Roundup

Poll: 55% of Americans Don’t Know Planned Parenthood Does Abortions — That’s nuts — don’t these people read my blog?!

When is it appropriate for Christians to start dating?  Some great advice:

The trouble with underage dating is that it presents an entirely faulty view of what interaction with the opposite gender should be about. Rather than placing emphasis on building one strong relationship with one person at a stage of life when a marital commitment is feasible, dating encourages young people to pour their energies into consistently seducing other young people at a time when neither of them are capable of making any long-term commitments. Their “relationships” are destined to fail from the get-go because they are founded on unhealthy perceptions of love and not backed by any real necessity to stick it out. . . .

Sadly, parents who should know better continue to display shocking naïveté regarding the absurd practices of driving their twelve year olds out on a “date,” or purchasing provocative clothing for their sixteen-year-olds, or sympathizing with their broken-hearted fourteen-year-olds by assuring them that they’ll “find someone better.” “They’re just having fun,” they’ll tell us, rolling their eyes at what they consider to be our tightly wound principles. I work a volunteer shift at Crisis Pregnancy Clinic where I witness every week the ruined lives and broken dreams that “fun” has left with our youth.

Just one of many reasons you shouldn’t be stupid and listen to psychics: They are fake, demonic and deadly.

The cases of the missing Cleveland girls took heartbreaking turns over the years. In 2004, Amanda’s mother Louwana Miller went on a national TV show to discuss the case and was told by a psychic her daughter was dead:

Desperate for any clue as to Amanda Berry’s whereabouts, and tired of unanswered questions from authorities, Miller turned to a psychic on Montel Williams’ nationally syndicated television show.
The psychic said what the FBI, police and Miller hadn’t.
“She’s not alive, honey,” Sylvia Browne told her matter-of-factly. “Your daughter’s not the kind who wouldn’t call.”

Miller died in 2006 at age 44; family members blamed the agonizing loss of her daughter for Miller’s death.

Did your media of choice tell you that gun crime has dropped dramatically in the last 20 years?

Your tax dollars at work.  I wish I was making this up.

Obama is spending over $300,000.00 of taxpayers’ money to develop a so–called … “culturally relevant stigma-reducing intervention” program for the transgender population in India.

Kermit Gosnell is not the inventor and sole practitioner of the “snipping” technique to kill babies who survive abortions.  Apparently it is a mainstream procedure.  Warning: As you would expect, it is gruesome.

Social justice, simplified — Stealing apples yourself = bad.  Getting someone to steal them for you = social justice!

From Pro-life is Pro-woman:

Lately I’ve been accused of being a hypocrite by the pro-abort trolls that can’t seem to keep their noses out of other people’s business.

I’m a hypocrite because I advocate for abstinence even though I myself have had a child out of wedlock.

My answer to that is: So what?

Good for her!  Her critics have no idea what words mean. Using their definitions, it would be hypocritical for anyone to ever caution against something they regret.

Recovering alcoholics would be hypocrites for encouraging people not to abuse alcohol.  Every person I’ve met in prison ministry would be a hypocrite for telling people not to commit crimes. And so on.

Sadly, I knew people with really high IQs who refused to caution their kids against pre-marital sex because they thought it would be hypocritical. Screwtape lives.

Video: Michigan not much better at policing abortion mills than Pennsylvania — We should never be surprised at rule breaking by people who kill babies for a living or by the people who make a living supporting people who kill babies for a living.

Besides the actions of the defendants in the Kermit Gosnell house-of-horrors abortion clinic in Philadelphia, the original grand jury expressed outrage in their 2011 report over the lack of intervention by the city and state of Pennsylvania to stop Gosnell’s operation.  The refusal to address numerous reports and complaints over a years-long period was “by design,” the grand jury emphasized, as the political and regulatory establishments chose to protect abortionists rather than the women they maimed and the children they killed.

Pennsylvania isn’t the only state with designs to protect abortionists, either.  Earlier this week,Michigan Live and WOOD TV exposed the cronyism and official neglect that allowed a now-defunct abortion clinic to operate while owned by a convicted felon and piling up complaint after complaint . . .

Benny Hinn Asks Followers for $2.5 Million to Get Out of Debt — Surprise!  Benny Hinn wants more money.  He is so flamingly false that I barely feel sorry for those taken in by him.  But with his “God told me ______” bit he’d fit right in with the false teachers in the “God is still speaking” United Church of Christ.  World-lovers like Hinn and the UCC can use phrases like that to rationalize all sorts of mischief.

