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.

The Oxymoronic “Christian Left Blog”

The Christian Left Blog is anti-Christian, oxymoronic and hypocritical.  For starters, they actively advance their side of the “wedge issues” of abortion and “same-sex marriage” while pretending that we should just give up.  Unrestricted, taxpayer-funded abortion was the #1 theme at the Democrat National Convention and “same-sex marriage” is the #1 issue dividing denominations — and not because the Bible-believers are trying to change things.

It is highly disingenuous of them to pretend that the church was pro-abortion and pro-gay theology for 2,000 years and then these mean conservatives came along to drive a wedge.

They are so sloppy and anti-scientific in their language. “Reproductive choice” is a popular euphemism for abortion, but 100% of abortions kill unwanted human beings who have already reproduced.  Don’t let them get away with putting a positive spin on death.

Picture

Predictably, they tout “marriage equality” but same-sex unions are not and will never be equal to real marriage because by nature and design they can never produce children and can never provide a mother and a father to a child.

The Bible couldn’t be more clear.  Even non-Christians and two out of the three types of pro-gay theologians* can see these truths:

  • 100% of the verses addressing homosexual behavior denounce it as sin in the clearest and strongest possible terms.
  • 100% of the verses referring to God’s ideal for marriage involve one man and one woman.
  • 100% of the verses referencing parenting involve moms and dads with unique roles (or at least a set of male and female parents guiding the children).
  • 0% of 31,173 Bible verses refer to homosexual behavior in a positive or even benign way or even hint at the acceptability of homosexual unions.

And their slogan includes a straw man as well.  No one is claiming that homosexuals aren’t autonomous and don’t have the right of free association.

They use tired, horrible arguments like these:

If you don’t like abortion, don’t have one. But don’t judge others who may be in terrible circumstances that you can’t possibly understand. Especially when your judgements are based on a politically motivated and questionable interpretation of the Bible (at best).

Slave owners used the same argument: Don’t like slavery?  Don’t own one.  You could plug any crime in that sentence and it would be equally fallacious.  Every time it would ignore the victim, just like their pro-abortion reasoning does.

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.

False teachers?!  Indeed.  It is the theological Left that denies essentials of the faith — Jesus’ divinity and exclusivity, the authority of scripture, etc.

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

Ah, the What Jesus didn’t say argument.  I am embarrassed for people that use that.  Here are the highlights of why that argument is so bad.  Click the link for more.

  • Arguing from silence is a logical fallacy
  • Jesus is God and part of the Trinity that inspired all scripture
  • Jesus 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
  • Jesus emphasized many other important issues that these liberal 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, etc.)
  • He didn’t specifically mention child abuse 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 that children were a blessing!
  • And Jesus never said anything about the “sin” of criticizing homosexual behavior and abortion, so it must be OK!

* 1. “The Bible says homosexuality is wrong but it isn’t the word of God” (obviously non-Christians) 2. “The Bible says it is wrong but God changed his mind” (only about 10 things wrong with that) 3. “The Bible is the word of God but you are just misunderstanding it”

From the “I am not making this up” category: “Pro-lifers are just ‘trying to build up the’ white race”

I’ve had that completely backwards charge recklessly thrown at me before, but this is from journalists who should know better.  From the government’s own statistics, the rate of abortions in the black community is three times that of whites, and the Hispanic rate is double that of whites.  You do not have to be skilled in math to realize that less abortions would result in a lower percentage of white people in the population, not a higher percentage.

So if our motives are racist then we’re doing the opposite of what we should be doing!  We should adopt the official platform of the Democrats, which involves taxpayer-funded abortions without restriction at any stage of pregnancy.  That would take those black and Hispanic rates even higher and help prop up our white majority.  But of course that isn’t our goal.  We just want to save lives, even if it means handing votes to our ideological enemies.

