How Herman Cain should have answered the abortion questions

Herman Cain

Image via Wikipedia

I believe that Herman Cain is authentically pro-life and that he would appoint judges who would interpret the Constitution properly.  But he tried to get too political in answering questions about abortion from Piers Morgan.

Please see How I wish the abortion-for-rape debate would go for a simple and effective way to navigate through the rape and incest exception questions.  This works whether you are being interviewed by a “gotcha” journalist or just having a conversation with a friend.

Pro-lifers need to quit apologizing for their views and start being more consistent.  This is not that complicated.  The unborn are unique, living human beings from conception.  That is a scientific fact.  They shouldn’t be killed because they are unwanted or as punishment for a crime someone else committed.

Also see ‘Controversy’ Over: National Right to Life Vouches for Cain’s Pro-Life Bona Fides where Stacy McCain advises how to navigate these questions.

Responding to the “pro-lifers just want to control women’s bodies!” sound bite

It is a common mode of attack for pro-legalized abortionists to put pro-lifers on the defensive by accusing them of wanting to control women, but the charge is false.

First and most importantly, we want to protect the body of the unborn, not control the body of the mother.

Also, consider the inconsistency of the Liberals who lodge that claim.  They typically want to control everything about your life: Your wallet (i.e., taxes), education, how you discipline your children, what goes into Happy Meals, your speech, the car you drive and more.

And at least 50% of all abortions and nearly 100% of gender selection abortions kill females, so the pro-legalized abortionists aren’t just controlling those bodies, they are complicit in destroying them.

Where they really need warning labels . . .

. . . is at abortion clinics.  After all, the new cigarette labels say, “Warning: Smoking during pregnancy can harm your baby.”

But you know what else can harm your baby?  Paying someone to kill her in the womb.   How about a sign at abortion clinics saying, “Killing your baby can harm your baby?

WARNING: Smoking during pregnancy can harm your baby. Image: Illustration of premature baby crying in incubator.<br />
Cessation Resource: 1-800-QUIT-NOW<br />
Copyright: U.S. HHS” /></p>
<p>From <a href=Jill Stanek:

President Obama is committed to protecting our nation’s children and theAmerican people from the dangers of tobacco use. These labels are frank, honest and powerful depictions of the health risks of smoking and they will help encourage smokers to quit, and prevent children from smoking,” said Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius. “President Obama wants to make tobacco-related death and disease part of the nation’s past, and not our future.”

First, it must be noted that Obama and Sebelius are liars, feigning concern for “our nation’s children” while doing all they can to enable the abortion industry to continue murdering them, also taking their political contributions all along the way.

Cigarettes claim the lives of 443,000 each year? Abortion claims the lives of nearly 3 times that, 1.2 million each year.

Showing the graphic reality of the harm of cigarette smoking will curb it? Why not do the same for abortion, if the administration really wants it to be “rare”?

To that end, AbolishAbortion.com has launched a petition drive, telling the FDA to force abortion mills to post graphic warning signs “showing women what an abortion really does.”

I have signed on as a cosponsor of this drive. Hope you’ll sign the petition.

This is especially timely, considering how the new pro-abortion tactic is to require Pregnancy Resource Centers to post signs saying what they don’t do — i.e., abortions.  Wouldn’t it be more relevant and informative to require abortion clinics to show pictures of what they really do?

Always remember

It is a scientific fact that the unborn are unique, living human beings from conception.  Abortion kills those human beings and is therefore immoral except to save the life of the mother.

Abortion is a sin but forgiveness and healing can be found in Jesus.

Another item for the “I am not making this up” category

Via Russell Crowe: Pro-abortion Foreskin Man, we have another person to add to the original post below (plus the pro-legalized abortion San Francisco folks wanting to ban circumcision).  These folks think it should it be against the law to cut away a tiny bit of flesh but completely legal to destroy the same human being.  Moral schizophrenia: They’re doin’ it right.

But then Crowe got stupid. His very next tweet, after “stand[ing] for the perfection of babies”?

