Abortion Ad "Too Controversial"

There's been plenty of buzz about the proposed Pain-Capable abortion legislation currently running the gauntlets of the Texas legislature and the US Senate. I can't help but to wonder whether the pro-choice movement has lost its momentum (perhaps that's why many seem reduced almost entirely to one-liner rhetoric and name-calling). I say this because fewer and fewer folks are OK with abortion. Especially, it seems, among those under the age of 35. Abortion remains a hotly contested and complicated issue, and most of those same youngsters who find abortion morally questionable aren't comfortable making abortion illegal.

This data compels us to ask why. Why the decline? My guess? We can see what we're talking about now. Sonograms and ultrasounds are clearer and more available than ever before, and when expecting parents see the fingers and toes of the little life they've created, it's immensely powerful. Before the faintest hint of a baby bump, we can now see what is otherwise entirely unseen.

And expecting parents aren't the only ones with this new sight. What's the first thing you do these days with the first photo of your little one? Post it to all your sundry social media outlets of course, which exposes countless folks to the (literal) face of what, in this type of scenario, no one calls a fetus.

With these images, something that once was abstract becomes concrete. This is the motivation behind the following ad in support for the Pain-Capable Act and why several newspapers refused to run it, claiming the image is "too controversial."

According to World Magazine, these papers based their censor on alleged ambiguity as to whether the child is dead or alive, which is why one of the publications agreed to run the ad with an alternative image of the same remarkably developed gestation stage en utero (the other two still refused to print it).

It's odd, really. Those three papers should know better. They should know that the quickest way to make sure everyone sees what you're trying to hide is to ban it.

DOMA and Texas Abortion Bill

Today the Supreme court ruled part of the DOMA (Defense of Marriage Act) of 1996 unconstitutional. For states that allow same sex marriage, the couples are now able to receive the same federal benefits as heterosexual couples.

Last night in Austin, TX, democrat Wendy Davis spoke for 10 hours in an attempt run down the clock to have a bill killed that would ban abortion after 20 weeks and require abortion facilities to upgrade their facilities. Thanks to a loud mob at the capitol, the bill was killed, but it is already being suggested that it will have another hearing.

It is interesting that these two issues are in the news on the same day and it causes me to wonder about the cultural implications of these rules.

The first rule suggests that all people should be treated as equal, while the second treats unborn children as less than human....essentially removing all of their rights.

Abortion is not as black and white an issue as many would like to think it is. And while banning abortions over 20 weeks is not the most desired ruling, it is a step in the right direction, at least for Texas.

When will people see all human life as the same equal? When will pro-choice individuals realize that the unborn life has no choice? When will the world see that all people are to be valued regardless of age, gender, ethnicity, vocation, education, and economic status?

Humans are created in the image of God. God created humans to care for his world, and he loves humanity. Because God loves humanity, all humans are intrinsically valuable to God.

Christianity, Abortion, and Womens Rights (A Mature Discussion)

I don't see this topic being discussed very well, anywhere.  Of course, the internet has more articles/blog entries/etc. about abortion than you can shake a stick at, but most of them are just filled with angry, politicized ranting.  Since I started this website in order to have better conversations, it's high time I started this one.

Christians who view abortion as the murder of an infant naturally seek to avoid it.

I wouldn't put an infant to death because I didn't want it, and I think that the same thing applies to an infant who happens to still be in the womb.  It's unfair for that innocent life to be killed for our convenience.  Who am I to decide who lives and who dies just because a pregnancy was unexpected, or unwanted?  That's no cause for killing.

But what about women's rights?

This is where things get rough, of course.  When I tell people that I'm against abortion, they reply with, "why do you hate women?"  Years ago, this confused me, because no one ever bothered to explain what they were talking about.  I would end up scratching my head while my conversation partner was singing Helen Reddy songs.

They were upset because they assumed that I would tell a mother that she would have to die in the event that the baby's birth threatened her health.  Why would I do that?  I wouldn't.  Again, who am I to decide who lives or who dies?  I don't have that privilege (and I don't want it).

