Abortion Bailout -- Murderer in Chief?

>> Friday, December 19, 2008

Planned Parenthood, thanks to a sea-change of heart or conscience (I'll take either), is in pretty bad shape financially. But they needn't fear. The president elect with blood already on his hands is preparing to fund the abortion industry, the infanticide mills of America, to the tune of some three billion dollars. From InsideCatholic.com:

Go to Change.gov, the Web site of President-elect Barack Obama, and you'll find a document titled "Advancing Reproductive Rights and Health in a New Administration." Signed by dozens of pro-abortion groups, including Catholics for Choice, this 55-page document provides an overview of the marching orders for the Obama administration in removing all present restrictions on abortions while dramatically increasing abortion funding.

Anyone who has bought into the myth that Obama is "moderating" his positions should notice that the first section is titled "Steps for the First Hundred Days." The groups that have spent millions supporting pro-abortion members of Congress, including Obama and Vice-President elect Joe Biden, aren't in the mood to wait.

Many of the recommendations are about who gets government support. The pro-abortion groups not only want more money -- nearly $3 billion -- but they also want the government to stop funding groups who do not share their ideology.

For example, notice the following four recommendations out of the many contained in the document:

  • Provide $1 Billion for International Family Planning Programs
  • Restore Funding to the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA)
  • Increase Funding for Title X Family Planning Program to $700 million
  • De-fund Abstinence-Only Programs

Taken together, the proposed policies would accomplish three things: 1) treat abortion as a health care right, 2) provide funding for abortions by insurance carriers or the government, and 3) put judges and political appointees in place who will protect abortion and government funding from future challenges.

Included in the document is a complete list of vacancies in the Federal Circuit Courts and a two-page list of federal appointees who should be vetted closely on their support for the abortion right. The bulk of these positions are found in the Department of Health and Human Services, the Justice Department, the State Department, and the U.S. Agency for International Development.
The billions being demanded for abortion funding will eventually flow unimpeded through these channels.


Government funded infanticide. Not just infanticide, but genocide as well.

One form of racism, however, that has largely gone unnoticed today by the African-American community is abortion. I agree with Rev. Johnny Hunt of the Life Education and Resource Network, who says abortion is racism in its ugliest form. "Because of some very suave planning by abortion supporters and providers," writes Hunt, "abortionists have eliminated more African-American children than the KKK ever lynched." Of course, Hunt, a black American, isn't excusing the dastardly deeds of the KKK, but is simply pointing out there is a much bigger injustice currently being perpetrated against blacks than was being committed against them when the Klan was at its zenith. Hunt contends abortion has robbed millions of black Americans of the most essential of all rights — the right to life ... the right to opportunity ... the right to give something.

According to the Alan Guttmacher Institute, black women are more than three times as likely as white women to have an abortion. The Family Research Council says that African Americans represent 12 percent of the population but suffer 32 percent of the abortions in America. The Culture of Life Foundation & Institute adds that more than 1,400 black children are aborted every day. Since Roe v. Wade, that makes about 15 million African Americans removed from the population who can never make any contribution to their race or their country.

The Culture of Life Foundation & Institute further notes: "Given the increased rate of abortion among African Americans, it is fair to ask whether this community is specifically targeted by the abortion industry. The writings of Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood, gave ample evidence of her belief in eugenics and her plan to reduce the African-American population through 'family planning.' But that was over 60 years ago. Today, however, we do see a concentration of abortion business in African-American neighborhoods. For example, according to Michigan Right to Life, of the 36 abortion clinics remaining in Michigan, 11 are in Detroit, a black majority city. Of those 11, nine are in African-American neighborhoods or have predominantly African-American customers."

Yet the NAACP and most high-profile black leaders are squarely on the side of the abortionists. Certainly some will deny this claim, saying to defend "choice" is not to be "pro-abortion." You can personally be opposed to abortion, they argue, but believe that it's improper to impose that standard on others. But isn't that like the fallacious contention you can be personally opposed to slavery and still defend the right of some to practice it? Isn't that like saying, "I believe lynching a black person is wrong, but people still ought to have that choice"? Gregg Cunningham in Why Abortion is Genocide correctly summarizes the matter when he writes, "The effort to outlaw abortion, like the campaign to outlaw racial injustice, isn't merely about personal morality. It is not merely about what a person does. It is about what a person does to another person."


From BlackGenocide.org

Minority women constitute only about 13% of the female population (age 15-44) in the United States, but they underwent approximately 36% of the abortions.

According to the Alan Guttmacher Institute, black women are more than 5 times as likely as white women to have an abortion

On average, 1,876 black babies are aborted every day in the United States.

This incidence of abortion has resulted in a tremendous loss of life. It has been estimated that since 1973 Black women have had about 16 million abortions. Michael Novak had calculated "Since the number of current living Blacks (in the U.S.) is 36 million, the missing 16 million represents an enormous loss, for without abortion, America's Black community would now number 52 million persons. It would be 36 percent larger than it is. Abortion has swept through the Black community like a scythe, cutting down every fourth member."


The idea that a President Barack H. Obama wants to give billions of dollars to Planned Parenthood, an organization that is literally decimating the Black Community, is appalling to me. And he wants to send billions overseas as well? For the same purpose? This is akin to Roosevelt sending billions of dollars to Hitler's Germany to support the gassing of Jews.

It's sick. It's murder. And the fact that he wants to give money to organizations for the express purpose to perpetuating infanticide....? His hands are already stained with blood. He does this and he is as much a murderer as Hitler himself. Hitler only killed some 12 million with his ethnic cleansing. How many destroyed lives will three-billion buy?

