Actor Proud of His Mother for Aborting His Sibling

Yep.  Like most pro-abortion reasoning, it sounds like it was written by a child — although most children would be reflexively pro-life if you described to them what an abortion does.  Via Actor Mark Ruffalo Proud of His Mother for Aborting His Sibling:

 “Ruffalo called his mother’s experience a “relic of an America that was not free nor equal nor very kind””

But like nearly all pro-abortion arguments, he ignores that an innocent but unwanted human being is literally destroyed by abortion.  What is free, equal or kind about that?

“. . . his views about a woman’s legal right to decide if, when, and under what circumstances she will have a child.”

That’s more bad reasoning.  It is a scientific fact that the unborn are human beings from fertilization.  It is common sense and supported by any embryology book you pick up.  She already has a child, she is just in a unique location.

“she lived her life as a mother who chose when she would have children”

No, she killed one of her children.

“There is nothing to be ashamed of here except to allow a radical and recessive group of people to bully and intimidate our mothers and sisters and daughters for exercising their right of choice. “

I think killing unwanted human beings is radical.  And I support a woman’s right to choose all sorts of things: Husband, career, own a gun, health insurance, to home school, etc.  But I don’t support the choice to kill her child inside or outside the womb.

“Or design legislation that would chip away at those rights disguised a reinforcing a woman’s health.”

That ignores the health of the unborn.  He might have had a sister.  Nearly all gender-selection abortions kill females for the sole reason that they are female, yet “feminists” support those as well.

“I invite you to find your voice and let it be known that you stand for abortion rights and the dignity of a woman to be the master of her own life and body.”

What if the female is in the womb?  What about her body?

“I invite you to search your soul and ask yourself if you actually stand for what you say you stand for. Thank you for being here today and thank you for standing up for the women in my life.”

What if his mom aborted a female?  She would have been a woman in his life.

I agree with the “bro-choice” guy on one thing . . .

. . . that some men like abortions because they think it improves their sex lives.  Via “BroChoice:” Man Complains Casual Sex More Difficult if Abortions Banned:

This week, Ben Sherman, a pro-abortion boy, took to his blog to explain the #brochoice movement.

He wrote that if abortion isn’t readily accessible, especially in his state of Texas, men’s sex lives are at stake. It was the ultimate form of male-chauvinism, yet NARAL and other pro-abortion women’s groups took to Twitter in support of the campaign.

Can’t believe this actually happened? Here’s what Sherman wrote to other men as to why they should be #brochoice:

“Forcing women to adhere to the anti-choice attitudes of state legislators forces men to do the same, and will have serious consequences both on men’s lives and lifestyles.”

“Your sex life is at stake. Can you think of anything that kills the vibe faster than a woman fearing a back-alley abortion? Making abortion essentially inaccessible in Texas will add an anxiety to sex that will drastically undercut its joys. And don’t be surprised if casual sex outside of relationships becomes far more difficult to come by.”

I appreciate his honesty.  His creepy, deadly, wimpy honesty.  He will gladly have innocent but unwanted human beings destroyed so his sex life can be just a little bit better.  He is a boy, not a man.

Women, don’t buy the lie that pro-lifers are anti-women.  Remember this “bro-choice” reasoning and know the real reasons lots of young males support abortion rights.  The early feminists knew this.  You should, too.  These guys do not care about you.

And remember this when pro-aborts try to silence pro-life men just because they are men.  If pro-aborts really thought that you must have a uterus to weigh in on abortions then they would dismiss the views of all men.  But when they gladly accept “bro-choice” support it shows that they are just using a rhetorical trick to silence their opposition.

Also see Bro-Choice: understanding the motivations of the pro-choice man-child.

Stay classy, pro-abortion people

Some great news:

The Texas legislature has finally passed a late-term abortion ban — as it would have last month, had a mob not taken over the upper chamber’s galleries and disrupted the legislative process.

This is the 20 week ban that 62% of people support, including females.

Here is a sample of what the pro-abortion forces have done.  Any resemblance to the blind men of Sodom is purely biblical.

The good thing is that the middle ground people can get a glimpse of who the extremists are.

Don’t think that this experience won’t stick in the minds of Americans, either. The pro-abortion activist front may have set back their own cause by decades.  That’s good news for unborn children — and also for people who love representative democracy.