If a mother's life is threatened, then I don't see any reason not to preserve her life.  For one thing, she can have more children this way.  In my opinion, her life is just as valuable as the child's, so there is no way to choose.  In fact, in that situation there is no right answer - it's a tragedy and everyone is a victim.  There's no mandate that says a woman needs to die, and I think that it's unfair to assume that someone who protests casual abortion is the same as someone who would sentence a woman to death because of pregnancy complications. 

So, just to be sure we're all on the same page, I don't hate women (half of the babies I'm trying to save are female, after all), and I don't insist that a woman must die if her baby might kill her during the birth.  I'm not a monster.

What about children who might be born with Down Syndrome?

It shouldn't surprise you, by now, that I don't think Down Syndrome (or any other birth defect) is a strong enough reason to kill a baby.  They are just as precious and worthy as any other child.  Or, do you think that only healthy, intelligent babies should be allowed to live?

What about rape victims?

Rape victims have undergone a horrible nightmare that will probably haunt them for the rest of their lives.  But, killing the unborn baby is not going to change that.  The baby is innocent in all of this, and many people in our world were born as the product of rape.  (It might shock you to know how common this sort of thing is, or how many people you might know who were born this way - those people are thankful that they were allowed to live despite their unfortunate conception.)  I can't stress enough how much sympathy I have for a rape victim, but it doesn't give us a reason to end the child's life.  That just adds another victim to the crime.

Conclusion

Abortion needs to be avoided.  We should work against ending the lives of infants because it's wrong to take their lives in our own hands.  Those who cannot fight for their own survival always need our help, and I believe we must extend that to the unborn.

Furthermore, more women would keep their children if we didn't talk about pregnancies like they were some kind of scandal.  Be sure that your friends and family members can be comfortable keeping a baby (or a pregnant belly) around and don't make them feel like they are being criticized for it.

(In keeping with my theme of having a "mature discussion," feel free to disagree with me in the comment section - just do it like a grown up.)

The Texas Baptists and Their Liberal Stance on Abortion

It can normally be assumed that Baptist churches will oppose abortion, but many Baptists in Texas would be surprised at the stance their leaders have taken on this issue.  The Baptist General Convention of Texas (we know it as the BGCT) would have a lot of explaining to do if the members of its churches bothered to read the BGCT website.

In the "What we Believe" section of the BGCT homepage, we see this message:

In the sanctity of human life: Messengers to BGCT Annual Meetings have clearly stated their position regarding the issues involved in the sanctity of human life.

OK.  That's not helpful, at all..  Let's dig deeper.

Further investigation brings us to something called the 'Christian Life Commission' which is a group that informs the BGCT on ethical matters.  Here's what they have to say:

Aborting a developing life should he regarded as an extreme act undertaken only under extreme circumstances...cases in which abortion might be contemplated include pregnancies which result from rape or incest. When carrying pregnancies resulting from rape and incest to term is so traumatic as to destroy the emotional health of the mother, abortion might he considered as a regrettable alternative. Abortion might also be considered in cases of severe and chronic mental illness in which pregnancy imminently and severely threatens the life of the mother for reasons not related to rape or incest but which are equally devastating to her mental and emotional stability...While we reject the practice of abortion, there may be rare circumstances described above in which Christians prayerfully choose abortion as the least tragic choice.

I'll bet this would shock a lot of Baptists if they knew about it.  It's right there on the BGCT website with no disclaimer of any sort.

For record, I think that killing an unborn child because they are the product of rape is nonsense.  I know people who were born as products of rape, and I don't think they should have been killed for the convenience of the parent.  I understand how horrible rape is, but compounding that problem by killing a baby isn't the answer.  And counseling is a fine option for parents who might feel emotionally unstable after giving birth to such a child - and it's something that most churches are well equipped to do.

So, fellow Baptists, help me out.  Have I missed something - am I misrepresenting the Texas Baptists?  (I don't want to be unfair to a group that does so many other things well.)  Or does the BGCT have a skeleton in its closet?