51 comments:

Feodor December 19, 2008 at 12:57 PM  

Eric,

A little research regarding InsideCathlic.com's information:

The document, "Advancing Reproductive Rights and Health in a New Administration," cannot be found on the website of the President-elect, change.gov.

If you clink on the link to the document, you will notice suspicious headers saying that the document was "submitted" to the Obama-Biden Transition Project to the right and, to the left, a header with the label, "Obama-Biden Transition Project."

I did not find a website for this entity, except for very worrisome donor page that looks a lot like a scam.

Your Catholic faithful are lying. Not only that, they are leading supporters of choice to a scam job.

Very nice.

Geoffrey Kruse-Safford December 19, 2008 at 3:54 PM  

I will be clear and use small words. In America, if you want an abortion, and live close enough and can scrape together the cash for it, you are allowed to do so.

If, on the other hand, you believe abortion to be wrong, and do not wish to have one, or have one you love have one and can convince her not to do so, then you are free not to do so.

It isn't murder, because there are no human victims. It isn't genocide, because it isn't deliberate state policy to eradicate little black fetuses to make soap.

It isn't any of the things you call it, Eric. It's a legal medical procedure the government has seen fit to allow. That's it and that's all.

Once again, I would ask this question, and I do wish I could get an answer to it - if you thought the Republican and conservative politicians cared about abortion, why in the world did they not do something to end it over the course of the many years they had a working majority in our Congress?

Geoffrey Kruse-Safford December 19, 2008 at 3:55 PM  

BTW, Eric, I did what Feodor did, and I, too, couldn't find hide nor hair of whatever crapola you claim the Obama Administration is planning to do. Those dark, Satanic mills of abortion are just going to have to grind on and on without federal dollars.

Once again, conservatives fail.

Eric December 19, 2008 at 5:15 PM  

"It isn't murder, because there are no human victims."

No human victims? What do human fetus' grow up to be? Pear trees?


"The document... cannot be found on the website of the President-elect, change.gov."

Hmm, I didn't have any trouble finding it. So the Catholics got the link wrong (like so many other things). Here's a link that works:

Advancing Reproductive Rights and Health in a New Administration

Surprise, surprise!! ON the President-elect's website, Change.gov

Apologies for the bad link, but a simple Google search fixed it. No failure here but your ability to perform a simple search.

Feodor December 19, 2008 at 5:48 PM  

I stand corrected. Eric is right that the document can be reached via the President-elect's website.

It's not under his agenda, however. It is found via the opportunity the website gives to all us to post anything we want: the "TELL US YOUR STORY" tab, which includes the following disclaimer:

"Disclaimer: The PDFs listed below do not represent the views of the Obama-Biden Transition team, or the views of the current administration. These documents were created by the organizations and individuals listed, and delivered to Transition team members with knowledge that all materials would be made public on Change.gov."

So the good news, Eric, is that you, too, can submit your suggestions - or "marching orders" according to the misdirecting InsideCatholic.com - in the same way.

Knock yourself out. But you didn't take the time to make this clear yourself, did you?

You hide things, Eric, in order to seem like you are taking moral stands. Pretty smarmy... and so pathetically ordinary.

Geoffrey Kruse-Safford December 19, 2008 at 9:23 PM  

What?!? You mean a conservative is being disingenuous? I'm shocked! Shocked, I tell you!

So, which is it, Eric? Is it the future policy of the first African-American President to encourage the ongoing genocide of African-Americans? Or is it, perhaps, a publicity stunt by an anti-abortion group?

Al-Ozarka December 19, 2008 at 9:24 PM  

"It isn't murder, because there are no human victims." J-Off


This is why I continue to use J-Off to denote you, J-Off.

It's what a J-Off would say.

Eric December 19, 2008 at 9:57 PM  

I'm content to wait and see what he actually does. Much of what he's personally said is troubling enough. I'm content to wait.

However...

He didn't find it in his heart to defend the lives of abortion survivors while as a member of the Illinois senate, so it's hard to imagine he's had a change of heart since being elected. And he did say while campaigning that he wouldn't want his daughters to be burdened with "a mistake"...

As for smarm, the only smarm I've been reading here these last few weeks has come from the likes of you, Feodor, and you Geoffrey. It wouldn't matter what I or anyone else here wrote, or how politely we phrased it, you two would still be doing your "Heckle and Jeckle" magpie imitations. Yes, you both float impressive vocabularies. Too bad a good vocabulary isn't enough to win an argument. It helps... but letter-counts don't win arguments.

Marshall Art December 20, 2008 at 1:09 AM  

Did Barry O not also give PP a firm committment to support them as president? Seems I recall such a thing.

There has been much that has been removed from the Obama web-sites as the campaign rolled along. I would not doubt that he had something related to his desire to ensure people have the right to kill their own children, until it became inconvenient to continue running it. It's happened before.

"It isn't murder, because there are no human victims."

This is stupidity. Not because it is blatantly and patently untrue, but because Geoffrey has been schooled on why it's untrue, but spews it anyway.

Yes, Geoffrey. You KNOW it's not true and have been incapable of coming up with anything that would support your contention. Like Biblical teaching regarding sexuality, you simply deny the truth regarding abortion and what it does. You can believe what you like regarding abortion, but like the Easter Bunny, you have nothing to support that belief but your own wishful thinking.

Feodor December 20, 2008 at 2:59 AM  

Give free reign to information and condoms and then fight with your utmost Christian strength against sex outside of marriage.

That will eliminate several thousand abortions every year.

Decline to do so and you collude with the murder you name.

Geoffrey Kruse-Safford December 20, 2008 at 8:33 AM  

Schooled? SCHOOLED? By whom? You?

