The “Christian” Left is far more extreme than the average pro-choice person

Always remember that forgiveness, hope and healing for anyone involved in the abortion process (or any other sin!) is available through Jesus.

The “Christian” Left’s official position on abortion is far more extreme than the average person identifying as pro-choice and they make all sorts of fallacious arguments to “prove” that Jesus doesn’t care about abortion.  They are loud and proud about justifying abortion for any reason up to the moment the child takes her first breath.  In their own words:

It really gets old when conservatives show up on this page and say we can’t be Christians because we advocate “killing babies.” First of all, fetuses aren’t “babies.” As the Bible states in many places fetuses become people when they draw their first breath. Secondly, abortion is a made up issue that’s never mentioned in the Bible.

First, fetuses are not babies.  But they are human beings (scientific fact!) and they are children.

Consider how many people who identify as pro-choice agree with pro-life positions on specific topics, then consider how radical the “Christian” Left’s / Democrats’ platform is (unrestricted taxpayer-funded abortions at any time, including “partial-birth abortions”/infanticide).

Pro-choice views (Gallup, 2011)
–Make abortion illegal in the 3rd trimester – 79%
–Make abortion illegal in the 2nd trimester – 52%
–Ban “partial-birth abortion” – 63%
–Require parental consent for minors – 60%
–Require 24 waiting period – 60%
The “Christian” Left and the rest of the Democrats, and the media who advance their cause, are the real extremists.

Here is a more thorough explanation of the “Christian” Left’s pro-abortion extremism and blasphemous claims that Jesus doesn’t care about it.  The title itself is a lie: The Bible Tells Us When A Fetus Becomes A Living Being.  The Bible does no such thing!  And their view is completely anti-science.  Read carefully and note how they assume a hyper-literal reading of their proof-texts and that the words are precisely what God wanted to be said. Why do they only view the Bible as truly inspired by God when it supports their pro-abortion extremism?  This is pure Leopard Theology, where people claim that the Bible is only inspired in spots and that they are inspired to spot the spots.  And they just “happen” to like the spots that they think support their pro-abortion views.

Many people think that a human being is created at the time of conception but this belief is not supported by the bible. The fact that a living sperm penetrates a living ovum resulting in the formation of a living fetus does not mean that the fetus is a living human being.

In a more accurate sense, that’s exactly what it means.  Human embryo ==> human fetus ==> human baby ==> human toddler ==> etc.  Same human being at different stages of development.

According to the bible, a fetus is not a living person with a soul until after drawing its first breath.

After God formed man in Genesis 2:7, He “breathed into his nostrils the breath of life and it was then that the man became a living being”. Although the man was fully formed by God in all respects, he was not a living being until after taking his first breath.

Note how this example, as bad as it is, doesn’t come close to proving their claim that the fetus becomes a living human being at the first breath.  The text does not say that Adam was a fetus first!

More importantly, we all know there was nothing unique about his creation, right?  And they deny the implications of a literal Adam and Eve on all other issues, such as marriage, human sexuality, original sin and more. Oddly, they only pretend to believe that truth when justifying abortion and even infanticide (aka “partial-birth abortion”).

And they insist that the “Christian” view is that a baby could be 90% delivered and killed for any reason and it would be completely moral.  That’s ghoulish.

In Job 33:4, it states: “The spirit of God has made me, and the breath of the Almighty gives me life.”

Again, note how text doesn’t even prove their point even if you took it in a hyper-literal fashion.  It doesn’t say the human fetus was made alive at his first breath but that the breath of God gave him life.

And do they take the rest of Job literally?

Again, to quote Ezekiel 37:5&6, “Thus says the Lord God to these bones:   Behold, I will cause breath to enter you, and you shall live.   And I will lay sinews upon you, and will cause flesh to come upon you, and cover you with skin, and put breath in you, and you shall live; and you shall know that I am the Lord.”

Do they take this passage literally?  Of course not.  And again, note how even their hyper-literal reading doesn’t prove their point.  This doesn’t relate to human fetuses!

In Exodus 21:22 it states that if a man causes a woman to have a miscarriage, he shall be fined; however, if the woman dies then he will be put to death. It should be apparent from this that the aborted fetus is not considered a living human being since the resulting punishment for the abortion is nothing more than a fine;   it is not classified by the bible as a capital offense.