The Health Care Bill and America's Stand Against Abortion

By now you know that the House just passed the well known health care bill with 219 votes. This morning it was certain that congress did not have the votes, but a handful of representatives decided to switch sides and push it along. Why?

The final obstacle to passage was cleared a few hours before the vote, when Obama and Democratic leaders reached a compromise with anti-abortion lawmakers whose rebellion had left the outcome in doubt. The president issued an executive order pledging that no federal funds would be used for elective abortion, satisfying Rep. Bart Stupak of Michigan and a handful of like-minded lawmakers.

Some of you are thankful for the passing of this bill, while others are upset about it. I try to keep politics out of my blog (these days) since it's not right to mix faith and politics unnecessarily, but let's be sure to keep in mind what a stand was made today concerning the rights of unborn children.

It was close. Really close. A few more votes the other way and we would have allowed the federal government to kill unborn babies with our tax dollars through this bill (I'd rather fund orphanages). While some have been insisting that abortion is a woman's right, others have maintained that an unborn person has the right to live; the passing of today's bill shows a victory for the champions of unborn babies (even if it's bittersweet for those who oppose the bill). Today, we saw career politicians who were willing to break with party lines against a popular president in order to make a stand. No matter how this plays out in your own personal politics, lets remember that it was a very close call for the unborn. Today was a victory for them - and it very nearly went the other way.

Texas Abortionist is Threatened - Someone Has Got the Wrong Idea

A Fort Worth abortionist is currently the target of a hate mail scheme that reeks of sinister propaganda and vengeance. This sort of thing is shameful and is not generally embraced by the church - namely, because it does not reflect Christ at all.

I don't like abortion - that's no secret - but an unloving attitude toward our neighbors is absolutely wrong. Everyone in the world who suspects Christians are lying hypocrites will only associate all of us with these foolish attacks because some lunatic is on the prowl.

(Although, nothing in the news article indicates the writer of the cards is a Christian. In my experience, Christians always manage to catch the blame for things like this.)

Someone out there has the wrong idea. While saving innocent babies is a good thing to do, it is not acceptable to do so with such oppressive terror techniques. Instead, take that anger with you to the voting booth, or use that energy to send letters to your representatives. Progress may be slow, but turning abortionists into martyrs is not going to fix the problem - and it's a terribly evil thing to do.

Christ taught us to love. Remember that, above all, and you may reflect Him.

Why Specter's Explanation Fails

I just watched part of a town hall meeting in which Arlen Specter spoke in favor of the proposed health care bill. His words, at the time, focused on abortion. He was telling the uproarious crowd that the plan includes options that do not cover abortions - so you don't have to have abortion coverage in your own plan.

This is not an effective argument. Those who oppose abortion, on grounds that it is murder, will not be happy that their tax dollars will pay for it. It won't matter if it's for the neighbor's pregnancy rather than their own - they don't want to pay for something they consider to be wrong.

Arguments like this baffle me because no one who opposed abortion could possibly be satisfied with them. I would prefer a politician who admits that we disagree on this issue and that one side is going to have to be disappointed. Obviously, I want my side to win, but there is no middle ground on the issue of abortion and its insulting to insist that there is.

The Pope and the Speaker of the House. A Cautionary Tale.

I would make a lousy Catholic. I can't stomach praying to anyone but Jesus and I don't agree with Papal authority. But, for once, I am applauding the Pope.

Benedict XVI recently had a fifteen minute meeting with Nancy Pelosi in which he rebuked her for her stance on abortion. This is especially poignant because Pelosi has attempted to play the part of theologian in this arena. Calling herself a Catholic, she has, laughably, attempted to state that Augustine did not know when life began and that the church fathers have struggled over the issue of abortion. (Even the most casual student of Augustine knows that he was extremely opposed to forms of birth control; it's difficult to imagine him struggling with the question of abortion.) If there is any theological concept on which the Catholic church has been consistent it is abortion and Benedict wasted no time in telling the Speaker of the House that she was mistaken.