I'm having a similar discussion over at my blog. Simply put - I'm quite content with the moral content of my position on abortion; I will continue to refuse to pretend that a fetus is a human being. Not because I am either stupid or obstinate, but because a fetus is not a human being. Since you all believe otherwise, you are quite free not to have abortions (that's why it is about choice). Since Planned Parenthood is a private, non-profit organization, I'm not even sure what any of this is about, other than huffing and puffing about all those unborn babies murdered in the name of evil.

The whole thing is boring.

Jim December 20, 2008 at 11:19 AM  

GK-S's position is supported by Scalia who had it right:

"I think when the Constitution says that 'persons are entitled to equal protection of the laws' I think it clearly means walking-around persons. You don’t count pregnant women twice."

You want to stop abortions, help people to stop getting pregnant when they don't want to get pregnant. That is the true mission of Planned Parenthood. Abortions is a very small percentage of the services that PP provides. The rest of what PP does essentially supports the pro-life cause and you should be donating money yourselves to them.

Feodor December 20, 2008 at 12:43 PM  

A zygote/embryo/fetus is human life in development but not a human being or a human person.

Legal rights accrue as we develop and mature into full persons.

The rights of a fetus accrue as human life, remaining subordinate to the full personhood of the mother until at the last it is subordinate only in cases of the threat of death to the mother. At birth become a human child with the autonomous rights of a minor.

A child has rights as a minor person (minor due to their dependency) and so do not have the full rights of adults. This is personhood in development.

People with traumatic brain injuries who lose their developed capacities of rationality and/or bodily control also lose their full circumscribed rights. This is attenuated personhood.

Babies and adults who have no brain functioning can be removed from life support because although they are human lives, they are no longer persons.

Capital punishment is either killing a human person or punishing someone who has forfeited their rights in society.

Marshall Art December 20, 2008 at 3:29 PM  

First for Jim,

The Scalia thing looks like a good argument. It only means that this guy can be wrong as well. I have great respect for Scalia but I think he overlooks something here. I doubt that there is anything from the founders that can be used directly by either side of this debate. But I also think that "walking around" people is a weak defense considering the incredibly strong liklihood that most people would not think of even born children as people when crafting laws, unless those children, born and waiting to be born, are brought up at the time. This is not to say that they were not considered people by the founders, but more likely that they were not so shallow and self-serving as to consciously exclude them. Think about it. When the word "person" is used, do you first think of a child? Not likely. So for Scalia to say that the founders were talking about adults might be technically accurate, but there's no way to determine if, especially concerning the right to life, they might consider the right to life for children born or otherwise to be of equal value.

Marshall Art December 20, 2008 at 3:42 PM  

Feodor (and by extension, Geoffrey),

"A zygote/embryo/fetus is human life in development but not a human being or a human person."

This is subjective and not supported by science.

"Legal rights accrue as we develop and mature into full persons."

Also subjective and not supported by scientific fact. This can be changed by the will of the people, should the people opposed ever get a soul and a spine.

"A child has rights as a minor person (minor due to their dependency) and so do not have the full rights of adults."

The right to life is not based on the child's age, but on its humanity (not "personhood"). It lacks the full list of rights of an adult because they are not mature enough to handle them. This has nothing to do with being less of a person. What blatant nonsense.

"People with traumatic brain injuries who lose their developed capacities of rationality and/or bodily control also lose their full circumscribed rights."

More nonsense. They lose the ability to assert or exercise those rights on their own behalf. They don't lose them at all.

"Babies and adults who have no brain functioning can be removed from life support because although they are human lives, they are no longer persons."

Hmmm. "Nonsense" just doesn't cut it. "Bullshit" is more appropriate. They can be removed from life support because they are determined, even imperfectly, to be incapable of resusitation. They are people, persons, human beings with rights, beyond our abilities to help.

Marshall Art December 20, 2008 at 3:47 PM  

Geoffrey,

"I will continue to refuse to pretend that a fetus is a human being. Not because I am either stupid or obstinate, but because a fetus is not a human being."

Yet you have no scientific basis upon which to make that claim. Science doesn't for sure. Thus, you are indeed pretending that what you believe can possibly be true.

"Since Planned Parenthood is a private, non-profit organization, I'm not even sure what any of this is about, other than huffing and puffing about all those unborn babies murdered in the name of evil."

Correction: in the name of profit and convenience. Abortion isn't about some heavy choice if it isn't a human being killed. And murder isn't legal if done in private except for PP and those who support this murderous practice.

Geoffrey Kruse-Safford December 20, 2008 at 4:06 PM  

Marshall, you keep repeating the word "science" as if you knew what it meant.

Please. Stop. I do not care about the abortion issue. I do not care that there are people who think a lump of flesh that may or may not become a fully-developed human being at some point is a real human being. I do not care that you, Eric, Ozzie, Mark, and the rest of the world insists I am a moral monster because I believe in the legality of a medical procedure.

Marshall Art December 20, 2008 at 4:19 PM  

This article, though written and published before the tragedy of Nov '08, also confirms the point Eric was making with this thread.

Marshall Art December 20, 2008 at 4:25 PM  

Geoffrey,

I know fully well the meaning of the word science, and I'm fully consistent in its use, unlike yourself. You indeed "pretend" to know that a fetus is not equal to any other "walking around" human, but you have no means by which to support that, science least of all. It is merely your subjective position, and one held so agressively that it leads me to believe someone close to you has availed themselves of this procedure and you don't wish to include them with other murderers. That's understandable if true, as most enablers of homosexual causes are in the same boat. In fact, as we can see when some punk is charged with murder, theft, arson, etc, there is usually someone, a mother perhaps, who doesn't think their crime was unjustified. But that's not how we determine such things. Not adults, anyway.