The absurd illogic is almost too obvious to point out. But I must.

Removing a piece of skin the size of a postage stamp from a newborn baby is “barbaric and stupid,” the logic being that “[b]abies are perfect,” but suctioning that same baby’s brains out to kill him moments before birth is not, the logic being it’s “a woman’s choice”?

The “forced motherhood” line is an emotive canard used reflexively by pro-legalized abortionists.  They ignore the obvious fact that the woman is already “with child” — unless he thinks the government forced her to get pregnant.

I’ll bet that these people are pro-legalized partial-birth abortion, where they think it should be legal to stick a fork in the baby’s head when he is 90% delivered and suck his brains out, but would oppose the right to perform a circumcision at the same point and let him live.

Again, how can someone talk about and defend  the perfection of babies and then advocate abortion?  What a bizarre world.  Read more below about a guy who was really mad at his parents for having him circumcised as an infant but thought they should have had the right to kill him in the womb.

—-

Original post

A commenter on at a post titled Why Pro-Choice is Losing held the following two views:

  • Strongly pro-legalized abortion
  • Strongly anti-circumcision

Here’s his comment (#54 at the link):

What do the anti-choice people in this thread propose to do to women who choose to have an abortion in the event it is made illegal? How do they propose to determine what pregnancies were purposely aborted and which ones were not? Will they put a gun to a woman’s head, force feed her, turn her into a human incubator, and force her to give birth to a child against her will? What would that do to a child who discovered he/she was brought into the world in such a fashion?

On a further note, I am circumcised and I wish that I wasn’t. In fact I feel extremely bitter against my parents every time I think about the fact that they chopped off a piece of my body against my will.

Think about that for a minute.  He wanted his mother to be able to have his whole body destroyed in the womb, but he is “extremely bitter” that a small piece was cut off outside the womb.

The circumcision, probably done within a week of his birth, was “against his will.”  But what about his will the week before when he was in his mother’s womb?

I wonder if he would have minded an in utero circumcision, since everything there is fair game?  The end state would have been the same for him, of course.

I hope his inconsistency makes him realize that regardless of how he feels about circumcision, abortion is a far worse thing to do to a human being.  If he had been aborted he wouldn’t be here to be “extremely bitter” about his circumcision.

Prenatal development: Not just a clump of cells

The “just a clump of cells” myth has been used many times to rationalize abortion, but it is illogical and anti-science.

As this video from Abort73.com  notes, “Abortion, at any and every stage of pregnancy, kills a rapidly developing, genetically-distinct human being.”  They do amazing work, so be sure to visit their site.

Hat tip: Stand to Reason

Said another way, if it isn’t a human being, she’s not pregnant.

The video notes how people are less likely to support abortion rights as the pregnancy advances.  However, the reasons given for that aren’t sound.  If abortion is wrong in the 3rd trimester then it should be wrong in the first.  For example, the ability to survive outside the womb isn’t what gives the unborn worth.

Always remember

It is a scientific fact that the unborn are unique, living human beings from conception.  Abortion kills those human beings and is therefore immoral except to save the life of the mother.

Abortion is a sin but forgiveness and healing can be found in Jesus.


“I’m from Australia and I’d really like some insight into why there is this visceral hatred of Palin from left liberals – it’s complete bizarre”

The title of this post was a comment left on someone else’s Facebook post on Sarah Palin.  Here’s one response I liked:

As one female caller to a talk radio show said the other day, “She is smart, she is athletic, she loves the outdoors, she hunts, she fishes, she raises kids, she is on TV, she has been a governor of a state, she writes books, she blogs, AND she is pretty. What’s not to hate?”

Here was my answer:
‎90% of people abort Down Syndrome children, but she gave birth to hers. Her pro-life position makes Liberals absolutely hate her. You could agree with radical feminists on literally every issue possible except unrestricted abortion and they will hate you with a passion. Seriously.
On a different Palin post on my FB page, someone noted this:
 SP [Sarah Palin] is a stupid moron.
How eloquent, and how right off the the mainstream media script.
Update: Turns out she writes like most CEOS, and better than the expert who was hoping she’d come off as illiterate.