Having said all that, guess which group I respect more?

  1. The pro-aborts chanting, “Hail Satan!”
  2. The false teachers who are pro-abortion while claiming the name of Christ.

Yes, you are right.  I much prefer group 1.

Planned Bullyhood: Revisiting Planned Parenthood’s attempts to destroy the Komen Foundation

We’ve known for a long time that Planned Parenthood kills babies for a living, systematically hides statutory rape and sex trafficking, encourages kids to have all sorts of out-of-wedlock sex and pretends that it can be done without risks, and more.  But until last year we didn’t realize that this allegedly pro-women group would rather destroy a breast cancer charity than part ways amicably. How anti-women is that?

Please read Komen Insider’s New Book Exposes How Planned Parenthood Bullied It for more, and remember that they get hundreds of millions of dollars in taxpayer funds each year and that countless false teachers support PP.  It takes a special kind of evil to do what they did, but what should we expect from professional baby-killers?

Karen Handel, former Senior Vice President for the breast cancer group Susan G. Komen for the Cure is the author of a new book, Planned Bullyhood.

Hitting bookshelves tomorrow, the new book is a behind-the-scenes exposé of Planned Parenthood’s ruthless, orchestrated efforts to take down Komen in February for making a decision to revoke its funding for the abortion business.

Planned Bullyhood: The Truth Behind the Headlines About the Planned Parenthood Funding Battle With Susan G. Komen for the Cure is the title of the tome and it will be an eye-opening experience for readers. Handel was intimately involved in the decision-making process that led to de-funding Planned Parenthood and she was excoriated by the press and pro-abortion activists for doing so.

A lead-in promotional for the book set the stage this way:

In 2011, Susan G. Komen for the Cure was growing weary of the “pink” being tarnished by its health grants to Planned Parenthood (PPH), whose many controversies were fueling backlash against Komen. They wanted to remove themselves from the pro-life/abortion debate and made what they thought was a rational, reasonable decision: seek neutral ground in the culture war by severing ties with Planned Parenthood—and in turn, eliminate a major headache while opening a new, robust fund-raising channel.

Karen Handel, the organization’s Senior Vice President of Public Policy, was tasked with identifying options to disengage. In November, the Komen management and board decided to move forward.

Komen believed that they and PPH had made a “gentle ladies” pact, agreeing to part ways amicably and acknowledging that a media firestorm was in no one’s best interest. Yet, six weeks later, PPH unleashed a media campaign so viral and so seamlessly executed that it must have been in the works for some time. PPH attacked Komen against the backdrop of the Obama administration’s clash with the Catholic Church over contraception. After just three days, following hysterical cries that “Komen was abandoning women,” Komen capitulated and reversed course. Handel—a lifelong pro-life Republican who was raised Catholic—was immediately made the target. She resigned within days of Komen’s reversal. Liberals called her a right-wing Trojan horse. The pro-life community hailed her as a hero. She insists she is neither.

. . .

Because Komen’s staff and employees were spending an extraordinary amount of time responding to complaints about its grants given to Planned Parenthood –  “pass through” grants that were supposedly intended for breast cancer screening and education but merely had the abortion giant refer women to other agencies — Komen made the decision to halt funding. Citing the fact that Planned Parenthood only provided manual exams and referred patients elsewhere when mammograms were indicated, Komen said it would not fund future pass-through grants to the abortion agency.

. . .

“Although Komen had given Planned Parenthood millions of dollars over a period of two decades, Planned Parenthood president Cecile Richards was furious,” Malec recalls. “She spent the next six weeks quietly organizing a brutal political attack on her former friends at Komen.”

With the media, top Democrats in Congress, and other pro-abortion groups standing by their side, Planned Parenthood attacked Komen so heavily that, after three days of being battered by liberals and the media, Komen’s founder, Nancy Goodman Brinker, as Malec describes it, “wilted under pressure and capitulated to her tormenters.”

. . .

Today, Komen funds Planned Parenthood — despite the fact that abortion is linked to breast cancer and that carrying a pregnancy to term, especially at an earlier age, helps reduce the breast cancer risk.