I'm also aware that you don't care that people oppose your position. I believe this came about when you realized that you could not defend your position.

Feodor December 20, 2008 at 6:26 PM  

"A zygote/embryo/fetus is human life in development but not a human being or a human person."

MA 'This is subjective and not supported by science.'

-- It is what the law says and, dimwit, it is why these words exist in the first place. Your label of subjective is itself subjective. Do you know how to say tautology?

"Legal rights accrue as we develop and mature into full persons."

MA 'Also subjective and not supported by scientific fact. This can be changed by the will of the people, should the people opposed ever get a soul and a spine.'

-- This is the law, not science (lazy minds don't pay attention to categories), and is necessary unless you propose absolute autonomy for children. And you are not the arbiter of "soul", thank God, or spine for that matter.

"A child has rights as a minor person (minor due to their dependency) and so do not have the full rights of adults."

MA 'The right to life is not based on the child's age, but on its humanity (not "personhood"). It lacks the full list of rights of an adult because they are not mature enough to handle them. This has nothing to do with being less of a person. What blatant nonsense.'

-- A child has a lot more rights than just right to life. But a child does not the right to live autonomously until the child is of majority age. Right, "age." And "not mature enough to handle them," MA, this is what that big word, "dependence," means. Hey, vocab of the day for you. No need to thank me, Happy holidays!

"People with traumatic brain injuries who lose their developed capacities of rationality and/or bodily control also lose their full circumscribed rights."

MA 'More nonsense. They lose the ability to assert or exercise those rights on their own behalf. They don't lose them at all.'

-- This is more stupid semantic tautology from MA.

"Babies and adults who have no brain functioning can be removed from life support because although they are human lives, they are no longer persons."

MA 'Hmmm. "Nonsense" just doesn't cut it. "Bullshit" is more appropriate. They can be removed from life support because they are determined, even imperfectly, to be incapable of resusitation. They are people, persons, human beings with rights, beyond our abilities to help.

-- MA's position opens a new category of murder if he considers brain dead bodies to be human persons. But then, this may be a very self-interested argument from him. And when you have bullshit for brains, everything you consider will be turned into bullshit.

Feodor December 20, 2008 at 6:30 PM  

MA, you collude with murder since you do not support the measures available to stop it.

Eric December 20, 2008 at 10:53 PM  

I'm curious Geoffrey; and not because I want a club to beat you with. What kind of church does your wife pastor? Is she still pastoring? I'm very curious about the kind of christian faith that can, with a clear conscience, support abortion?

Seriously. I want to understand where you're coming from.

Al-Ozarka December 21, 2008 at 6:24 AM  

"Decline to do so and you collude with the murder you name."

Feodork, it is impossible to be more stupid than you.

It's the left, idiot, that promotes immorality and champions the behavior that leads to unwanted pregnancies out of wedlock (which puts a HEVAY burden on taxpayers).

The Democrat Party is the Party of irresponsibility.

Al-Ozarka December 21, 2008 at 6:25 AM  

"I'm very curious about the kind of christian faith that can, with a clear conscience, support abortion?"- Eric

I'm curious what kind of Christian faith can trust man's intellect over God's.

Geoffrey Kruse-Safford December 21, 2008 at 8:49 AM  

Sorry, Eric, but bringing up my wife crosses the line. What church she pastors, etc., is clearly available via links at my weblog. She is not my conscience, my spiritual director, or the author of my belief in God, however, and we happen to disagree on all sorts of things. At the same time, I fail to see the relevance. Keep my wife out of it.

I happen to be a Christian who also believes that there is nothing wrong with allowing people to live out their lives, including making decision I may or may not make. I do not "support abortion". I support the option for women to have a medical procedure that can save their lives, reduce the chances they will end up in poverty, or people like you will call them sluts and whores for having a child out of wedlock. I might or might not have considered the option if issues had arisen in my wife's two pregnancies, but I will always be glad that moral scolds such as yourself and the rest of the folks here could not dictate to me and my wife how we should choose to live out our lives.

One more thing. The kind of Christian who believes that other human beings have the right to live out their lives is a mature one. That kind of Christian does not presume to play God, insisting they have all the answers for other people's lives. My belief in God includes the belief that God is there with us, even in our darkest hour of need, in the depths of whatever suffering we may be going through - filling it with love, and hope, and simple Divine presence.

There is no place where God is not. There is no action on our part where God is not a loving witness. There is nothing that separates us from God. Unless you wish to claim that the death and resurrection of Jesus was only partially successful in vanquishing sin, I suggest you consider the possibility that God's love is far larger not only than our love, but far larger than we can imagine any love being.

That's the kind of Christian I am. The kind that embraces all of life, in all its ambiguity. Kind of like God did.

Eric December 21, 2008 at 9:21 AM  

From the article Art cites:

"Appallingly, [Obama] wishes to strip federal funding from pro-life crisis pregnancy centers that provide alternatives to abortion for pregnant women in need. There is certainly nothing "pro-choice" about that."

It is clear that Obama isn't interested in choice-- or life for that matter --what he is interested in is making abortion legal in ANY instance, for any reason, and wants to usher America into a Huxley-esque "Brave New World" of institutionalized indifference to life, and that quality that makes life worth preserving.

The man is a monster.

And on January 20th he'll be the 44th president of the United States of America.

Feodor December 21, 2008 at 11:49 AM  

If you, Izard, and you, Eric, do not press for full availability of information and measures to prevent unwanted pregnancies AND also press for jobs projects and afffordable housing AND THEN press for your favoring restraint and abstinence...

... then you reveal yourselves as not principally interested in avoiding, at all costs, what you both consider murder.

You reveal the holes in your moral grasp of your own arguments.