All that matters to radical feminists is that you are pro-unrestricted abortion

Despite the facts that Anthony Weiner is a major liar, texted R- and X-rated comments and pictures of himself to many women even though he is married and his wife is expecting, exercises spectacularly bad judgment (did it occur to him that any political enemy could fake an identity to bribe or embarrass him?), “feminists” still support him completely because he has a 100% rating from NARAL (the pro-abortion group).

Here’s one of many examples from Liberal feminists blow off Weiner sex scandal – Jill Stanek.

In situations like these, I think feminists are in a bit of a hard place. As women, we’re sort of grossed out and annoyed by the fact that he would send anyone a (hopefully solicited) picture of his junk, but ultimately, I think we realize that it’s just another part of the role that patriarchy has created for men….

There is the bigger issue at hand, here…. Anthony Weiner is a progressive beacon in a House of Representatives full of a bunch of Tea Party wackos – we need him there.

Weiner has a 100% pro-choice rating from NARAL, a history of voting for women’s issues, LGBT issues, and just progressive politics in general. Again, progressives and women need Rep. Weiner in the House.

Just like with Bill Clinton, Weiner can violate every standard that real feminists would consider foundational and still have the support of the radical feminists — as long as you are pro-legalized abortion with zero restrictions (including partial-birth abortion and parental notification).

I hope that most women will rise up and tell these “feminists” (who support legal gender-selection abortions, nearly all of which kill females for the sole reason of being female) that the pro-aborts don’t speak for them.

Echo chambers?

I sometimes hear critics refer to conservative blogs as echo chambers, as if we just say the same things to each other to reinforce our views.  That is a wildly ironic claim.

The worldview I was brought up in was indeed that of Christian parents and a Christian church, but neither trafficked in apologetics and neither were conservative. I thoroughly rejected it all.  The denomination I grew up in (Disciples of Christ) is such that I wouldn’t send my dogs to it now.  It is a mockery of authentic Christianity — pro-abortion, pro-square circles (oops, I mean “same-sex marriage”), anti-Jesus is the only way to salvation, anti-authority of scripture, etc. — your basic apostate denomination.

The media I was raised around was wildly liberal — your basic Big 3 of ABC, NBC and CBS plus liberal newspapers.  I didn’t know any better, and bought the lie that journalists were some sort of noble, unbiased group that could be trusted.

My entertainment and reading were purely secular, where God was either mocked or ignored.  I consumed massive amounts of TV that was designed to push a liberal agenda.

My parents are wonderful and intelligent people, but they grew up in the Great Depression (one of them was literally in Grapes of Wrath Oklahoma).  Therefore, they tend to think we need government to save us and have been life-long Democrats.

My education was completely secular, including rabidly pro-Darwinian science teachers. Ironically, as pagan as I was, even in 9th grade I realized something was amiss when the biology teacher was so visibly hostile to religion.  He was obviously pushing an ideology and not just science.  From elementary school through college, once again God was either mocked or ignored.

I was nominally pro-choice when I was younger, intuitively realizing that killing unborn human beings was wrong but that there might be larger downside to making abortion illegal (for example, I initially bought the “back alley butchers” lie).

In my late 20′s I came across massive amounts of evidence and logic for the life, death and resurrection of Jesus, the accuracy of the Bible, etc.  God opened my eyes to his truth and I became a Christian.

I came across the facts about abortion and realized that every pro-choice canard could be annihilated.  I take on any pro-choice arguments I come across when teaching pro-life reasoning.  I learned about Intelligent Design and realized the great hoax that Darwinian evolution is.

Facts and logic brought me to where I am, not my broader environment.  My beliefs are the opposite of what my environment would have led me to.  These views make me less popular by the day with a world that holds the Christian worldview in contempt.  That’s part of the deal, as Jesus so accurately warned us.