“Komen’s grants directed to Planned Parenthood represent a conflict of interest for the breast cancer group,” Malec says. “According to medical texts and medical authorities, accepted risk factors for breast cancer include childlessness, small family size, delaying a first full term pregnancy, and little or no breastfeeding. Planned Parenthood sells women abortions, abortifacient drugs and contraceptives – all of which cause women to forfeit the protective effect of full term pregnancy.”

 

It isn’t just Gosnell

The pro-abortion media, politicians and false teachers want to pretend that Kermit Gosnell, convicted baby-killer, was a rogue abortionist.  But as you might expect, people who kill babies for a living don’t mind breaking the laws surrounding how to kill babies for a living.  And the phonies who pretend that Gosnell is some lone monster are have blood on their hands.

Here’s one example of many from Abortion Doc After Baby Born Alive: “What could I do? I killed the baby.” 

Davis also reveals what Dr. Tucker told her about an event that happened at one of the clinics he ran, a different clinic from the one where he employed Davis.

According to her testimony:

Then one day, Dr. Tucker came back to Alabama, where I was. He had been working in Mississippi. He said, “I had a real hard time in Mississippi, we had a problem and you need to go out and try to calm down the employees.”

I said, “What happened?”

He said, “There was a girl who came in for an abortion. I thought she was eighteen weeks. She ended up being closer to term. I inserted the laminaria and she went into labor. She went into labor and delivered a live, healthy baby.”

I said, “What did you do?”

He said, “What could I do? I killed the baby. But all the employees are really upset, so you need to go and take care of this.”

Remember that technically speaking the crimes of these “doctors” are that they killed the babies a few seconds too late.  But all abortions, except the very rare occasions to save the life of the mother, are just as immoral as killing the baby outside the womb.  Don’t let people forget that.

And remind them about the media blackout on Gosnell and the rest of these killers.

Abortionist declared a murderer . . . wait, isn’t that redundant?

Good news: Kermit Gosnell convicted on 3 of 4 counts of murdering babies, killing 41-year-old woman.

When your legal job description is to deliberately kill innocent but unwanted human beings, it is a little weird that you would get convicted of murder. Yet because Gosnell killed the babies 30 seconds too late he will (hopefully) spend the rest of his life in jail (I doubt capital punishment will be an option given his age).

But never forget: Just because his victims were a little bigger than average and his clinics a little dirtier than average doesn’t mean he isn’t virtually indistinguishable from the other “doctors” who kill babies for a living.

This will go down in history as one of the biggest stories buried by the Liberal media. They try to ignore it, or when they do report it they treat him as an anomaly. But he’s much closer to the mean — just like Planned Parenthood.  People who kill babies for a living don’t mind breaking the rules in place for killing babies for a living.

Words matter: The Democrats are pro-abortion, not pro-choice

I’ve mentioned this before and will probably only mention it six or seven more times, so please read carefully.  Do not let the pro-abortion people get away with using terms such as pro-choice or reproductive choice.  It is easy to show how false those are.  And don’t let them call you anti-abortion or anti-choice without taking the time to explain why they are correct on that claim.  You can take what they mean as a personal attack and use it to our advantage.

I used to try and be charitable and refer to pro-abortion people as pro-choice.  I preferred to get into the facts and logic and didn’t want to get people distracted by thinking we were just calling them names.  But with the latest platform of the Democratic party the most accurate term for them is pro-abortion.  

The Democratic Party strongly and unequivocally supports Roe v. Wade and a woman’s right to make decisions regarding her pregnancy, including a safe and legal abortion, regardless of ability to pay. We oppose any and all efforts to weaken or undermine that right.

We should take the time to explain why pro-abortion is the correct term.  If you insist on taxpayer-funding of abortions, that is the opposite of choice.  Your are forcing pro-life people to pay for abortions.  And you are claiming that we don’t have enough abortions and that society will be better if we have more.  They don’t want them to be rare, they want more of them.  Those claims aren’t pro-choice, they are pro-abortion.

The majority of those who identify as “pro-choice” agree that abortion should be illegal after the first trimester, that women should have a 24 hour waiting period before having the abortion, that parental consent should be required for teens and that taxpayers shouldn’t have to fund abortions.  That makes Obama and anyone supporting the Democrat’s platform the extremists.

