from utter mockery of absurd ideas, the world’s mortality rate remains steady at 100%. All of our efforts into EMTs, police, fire, rescue, public health, vaccines, stents, heart surgery, cancer drugs, all of it – and we can’t even budge the mortality rate.

    The question is NEVER whether people are going to die; that’s a given. The same logic would lead us to say that many elderly people are going to die naturally, so it’s absurd to spend hundreds of billions of dollars a year saving them when so many of them die despite our best efforts anyway. Consider that the same “logic” has lead to involuntary euthanasia in many Western countries. Likewise, we don’t kill AIDS patients, people in war zones, or explorers in the Arctic just ‘cuz their death rate is so gosh-darn high anyway, does it really matter if we off a few of the lucky survivors.

    The only moral question is HOW those lives may be ended. Ending a life by deliberate act is always murder, whether it be a healthy twenty-something in a prosperous country, an elderly person in a nursing home, or a baby in the womb.

    (Also, it’s logically fallacious: if the zygote does die, no abortion is needed; if the baby does not die, it’s murder to kill it. Silly, really.)

    • Andrew, your argument is ridiculous. Even if what you said was relevant, any logical, moral person would err on the side of life. I’d prefer if people with your views would just admit that they are pro-legalized abortion and too gutless to take a stand. Seriously, the pro-life movement is better off than having people who “lean” pro-life and try to wrap their err-on-the-side-of-death “Christianity” around it.

      • I’ve been following the thread for a couple of days now and I still have absolutely no idea what this Andrew fellow is trying to argue. He claims to be pro-life and Christian, but turns around and insists there’s no reason to think zygotes are human beings, no proof that they are, and by extension no prohibition on killing them.

        If he thinks abortion is permissible, why doesn’t he just say that?

      • Exactly. He’s kinda/sorta against these frivolous abortions (because lots of women will freely admit that their abortions are frivolous – way to take a stand!), even though he can’t quite define those, but as soon as he gets this soul thing worked out he’ll get right back to us. Seriously, as a pro-lifer I really don’t want people like him even hinting that they are possibly-maybe-thinking about being on my side. Normally I’d be glad to have common ground, but this is common sand and I’d prefer a pro-abort who will at least take a stand. Even if we persuaded everyone on the planet to take Andrew’s “pro-life” stand we’d still have the same amount of abortions.

      • Andrew, there’s nothing I can do on my side, but if you have a WordPress account I think there is a place in your settings listing what you are subscribed to, and you can unsubscribe there. Or if you leave another comment can you uncheck The “email follow-up comments” box?

        I am truly sorry about your short timeframe, but I don’t see how anyone is trying to demonize you.

      • The problem is that the “certain situations” and “limitation” vagaries basically leave it wide open as it is today.

        I hope you get a miracle and beat your cancer and will pray for you tonight.

        Thanks for the tips, but I also share the Gospel personally and support ministries that do the same. At CareNet we aim to save lives today and for eternity. But I can’t help but feel that if I really love my neighbor — you know, the person that Jesus taught as the one we reflexively assume isn’t really our neighbor — then I’ll fight to keep her from being crushed and dismembered just because she’s unwanted. I love sharing the Gospel but using that logic we’d only do that and wouldn’t care for widows and orphans, etc.

        Peace,
        Neil

      • To be sure, legislation isn’t the only answer. That’s why I’ll always support Care Net. There will always be women who think that abortion is the answer, and we have doubly good news for them. But legislation would save countless lives and make men and women re-think their sex lives. Whether they are honest with themselves or not, far too many treat abortion as their backup (or primary) birth control. If it was illegal it would change behaviors. Not completely, but a lot.

    • Andrew those embryos are human beings. That’s all you need to know, provided you aren’t some “pro-life leaning” poser. And again, if you didn’t know, you’d err on the side of life (unless you were advancing Satan’s agenda). “Gosh, we don’t know if this baby is really a person yet or not, so go ahead and kill her.”

      You can keep “leaning” pro-life while 3,000+ humans get slaughtered tomorrow. Congratulations.

      • Apology accepted, and I apologize for being rough. Not sure I follow your prof’s comment completely. Of course God can fight his own battles, but there is nothing wrong with fighting to defend the weak and defenseless (not sure what the topic was in your example). I don’t get passionate about non-essential issues, but on essentials of the faith and on the greatest moral issue of our time I am glad to be passionate. Properly directed zeal is a good thing!