According to the bible, destroying a living fetus does not equate to killing a living human being even though the fetus has the potential of becoming a human being.   One can not kill something that has not been born and taken a breath.   This means that a stillborn would not be considered a human being either.   Of course, every living sperm has the potential of becoming a human being although not one in a million will make it;   the rest are aborted.=

They should know how thoroughly debunked this pro-abortion view of Exodus 21 is.  The short version is that the key word of the passage is sometimes not translated well and says “miscarriage” instead of “children come out.” And of course that’s their go-to translation!  It you study the original Hebrew it becomes very clear that Moses did not mean that if the child is killed that the penalty is less severe.  More here, with a listing of all the errors pro-aborts make with this passage.

God has decreed, for one reason or another, that at least one-third of all pregnancies shall be terminated by a spontaneous abortion during the first trimester of pregnancy and that a number will be terminated after the first trimester.   It would appear that God does not have any more regard for the loss of a fetus than he does for the loss of a placenta or a foreskin despite the fact that these were living tissue as the result of conception.

Ah, as if the “Christian” Left knows the mind of God!  I encourage those using the miscarriage argument to consider these distinctions:

A. Human being dies of natural causes (inside or outside the womb)

B. Human being is deliberately killed by a 3rd party (inside or outside the womb)

Miscarriages would be in category A and abortions are in category B. I think most people can see that they are significantly different.

Of course, the commandment “You shall not kill” is not present in the commandments written by God on the stone tablets. For those who are not familiar with the commandments on the stone tablets that were placed in the Ark of the Covenant, they are enumerated in Exodus 34. The popular ten commandments that are enumerated in Exodus 20 were spoken by God to Moses who then relayed them to his people; they were never written.

That’s a bizarre twist beyond the scope of this post, but for the record note that they seem to be saying that God never said not to kill.

There is nothing in the bible to indicate that a fetus is considered to be anything other than living tissue and, according to scripture, it does not become a living being until after it has taken a breath.

That is absurd.  There are countless verses supporting the humanity of the unborn, including John the Baptist’s reaction to the presence of Jesus while John was still in the womb.

Many cite the scripture Jeremiah 1:5, “Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born I set you apart; I appointed you as a prophet to the nations.” God is omnipotent. He has known all of us since before creation. This scripture is irrelevant as it pertains to when a fetus becomes a living being.

That ignores that God formed him in the womb!

The same reasoning applies to Psalm 139:13-14.

I encourage people to read Psalm 139 themselves and see if they draw the same conclusion.

Numbers 5 describes “the Lord” ordering an abortion. Many argue that this is a misinterpretation. It is clearly stated in verse 22, “May this water that brings a curse enter your body so that your abdomen swells or your womb miscarries.”

That’s an epic double-fail.  First, the “Christian” Left insists that the Bible makes no mention of abortion, then they insist that it does.  Then, they use a bad translation (see the theme?) to support it.  That passage doesn’t even say the woman was pregnant, yet pro-aborts use it to rationalize abortion! It shows how desperate they are — as if they actually cared about what the Book of Numbers said.  They are welcome to show me in the Book of Numbers where it says the woman is pregnant (not there). Then they could show where she has an abortion (not there). Then they could show where God taking a life means that we can also take lives in the another fashion for any reason, including those of our own children (not there).  More here.

Before extremists turned the issue of reproductive choice into a political football, views on this matter were weren’t nearly so drastic.  For some history. . .

That not only ignores the Hippocratic Oath (written by non-believers hundreds of years before Jesus and still followed until the mid-20th century when the “Christian” Left helped it be eliminated) and the early church, which was emphatically against abortion. And it ignores the Catholic religion, led by the “Christian” Left’s new BFF, Pope Francis, that unequivocally condemns abortion.  It even ignores that as late as 1964 Planned Parenthood was anti-abortion!  Please tell me more about history, “Christian” Left.

If you don’t like abortion, don’t have one.

Ugh.  What horrible logic.  If you don’t like slavery, don’t have slaves.  And so on.

When women don’t have personal choice over their own reproductive decisions they end up butchered in back alley abortions or thrown in jail for having a miscarriage.

