Pro-life response of the week

Or month, or whatever. Sometimes I like to turn comment replies into post. Here’s one from the Great pro-life display post.

Hi Mary Kate,

Thanks for visiting and commenting. I hope you reconsider your views. For any pro-choice-to-kill-an-innocent-human-being-in-the-womb argument, ask the same questions about that rationale for human beings outside the womb. Can a woman kill a toddler due to economic, career, romance, etc. concerns? Of course not. So the only question is, “What is the unborn?” The scientific fact is that a new human being is created at fertilization.

Having said that, let’s consider your arguments:

I think that if this country would put some effort into safe and effective birth control, there would be a lot less abortions.

Possibly, but I see a couple problems with that. First, this country does not have a birth control shortage. It is been getting pushed for decades, and the false sense of security it provides has led to tens of millions of diseases and countless abortions.

More importantly, that’s like saying that we won’t make murder outside the womb illegal because there are things we could be doing to reduce murders.

Furthermore, I believe the entire issue should be handled between a woman and her physician.

That ignores the third human being in the equation. How about the unborn and her physician? And could the woman and her physician kill a toddler without consequence? Again, the question is, “What is the unborn?,” and I answered it above.

Everyone else should mind their own business.

Like you are minding your own business here? What about the unborn child’s business? Again, the question is, “What is the unborn?,” and I answered it above. I doubt you’d make the “mind your own business” claim if someone was trying to kill an innocent but unwanted human being outside the womb.

If you really are worried about children, then volunteer to help teenage mothers, adopt orphans, teach children to be responsible and consider the consequences of their actions, teach them how to prevent unwanted pregnancy, and support the family planning efforts of groups like planned parenthood, who prevent far more unwanted pregnancies than any other group among people who can’t afford health care.

I address that more fully in Pro-lifers don’t care about kids after they are born?, but please answer this simple question to yourself: If 3,000 toddlers per day were getting crushed and dismembered because they were unwanted, could you oppose that without being obliged to care for them to adulthood? Or would that mean you didn’t care for them?

Protesting an immoral act does not obligate you to take care of its victims. If you agree with the line that pro-lifers don’t care about the unborn after they are born or that we have a “fetus fetish” or other made-up malady, answer me this: If the gov’t wanted to reduce homelessness by destroying homeless people, would you have a “homeless fetish” and be a raging hypocrite if you protested that but weren’t willing to house them all yourself? Remember, the issue isn’t whether human beings are out of the womb or not but whether it is legitimate to protest an act if you don’t plan to fully fund the consequences of stopping it.

Do you have to be willing to take complete responsibility for human beings you are trying to protect? Can you protest the abuse of the homeless, spouses, children or pets without having to care for them all? (As noted in the link, pro-lifers do a great deal with their own time and money to help women and families in need. I’m just pointed out how fallacious the pro-legalized abortion argument is).

Prevention is the antidote to abortion, not legislation.

Is the prevention of murder, drunk driving, gay-bashing, etc. the answer to all those ills rather than legislation? With that reasoning we wouldn’t need any laws.

Again, the question is, “What is the unborn?,” and I answered it above. “It” is an innocent human being deserving of protection.

Liberalism and poverty: The cause, not the cure

False teacher Chuck Currie’s piece on How To End Homelessness: Fight Poverty reminded me of when Homer Simpson said, “Beer: The cause of . . . and cure for all life’s problems.”  Only in this case, Liberalism just causes poverty, it doesn’t cure it.  If people graduate high school and don’t have sex outside of marriage their odds of being poor are very low.  Yet Chuck et al are the cheerleaders for the anti-God Planned Parenthood-style sexual mores that are destroying this country.  If you really want to fight poverty you’ll spread the Gospel.  Transformed hearts and minds lead to a more moral society, which reduces poverty.

Ending homelessness, Currie says, will take a massive push on curbing poverty . . .

So there is a connection between people not having money and being homeless?  Who knew?!

– including not only creating jobs, but also preparing workers for those jobs –

So why do Liberals oppose all the ways we could create jobs in this country?  Why don’t they support more oil drilling and the Keystone Pipeline, which would reduce energy costs for everyone and make homes more affordable and provide jobs that would increase tax revenues?  Or how about merely not aggressively killing the coal industry? (Sadly, that is one promise Obama is keeping.)

and on making huge investments in affordable housing

Details, please.  What are these “huge” investments and how do they make housing affordable?  Is that code for taking from neighbor A by force to “give” to neighbor B?

and building up programs for in-home support of the elderly, those with physical disabilities and those suffering from other health, mental health and addiction problems.