If abortion is murder, then you must fight it - AT LEAST - by any legal means necessary. And full reproductive information and availability of condoms and counseling are tremendous weapons in dramatically reducing abortions.

If you are unable to make this move, having full confidence in the ability to then make moral arguments for rational control of sexual urges...

... then you are, for all intents and purposes, colluding with the murder you name.

And if you refuse, your arguments are specious. (Eric, you will need to educate Izard on just what this word means.)

Geoffrey Kruse-Safford December 21, 2008 at 12:10 PM  

There are no monsters out there, Eric. Really.

Certainly not Barack Obama.

Just people. That's all.

Eric December 21, 2008 at 6:17 PM  

Apologizes Geoffrey... I'm just genuinely confused. I understand that everyone is different, I'm just seriously having trouble understanding how you (whether your wife is your conscience or not, how can two walk together unless they agree?) can claim Christianity and not see abortion as a fundamentally evil practice. As I said earlier, I have no desire to abuse you with bull-in-a-china-shop rhetoric, I just want to understand how what I see as sacrosanct is viewed by others as pedestrian.

What I did find at your blog is references to the UMC which I assume is the United Methodist Church. I've attended services at United Methodist Churches and never encountered the reasoning you offer here.

I sincerely want to know why YOUR faith specifically can differ so much from mine, when the Methodist churches I'M familiar with pretty much agrees with what I believe about abortion in particular.

Now whatever you think of me personally-- and judging from the "sluts and whores" portion of your comment you don't think particularly high of me --I have no desire to belittle you or anyone else... I understand hard choices. I've made a few myself. And for the record, I do not think of women as whores or sluts, as I just said, I understand hard choices, even bad choices. I've made my fair share of bad decisions, and then some. I'm in no position to judge anyone, least of all you.

It goes without saying that we do not agree on a whole host of subjects, at least the ones we've broached thus far. But from where I sit, the Bible was not written for scholars, but rather the everyday man. Scholarship helps in understanding the times and idiosyncrasies of language, but generally, the Bible means what it says, where it says it. And just so you know where I'm coming from in this respect I offer something I noodled out for myself...

Axioms of Interpretation (In terms of understanding what the bible is saying):

1-- God cannot lie
2-- The truth of one statement cannot negate the truth of another statement
3-- If the truths of two or more verses appear to be contradictory, the verses must be viewed as possessing dissimilar contexts

Example: Some denominations... like the United Methodists (at least one pastor I know) believe that OSAS is unscriptural, but how does one lose salvation... scripturally speaking? So too with abortion... Thou Shalt Not Kill...

If we go the way of some and accept personhood ONLY to those who are consciously aware of their personhood, then that makes millions of newborns NON-persons that can, with clean conscience, be discarded/killed if the action suited the needs of the parent. And yet Herod is universally vilified for killing every child under two years of age in hopes of getting the prophesied King in the bargain.

I genuinely want to understand how the Jews could value the life of a new-born so much that one mother would hide her child in the bullrushes near Pharaohs daughter. It's not my place to judge(condemn) Pharaoh, but according to the Bible I read I am COMMANDED to judge(determine the right or wrong of) his actions. Likewise, I cannot judge Barack Obama, that is to say, CONDEMN him personally, but it is my place to judge his ACTIONS, whether they be good or bad, that I may know whether or not I can allow myself to be seen associating with him. "Come out from among them," the Bible says. "Be Ye Separate," it says. And this is consistent with the Christian walk. Come out from among them, and be ye separate do not mean to utterly shun. One must still go among the heathen to bring to them the Gospel.

These women who choose to abort their pregnancies may or may not be sluts and whores-- the Law is a harsh judge, but realistically, it terms of partial birth abortion specifically the only difference between the victim and a child wanted and cradled in the arms of its mother is geography and want.

It's no secret I don't like Barack Obama, any more than it's a secret that you and Feodor, Dan, ER, and a whole host of others don't like Bush. But my complaint about Obama isn't about the man, his skin, his name, his ancestry, but rather it's about his judgment. Any man who could defend the practice of partial birth abortion and refuse lifesaving treatment of infants born alive despite all attempts to abort/kill, tells me that there is something seriously wrong with his judgment. He claims to be a Christian, but from where I sit his tree is barren.

So. I apologize for mentioning your wife... it's not my intent to denigrate... I only want to understand. You see, I'm not under the illusion that I know it all. Nor am I under the illusion that you or Feodor know it all. What I do know is that both of you are still searching for answers just as I am... you certainly have answers I don't, but I'm equally sure I have some you don't. Where then do we find agreement, or common-ground?

[forgive any typos... I'm being called away, and I can't take the time to inspect what I've written]

Feodor December 21, 2008 at 8:07 PM  

If Obama is a murderer, Eric, you are in collusion with murderers.

Eric December 21, 2008 at 9:40 PM  

As are you, if you want to take that far.

But if I seem a bit dogmatic on this point Ezekiel 3:18 says all I need ever say about why I bother speaking out against it.

"When I say unto the wicked, Thou shalt surely die; and thou givest him not warning, nor speakest to warn the wicked from his wicked way, to save his life; the same wicked man shall die in his iniquity; but his blood will I require at thine hand."

I'm not a prophet, but I am a child of the almighty through the blood of His son Jesus. Whatever righteousness I have it was imputed to me by God, FROM His son Jesus. As a child of God I need not fear the punishments of hell, but I must certainly fear the loss of any reward I might otherwise be due. The Bible says there will be many among the righteous that will stand before God ashamed.... forgive me if I don't want to be in THAT number.