So is my Christian / conservative blog an echo chamber?  Heh.  I’ll be glad to mock that sentiment until my fingertips are raw.  Yes, I have a well-defined commenting policy, but to say it is an echo chamber is a concession speech.  I am a conservative Christian in spite of every brainwashing attempt the world has thrown at me, and I am glad to defend that worldview.

I came out of the echo chamber, not into it.  Woo-hoo!

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.

—–

Additional thoughts from an old post:

I had interesting discussion I had with a liberal over the holidays.  I just let him ramble with his pro-liberal, pro-Obama, anti-business rant for a while.

Instead of pointing out the flaws in his facts and logic, which history demonstrates he would have ignored, I just asked a simple question: How much conservative media do you view or listen to?

His answer?   ”None.”  It spoke volumes, and he knew it.

I calmly pointed out that I consume plenty of liberal media: My Yahoo feed is from Reuters and I update it many times each day, I read the very liberal Houston Chronicle, etc.

Does that make me right?  No, but it proved beyond all doubt that only one of us takes the time to listen to both sides.

That response saved me a lot of time and frustration.  I hope it planted a seed with him as well.  If he has any intellectual honesty he’ll realize that if he only consumes liberal media then his views are likely to mirror their output.  Brainwashing and indoctrination, anyone?  Any critical thinking going on?

 

Would you have killed Stephen Hawking?

An interesting thread came up in the comments section about Stephen Hawking:

Neil, I’m interested in reading your take on what you think of Stephen Hawking’s opinion on God?  “Stephen Hawking says afterlife is a fairy story.”

My reply:

I think Stephen Hawking’s comments are morbidly and eternally ironic. He’s the one crafting a fairy tale. He thinks the universe came into being from nothing and that an explosion was responsible for the spectacularly complex and fine-tuned universe he’s dedicated his life to trying to explain. He thinks life arose from non-life and evolved to all we see today. And he thinks that by crafting this fairy tale he can comfort himself that he won’t have to give an account of his life to his creator. He is a sad, sad man, and not because of his disability. I hope he repents and trust in Jesus before he dies. Eternity is a might long time, even for a really smart physicist.

Also, Hawking may be good at physics but he is lousy at philosophy and logic — examples here and here.

Then the commenter replied with this:

Neil, you criticize Stephen Hawking for claiming the universe came into being from nothing. Please explain how your God came into being.

My reply:

God is eternally existent, so it is illogical to ask how an eternally existent being came into being. Please see the Kalaam Cosmological argument. It is a perfectly logical and coherent explanation for a “first cause.”

Then he asked this interesting question:

Do you sometimes wish Stephen Hawking’s mother had had an abortion while she was pregnant with him?

My reply:

Of course I’m glad Hawking’s mother didn’t have an abortion. I wouldn’t wish an abortion on any of my ideological enemies. Why would you ask that question? Do you wish that the mothers of your ideological enemies had killed them? Do you wish they would be killed now that they are outside of the womb?

Sadly, the pro-legalized abortionists cheer when disabilities are discovered in utero so that the (potentially) disabled people can be killed in the womb (see former Surgeon General Jocelyn Elders’ comments about how Down Syndrome cases were “reduced.”). But we don’t kill disabled people outside the womb (yet). We rightfully give them parking spaces, wheelchair ramps, Special Olympics, etc.

Over 90% of people would have killed Hawking, just like over 90% kill those with Down Syndrome. Would you have wanted to abort Hawking if you knew about his physical issues? I wouldn’t have.

What would you have recommended to Hawking’s mother if his physical problems would have been discovered in utero — whether or not you knew that he would become a famous physicist?  I’d vote for life in either case.

Always remember

It is a scientific fact that the unborn are unique, living human beings from conception.  Abortion kills those human beings and is therefore immoral except to save the life of the mother.

Abortion is a sin but forgiveness and healing can be found in Jesus.


