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.

Ponzi schemes: Illegal for Bernie Madoff but not the government

As I noted in Repeat after me: There is no Social Security “trust fund”:

There is no trust fund.  No. Trust. Fund. Anyone claiming there is such a thing is ignorant and/or trying to deceive you.

The government does not have the capability to set aside funds in a bank account like we do.  When the Social Security funds come in they are spent on Social Security, or, as they have done for decades, on other spending projects they didn’t want to raise taxes to fund.  Decades of dishonesty and financial mismanagement by both parties are becoming more visible.

If Social Security taxes stopped today there wouldn’t be a penny saved to meet the commitments the government made.  It is the world’s largest Ponzi scheme.

If some of these Social Security funds went to private investments that you could control then that would limit how much the politicians could abuse.  But they don’t want to lose control, so they play on your fears that something bad will happen.

Yes, the market could crash and you could lose your investments.  It is a risky world.  But think about this: Whether your private account crashed or not it isn’t like the government is saving our taxes today to pay out tomorrow.  Either way the payouts they will make 10 years from now will come from taxes paid 10 years from now.

Simply put, we can’t lose by having at least part of current contributions devoted to private accounts.  The politicians will lose because they’ll have to find a way to fund current spending, or not spend the money at all.

Don’t let fear-mongering by politicians fool you.  The system has been broken for a long time.  Democrats didn’t want you to be informed and Republicans didn’t try hard enough to inform you.  But it isn’t that complicated.

Here are some great ideas from Time to Opt Out of the Social Security Ponzi Scheme.  I urge you to the whole thing.  Now is the time to educate people on how Social works, why it is doomed to fail, and what we can do about it now.  Those young people who swallowed Obama’s lies and are now unemployed and saddled with massive college debts may be willing to listen to some truth now.  Same thing for middle-aged people who will realize that they will spend their careers paying into a system that will be beyond bankrupt when they retire.

The Social Security Ponzi scheme is perhaps the most consequential government infringement upon our lives.  Conservatives are justifiably outraged that Obama egregiously mandated that we purchase health insurance.  However, the individual mandate is not nearly as meddlesome and tyrannical as the government’s complete control over our retirement security.  The only reason why these two programs are regarded differently by the public, is because Social Security has been around for 75 years.  Consequently, most Americans are conditioned to believe that a person’s retirement is indissolubly tied to government-run Social Security.

Now that Social Security is running a perennial deficit and is facing insolvency, conservatives have an opportunity to reverse one of the most flagrant violations of our property rights, by offering workers the option to opt out of the Madoff-style program.

As the unfunded liability for Social Security balloons to $21.4 trillion over the next 20 years, it is painfully obvious to young workers that they will not enjoy much retirement security, if any, from the government program.  Democrats are totally apathetic to their grim future; they will be long retired by then, enjoying the full array of government benefits that they secured for themselves.  Meanwhile, they would rather demagogue the issue, using fallacious scare tactics to stir up current retirees.  Accordingly, we should harness the Democrats’ Mediscare demagoguery towards seniors, and direct it towards younger Americans.  If Paul Ryan’s Medicare plan will push granny over the hill, the status quo of the Democrats’ Ponzi scheme will prevent the grandchild from making it up the hill.

With high unemployment and polls showing a precipitous drop in support for Obama among young voters, now is the time to reach out to those voters.  Congressman Pete Sessions is proposing the SAFE ACT (HR 2109), which would allow younger workers to control all of their retirement savings.  Here are some of the key details of the proposal:

  • Every American would be able to opt out of the current system and direct the full 6.2% of payroll taxes to a personal retirement account beginning January 1, 2012.  Conversely, anyone who wishes to remain in the current system would not be affected.  An employee who chooses to opt for the SAFE account can switch back to the current system during the first five years after opting out.
  • After 15 years of the bill’s enactment, employers would be able to contribute “their share” of payroll taxes to the employee’s SAFE account.
  • Self-employed individuals would be able to divert the full amount of their payroll taxes to a SAFE account.
  • The SAFE accounts would be tax free and any cash contributions would be tax deductible.   Also, all post-retirement distributions from the account would be tax free.  Any pre-retirement distributions would be taxed as income.
  • Upon the death of the account beneficiary, irrespective of his/her age, the inheritors of the estate will be able to assume full ownership of the account.

. . .

So, young Obama zombies with skulls full of mush; with whom do you trust your retirement security: your bank account or Obama’s defunct ATM?  How about Bernie Madoff?

Why don’t false teachers use the “argument from silence” on their favorite issues?

Hint: Because they are false teachers.

False teachers* love the argument from silence that I blogged about yesterday, where they justify homosexual behavior and abortion because they think Jesus didn’t specifically forbid those.**  Therefore, they reason that those issues can’t be important.

But I’ve noticed they don’t use that line of thinking on their pet solutions, such as wealth redistribution or universal healthcare.  After all, Jesus never said to ask Caesar to take from neighbor A to give to neighbor B and call it generosity on your part.  Yet here is false teacher Chuck Currie, claiming to care about the “least of these” (when not endorsing their destruction in the womb): Paul Ryan Tries To Spin Letter From Roman Catholic Archbishop; Religious Leaders Remain Opposed To GOP Budget.

Yes, budgets are moral documents.  And it is immoral to borrow from those who can’t vote or haven’t even been born to sooth your guilty, selfish conscience.

If these fakes want to use the argument from silence on issues like homosexual behavior and abortion, then show them how it applies to their issues as well.

On what other favorite issues do they fail to use the argument from silence?

*False teachers are people like Jim “the Gospel is all about wealth redistribution” Wallis and Chuck “Jesus is not the only way” Currie.

** That argument fails on many levels: Arguing from silence is a logical fallacy, Jesus inspired all scripture, He supported the Old Testament law to the last letter, the “red letters” weren’t silent on these topics in the sense that they reiterated what marriage and murder were, He emphasized many other important issues that these 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, and abortion and homosexual behavior simply weren’t hot topics for 1st century Jews.  See What Jesus didn’t say for more.

An adult approach to the Federal budget

This should be big news tomorrow: New at WSJ: Paul Ryan announces that GOP’s 2012 budget would cut $6.2 trillion in spending over 10 years « Hot Air.  The Democratic proposals on the table would destroy the country.  I say that without hyperbole.  Don’t believe me?  Try borrowing 40% of your spending year after year and see how that works out for you.

I keep hoping against hope that The One will gradually realize that signing on to this plan, or some version of it, is actually in his interest politically. There’s literally nothing he could do to alienate the left to the point where they won’t vote for him — most of them trust his judgment more than they trust their own, an unforeseen side effect of Hopenchange messianism — so he could win over independents by coopting Ryan’s plan and have nothing to fear about losing liberals in the general election. There’d be nothing much to fear from seniors, either: I think Ryan and Boehner are so sincere about tackling this problem that they’ll give O whatever bipartisan cover he needs to get this done. (Boehner has promised as much.)