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

Regarding “reproductive choice” or “reproductive health,” just point out the irrefutable scientific fact that a new human being is created at fertilization.  Therefore, abortions are designed to kill human beings who have already been reproduced.  Perverse organizations like the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice have self-refuting names.  It may seem subtle, but explaining how their pet terms are false undermines their credibility and helps point to the science and logic that are on our side.

These suggestions may seem unimportant, but they can make a big difference.  The Left uses terms to their advantage all the time, such as “marriage equality” and the pro-abortion phrases noted above.  Don’t let them get away with it.  By politely pointing out how pro-abortion their policies are and how “reproductive choice” is about birth control and not abortion we can plant seeds and persuade the middle ground about the truth.

Also, use verbal Judo and turn attack phrases such as “anti-choice” or “anti-abortion” back on them.  Just say, “Why yes, I am anti-abortion.  Abortions kill innocent but unwanted human beings without adequate justification, so I oppose them.  Thanks for noticing!  You should oppose them, too.”  I’m beginning to prefer the term anti-abortion over pro-life.  It is accurate and it spells out the word they hate to say: Abortion.

Regarding “anti-choice,” just ask them to complete the phrase and then agree with them: “You are using ‘choice’ in the sense of choosing to crush and dismember an innocent but unwanted human being without adequate justification, so I am against that choice.  You should be, too.  But I favor all sorts of other choices for women: Whom to marry, what career to choose, the freedom to speak out against “same-sex marriage,” whether to fund abortions of other people, whether to own a gun, what size soft-drink to consume, whether to home school, and more.  How do you feel about all of those choices?”

The anti-science pro-abortion lobby visits MSNBC

Via MSNBC Talking Head Calls Babies “Things That Might Turn Into Humans” — a pro-abortion “expert” made the following anti-science claims:

Oh, no. That might be bad. I seemed to have popped open the fertilized egg. We’ll put that back together. But the very idea that this would constitute a person, right? And that some set of constitutional rights should come to this.  Look, I get that that is a particular kind of faith claim. It’s not associated with science. But the reality is that if this turns into a person, right, there are economic consequences, right? The cost to raise a child, $10,000 a year up to $20,000 a year. When you’re talking about what it actually costs to have this thing turn into a human, why not allow women to make the best choices that we can with as many resources and options instead of trying to come in and regulate this process?

The video didn’t show the response of the MSNBC hosts, but I doubt they told her how spectacularly she wrong she was on the scientific facts.

Pro-life reasoning is simple and accurate: 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.

“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.

Note that we didn’t use religious reasoning there, though I’d be glad to share with her what God has to say in his revealed word!

She plays the typical pro-abortion word games of de-humanizing the unborn by claiming they aren’t persons, as if there was a meaningful distinction between human beings and persons and the distninction meant that the mother could have one killed but not the other.

per·son  [pur-suhn] noun

1. a human being, whether man, woman, or child: The table seats four persons.

2. a human being as distinguished from an animal or a thing.

My guess is that if you asked her if “people of faith” were anti-science she’d probably agree.  But who is really opposed to basic science and logic?

12 Things You Should Know About the Gosnell Infanticide and Murder Trial

If you have a Twitter account, post about #gosnell and ask why there is a media blackout.

Why aren’t more people outraged about this?  Where are the “if we can only save one child” chants?  Look how many human beings Gosnell destroyed compared to Newtown.

See 9 Things You Should Know About the Gosnell Infanticide and Murder Trial for a good overview.  Read them all, including the parts about the explicit racism (white women got better care) and the unsanitary conditions.  Where are Jesse, Al and the mainstream media when you need them?  Oh, right . . . the abortionist was black . . . and, well . . . an abortionist.  So where they usually see racism in everything, including where it doesn’t exist, they ignore it when it is undeniable.

Then consider these 3 additional things:

1. The mainstream media has a blackout on this case.  It has everything they would normally love — bizarre murders, cover-ups, blatant racism, etc. — but it involved an abortionist, so they keep silent.  Search for Kermit Gosnell at MSNBC and Politico and you will literally get zero items, even though it is one of the most frequently searched items (more on that below).

2. President Obama and Planned Parenthood are both on record defending the killing of infants who survive abortions.

3. Killing those babies was just as evil as regular abortions on smaller human beings. The media knows this, which is why #1 is there.  It is a scientific fact (and basic common sense) that a new human being is reproduced 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.