Obama needs a new heart. He obviously has something in his head... but head knowledge only gets you so far. It's got to get into the heart for it to bear any fruit. Because he would support Planned Parenthood with my and your tax dollars-- which does not make us guilty of collusion --tells me there is something wrong with his tree. Planned Parenthood is a private organization. One that, despite its claim to non-profit status, does indeed make a profit. They make profit off the destruction of human life... Life with the potential for great things. If we read the Bible with even a modicum of honesty we see that God knew us BEFORE ever the world was created. He saw value in us. How presumptuous of us to say that God doesn't value the unborn... we were once unborn. The only way that I can see God sanctioning the wholesale slaughter of 50+ million unborn children, in America alone, through the means of abortion, is if He didn't value the unborn. And His word just doesn't support that view.

When do babies get their souls? in utero? At birth? Sometime after birth? Does God wait to see if we will value that life enough to let it live long enough to become "aware"?

I'm just asking questions. If God is who He says He is then every single life, even the ones we throw away, are of value and imbued with both individual and specific purpose. Even if that purpose is to die at the hands of its mothers drunken boyfriend. Who's to say good does not come of it. Perhaps even that child's purpose is to die in Dr. Tiller's Wichita clinic. But you can't convince me that 50+ million children have been ripped from the womb since Roe became the law of the land because it was their God-given destiny.

It is true what Joseph said to his brothers...

"ye thought evil against me; but God meant it unto good"

But that doesn't change the fact that Obama has blood on his hands. The Law is still in effect. Grace did not do away with the Law except for righteousness. Christ is our righteousness now... but only for those who accept Him as Lord. For all the rest, they will be judged by the standard of the Law... the merciless, pitiless Law.

Obama's stance on abortion, to my interpretation of what God's word says, does not stead him much credibility when he claims to be a follower of Christ... a Christian.

And again, if I appear unnecessarily dogmatic about his stance on abortion, it's because to the utter depths of my soul I know it is an evil practice, and that it destroys more than the burgeoning lives it rips from the womb. Barack, for all his supposed intelligence, should know this.

His actions say otherwise.

Al-Ozarka December 22, 2008 at 6:13 AM  

"I support the option for women to have a medical procedure that can save their lives, reduce the chances they will end up in poverty, or people like you will call them sluts and whores for having a child out of wedlock. I might or might not have considered the option if issues had arisen in my wife's two pregnancies, but I will always be glad that moral scolds such as yourself and the rest of the folks here could not dictate to me and my wife how we should choose to live out our lives." - J-Off

It's not
YOUR lives we we are interfering with...it's the lives of innocent babies YOU are interfering with.

To flippantly dismiss the unborn as an inconvenience worthy of death is the indication of callous disregard for decency.

You abortionists make my stomach turn.

Feodork. keep on repeating your idiocy and you may eventually convince yourself.

I'm already convinced...you are amoral.

Feodor December 22, 2008 at 9:31 AM  

Izard

Your convictions are yours alone. What you don't offer are arguments in the discussion.

Convictions are easy when empty of reason.

You are pretty easy.

Feodor December 22, 2008 at 9:42 AM  

Eric's convictions are rather more smartly put.

I find it odd that you can argue that abortion is moral murder but then choose to stand idly by counting on God to carry out a plan to cover your passivity.

Condoms will stop what you call murder by the thousands. It may increase what you call, what do you call it, lasciviousness?, but what a better battle to fight lust than murder of innocents.

How can it not seem Godly to start by drastically reducing murders of the innocent and then move to argue for abstinence?

That you can't see this calls into question how convicted you are that abortion is murder. And it puts you into collusion with what you claim to see as an unGodly practice.

As for your approach to biblical texts, when you deal in only typological or analogical interpretation, then you are bound to hear what you want to hear. Ezekiel was not speaking to you. By your magic of biblical prophecy you may think so. By the same magic, I may think applies to my call to warn supporters of conservative politics that it is the weakest who are hurt most by them. And the God who suffers the weakest to come to him first will require an answer from you.

Consider yourself warned.

Jim December 22, 2008 at 10:43 AM  

I found this interesting factoid from the Guttmacher Institute website:

Family planning clinics funded under Title X of the federal Public Health Service Act have helped women prevent 20 million unintended pregnancies during the last 20 years. An estimated nine million of these pregnancies would have ended in abortion.

Eric December 22, 2008 at 11:49 AM  

For the record, I am NOT opposed to sex education, nor access to condom by minors. Better a condom than nothing at all. But it should be taught that condoms cannot prevent the transmission AIDS specifically. There's too much propaganda and falsehood in sex education... from BOTH sides. A one-sided education is worthless by itself. Abstinence ONLY sex-education is not good enough because abstinence requires more than a measure of personal respect and morality. Morality can't be taught to teenagers in fourth period health sciences. It has to be taught at home. Morality in the Home is where the culture of "free love," in ALL its destructive forms, can be changed.

Also, when Obama says he want to teach sex education to kindergartners I absolutely cringe. Granted, it's best to teach them when they're young, but teach them what? How to put on a condom or have safe anal sex? or why they are beautiful in and of themselves; that they need not give away something so personally beautiful and holy to just anyone... that it is better to wait for marriage?

No Ezekiel is not speaking to me. But 2 Timothy 3:16-17 is...

"All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: that the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works."

What scripture? The Gospels? The Epistles? In the minds of the New Testament author? not likely. "All Scripture" most likely refers to the Torah, the Psalms, the Prophets... the OLD Testament. Do you suggest that God's warning to Ezekiel offers no warning to us as well? Those who are called by His name?

"Man shall not live on bread alone, but by every word of God?"

What did Jesus say to his disciples?

"I have meat to eat that ye know not of... My meat is to do the will of him that sent me, and to finish his work."