Hopefully he and his “anonymous donor” will both fail.

“God has laid it on my heart to plant a seed of $2.5 million into your ministry, but God only wants me to make this gift if the ministry partners match the amount within 90 days! I feel so strongly that He wants them to be part of the supernatural wealth transfer that is coming to every believer who will obey God’s Word,” the man reportedly adds.

Tyrants always deny being tyrants.  He warns against cynicism, while we warn against being naive and ignorant of history.

How to expose the false pro-abortion outrage over Kermit Gosnell

While most media outlets, politicians, pro-abortion groups and false teachers are still silent on the Kermit Gosnell infanticide case, some have realized that there is no way around it and are trying to feign outrage and hypocritically and falsely blame pro-lifers. It is your basic damage control, but they shouldn’t get away with it in the way Planned Parenthood gets a media pass when busted for hiding statutory rape and sex-trafficking.

Cases in point are the Planned Parenthood Tweet in the image below and a typical “Gosnell was so bad but it is the fault of pro-lifers” nonsense from wolves in sheep’s clothing.

So how do you “out” these people? Simple. Just point to the facts by saying:

1. Kermit Gosnell was pro-late term and “partial-birth” abortion. So are President Obama, the rest of the Democrats* and Planned Parenthood. Do you agree or disagree with them? If you agree with them, why are you and they so outraged at his actions?

2. The main horror of Gosnell was killing babies 30 seconds after it was legal. Planned Parenthood and Obama are both on record as opposing protections for infants who survive abortions. Please explain the moral significance of those 30 seconds and why one is capital murder and one is merely the morally benign or even morally good choice of the mother. Also explain whether you agree with Obama and Planned Parenthood, and why it isn’t hypocritical for PP to complain about Gosnell.

3. Kermit Gosnell was pro-taxpayer-funded abortion. So are President Obama, the rest of the Democrats* and Planned Parenthood. Do you agree or disagree with them? If you agree, then would you concede that forcing pro-lifers to pay for abortions would be more of a pro-abortion position than a pro-choice position?

4. Democrats and Planned Parenthood have aggressively fought the application of health standards and inspections of abortion clinics. This political pressure resulted in even existing laws being ignored by multiple agencies. Isn’t it hypocritical to now blame the Republicans for Gosnell’s safety issues?

5. Given the complete breakdown in oversight over Gosnell’s activities by multiple agencies and that he was only caught by accident by another agency, what makes you think that all the other abortionists run clean clinics and have adequate oversight when killing innocent but unwanted human beings?

6. Given that the Left plays the race card over all sorts of made-up things, why are they ignoring the real racism of Gosnell, and, presumably other abortion clinics — not to mention the fact that abortions kill blacks at a rate three times that of whites and that taxpayer-funded abortions will increase that ratio?

7. As bad as Gosnell was, there weren’t any documented cases of him hiding statutory rape or sex-trafficking as there have been for Planned Parenthood. They broke many laws. Should they be punished to the “full extent” for running a “criminal enterprise” as they have called for in Gosnell’s case? Should they still receive hundreds of millions of dollars in taxpayer funding?

Please ask those things as nicely as you can to let people have a “dignified surrender” and acknowledge how wrong they are on the greatest moral issue of our time.

Reminder: Keep Tweeting #gosnell as much as you can — such as with this post!

* If you vote for Democrats, you are now pro-abortion, not pro-choice. And not just pro-abortion, but pro-“partial birth” abortion (aka infanticide). From their 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.

If you want to require taxpayer-funded to increase abortions then you aren’t pro-choice, you are pro-abortion. Forcing pro-lifers to pay for abortions = pro-abortion. Wanting to increase the number of abortions = pro-abortion. If you are pro-“partial birth” abortion then you are really pro-legalized infanticide.

Are pro-choicers OK with infanticide?

Pro-infanticide “ethicists” are creepy but consistent.  Via Journal editor defends pro-infanticide piece: Killing newborns is already legal in Holland:

The editor of an ethics journal that recently published an article advocating infanticide (what the authors call “post-birth abortion”), has responded to widespread criticism by pointing out that promoting the killing of newborns is nothing new: in fact, in the Netherlands infant euthanasia is already legal and practiced.