But these journalists are so blinded by their racist worldview that they miss the obvious.  Via Pro-lifers are just ‘trying to build up the’ white race:

WASHINGTON. D.C., November 12, 2012, (LifeSiteNews.com) – A commentator on MSNBC has said white people want to end abortion, because “they’re trying to build up the” white race.

On Saturday, MSNBC host Melissa Harris-Perry reviewed the declining portion of the electorate made up by white people and asked her panel about “ the demise of the white man.”

“It’s been weird to watch white people report on this,” said CBS contributor Nancy Giles.

“When you just showed that graph of the decline of the numbers, I thought maybe that’s why they’re trying to eliminate all these abortions and stuff. They’re trying to build up the race.”

An elementary school student should know that the math proves the opposite of that.

White voters made up 81 percent of the U.S. electorate in 2000, but only 72 percent in 2012.  The percentage is expected to keep falling.

The demographic shift allowed Barack Obama to be elected president with only 39 percent of white voters.

Perry responded to Giles by saying, “There’s always eugenics associated with these questions.”

The comment seemed ironic, as Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger was an outspoken proponent of eugenics, spoke at a Ku Klux Klan rally, and referred to “dysgenic” populations as “human weeds.”

Abortion disproportionately affects the black population, a fact pointed out by Pastor Luke Robinson at the keynote speech at the 2011 March for Life. As much as 60 percent of unborn black babies are aborted in New York City.

Dr. Day Gardner told LifeSiteNews.com the decline in black population has hurt their political clout. In the 1960s, “everybody wanted to reach out to us and get our vote, especially the Democrats,” she said. “Now they are courting the Hispanics, because we are no longer the largest minority in the United States.”. . .

Nevertheless, liberals frequently accuse the pro-life movement of sub rosa racism. Brian Fung wrote in The Atlantic that “an abortion ban” is really “an attack on women of a specific stripe: those from disadvantaged minorities and the poor.”

Those are the populations most likely to be targeted by abortionists. Ashutosh Ron Virmani, an abortion provider in North Carolina, boasted earlier this year that he only aborts “ugly black babies.”

Did you catch that?!  The abortionist called them “ugly black babies.” And did you see the Youtube video of the black woman saying how abortions will prevent ugly, nappy-haired children from running around?  Why aren’t Jesse and Al on the way there to protest?

The group Protecting Black Life recently found 79 percent of all Planned Parenthood abortion facilities are located within walking distance of black or Hispanic neighborhoods.

Planned Parenthood also sponsored the the African-American 2012 Essence Music Festival to deepen its roots with the black community.

Gardner said such efforts remind her of Sanger’s decision to hire black ministers to promote population control measures.

If policies that result in wildly disproportionate amounts of dead black babies aren’t racist, then nothing is racist.

P.S. This guy gets it – Black Legislator: Obama’s Given Us Nothing But Abortion.

Your tax dollars at work

It is just Planned Parenthood, doing the thing they do 2nd best — hiding rape.  Does it bother people that PP took $15,000,000 of our tax dollars to support Obama’s re-election so he could give them hundreds of millions more and to help them hide crimes like this?

This is from last year but was linked in a more recent article.  But they’ve been caught doing this countless times.  Via Planned Parenthood Quits Defending Secret Abortion on Raped Teen:

A lawsuit in which Planned Parenthood was recently found to have violated an Ohio informed consent law has been “resolved and dismissed,” according to the Alliance Defense Fund allied attorney who filed the suit.

ADF-allied attorney Brian Hurley represents the parents of a girl who, at age 14, was brought to a Planned Parenthood clinic for an abortion by the 22-year-old soccer coach who impregnated her.

“The health and safety of young girls is far more important than Planned Parenthood’s desire to make money on an abortion,” said ADF Senior Counsel Steven H. Aden. “This lawsuit was yet another clear demonstration of Planned Parenthood’s ongoing effort to put its profit margin ahead of the true needs of young women. If they truly cared about the girls who enter their doors, they would not be ignoring Ohio law and allowing statutory rape to occur so they can make money killing a baby. They also wouldn’t be trying so desperately to keep all of their records secret.”