If we are being 'conformed to His image' as the Bible says, and we are commanded by Jesus Himself to continue in His word...

John 8:31
John 15:9
Romans 11:22
Colossians 1:23
1 Timothy 4:16
2 Timothy 3:14
Hebrews 13:1

Let brotherly love continue... We are to do the will of our Father which is in heaven, And that will most certainly includes warning the wicked.

Jim December 22, 2008 at 12:04 PM  

Morality can't be taught to teenagers in fourth period health sciences. It has to be taught at home. Morality in the Home is where the culture of "free love," in ALL its destructive forms, can be changed.

So it's all the hippies' fault for teaching free love? Is that what was being taught in the Palin household?

Also, when Obama says he want to teach sex education to kindergartners I absolutely cringe. This is misinformation at best. Obama supported teaching kindergartners to recognize inappropriate acts of possible sexual predators, not how to use condoms.

Feodor December 22, 2008 at 12:26 PM  

"All scripture" for the writer of 2 Timothy also means the Apocrapha (written between the OT and NT), the Shepherd of Hermas, and Didache, for starters. Probably more as well.

"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy."

Marshall Art December 22, 2008 at 3:50 PM  

""All scripture" for the writer of 2 Timothy also means the Apocrapha (written between the OT and NT), the Shepherd of Hermas, and Didache, for starters. Probably more as well."

A subjective assumption if ever I heard one. Where does the writer say this?

"-- It is what the law says and, dimwit, it is why these words exist in the first place. Your label of subjective is itself subjective."

"The Law" isn't the last word on morality. It isn't the last word on right/wrong. And that particular phrasing of the law is unsupportable by science. It is totally subjective as a result and thus an extremely shallow basis for legislation. My opinion as such is objective and reality based.

"-- This is the law, not science (lazy minds don't pay attention to categories), and is necessary unless you propose absolute autonomy for children. And you are not the arbiter of "soul", thank God, or spine for that matter."

Again, you put law above morality. But worse, you assume it is a determination of "personhood" rather than a recognition of a child's inherent immaturity. Anyone who chooses to believe the former lacks a soul for daring to argue such about another human being, and also lacks the spine for refusing to accept the immorality of it.

"-- A child has a lot more rights than just right to life. But a child does not the right to live autonomously until the child is of majority age."

Duh! That's what I've been saying. That's different, though, than saying the child is less of a person or less endowed with the right to life, the only right that is at issue here. And you want to imply that I'M lacking intelligence?

"-- This is more stupid semantic tautology from MA."

No. This is how it is, dimwit.

"-- MA's position opens a new category of murder if he considers brain dead bodies to be human persons."

Your stupidity astounds. They are taken from life support due to the best medical opinion regarding the futility of the efforts to save. They are NOT allowed to die because they are no longer considered persons. So, the patient dies by nature of the natural process without artificial life support efforts. This is not considered murder by anyone without bullshit for brains.

"MA, you collude with murder since you do not support the measures available to stop it."

I don't? Sez who? And what measures, aside from abstainence, tube tying and vasectomies will "stop it"?

Eric December 22, 2008 at 4:02 PM  

"...the Shepherd of Hermas, and Didache, for starters. Probably more as well."

The Shepherd of Hermas is 2nd century. The Didache is late 1st to early 2nd century. If we want to consider strictly the 27 books of the New Testament, this assumes the New Testament writers thought of their letters as "Scripture." But I'm not going to argue this tangent. My point was, ALL scripture referred to the books of the Law, the Prophets, the Psalms... Jesus was specific in naming the Law and the Prophets when he said not one jot or tittle shall depart, yada, yada...

The Maccabees and Esdras, Tobit Judith, etc are not, thematically speaking, messianic, as are the 66 books of the Bible as we know it. I don't discount their worth, only their inclusion in the as "scripture"

Marshall Art December 22, 2008 at 4:03 PM  

Jim,

I couldn't find your stat from Guttmacher. However, I fail to see how they can determine who would have had an unintended pregnancy. Do people consciously decide each time whether or not they want to get pregnant when they have sex? I understand that people who use contraceptives (those that atually preven conception) don't want to get pregnant, but how do they know if they would have gotten pregnant without the contraceptive?

Private Line December 25, 2008 at 11:21 AM  

In America, if you want an abortion, and live close enough and can scrape together the cash for it, you are allowed to do so.

AMEN to that! It isn't murder!

Marshall Art December 27, 2008 at 4:52 PM  

Private Line,

Legality doesn't define murder. That is, it only does so legally and so we must live with it for the time being. But the question of the the fetus' humanity should have been settled first. It never was. To those sorry folks who think there is some line of demarcation separating one's personhood from the mythical "human but not yet a person" stage, then there is no murder in abortion. But to people with souls and character, there is NO difference and the personhood of an individual began when he was conceived. There is no objective argument, no science, no nothing that proves otherwise.

Jim December 27, 2008 at 10:56 PM  

[T]he personhood of an individual began when he was conceived. There is no objective argument, no science, no nothing that proves otherwise.

And conversely, there is no objective argument, no science, no nothing that proves it so.

Marshall Art December 27, 2008 at 11:20 PM  

Nonsense, Jim. That's exactly what the science DOES show, that it is the same person from beginning to end. Since it shows no division between when one might be a person and when one wasn't, such lines can only be subjectively placed by those who wish to leave open the possibility that they, too, might one day need an abortion for convenience. There can be no reasonable explanation for why anyone would even consider that there might be such a line.

Jim December 28, 2008 at 1:18 AM  

Talk about your nonsense! When and where does SCIENCE define "person"?

Since it shows no division between when one might be a person and when one wasn't, such lines can only be subjectively placed.... or not placed.