From Sifting Reality, this screen shot says it all.  Try it yourself at http://tv.msnbc.com/?s=kermit+gosnell .  The same thing happens at Politico and the LA Times.

Not. One. Story.

Just how many infanticides would an abortionist have to commit before MSNBC and Politico would find it newsworthy?  How many would he have to commit before President Obama, the Democrats and the  false teachers spoke out against it?  Do not let them preach to you about gun control until they address this topic and the media,  political and church silence.  If they really cared about children they would do something about this instead of consciously ignoring it.

This screen capture is not photoshopped.  I took it at 8:50 PM tonight

msnbc no match

Please consider sharing this with everyone you can!

Rob Bell, Terri and Sherri from The Simpsons, and perfect timing

In a move that should have surprised no one, Rob Bell has come out in favor of “same-sex simpsons-terri-sherri.jpgmarriage.”  It reminds me of an episode of The Simpsons where the twins Terri and Sherri were speaking to Lisa:

Isn’t it amazing that the same day you got a pool is the same day we realized we liked you?  The timing works out great, don’t you think?

For Rob Bell and other people bailing on biblical truths, it goes like this:

Isn’t it amazing that the same day God told me that he changed his rules on marriage it made me more popular?  The timing works out great, don’t you think?

The link has the video of him explaining his “new” views (Poison Control recommends watching it if you are out of Syrup of Ipecac) where he not-so-subtly undermined the word of God and said how we need to get with the world’s changes, because God is doing something new blah blah blah.  He says we should work on the “real” problems, as if the problem of saving people from sin isn’t real.

Once again someone who mocks what God said in his word wants us to believe that God is telling him all his new ideas and changes.  Right.  I hope that all the youth groups that showed his videos are repenting.

hear from God

Here’s a graph I made for Rob (the inspiration came from the World’s Best Sunday School Teacher)::

bell2

The liberal “church” has changed in the same ways culture has: Pro-legalized abortion, anti-parental notification laws, pro-gay marriage, pro-handing out condoms to kids, etc.

Think about this: Non-believers created the anti-abortion Hippocratic Oath and it took Satan 2,500 years to convince pagans to discard it.  Then it took another 15 minutes for theological Liberals to go pro-abortion.

Isn’t it amazing?  What great timing!  The liberal church realized it had been wrong on these important topics for nearly two thousand years, and came to that conclusion at virtually the same time as the secular culture.  That makes the world like them more, I suppose.

They also decided it was too embarrassing to believe in miracles, the authority of scripture, the exclusivity of Jesus, etc.  Or did that come first?

Thankfully, many churches in the West aren’t buying it and most of the churches outside the West aren’t either.  The first time I was in Kenya one of the full-time missionaries, a doctor from England, kept saying how the Kenyans were really disappointed in the U.S. when they heard about churches supporting gay “marriages.”   It wasn’t like they were thinking, “Gee, those brilliant Westerners know everything, perhaps we should follow them.”  It was more like, “Whoa, what are they thinking?!”

1 John 2:15-16 Do not love the world or anything in the world. If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him. For everything in the world—the cravings of sinful man, the lust of his eyes and the boasting of what he has and does—comes not from the Father but from the world.

Is this Planned Parenthood representative extra-evil, or just remarkably consistent?

Planned Parenthood kills babies for a living, they systematically hide statutory rape and sex trafficking, they encourage kids to have all sorts of out-of-wedlock sex and pretend that it can be done without risks, and so much more.  Yet one of their representatives managed to shock people during a public hearing. Watch it yourself:

She and Planned Parenthood, like Barack Obama before her, are fighting the restrictions against withholding medical care and killing infants who survive abortions.  She specifically says that the decision regarding what to do about the baby on the table is between the mother and the “healthcare provider.”  (She initially said the family, then thought better of those implications and reverted to just the mother later in her testimony).  And while this question may not have been asked, presumably she would insist that taxpayers fund the killing of the baby on the table.

Apparently the horrors of being a little too far away from a hospital were too much for Planned Parenthood to take, so speaking like Dr. Nick Riviera of The Simpsons, just to be on the safe side they need to be allowed to kill the baby.