Thrown in jail for miscarriages?  Yeah, that happened all the time pre-Roe v Wade /sarcasm.  Scare tactics much?

And “reproductive freedom/choice/justice/rights/health/etc.” are false, Orwellian, anti-scientific terms. They apply to birth control, not abortion, because abortion destroys a human being who has already been reproduced. That is a scientific fact confirmed by any mainstream embryology textbook and basic logic. It is a deadly and evil phrase. Yes, they have a right to reproduce, but no, they shouldn’t have the right to kill human beings who have already been reproduced.  Never let pro-aborts get away with using that phrase.

Certain types of birth control are outlawed when a fertilized egg is classified as a “person” as well.

Yes!  Because they kill human beings!

In the end, if abortion was such a grievous sin Jesus would have mentioned it.  He said nothing.

And of course, the fallacious argument from silence.  The argument that Jesus never said anything about abortion (or homosexual behavior, etc.) fails on many levels. If a church leader uses it you can be confident that he or she is ignorant and/or malicious. Short version: Yes, He did say something about it, but the theological Left ignores or distorts it as they do with many things about Jesus and his teachings.

Arguing from silence is a logical fallacy. Jesus is God and part of the Trinity that inspired all scripture. Note how Jesus defeats Darwinian evolution, oxymoronic “same-sex marriage” and same-sex parenting arguments in one simple passage. No true follower of him should disagree on any of those topics. Matthew 19:4–5 He answered, “Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’?”  He supported the Old Testament law to the last letter. The “red letters” weren’t silent on these topics in the sense that they reiterated what marriage and murder were.  He emphasized many other important issues that these Leftist theologians completely ignore (Hell, his divinity, his exclusivity, etc.). He was equally “silent” on issues that these folks treat as having the utmost importance (capital punishment, war, welfare, universal health care, taxpayer-funded abortions, etc.). He didn’t specifically mention rape, child abuse, pedophilia, bestiality and other obvious sins though that wouldn’t justify them.  Abortion and homosexual behavior simply weren’t hot topics for 1st century Jews. They actually thought children were a blessing and they had laws against homosexual behavior. And the Gospels never claimed to include everything He said. John specifically notes that the whole world couldn’t hold it all! (John 21:25). And Jesus never said anything about the “sin” of criticizing abortion or homosexual behavior, so it must be OK!

So other than that, the argument from silence is really good.

“She heads for the clinic and she gets some static walkin’ through the doors;
They call her a killer, and they call her a sinner, and they call her a whore;
God forbid you ever had to walk a mile in her shoes;
‘Cause then you really might know what it’s like to have to choose.”

~ Erik Francis Schrody (Everlast), from the song, “What It’s Like.”

Ah, but to choose what?  Oh, to kill an unwanted human being.  Some choices should not be legal options — especially for those claiming the name of Christ.

So their claim that the Bible says that human beings aren’t really alive until the first breath fails on every count.  It shows their desperation and hypocrisy to pretend that they believe the Bible is the precise word of God when they think it supports their pro-abortion claims and then to mock and discredit that same word when they don’t like what it says. 

—–

Only the Molech-worshiping pro-abortion extremists of the “Christian” Left could post this without a hint of shame, hypocrisy or irony. They literally defend abortion until the first breath is taken outside the womb but pretend to care about children.

“Children” is an accurate description of the human beings killed by abortion.

giffords

Exposing the “Christian” Left Facebook page

Do not hesitate to call the unborn “children”

I try to use the term children when explaining what abortion does — i.e., it kills children.  Pro-aborts — especially those from the “Christian” Left — balk at that term.  Those ghouls are far more extreme than the average “pro-choice” person, as the former insist that life begins at the first breath* and concludes that you can kill a child at any time until she is 100% out of her mother.  So they hate it when you refer to the unborn as children and they pretend that the word is being misused.

I’ve always noted the scientific fact that the unborn are human beings from fertilization. When they say it is “just” a fetus (or embryo, etc.) I note that the fetus in question is a human being at a particular stage of development: Human embryo ==> human fetus ==> human baby ==> human toddler ==> etc.  Always human and always worthy of protection.