In December 2010, the Hamilton County Court of Common Pleas determined that Planned Parenthood of Southwest Ohio Region violated state law when it failed to meet with the 14-year-old girl at least 24 hours prior to giving her the abortion. Following this, a psychologist found that the abortion had caused her to suffer significant psychological harm, including post-traumatic stress disorder. The case was “resolved and dismissed” shortly thereafter.

Hurley, one of more than 2,000 attorneys in the ADF alliance, filed the suit Roe v. Planned Parenthood of Southwest Ohio Region on behalf of the girl’s parents when they discovered that Planned Parenthood allowed her to undergo the abortion at the behest of her soccer coach.

Neither Planned Parenthood nor the soccer coach notified the parents of the abortion or the sexual relationship.  Planned Parenthood also did not notify civil authorities, which is required in cases of statutory rape. The soccer coach was convicted of sexual battery and served three years in prison.

The ultimate bullying

As my brilliant wife noted, abortion is the ultimate bullying: A weak, defenseless, unwanted human being is literally destroyed.  The innocent victim is de-humanized and left completely unprotected.

Now the Democrats want it to be funded by taxpayers, including pro-lifers.  So they quit being “pro-choice” and are now completely pro-abortion.  They think that there aren’t enough abortions in our society and they want to force pro-lifers and religious organizations to pay for those abortions.  That is the opposite of choice.  It is also racist, as those abortions will certainly increase abortions in the black community beyond the current 3-to-1 ratio relative to whites.

You might think that is as extreme as you could get pro-abortion-wise, but that would mean you hadn’t read this: Ontario Catholic Schools Forbidden From Noticing That Abortion Is Wrong.  Yes, they consider it bullying to even mention pro-life reasoning in Catholic schools and they are glad to trample religious freedom and free speech.  This is what you get when you vote for Liberals.

Ontario Catholic Schools Forbidden From Noticing That Abortion Is Wrong

In case there is anyone who still doesn’t grasp that antibullying is a euphemism for imposing liberal totalitarianism, Ontario’s Minister of Education Laurel Broten spells it out (please excuse the butchered English):

“We do not allow and we’re very clear with the passage of Bill 13 that Catholic teachings cannot be taught in our schools that violates human rights and which brings a lack of acceptance to participation in schools,” she said. …

Asked for clarification she said again: “Bill 13 has in it a clear indication of ensuring that our schools are safe, accepting places for all our students. That includes of LGBTQ students. That includes young girls in our school. Bill 13 is about tackling misogyny, taking away a woman’s right to choose could arguably be one of the most misogynistic actions that one could take.”

No, the ultimate misogyny is gender-selection abortion, which is used almost exclusively to destroy female human beings for the sole reason that they are female human beings.

And note the morbid irony of claiming that it violates human rights to even speak against abortion, but it doesn’t violate human rights to crush and dismember innocent but unwanted human beings.

That is, Catholic schools will not be allowed to teach that it is morally wrong to take an innocent child’s life, due to the pro-abortion ideology of Canada’s moonbat rulers. Bill 13 is a sinister new antibullying law.

As always, I offer this simple anti-bullying policy for all schools.  Note how it doesn’t give special preferences to anyone.

 If you physically or verbally harass other students on or off school grounds you will have swift and serious consequences. It doesn’t matter if you are bullying because they are gay/straight/fat/thin/smart/dumb/pretty/ugly/etc., or if it is just because you are a mean jerk.  Meeting adjourned.

Elections matter.  If you think that religious freedoms have eroded the last few years then just wait to see what happens if Obama is re-elected.

And run, don’t walk, from any “church” that is pro-abortion and encourages you to support the Democrats’ platform.  There is a remarkable correlation between their false views on life and their false views and scripture, Jesus’ divinity and exclusivity for salvation, and pretty much anything else that matters.

This is what real bullying looks like.