    • Andrew, as a “Bible-believing Christian”, then you should realize that the Bible does not set the criteria of “thou shalt not kill/murder” at the bar of “personhood” however that may be defined today or tomorrow, but at the bar of “human”, “for in the image of God, He created man (meaning mankind, or all humans, distinct from animals)”. Thus, to kill a human is to kill that which bears the image of God.

      Since a new human is created at conception, to kill this new human at an early stage is still to kill a human — a human which is created in the image of God — thus killing God in effigy.

      It is this last point which makes me think that this is why murder is so horrific, and also why Satan likes it so much when humans die and even more when humans kill each other. When killing a human, it is as if Satan is saying, “I can’t really kill God, but since I can’t, I’m going to get rid of as many of the things that bear His image as I can.”

      Remember when Jesus said to the religious leaders of His day, “You are of your father the devil, and the works that he does you will do. He was a murderer from the beginning….” How did Satan murder? By inciting our first parents to sin, thus leading to their deaths; and Cain killed Abel after God had warned him that Satan was lying at his doorstep, wanting to have the mastery of him. In like manner, Satan still incites murder, and the most murders he commits currently are in the form of abortion.

  6. The situations surrounding abortions are psychologically complex (pressures on the mother to abort, economic concerns, etc.) but morally simple (you don’t kill unwanted humans outside the womb for those reasons, so you shouldn’t kill them inside the womb for those reasons).

    As your resident pro-life feminist, I’m also here to point out that the psychologically complex situations are often a direct result of unfettered access to abortion. Our entire society is structured so that an “inconvenient” pregnancy is terminated. We no longer have married student housing on college campuses (which could, in theory, be used for single mothers finishing their studies); the marriage rates are in the gutter; we no longer ask young men to exhibit some self-restraint in their sexual encounters; it’s considered just and right for a male to give a woman half the money for abortion, but society never demands the hard work of wedding his sex partner and then raising a child and supporting a family.

    I could go on, but we’ve basically made it impossible for women to carry unplanned babies to term and then grow into a responsible, self-supporting family. If pro-aborts spent even a fraction of their energy on changing society to be more woman-friendly as they do on making sure we can suction our wombs clean of unwanted offspring, the world would be a far better place.

    • My sentiments exactly. If a woman miscarries or an already-born person dies of disease/accident/weather/natural causes, those are acts of God. God, being the Creator, has sovereignty over life and death, meaning He can create or destroy it at any time without being accountable to us.

      People, on the other hand, may lawfully employ lethal force only in the act of preventing someone else’s use of lethal force. There’s absolutely no way that stipulation may be used to justify the act of abortion, with the possible exception of the life of the mother. I do not even condone it for rape or incest cases, failing to understand why a child should be punished for his/her father’s sex crimes.

      • We’ve gone back and forth on the rape/incest thing for a while, but I will point out, again, that it is a pragmatic issue for me. The Left did quite well for itself when it buttered people up with “civil unions that of course will not lead to gay marriage,” and, having gotten that foot in the door, rammed the entire thing through and are working on polygamous unions and making paedophilia legal. Had it gone in whole-hog in the ’90s, traditional marriage would still be respected and they would still be fighting a laughable, losing battle.

        A child who is pregnant with her uncle’s baby is a sympathetic figure, as is a woman who has been raped, or a woman about to die from pregnancy complications. The same cannot be said of a woman who couldn’t be bothered to use a condom, or at least exercise some discretion in her choice of bed partners. The pro-abort sob stories are always about incest, rape, little kids, women who were beaten in a back alley, never about abortion on demand when some harlot couldn’t figure out how to take a darn Pill every morning. Banning abortion on demand is such low-hanging fruit. Such low-hanging fruit.

        But then, I’m an incrementalist when it comes to these things, and many of my compatriots are not.

  7. Pingback: “Craving Pure Spiritual Milk” | THE PROPHECY BLOG

  8. Abortion is something people don’t want to talk about it. I don’t care about Abortion, what All I want is to commit suicide to death. For I know God is a jealous and selfish God, Jesus even licks my cheek. Goddess of suicide will attack me to death, I am sure that Jesus don’t care about me. Now I will not talk to you anymore. Don’t give me any response please.

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