Yes, many homeless have mental problems and will never be able to maintain a residence in their current state.  But try to institutionalize them and watch the lawsuits fly.

. . . The Half in Ten Campaign is advancing progressive economic policies to reduce poverty that stand in stark contrast to the budget proposal put forward by Paul Ryan and adopted this week by the U.S. House that would increase poverty and homelessness, according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.

And you can totally trust that source, especially when it is proven that Liberals fail at basic economics.

President Obama’s budget proposals move us in a much better direction.

Yes, and that’s why his budget didn’t get one single vote from Republicans OR Democrats.  I repeat: Not a single vote from Democrats!

I remain strongly convinced from the polls and my own experiences that we Americans are a compassionate people who want our government to advance policies that promote the common good over the needs of the special interests or the wealthiest and most powerful among us. We can end homelessness. We simply need to make the moral investment.

And we should all take seriously the moral claims from someone who thinks that one of our problems is that we don’t have enough abortions in this country. You see, fake Reverend Chuck is pro-taxpayer funded abortions.  As with most liberals, he thinks that killing unwanted human beings reduces poverty.  While pretending to oppose the powerful they think people should have the power to destroy the unwanted.

Pro-abortion “Reverend” shocked that people could be callous towards the unwanted

This is soaked with irony, and the saddest part is that false teacher Chuck Currie doesn’t even realize what a self-parody he is.  See Statement On Ash Wednesday Shootings Of Homeless Portlanders.

I urge all Oregonians to pray today for the two men experiencing homelessness who were shot early this morning under Portland, Oregon’s Morrison Bridge in what police are calling a random attack.

I think we would all agree that you shouldn’t harm homeless people.

Violence against those who are homeless is a national epidemic, according to the National Coalition for the Homeless (NCH).

Violence against the unborn — over 3,000 crushed and dismembered human beings per day — is a larger epidemic.  Yet unlike the shooting of the homeless, which everyone except the shooters knows is wrong, we have “Reverends” like Chuck who think one of our problems is that we don’t have enough abortions (he advocates for taxpayer-funded abortions).

But this is a spiritual crisis as much as a political or economic crisis.  When we allow people living on our streets to become invisible we begin the process of dehumanization and thus we see the increase in hate crimes against the most vulnerable in our society – those Jesus would have called the “least of these.”

Just replace “people living on our streets” with “unborn” and watch your hypocrisy meter explode.  Yeah, Chuck, if you ignore the homeless pretty soon people will kill the unborn simply because they are unwanted. Oh, wait, they do that already, and you think that is a moral good.

Ash Wednesday begins the Lenten season of reflection and prayer.  Let our prayers this Lent be with those children, women and men living on our streets in the most prosperous nation on earth.

Any prayers for those human beings living in the womb, “Reverend?”

The attacks today were nothing short of a terrorist attack.  The crisis of homelessness is nothing short of sin.

The far, far bigger sin is fake Christians advocating for abortion.

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

Simple responses to common objections

contradiction.jpgMy guess is that if you have any conversations about abortion or the definition of marriage that you encounter these objections.  They seem to have lasting rhetorical force, which is why they are used so often.  But they crumble under a little bit of analysis.

Here are some easy and bullet-proof responses.  Don’t expect answers, though.  I can almost guarantee that they will change the subject and/or attack you personally.  When they ignore them a second time you can be sure that you are dealing with a dishonest debater.

Use them politely and hopefully you’ll plant a seed.

1. Objection: “You are just forcing your beliefs on others!”

Response: Do you think murder and theft should be illegal?  If so, are you forcing your views on others?  By that definition of “forcing” all laws would be wrong.

2. Similar objection, with bonus anti-religious bigotry: “You are forcing your religious beliefs on others and we have the ‘separation of church and state.’”

  • Since the Bible says murder and theft are wrong, does that mean I’m forcing those religious beliefs on others?
  • Must I vote the opposite of my religious views, such as requiring that stealing from and murdering atheists should be legal?
  • Why are you trying to suppress my First Amendment rights?  The First Amendment explicitly protects religious and political speech, it doesn’t restrict it.
  • How does opposing the destruction of the unborn or stating that the definition of marriage is the union of one man and one woman qualify as forcing others to join my religion?
  • Do you speak as consistently to silence the opinions of theological liberals who share your views, or do you just try to stifle those who oppose you?  (The latter would be hypocritical of you.)