Image of the week

Assassinations of unwanted human beings approved by our Nobel Peace Prize-winning President.  From Draw for Truth via Jill Stanek.


Always remember

It is a scientific fact that the unborn are unique, living human beings from conception.  Abortion kills those human beings and is therefore immoral except to save the life of the mother.

Abortion is a sin but forgiveness and healing can be found in Jesus.


Good news from the House: “No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act” passes

Hopefully it can pass the Senate and get past Obama’s veto.  This will save lives and not force pro-lifers to fund abortions.  (I thought pro-legalized abortionists were pro-choice?  Why don’t they want pro-lifers to have the choice of whether to pay to kill the unborn?)

See House Republicans unanimously support No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act « Wintery Knight.

The White House strongly opposes the bill. In a policy statement, the administration wrote that the bill “intrudes on women’s reproductive freedom and access to health care; increases the tax burden on many Americans; unnecessarily restricts the private insurance choices that consumers have today; and restricts the District of Columbia’s use of local funds, which undermines home rule.”

“Reproductive freedom” is one of those deadly inaccurate sound bites.  Here’s a scientific fact for the President: If someone wants an abortion, they have already reproduced.

How odd that he cares about the tax burdens, especially when this is the equation: More dead babies = less taxes.  I’m all for low taxes, but not by killing unwanted human beings.  His moral schizophrenia never fails to disappoint.

Life News reports that the public supports banning funding for abortions:

A majority of Americans object to the use of taxpayer money for funding abortion, according to numerous polls — including a survey CNN conducted in early April showing Americans oppose public funding of abortion by a margin of 61% to 35%.

That’s a pretty big majority.  Hopefully the Democratic Senators will realize they’ll be handing their opponents a gift if they vote against it.

And also notes that cutting off funding makes a big difference in the number of abortions:

Congressman Chris Smith, a New Jersey Republican who is the lead sponsor of the bill, informed the House that a study by the Guttmacher Institute, the pro-abortion former research apparatus of Planned Parenthood, released a study noting that one-quarter of women who otherwise would have had abortions chose to give birth when taxpayer dollars were not available to pay for abortions of their children.

And I think that some behaviors may change if they know the government won’t pay for abortions.

From the “I am not making this up category” . . .

Planned Parenthood aggressively fights against the right of parents to know if their teenage daughter is having a dangerous medical procedure to kill their grandchild.  But they required attendees at a teen rally to get permission from their parents.  See Pro-life teen flash mob surprises California Planned Parenthood teen rally – Jill Stanek.

As an ironic aside, while CA has no law providing that parents be notified before their minor daughters abort, and while PP invariably fights such legislation wherever it is introduced, PP did insist parents sign a permission form before their children could participate in its rally day.

P.S. A group of pro-life teens nearly matched the number of the pro-choice kids.

Abortions are bad for the mothers, too

It should go without saying that abortion is unsafe for the unborn, but it is bad for the mothers as well.  See The Case Against Abortion: Abortion Risks, which outlines serious risks such as breast cancer, uterine damage, complications in future pregnancies and death.

The foundational arguments against abortion are not rooted in its potential danger to women. Abortion is immoral and unjust because it kills a living human being. The safety of a particular activity does not make it right or wrong. The impact it has on other people does. With that said, there are two reasons why we survey the medical risks of abortion. First, some women (and men) are not particularly concerned about the violence abortion does to their offspring; far fewer are unconcerned about the violence abortion might do to themselves. A greater understanding of the medical risks may dissuade them from ending their child’s life. Second, the abortion industry’s consistent reluctance to provide women with information that portrays abortion in anything less than a positive light is strong indication that they may care more about money and politics than they do about a woman’s health. If they didn’t have a vested interest in her “choice,” why do they lobby so hard against having to more thoroughly disclose to women what abortion is and does?


Always remember

It is a scientific fact that the unborn are unique, living human beings from conception.  Abortion kills those human beings and is therefore immoral except to save the life of the mother.