But what do the good folks at Dictionary.com have to say about the term children?  Is it legitimate to use that to describe the unborn?  Yep.  Just because it isn’t the first use of the word doesn’t mean it isn’t accurate.

child

4. a human fetus.
Idioms
11. with child, pregnant:

She’s with child.
Examples from the web for child
British Dictionary definitions for child
3. an unborn baby related prefix paedo-
4. with child, another term for pregnant
Word Origin and History for child
Old English cild “fetus, infant, unborn or newly born person,” from Proto-Germanic *kiltham (cf. Gothic kilþei “womb,” inkilþo “pregnant;” Danishkuld “children of the same marriage;” Old Swedish kulder “litter;” Old English cildhama “womb,” lit. “child-home”); no certain cognates outside Germanic. “App[arently] originally always used in relation to the mother as the ‘fruit of the womb'” [Buck]. Also in late Old English, “a youth of gentle birth” (archaic, usually written childe). In 16c.-17c. especially “girl child.”

Online Etymology Dictionary, © 2010 Douglas Harper

2. An unborn infant; a fetus.

So please use children as often as possible when describing what abortion does.  It has great rhetorical force and helps demolish the anti-science, anti-God “just a fetus” arguments.

* à la Adam, as though the “Christian” Left affirms a real Adam when it comes to any other theological issue!

Great news: Congress Introducing legislation to ban late-term abortions

This is a great bill and smart politics and it shows how elections matter. Even when Obama vetoes it we can use it to show how extreme he and the rest of the Left are.  They not only rabidly support late-term abortions but even infanticide (aka “partial-birth abortion”) and letting children die who survive abortions. Even most pro-choicers oppose late-term abortions, and few know how extremely liberal our policies are compared to other Leftist countries.

Via New Congress Wastes No Time Introducing Pro-life Legislation:

“We have a moral obligation to end dangerous late-term abortions in order to protect women and these precious babies from criminals like Kermit Gosnell and others who prey on the most vulnerable in our society,” Blackburn said. “The United States is one of the few remaining countries in the world that allows abortion after 20 weeks. That is why today we renew our efforts to protect the lives of babies and their mothers with the introduction of the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act. Rep. Trent Franks (R-AZ)96% and I have been a good team moving this legislation through the House as we continue to lead the fight to ensure the unborn are provided the same protections that all human life deserves.”

The Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act passed the House of Representatives in 2013, yet progressed no further as President Obama vetoed it and the Senate refused to take it up for a vote. However, with Reid now sidelined as a result of the November midterm elections, the law has a more promising road. Should the bill pass the House, the new Senate Majority Leader Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY)67% has already pledged to take the bill up for a vote.

Unfortunately, there’s still that presidential veto threat hanging in the air. President Obama has made it clear that he’s no fan of the pro-life movement. In 2007, he received a 100 percent score from the Illinois Planned Parenthood Council for his pro-abortion agenda while in the Illinois state senate. Among his pro-abortion record, was the time he voted against legislation that would offer medical care to babies who survived abortion.

Getting these things in the news cycle also provides opportunities to share the scientific and moral truths about the pro-life position.  Pro-life reasoning is simple and accurate: It is a scientific fact and basic common sense (what else would two human beings produce?) that a new human being is reproduced at fertilization. Seriously, go check out any mainstream embryology textbook. I’m too pro-science to be pro-choice. Based on the settled science, it is then 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. Arguments about “bodily autonomy” ignore the body destroyed in the abortion.

In other words, it is wrong to take the life of an innocent human being without proper justification. Abortion does that. Therefore, abortion is wrong.

And of course, despite what the “Christian” Left tells you, God opposes abortions (those ghouls insist that life really begins at the first breath, so they think it is acceptable to kill the children even when they are 90% out of the mother).

Responding to the pro-abortion “Christian” Left

Everything you need to respond to the “Christian” Left pro-abortion arguments

The “Christian” Left, which mocks the Bible every chance they get and denies its inspiration, gets all scriptural when they think they can twist it to justify something they love, like abortion.

The pro-abortion extremist ghouls at the “Christian” Left post articles like this to pretend that abortions are acceptable at any time for any reason until the first breath is taken. So they support infanticide (aka “partial-birth abortion”) even though most pro-choicers aren’t even that extreme!

Many people think that a human being is created at the time of conception but this belief is not supported by the bible. The fact that a living sperm penetrates a living ovum resulting in the formation of a living fetus does not mean that the fetus is a living human being.