3. Objection: “You pro-lifers only care about children in the womb and you don’t care about them once they are born.”

  • Protesting an immoral act does not obligate you to take care of its victims.  
  • If the government wanted to solve the homeless problem by killing homeless people, could you object to their destruction without having to personally house them?  In the same way, we can object to the killing of innocent human beings without having to feed, clothe and house them for life.
  • Your statement is false.  Pro-lifers help women and children before and after pregnancies with their own time and money.  There are more pregnancy centers (which offer services for free) than their are abortion clinics (which make huge profits).
  • Unless you are insisting that poor people must have abortions, the same obligations of support and care that you require of pro-lifers would fall on you.

Obamaville updates

The Occupy Wall Street movement continues to amaze me.

First, from the “you can’t make this up” category, see Occupy Wall Street Kitchen Staff Tired of ‘Freeloaders’?

Apparently some of the folks slaving away to cook politically correct meals for the participants of Occupy Wall Street are sick and tired of working themselves to the bone for homeless people, criminals, and other freeloaders who are eating their food. This is called being mugged by reality.

It is also pretty darn funny.

The New York Post reported that volunteer kitchen staff at Occupy Wall Street are angry about working 18-hour days to feed the protesters but are being taken advantage of by the local homeless people and criminals. And they are going on a work slow down to protest at their protest.

. . .

“We need to limit the amount of food we’re putting out” to curb the influx of derelicts, the Post reports from one Rafael Moreno, a kitchen volunteer.

So, these Occupiers are tired of cooking for freeloaders, eh? And they want to ration the food?

It’s all rather amusing. One wonders if these people see the irony or catch even a whiff of a “lesson,” here?

“Free” invites abuse. Abuse causes rationing.

Can I ask them why they think Obamacare will be any different? Can I ask why they think offering everything else by government for free will result in anything less than obscene abuse and ultimate rationing and ineffectiveness?

Are these Occupy people so unable to think critically that this lesson is lost upon them?

I really hope that some of them see the error of their thinking and convert to conservatism.

Next up, an adult at the OWS movement literally pimped out a 16 yr. old girl.  To recap:

So, the 14-year-old girl sexually assaulted at Occupy Dallas, the 11-year-old boy who got drunk at Occupy Missoula, now the 16-year-old pimped out at Occupy New Hampshire. Anybody see a pattern here? I mean, if it was Catholic priests doing this stuff, somebody would have noticed the pattern.

The “worsening income inequality” meme would not justify the OWS demands (whatever those are), but the facts don’t even back it up:

Let’s compare the change in share of the tax burden since 1980:

Top 1%

Top 5%

Top 10%

Top 25%

Top 50%

Bottom 50%

1980

19%

36.80%

49.30%

73%

93%

7%

2009

36.70%

58.60%

70.50%

87.30%

97.75%

2.25%

See The Evangelical Left’s Nostalgia Trip Down Wall Street for a great analysis of how false teachers like Jim “the Gospel is all about wealth redistribution” Wallis and race-baiting Chuck “Jesus is not the only way” Currie are drawn to these explicitly non-Christian protests and encouraging the covetousness of those involved.
Finally, this explains a lot.

Epic fail on ending homelessness

False teacher Chuck “Jesus is not the only way” Currie wrote an op-ed in The Onion (oops, I meant the Oregonian) about Ending Homelessness.  While I appreciated his concession in the title (“Plan after well-meaning plan in the region misses the mark, failing to address root causes”), the piece reads like a self-parody.  Here’s my paraphrase: “We’ve had several expensive, decade-long programs to end homelessness and the situation keeps getting worse, but the programs really helped a lot, and we just need to spend lots more and then everything will be fixed!  Oh, and we need to take other people’s money by force to make that happen, because Jesus said to!”

Read it yourself and see what I mean.

He appealed to our need to be our “brother’s keeper.” But does that apply here?  That term occurs in Genesis 4:9 (Then the LORD said to Cain, “Where is Abel your brother?” He said, “I do not know; am I my brother’s keeper?”).  Most people will note that Cain was referring to his literal brother, not all of humanity. Also, he didn’t say it in reference to being his brother’s caretaker. He had murdered Abel and was basically giving the original version of the smart-aleck response, “It wasn’t my day to watch him.”