The reasons given for abortion (“not a person yet, a parasite, dependent on others, not as developed as others,” etc.) could also be used to rationalize infanticide.  Pro-lifers have pointed out this logic for a long time, although we draw the opposite conclusion: Abortion and infanticide are wrong because they kill innocent but unwanted human beings. (It is a scientific fact that the unborn are human beings.  Check out any mainstream embryology textbook.)

Editor Julian Savulescu also criticizes what he calls the “hate speech” directed at the authors of the article, arguing that the public’s response to the piece shows that “proper academic discussion and freedom are under threat from fanatics opposed to the very values of a liberal society.”

I’ll bet the unborn and the infants would consider the authors to be guilty of hate speech — that is, if they were permitted to live.

In the journal article Alberto Giubilin, a philosopher from the University of Milan, and Francesca Minerva, an ethicist from the University of Melbourne, made the case that “after-birth abortion” should be permissible in all the cases where abortion is, including cases where the newborn is perfectly healthy. They base their argument on the premise that the unborn baby and the newborn do not have the moral status of actual persons and are consequently “morally irrelevant.”

Again, pro-lifers actually agree on the consistency argument, although not its application.  It is the pro-choice / anti-infanticide people who are inconsistent.

In response to the backlash, Savulescu wrote that the arguments in the article “are largely not new and have been presented repeatedly in the academic literature and public fora by the most eminent philosophers and bioethicists in the world, including Peter Singer, Michael Tooley and John Harris.”

That’s true.  It is the pro-choice / anti-infanticide people who haven’t gone down the logical slippery slope yet and embraced the logic of infanticide.  Sadly, it is just a matter of time.

He also observes that the paper “draws attention to the fact that infanticide is practised in the Netherlands.”

The fact that The Netherlands already permits the killing of disabled newborns is not widely known, even by many in the pro-life movement. The practice is permitted under the so-called Groningen Protocol, which outlines the circumstances under which a physician may deliver a lethal injection to a newborn who suffers from a disability, at the request of the child’s parents.

An article published in 2008 in the prestigious Hastings Center Report about the Protocol similarly provoked outrage after the authors argued that disabled babies might be “better off dead.”

This is the height of selfishness.  Disabled people have lower suicide rates than others.  The “better off dead” rationalization to relieve oneself of an obligation leads to all sorts of evil at both ends of life.

The authors of that article also linked infanticide to legalized abortion, arguing that infanticide may in fact be the morally superior alternative to abortion.

Again, given that you are OK with killing innocent but unwanted human beings in the womb, they actually make a good point.  I know many people who were counseled to abort babies that turned out fine (even though they shouldn’t have been aborted even if they weren’t fine).

“The supposedly morally superior alternative [of abortion]…does not strike us as superior at all,” they wrote. Instead, they said, parents of a child with a poor prenatal diagnosis should wait until the child is born, when they can make a more informed decision about the chance that their child has of living a “satisfactory” life.

Yikes.  Using the “satisfactory life” criteria these loving Liberals would kill 90% of the world at birth.

. . . In his response today, editor Savulescu observed that the authors of the recent paper simply took for granted the premises that undergird legal abortion, and followed them to their logical conclusion.

Exactly!  How bizarre that we agree with these people on that.

The pro-infanticide article and the defense from Savulescu come only months after a Canadian judge employed similar arguments in the process of handing out a lenient sentence to a mother who strangled her newborn and threw him over a fence.

According to Justice Joanne Veit, Canada’s lack of an abortion law indicated that “while many Canadians undoubtedly view abortion as a less than ideal solution to unprotected sex and unwanted pregnancy, they generally understand, accept and sympathize with the onerous demands pregnancy and childbirth exact from mothers, especially mothers without support.”

“Naturally, Canadians are grieved by an infant’s death, especially at the hands of the infant’s mother, but Canadians also grieve for the mother,” she added.

See how easy abortion makes it to rationalize infanticide?

Savluescu, the director of the Center for Practical Ethics at Oxford University, has made the news in the past for arguing that the requirement for organ donors to be dead at the time of organ harvesting should be removed, and that “mandatory” organ donation should be instituted. He has also argued that humanity has a “moral obligation” to use in vitro fertilization (IVF) to select the most intelligent embryos for the good of society.

I hope that pro-choicers meditate on those quotes and reconsider their views.