Pope - 1, Nancy Pelosi - zero.

Actually, there are two things I like about Pope Benedict:

1 - He told an American Democrat to defend unborn babies

and

2 - He gets to ride around in one of these:

Is the United States Funding International Abortions?

Are our tax dollars being used to encourage abortions in other countries?

Well, they are, now.

The so-called "Mexico City Law" which has been in place to prevent this was repealed by President Obama on his third day in office. This ruling was originally established by President Ronald Reagan and remained in effect throughout his presidency and that of President George H. W. Bush. It remained effective until it was overturned by President Bill Clinton in 1993. In 2001, George W. Bush put the law back into effect, saying, "It is my conviction that taxpayer funds should not be used to pay for abortions or advocate or actively promote abortion, either here or abroad." As a fan of smaller government (and not murdering babies) I completely agree.

I'll be setting up my taxes, soon, and I will do so with the dark knowledge that some of the money I work for is going to other countries to fund pro-abortion groups.



This may be a good time to write your Senator and Congress person.

Source.
Source.

Killing People Who 'Might' get Sick.

He was not supposed to be born, but there he was on the ultrasound defying the couples' birth control methods. But there was more, this child was likely to inherit a birth defect that would cause him to die an early death. Jodie Percival of Nottinghamshire, England, had been through this with her previous child and did not want to deal with the pain of watching another child die, so she had an abortion performed.

Or, so she thought. When she was 19 weeks pregnant she noticed 'flutterings' in her stomach and her doctor told her that she was still pregnant. Baby Finley was born in November and the kidney troubles he experienced are not expected to cause any serious problems. In fact, he is expected to 'live a normal life' according to doctors.

Murder is murder, even if the person you try to kill might die some day. Even the very sick deserve a chance at life.

Excellent Video

I would like to ask you to watch this video; it would mean a lot to me.

But, I warn you, it is difficult to watch this video. If you are squeamish or can't watch blood and gore I will understand if you don't want to indulge me.

This came from my friend Jared who works for a group represented by the video, you'll see his boss talking toward the end.

Watch the video here.

Evil Green

Being 'Green' has gone from being silly to being evil.

An English woman, Toni Vernelli, terminated her pregnancy because she believed it would protect the environment. She has since gotten herself sterilized so that it cannot happen again.

Killing a baby to save the planet? This was done because she was led to believe that humans are quickly destroying the planet with their ways and that the life of her baby was not as precious as the time she thinks that baby would take away from the Earth's time table.

Global warming is a scam. If Al Gore believed it would he take his private jet to Sweden to pick up an award, or would he accept it via letter? Our children will laugh when we tell them that we were swindled into believing that using paper sacks would save the world from disaster just like we think it's funny that our parents were afraid of inducing an ice age.

Now, this silly scam is costing the lives of innocent babies. Why do I care so much about the truth behind 'Global Warming'? Because when someone gets confused about the facts they actually kill people. It's not just a disagreement about the weather, it's about environmentalists taking our money while babies die.
Most importantly, if these people believed in prserving life on this planet, they would kill themselves and let the kid live. I don't think anyone is that self sacrificing.

Be Kind to Animals

When I was young, I read in the Bible that "A righteous man cares for the needs of his animal, but the kindest acts of the wicked are cruel." This shaped how I looked at animals and how I treated them.

This morning I read an article by Lisa Fabrizio (I always look for her articles) about caring for animals in which Senator Byrd quotes the same verse, probably in reference to the terrible dog fighting rings that have surfaced in the news, recently.

Anyway, the article went on to compare this view of animal rights to our views of human rights. Why shouldn't an unborn child have the same rights as my wife's cats? To quote Lisa Fabrizio,

"While the passion of the venerable senator is worthy of admiration, one also wishes that he and his party would apply the same sentiments to God's most supreme creatures; human beings, and more specifically, to their babies."