Abortion is a sin but forgiveness and healing can be found in Jesus.


Which is more racist?

A. Aborting blacks at a rate three times that of whites

B. Pointing out that the abortion rate for blacks is three times that of whites

See Mom sues pro-life group for using daughter’s photo in “racist, defamatory” NYC billboard – Jill Stanek

A pro-life group that erected a billboard to spotlight the documented genocide being committed against preborn black children is being sued as “racist.”

I’d say “A.” The racism lies with those Margaret Sanger-inspired Planned Parenthood types who target black communities.

Good strategies to de-fund Planned Parenthood

See the latest from Unborn Scheming Baby in Republicans move to defund Planned Parenthood at the state level.  Here’s one example:

Minnesota Republicans introduced SF 1224, a bill that does not mention Planned Parenthood by name, but which prohibits state grant funds from being given to any organization that provides abortions or refers patients for abortion.

If passed, the bill would remove state funds from all of the 24 clinics that Planned Parenthood operates in Minnesota.

Every bit helps.  Less $$ to Planned Parenthood will result in less abortions.  Don’t believe the nonsense about the public funding only supporting the condoms / pap smears side of PP.  If the government sends you money it ultimately gets spent any way you like.

Also see Planned Parenthood overview for how, in addition to being the top destroyer of human life in the country, they systematically hide statutory rape and sex trafficking (when not teaching your kids to ignore your perspectives on human sexuality).

Lying about lying

See Leonard Pitts’ attempt to broad-brush conservatives as the reigning liars in our political scene.  His lead argument: A misstatement made by Sen. Kyle that was corrected the same day (I’m not defending Kyle, just analyzing Pitts’ larger theme, his lame defense of Planned Parenthood and his sloppy journalism).

Let’s examine some of his points and also consider the things Pitts leaves out of his analysis.  I realize columnists can only include so much information, but these would obviously not fit in with his theme.  And either he is a woefully uninformed journalist or highly deceptive.

  • Why does Pitts list cancer screenings as the first item Planned Parenthood provides, especially while omitting that their CEO falsely claimed that Planned Parenthood provides mammograms and that a loss of Federal funding would end these.?  Note that some politicians repeated this lie.  How many CEOs don’t know what services their organization provides?  Was this incompetence or a deliberate lie about a highly emotional, most-favored-disease issue to sustain public funding for her organization?  Why hasn’t she or the mainstream media, such as Pitts, highlighted and corrected this error?
  • If abortion only accounts for 3% of Planned Parenthood’s services, why don’t they stop them or get rid of them?  I mean, if such a tiny part of their business is causing all this fuss, there are some very simple solutions.
  • Does Pitts not know that while abortions themselves are only counted as 3%, many of the 97% of the other services are associated with the abortions?  It is an accounting game to minimize the portion of abortions.
  • Why didn’t Pitts note that 97% of pregnant women who go inside Planned Parenthood come out not pregnant?
  • Planned Parenthood has been caught countless times, both on audio and on video, hiding statutory rape.  That alone should result in them being not only being de-funded but put out of business.  Businesses who commit serial felonies don’t get to point to other (alleged) good things they do to avoid responsibility.  They have been caught many times hiding sex trafficking, which includes victims of human trafficking.
  • Margaret Sanger, PP’s founder, was a racist eugenicist.
  • Planned Parenthood targets minorities and is the largest provider of abortions in the U.S.  Abortion rates for blacks are 3x that of whites and the rate for HIspanics is 2x that of whites.  Margaret’s dream lives on.  But in Pitts’ mind, he thinks conservatives are the racists.
  • Pitts used Sarah Palin’s “death panels” line as an example of lying, but she has been proved right.  Of course, they aren’t called death panels, but that was never her claim.
  • Too bad Pitts didn’t read Things Planned Parenthood’s ‘Truth Team’ Forgot to Mention with more facts about PP (Hat tip: John)
  • Will Pitts’ next column be about why Democrats are much more likely to be tax cheats?   He’d have more facts for that.