That’s not what all those pesky embryology textbooks say. Then again, why would I expect anti-science religious zealots like the “Christian” Left to understand science?

And their exegesis is not only horrifically wrong but hypocritical.

According to the bible, a fetus is not a living person with a soul until after drawing its first breath. After God formed man in Genesis 2:7, He “breathed into his nostrils the breath of life and it was then that the man became a living being”. Although the man was fully formed by God in all respects, he was not a living being until after taking his first breath.

So they take the rather unique creation of the first man and assume that is normative for the billions of people made since? Satan will do anything to rationalize child-killing in the womb, including have his followers say stupid things like that.

And remember, this is the Bible-mocking “Christian” Left saying this. Since when do they believe in a literal Adam? Since never! They are taking text they don’t believe and twisting it to rationalize abortion. Because that’s the kind of things fake Christians do.

Let’s look at one of their most ridiculous statements:

There is nothing in the bible to indicate that a fetus is considered to be anything other than living tissue and, according to scripture, it does not become a living being until after it has taken a breath.

Hmmm . . . I guess they’ve never read Luke 1:41.

And when Elizabeth heard the greeting of Mary, the baby leaped in her womb. And Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit.

These moral freaks would have supported an abortion for John the Baptist, Jesus, or anyone else, ever.

Then they trot out their fallacious reading on Exodus 21 to support unrestricted, taxpayer-funded abortions.

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

The short version is that the key word of the passage is often not translated well and says “miscarriage” instead of “children come out.” It you study the original Hebrew it becomes very clear that Moses did not mean that if the child is killed that the penalty is less severe.

More here, with a listing of all the errors pro-aborts make with this passage.

Then they go to Numbers 5, even though the passage doesn’t even say the woman was pregnant.  It shows how desperate they are — as if they actually cared about what the Book of Numbers said.  They are welcome to show me in the Book of Numbers where it says the woman is pregnant (not there). Then they could show where she has an abortion (not there). Then they could show where God taking a life means that we can also take lives in the another fashion for any reason, including those of our own children (not there).  More here.

These wolves in sheep’s clothing don’t even believe all of the Gospels, let alone the rest of the New Testament, but they want you to believe that they take Genesis, Exodus, Numbers, etc. literally.  I’m skeptical.

If you don’t like abortion, don’t have one.

Of course they work in that deadly and fallacious sound bite.  That’s like saying, “Don’t like slavery?  Don’t have a slave!  Don’t like murder outside the womb?  Don’t murder anyone!”  And so on.

But don’t judge others who may be in terrible circumstances that you can’t possibly understand.

Abortion conditions may be psychologically complex, but they aren’t morally complex.  They wouldn’t justify killing a toddler, so why do they justify killing the same person in the womb?

When women don’t have personal choice over their own reproductive decisions they end up butchered in back alley abortions or thrown in jail for having a miscarriage.

They use the fallacious “reproductive decisions” language.  “Reproductive decisions/freedom/choice/rights/health/etc.” are false, Orwellian, anti-scientific terms. They apply to birth control, not abortion, because abortion destroys a human being who has already been reproduced. That is a scientific fact confirmed by any mainstream embryology textbook and basic logic. It is a deadly and evil phrase. Yes, they have a right to reproduce, but no, they shouldn’t have the right to kill human beings who have already been reproduced.  Never let pro-aborts get away with using that phrase.

And the scare tactics about back-alley abortions are illegitimate.  Remember that these were the people supporting the media embargo on Kermit Gosnell.  They do not care about women getting hurt as they are killing their children.

And their “thrown in jail for a miscarriage” bit is ridiculous.  Because that happened all the time pre-Roe v Wade, right?  More scare tactics.

Certain types of birth control are outlawed when a fertilized egg is classified as a “person” as well.

Good! Because we are human persons from conception.

Those who say, “If you’re a Christian, you have to be against abortion, and therefore you must vote republican,” are simply reciting talking points from false teachers.

That’s so amusing when people like Mark “Jesus is not my God” Sandlin and Chuck “Jesus is not the only way but He sure is a bigot” Currie call other people false teachers.

In the end, if abortion was such a grievous sin Jesus would have mentioned it.  He said nothing.