As always, remember that forgiveness and healing are possible for those who have participated in the abortion process.

Hollywood stars ignore current Bill of Rights while lobbying for a new one

Via Pro-Abortion Movie Stars Push New “Bill of Reproductive Rights” we find many more reasons to ignore actors.  They are eager to ignore the First Amendment in the Bill of Rights, so I’m not sure why they think we should care about their new list of “rights.”  

A who’s who of Hollywood is behind a new campaign sponsored by the pro-abortion Center for Reproductive Rights supporting an online campaign for a Bill of Reproductive Rights. The campaign complains about Republicans and pro-lifers who oppose the Obama HHS abortion mandate that forces religious groups to pay for abortion-causing drugs.

It is hard to fathom just how ignorant they are.  For starters, “reproductive rights” would apply to birth control, not abortion.  Abortions are specifically performed to kill unwanted human beings that have already been reproduced.  That is a scientific fact.

And note how aggressive they are about forcing their pro-abortion beliefs on others.  What happened to “pro-choice?”  When you insist that others must pay for your abortions then you are long past “choice.”

“Every day, the opponents of our fundamental reproductive rights are passing laws designed to take those rights away,” Streep says in a video for the campaign. “They’re shutting down doctors and clinics across the nation. They’re making it nearly impossible for millions of women to get the essential healthcare they need.”

Killing innocent but unwanted human beings is the opposite of healthcare.

The Bill of Reproductive Rights petitions call for “a full range of safe, affordable and readily accessible reproductive healthcare,” including abortion and say Americans have the right to “make our own decisions about our reproductive health and future, free from intrusion or coercion.”

They insist on the “right” to “make our own decisions about our reproductive health and future, free from intrusion or coercion” while using coercion to intrude into the wallets of those who disagree with them.  They pretend to want others out of their sex lives while demanding that we not only get involved but to pay to kill the innocent byproducts of their private lives.

The full petition reads:

“We the people of the United States hereby assert the following as fundamental human rights that no government may deny, and that our governments at every level must guarantee and safeguard for all.

1. The right to make our own decisions about our reproductive health and future, free from intrusion or coercion by any government, group, or individual.

In that case they should afford those same rights to the unborn.

2. The right to a full range of safe, affordable, and readily accessible reproductive health care including pregnancy care, preventive services, contraception, abortion, and fertility treatment—and accurate information about all of the above.

3. The right to be free from discrimination in access to reproductive health care or on the basis of our reproductive decisions.

These science-haters appear to be ignorant of the scientific fact that a new human being is created at fertilization. I’m too pro-science to be pro-choice — or pro-abortion, as the Democrats have officially become.  

Responding to religious pro-choice arguments

Pro-choice arguments by religious types, many of whom claim the name of Christ, are generally similar to those offered by pro-choicers.  Nearly all of them ignore the innocent but unwanted human being destroyed by abortion.  The difference with the religious types is that they insist that God is also pro-legalized, unrestricted abortion.

Here’s a prime example by a false teacher named Chuck Currie, who preaches at both UCC and UMC denominations: People Of Faith Must Defend Choice.

The title itself is a tipoff: As usual, pro-choicers can’t finish a sentence.  A choice to do what?  Where to go to college, whom to marry, what career to choose?  Of course not.  He means “People of faith must defend the choice to kill an innocent but unwanted human being.”  Sounds different, doesn’t it?

Todd Akin’s recent comments about rape were reprehensible

Hey, that’s what Mitt Romney and countless other Republican leaders said!  Welcome to the club.

- and so is the GOP platform, modeled after legislation put forth by Akin and Paul Ryan that would ban all abortions…even in the case of rape – but it is clear that Akin isn’t alone.

Just because Akin said one dumb thing doesn’t mean that we should stop trying to protect innocent but unwanted human beings from being destroyed.