So once again Chuck mangles the Bible to advance his politics-disguised-as-religion agenda.  He picks a verse that he thinks backs up his point, but he has already mocked the Bible in whole and in part, so why should we take him seriously when he takes a verse out of context to use as a trump card?

This comment seemed a bit hypocritical, considering how Chuck mocks the traditional (read: real and biblical) view of marriage and is pro-legalized abortion:

This rhetoric has found expression in the tea party movement, which rejects traditional religious understandings of justice and compassion and has left even progressive politicians timid.

Yeah, theological liberals are all about traditional religious understandings!  Didn’t the early church fathers take their 6 yr. old girls to gay pride parades, just like Chuck describes on his blog?  Weren’t they pro-legalized abortion and pro-taxpayer funded abortions, just like Chuck & Co.?

I’m all for helping widows and orphans and the truly needy, but I prefer to do it with my own money (We’ve supported the Star of Hope homeless ministry for years, among other things).  And if I cite Bible verses to support my views, I use them in context, and I don’t force them on non-believers. Chuck did the opposite of all of that.

Chuck’s version of Jesus has him telling us to ask Caesar to take from neighbor A by force (i.e., taxes) to “give” to neighbor B, even if it puts neighbor B and his descendants in semi-permanent bondage to the government.

One of the common sound bites pro-legalized abortionists like Chuck use against pro-lifers is this: “You shouldn’t complain about abortion if you aren’t going to adopt all the kids!” That argument fails on many levels, but it only seems fair to ask Chuck how many formerly homeless people he is currently housing.

I wonder why Chuck doesn’t apply the “brother’s keeper” line of thinking to the unborn?

If Chuck really wants to solve homelessness he needs to switch political parties. One example: We need to drill for more oil. That not only provides lots of high paying jobs but it lowers energy costs and the costs of nearly everything else people buy — thus helping them stay in their own homes!

Also, the increase in the minimum wage always reduces jobs for young black men, whose unemployment rate sits at 40%. Thanks, Chuck & Co.!

We also need to teach comprehensive sex education, but not in the way Chuck & Co. use that term. I mean telling kids that if they don’t have sex out of wedlock and get a high school degree, their chances of being poor or homeless are very, very low. But if they do the opposite their odds skyrocket. But the Left is too busy supporting Planned Parenthood’s failed program of encouraging kids to have allegedly consequence-free sex when they are “ready,” which, shockingly enough, is right about the time when they want to have sex!

Oh, and you could teach the Biblical model — again, the opposite of what Chuck teaches — and tell them that God designed sex for one man and one woman in a life-long commitment. The odds of that resulting in homelessness is also very, very low.

Side note: I like Oregon Live for allowing an actual discussion. Chuck also writes at the Huffington Post and they censor opposing views, regardless of how politely they are expressed.  I was very encouraged by how the other commenters took Chuck to task — there is hope for Oregon!

We’d all like to reduce homelessness.  The question is whether we’ll come up with adult solutions that actually improve the situation, or whether we’ll ignore those and just tell the government to fix it — with someone else’s money, of course.

If you like the Ted Williams story, you’ll love prison ministry

It is hard not to enjoy the story of Ted Williams.

A few days ago, Ted Williams was a down-on-his-luck, homeless panhandler on the side of a Columbus, Ohio interstate highway ramp.

But then a reporter who had “discovered” the “man with the velvet voice” and made a video of Williams demonstrating his golden pipes put the video online. It’s lured more than 13 million hits.

Of course it is great to hear someone beat the odds.  But Mr. Williams isn’t valuable just because he has a great voice, but because he is a human being.

As I thought of his story it reminded me of the seemingly endless examples of transformed and redeemed lives I’ve seen through Kairos Prison Ministry.  Just this morning a man who had been molested as a child and had his 2 yr. old murdered was able to speak of his forgiveness for the perpetrators and talk about how he mentors other prisoners.  A former gang member has turned his life around and is eager and equipped to be the father and husband he is supposed to be when he is released next month.  A 40 yr. old who has been in prison since he was 17 can’t wait to get out and work hard to earn a living.  All of them are eager to share the Gospel with others.  And on and on.

There are many ways to support prison ministry, even if you don’t go into the prison yourself.  You can pray, bake cookies, donate money, support the Prison Fellowship and more.  You’ll never get tired of seeing lives transformed today and for eternity.