It wouldn’t be a “Christian” Left pro-abortion piece without the argument from silence.  The argument that Jesus never said anything about abortion (or homosexual behavior, gay-bashing, pedophilia, etc.) fails on many levels. If a church leader uses it you can be confident that he or she is ignorant and/or malicious.  Short version: Yes, He did say something about it, but the theological Left ignores or distorts it as they do with many things about Jesus and his teachings.

Medium version
—————————
Arguing from silence is a logical fallacy.

Jesus is God and part of the Trinity that inspired all scripture.

Note how Jesus defeats Darwinian evolution, oxymoronic “same-sex marriage” and same-sex parenting arguments in one simple passage. No true follower of him should disagree on any of those topics. Matthew 19:4–5 He answered, “Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’?”

He supported the Old Testament law to the last letter.

The “red letters” weren’t silent on these topics in the sense that they reiterated what marriage and murder were.

He emphasized many other important issues that these Leftist theologians completely ignore (Hell, his divinity, his exclusivity, etc.).

He was equally “silent” on issues that these folks treat as having the utmost importance (capital punishment, war, welfare, universal health care, taxpayer-funded abortions, etc.).

He didn’t specifically mention rape, child abuse, pedophilia, bestiality and other obvious sins though that wouldn’t justify them.

Abortion and homosexual behavior simply weren’t hot topics for 1st century Jews. They actually thought children were a blessing and they had laws against homosexual behavior.

And the Gospels never claimed to include everything He said. John specifically notes that the whole world couldn’t hold it all! (John 21:25).

And Jesus never said anything about the “sin” of criticizing abortion or homosexual behavior, so it must be OK!

Long version.

—–

Do not follow the “Christian” Left.  They mock the essentials of the faith at every turn and they promote a culture of death and sexual immorality.  They will twist scripture, use fallacious fear tactics, lie and anything else they have to do to justify their views.  They note on their website that they “speak for those with no voice,” but they are hypocritical pro-abortion extremists.  They don’t love God or their neighbors in the womb.

Churchgoers who support “same-sex marriage” and abortion have nearly identical views to the world. It shows who their real father is.

1 John 2:15-16 Do not love the world or the things in the world. If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him. For all that is in the world—the desires of the flesh and the desires of the eyes and pride of life—is not from the Father but is from the world.

——

And here’s an analysis of one of their Facebook posts:

They get so unhinged when cheer leading for abortion.  It is ghoulish.  They are like the blind men of Sodom, groping for the door after they lost their sight.

Conservative “Christian” fundamentalists honestly believe in their own minds that the end to any political debate with a Christian progressive, no matter the issue, is “Oh yeah!? Well you guys advocate killing babies!” After they make that pronouncement it’s all over for them.

So they start with a straw-man argument, as usual — as if they really know the minds of believers. We don’t think our proper views on abortion ends every debate. It is merely one of countless things they get wrong. They could have said the same thing about us thinking it is “all over” when they deny the deity of Christ, or deny that Jesus is the only way to salvation, or when they mock the Bible, or when they ask Caesar to redistribute wealth and call it charity on their part, and so on.

A fetus isn’t a person. It’s a fetus. It becomes a person when it’s BORN! Dah! People don’t celebrate their Conception Day. They celebrate their BIRTHday. People don’t buy LIFE Insurance for a fetus.

And that’s the kind of pro-abortion reasoning you get from the anti-science “Christian” Left. It is a scientific fact and basic common sense (what else would two human beings produce?) that a new human being is reproduced at fertilization. Seriously, go check out any mainstream embryology textbook. I’m too pro-science to be pro-choice. Based on the settled science, it is then 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.

Note how their pro-abortion reasoning supports infanticide (aka “partial-birth abortion”). What they leave out in their anti-science screed is that the fetus is a human being. Human embryo ==> human fetus ==> human baby ==> human toddler ==> etc. Same human being at different stages of development. Always made in the image of God and worthy of protection.

I’m almost embarrassed for them because of the silly examples they use to deny the personhood of the unborn. The size, level of development, location and degree of dependency do not dictate whether humans are persons.  Using their logic, since most people don’t buy life insurance for infants then it is OK to kill them, too.

Worse yet for the “Christian” Left: The laws of 2/3 our states consider the unborn persons — except when mommy is paying for the killing.