Of course it is spectacularly evil to withhold care or directly kill a baby on a table.  Just because the abortionist failed on the first try doesn’t mean he deserves a second shot.  Anyone without a warped moral compass would agree.  But who are the inconsistent ones?  I submit that she is entirely consistent with the Democrats’ platform of abortions without restrictions, funded by taxpayers.

Remember, the successful abortion would have had the mother and child in the same room, with an irrelevant change in the distance between them.  Everyone in the video seems to concede that.  This Planned Parenthood representative would have been entirely consistent in saying the following (channeling Hillary Clinton):

With all due respect, the fact is we end up with a dead baby who wasn’t wanted by her mother. Was it because she was killed slightly inside the mother or slightly outside? What difference at this point does it make?

And she would be right.  While killing the baby on the table seems worse, it is morally equal to the abortion.  (Speaking of red equal signs . . .)

And if those babies can be killed, why not any baby delivered naturally?

Guns vs. abortions

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

. . .

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

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

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

Has your media of choice told you about the abortionist on trial for killing born-alive babies?

If not, you should really expand your horizons.  Shouldn’t this be front page news, and worthy of extended series a la Casey Anthony? Via Assistant to Kermit Gosnell admits to killing ten born-alive babies:

Dr. Kermit Gosnell, an abortionist now on trial in Philadelphia charged with seven counts of first-degree murder–he allegedly cut the spinal cords of late-term aborted babies who were born alive–apparently used to joke about the large size of some the infants he aborted and in one case, according to what a co-worker told the grand jury, said, “This baby is big enough to walk around with me or walk me to the bus stop.”

Gosnell, 72, who ran a multi-million dollar abortion business in West Philadelphia, was arrested on Jan. 19, 2011, and his trial started Monday, Mar. 18, 2013. The first-degree murder counts refer to seven late-term aborted babies who were born alive and then killed, their spinal cords cut with scissors.

Gosnell is also charged with the third-degree murder of a pregnant woman, Karnamaya Mongar, 41, who died after being given a pain killer at Gosnell’s office. He also faces several counts of conspiracy and violation of Pennsylvania’s law against post-24-week abortions.

I was in 24 Hour Fitness at lunch one day and surprised that CNN was actually covering part of this, but my understanding is that the rest of the Leftist media is ignoring it.  After all, it doesn’t fit in with their pro-abortion propaganda or these loving abortionists who just want to help women.  Interestingly, even the pro-abortion CNN anchor was visibly mystified at a guest’s suggestions for Gosnell’s defense arguments.

In addition, did your media of choice tell you how aggressively President Obama fought to make Gosnell’s actions legal?  His battles to permit the killing of babies who survived abortions are well documented.

As has been thoroughly documented with Planned Parenthood, people who kill babies for a living will do all sorts of other evils: Hide statutory rape and sex trafficking crimes, lie, cheat, ignore safety and health regulations and more.

Note that as gruesome as these crimes are, killing a one week old human being in the womb is just as immoral.

The Good Samaritan and abortion

The parable of the Good Samaritan is timeless and often told by Bible-believing Christians and by theological Liberals.  The meaning of the passage hinges on the definition of two words: Neighbor and love.

  1. Who is my neighbor?  Everyone, including the person I’m least likely to consider my neighbor.
  2. What does it mean to love?  To have the long-term best interests of others at heart, and to put their needs above mine.

Abortion fails badly on both counts.

All Christians should oppose abortion.  (OK, everyone should oppose the killing of innocent but unwanted human beings, but Christians should be universally anti-abortion).

“But they might be poor!”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Biology, not bigotry, and removing barriers to evangelism

I’ll support unrestricted, taxpayer-funded abortions as soon as you convince me that the unborn aren’t human beings and I’ll support government recognition of “same-sex marriage” as soon as you prove that these couples can provide a mother and a father to a child.

In both cases it is biology, not bigotry, so don’t let people silence you on these crucial topics.

You don’t have to convert people to your point of view on marriage or abortion before sharing the Gospel or pointing them to the Bible.  But for many people these are barriers to even considering Christianity.  Just having a few replies — literally just a minute or so — is often all it takes.  You can simply say, “Yes, the Bible does say it is a sin but even if it didn’t we are still separated from God by our many other sins . . .” and then point them to the cross and to God’s word (same thing for the abortion issue).  Here’s a real-life example of how to do that.

If people are hostile to it, then hold your pearls.  But don’t give up before you try.