Chuck goes on to insist that women can get pregnant from rape, which is what all of Akin’s critics concede.  The irony is that Chuck was acting as if his side had a monopoly on science, when they are the ones who ignore the scientific fact that a new human being is created at fertilization.

And Chuck seemed oddly hostile to the children of rapists and fights aggressively for the right to kill them.  I’d entertain the death penalty for the rapists, but I can’t see how that is just for their children.

Abortion is often used to hide the crimes of rape and incest. If they really care about rape, then they should protest Planned Parenthood and how they systematically hide statutory rape and sex trafficking.

The General Synod of the United Church of Christ has long maintained that:

Whereas, women and men must make decisions about unplanned or unwanted pregnancies that involve their physical, emotional, and spiritual well-being; and …

Note how they ignore the well-being of the unborn human being.  Just because killing a human being appears to improve the well-being of another human being it still isn’t justified.

Whereas, abortion is a social justice issue, both for parents dealing with pregnancy and parenting under highly stressed circumstances, as well as for our society as a whole; …

That sentence is gibberish.  First, it doesn’t define “social justice.”  Did the government give unwanted artificial insemination to these women?  What injustice made people have sex?  Being relatively poor compared to those in your country (not to mention being simultaneously very wealthy compared to the rest of the planet) is not an excuse to kill unwanted human beings.

And what could more unjust than destroying an innocent human being merely because she is unwanted?

Does parenting under “highly stressed circumstances” justify killing children outside the womb?  Of course not. So why is it valid inside the womb?

Therefore, be it resolved, that the Sixteenth General Synod:

affirms the sacredness of all life, and the need to protect and defend human life in particular;

That is the biggest and most disingenuous lie of all.  Again, it is a scientific fact that the unborn are unique, living human beings from fertilization, so under no circumstances can they claim to “affirm the sacredness of all life” while justifying the destruction of over  3,000 lives in the U.S. each day.

Worse yet, these people advocate for taxpayer-funded abortions, which means they think that one of our problems is that there aren’t enough unwanted human beings destroyed each day.  And they claim Jesus is on their side!

encourages persons facing unplanned pregnancies to consider giving birth and parenting the child, or releasing the child for adoption, before abortion;

That is where they talk in circles.  They want to act as if abortion is sort of bad — not bad enough to be illegal, but bad enough to want to consider other options.  But if it doesn’t kill innocent human beings, why would they prefer other options?

upholds the right of men and women to have access to adequately funded family planning services,

Watch out for their deadly euphemisms like “family planning” services.  If you are pregnant, then that human being is part of your family.  Killing her doesn’t change that.

and to safe, legal abortions as one option among others; . . . People of faith must stand up and defend a woman’s right to make her own health care decisions.

Another deadly phrase: “health care decisions.”  That is right up there with “reproductive rights,” but remember that abortion kills a human being that has been reproduced.

 It shouldn’t be left up to Todd Akin, Paul Ryan or other politicans.

The lives of the unborn shouldn’t be left up to fake Christians like Chuck, President Obama, Nancy Pelosi, etc.

It is morbidly ironic that Chuck’s most frequently quoted verse is from Matthew 25: “Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not to me.”  Yet he opposes any restrictions to abortions and thinks we need more of them via taxpayer-funding.

Finally, consider how this is one of the rare topics where Liberals don’t play the race card (there is a recent notable exception that I’ll post about separately).  Why is that?  Perhaps because the abortion rate for blacks is three times that of whites, and for Hispanics it is two times that of whites.  And they know that taxpayer-funded abortions would increase those rates.  Actively supporting policies that kill minorities at such incredibly higher rates seems kinda . . . I don’t know . . . racist.

Jesus is the author of life (Acts 3:15).  False teachers like Chuck deny the divinity of Jesus (and therefore the Trinity), the exclusivity of Jesus (He is the only way to salvation and they teach the opposite), the authority and accuracy of scripture, and so much more.  Their position on abortion is just one more example of them being wolves in sheep’s clothing.

People of real faith should be anti-abortion.