Abortion is a made up issue that isn’t in the Bible.

Oh, the argument from silence! It wouldn’t be a pro-abortion cheer leading session without that. Using their logic, child abuse, wife-beating, gay-bashing, and more are OK because they are specifically in the Bible.

But wait, it gets worse for them.  Remember, they insist that abortion is OK because of how they (mis-)interpret Numbers 5.  So they say it is in the Bible when they want to advance their pro-abortion cause but deny it is there when we note it is simply another form of murder.

This issue was created in the early 80’s as a political ploy to deceive Christians to think they had to vote republican.

Yeah, the Hippocratic Oath was written in the early 80’s as a political ploy. No, wait, that’s not right — it was written hundreds of years B.C. and said, “Nor will I give a woman a pessary to procure abortion.”

Even Planned Parenthood, part of the vast right-wing conspiracy was anti-abortion in the 60’s (then they figured out how profitable it was).

And early church fathers and those throughout the century were strongly anti-abortion.  Here are a few quotes from early church leaders on abortion. I’m sure the pacifists quote these left and right in their pro-life efforts:

And when we say that those women who use drugs to bring on abortion commit murder, and will have to give an account to God for the abortion, on what principle should we commit murder? For it does not belong to the same person to regard the very foetus in the womb as a created being, and therefore an object of God’s care, and when it has passed into life, to kill it . . . Athenagoras of Athens, circa 180 A.D. from A Plea For The Christians

You shall love your neighbor more than your own life. You shall not slay a child by abortion. You shall not kill that which has already been generated. (Epistle of Barnabas 19.5; second century)

Do not murder a child by abortion or kill a new-born infant. (The Didache 2.2; second century catechism for young Christian converts)

It does not matter whether you take away a life that is born, or destroy one that is coming to the birth. In both instances, the destruction is murder. (Tertullian, Apology, 9.4; second century)

Those who give abortifacients for the destruction of a child conceived in the womb are murderers themselves, along with those receiving the poisons. (Basil the Great, Canons, 188.2; fourth century)

Jerome called abortion “the murder of an unborn child” (Letter to Eustochium, 22.13; fourth century).

Augustine used the same phrase, warning against the terrible crime of “the murder of an unborn child” (On Marriage, 1.17.15; fourth century).

The early church fathers Origen, Cyprian and Chrysostom likewise condemned abortion as the killing of a child.

And even the “Christian” Left new BFF, Pope Francis, leads a religious organization that has always been anti-abortion.

What shameless liars the “Christian” Left are!  They have lots of bad reasons to be pro-abortion, but their “Republicans made it up in the 80’s” lie is the worst of all.  But that’s no surprise, given that their leader is the father of lies.

A whole lot of needless human suffering has been propagated as a result of that lie.

Oh, the morbid irony of them pretending to care about human suffer when they champion this and this.

The republican platform is an Ayn Rand selfish, self-centered, renounce your neighbor ideology. It is the antithesis of everything Jesus taught. Thank God people are finally waking up to this fact as well.

What a perfectly ironic and amusing close for their screed.  Ayn Rand was pro-abortion, just like them!

With respect to her pro-abortion views, she was indeed the antithesis of everything Jesus taught — just like they are!

A superb use of the “trot out the toddler” argument

One of the best ways to respond to almost an pro-abortion argument is to “trot out the toddler.” Via Stand to Reason:

Many of pro-choice arguments would be unthinkable if applied to a toddler.  It’s a good tactic to “trot out the toddler.”  Show the absurdity of the argument by showing what it would mean if applied to a toddler.  It refocuses the argument on the one question that matters:  What is the unborn?

This is a perfect example used by the mother of a Down Syndrome child when a cashier suggested that she should have aborted the boy.  Via Sometimes I Forget…. .

Like the cashier that gave me sad eyes and spit poison in a whisper,

“I bet you wish you had known before he came out. You know they have a test for that now…”

Shock, horror, hurt and fury coursed through my body. I considered jerking her over the register and beating her senseless. I looked her up and down, I could take her….

Instead I used whit: I smiled a crazy lady smile “I know right?! It’s so much harder to get rid of them once they come out. Believe ME I’ve tried…” Jackpot! Her mouth dropped open and she stared at me in shock. I leaned over the register and whispered to her,

“What you’re saying is that it’s okay for me to kill him while he’s inside, but not outside? In my book there isn’t a difference. For the record, we knew EVERYTHING about him during my pregnancy. He is our son now and he was our son then. There is no way in hell that I would let any harm come to either of my children. Including during the time that they’re so ridiculously considered disposable.

via

Responding to the Left’s “care” for the homeless

I’m all for finding practical solutions to homelessness and we are long-time contributors to a local Christ-based shelter.  But when the “Christian” Left is busy “caring” about the homeless with other people’s money, be sure to ask a few questions:

1. Are you willing to house them yourselves?  If not, you don’t really care about them.  That’s the homeless version of their fallacious pro-abortion argument claiming that we don’t care about the children after they are born.  We do care, of course, and do a lot with our own time and money.  And we would obviously protest infanticide and toddler-cide just as much as we oppose killing children in the womb.

2. I thought you liked government micro-managing our lives with soda sizes, making people pay for others’ birth control, etc.  Why pull up the drawbridge now?  Have you considered that there are downsides to to giving the government that much power?

3. Have you ever studied the issue carefully enough to realize that if you make it too easy to be homeless that you remove incentives for them to change?  Go talk to them yourselves!

One pro-abortion meme, so much bad logic

This meme shared by the the “Christian” Left was a spectacular fail.

(Heads up: trolls, concern trolls and contrarians will be “invited” to leave the page. We’ve seen it and heard it before — and we’re simply not buying it.)
Agree? Then spread the message around and sign the boycott for birth control: http://actionsprout.io/597AC1

Photo: Agree? Then spread the message around and sign the boycott for birth control:  http://actionsprout.io/597AC1

1. The “Christian” Left has to swear in their memes? Another meme today said, “Shut the f*ck up” and only commenter out of 30 had complained. Classy. Then again, they refuse to have any limits on child-killing in the womb, so what would you expect?

2. They use the same question-begging fallacy as most pro-abortion arguments, where they ignore the human being killed in the abortion. What about her choice?
Why are they anti-choice for the woman to own a gun whenever she likes, choose where her kids go to school, choose what size soda to drink, choose what the kids each for lunch (if they are allowed outside the womb), etc.?

3. The “Christian” Left is most certainly pro-abortion. Words mean things. Democrats are officially pro-abortion, not pro-choice. Why? Because they want taxpayer-funded abortions, laws requiring all health care plans to cover abortions, and no restrictions on anything, including “partial-birth abortion” (aka infanticide), late term abortions, gender-selection abortions, parental notification, etc.

From their platform (http://www.democrats.org/democratic-national-platform ): “The Democratic Party strongly and unequivocally supports Roe v. Wade and a woman’s right to make decisions regarding her pregnancy, including a safe and legal abortion, regardless of ability to pay. We oppose any and all efforts to weaken or undermine that right.”

4. It was cute how they pre-empted discussion as well. They are so open minded and tolerant!

5. They just got through quoting this verse, then they ignore it! What about the interests of the unborn?

Let each of you look not only to his own interests, but also to the interests of others. Philippians 2:4 (ESV)

They also reflexively quote verses about the “least of these” and loving your “neighbor,” while ignoring that abortion destroys both of those.

The Molech-worshipers will always be pro-abortion.

6. They claim to be pro-choice because it is none of their “da*n” business, but they simultaneous want to force employers and taxpayers to pay for abortions. See any “choice” contradiction there? Worse yet, they link to a boycott page that is mad that companies like Hobby Lobby “only” offer 16 forms of birth control. You see, they don’t offer the human being-killing kind, so that makes the “Christian” Left sad.

And of course abortion kills human beings who have already been reproduced, so birth control is another topic.

—–

Pro-life reasoning is simple and accurate: It is a scientific fact and basic common sense (what else would two human beings produce?) that a new human being is reproduced at fertilization. Seriously, go check out any mainstream embryology textbook. I’m too pro-science to be pro-choice. Based on the settled science, it is then 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. Arguments about “bodily autonomy” ignore the body destroyed in the abortion.

In other words, it is wrong to take the life of an innocent human being without proper justification. Abortion does that. Therefore, abortion is wrong.