You are making up stuff because you have neither science nor law to back up your position. You have your religious dogma, and that's fine with me - for you. As someone said here before, don't have an abortion if you are morally against it.

BenT - the Unbeliever,  December 29, 2008 at 8:32 AM  

"there is NO difference and the personhood of an individual began when he was conceived."

The FACT of the matter is that over 90% of conceived embryo's or blastocysts are spontaneously aborted by the uterine.

Drawing from this if we legally assign personhood at conception then almost every woman is a worse serial killer than Jeffery Dahmer.

Bubba,  December 29, 2008 at 3:11 PM  

BenT, your argument is ridiculous, unless you want to argue that Dahmer "spontaneously" killed people -- or, more precisely, that his body killed people on its own, without any conscious input from Dahmer's free will -- and unless you want to de-criminalize infanticide since some children die in infancy.


On the subject of illogic, I notice that Geoffrey claims to be a Christian who believes "there is nothing wrong with allowing people to live out their lives," but he writes this while dismissing as a "lump of flesh" an unborn child.

"The kind of Christian who believes that other human beings have the right to live out their lives is a mature one."

Geoffrey doesn't recognize that right when it comes to the born. I believe that speaks very poorly of his character; his own words indict his maturity.

Marshall Art December 30, 2008 at 2:18 AM  

First, I want to put this out before I forget or screw up the link. The story shows how abortion mills have recognized Barry O's willingness to expand abortion for all. They're all a-holes for arrogantly believing they can do so on my dime.

Jim,

Science makes no distinction between "person", "human being", or "homosapien". What I pointed out is that it only says that a fertilized egg is the beginning of a new human being. It is subjective human want that has invented some unnatural point at a later time when supposedly "personhood" begins. Take Bent for instance. He, like others, believes that because a child is rejected by the mother's body when still in a microscopic stage, that somehow that means it isn't a person. Ever hear of crip death? There are many reasons that people have simply died that doctors could not perfectly explain. Reasons that were not anticipated beforehand. With Bent's reasoning, we could move the bar well beyond the birth of the child to an age well into the teens, if we wanted. Remember Len Bias? A basketball star ready to shine in the bigs when he unexpectedly dropped dead in practice. No one saw it coming. It's no different when it's an embryo. It happens and to suggest that the mother is responsible, when she might not even have known she was pregnant is, frankly, stupid.

So here's what we DO know, if people are honest and mature enough to face it: Abortion is the most heinous abdication of personal responsibility by people more interested in experiencing the pleasure of intercourse than they are in respecting the life of the child they are likely to produce. They WANT there to be some later point where the child becomes a "person". This gives them the relief they need from the oh so difficult chore of controlling their urges. "If we could all just agree that a fetus isn't a person, then I could just satiate my every urge as I see fit." The momentary spasm in their loins is more important and what could be more pathetic?

Marshall Art December 30, 2008 at 2:20 AM  

Damn! My link failed again! I don't know why. The article I tried to post concerned a request for money planned by 50 abortion providers once Barry's sworn in.

Anonymous,  December 14, 2013 at 9:51 PM  

Wow, superb blog layout! How long have you been blogging for?
you made blogging look easy. The overall look of your
website is wonderful, let alone the content!
Regards - http://echangemanagement.com/

Post a Comment

Your First Amendment right to free speech is a privilege and comes with a measure of responsibility. You have the right to exercise that responsibility here but we reserve the right to inform you when you've used that right irresponsibly.

We are benevolent dictators in this regard. Enjoy.

Barry Obama : The Young Turk


Young Turk:
Date: 1908
Function: noun
Etymology: Young Turks, a 20th century revolutionary party in Turkey
:an insurgent or a member of an insurgent group especially in a political party : radical; broadly
:one advocating changes within a usually established group.





Photos: 1980 Taken by, Lisa Jack / M+B Gallery

Labels

"House Negro" "No One Messes with Joe" "O" "The One" 08-Election 1984 2009 Inaugural 2012 Election 9/11 abortion abortionists Air Obama Al Franken Al Gore Al-Qaeda American Youth Americarcare Assassination Scenario Atheism Barry O Bi-Partisanship Biden Billary Birth Certificate Border Security Bush Bush Legacy Change Change-NOT child-killers Christians Christmas Civilian Defense Force Clinton Code Pink Congress Conservatism Constitution Creation Darwin Del McCoury Democrat Hypocrisy Democrats Dick Morris Dr. Tiller Dubya Earth Day Elian Gonzalez Ends Justify Means Evil Evolution Evolution-Devolution Failure in Chief Fairness Doctrine Feodork Foreign Relations Free Speech Frogs Fuck America - Obama Has Gates George Orwell Gestapo Global Cooling Global Idiots Global Warmong God GOP Descent Graphic Design Great American Tea Party Gun-Control Guns hackers Harry Reid hate haters Heath Care Heretic Hillary Howard Dean Hussein ident in History identity theft Illegal Immigration Iraq Jackboots Jesus Jihadist-Lover Jimmy Carter Joe Biden Jon Stewart Kanye West Karl Rove Katrina Las Vegas Left-Wing Media Leftists Liar Liberal Media liberal tactics Liberals Liberty Lying Media Marriage Penalty Martyr Marxism McCain Media MSNBC/Obama Administration murderers Norm Coleman Obama Obama 2012 Obama Administration Obama Dicatorship Obama Lies Obama Wars Obama's Army Obamacare Obamists Olympia Snowe Partisanship perversion Piracy Police State Political Hell Political Left Populist Rage Pragmatist Prayer Proof of Citizenship Proposition 8 Racism Regime Change Revolution Ronald Reagan Rush Limbaugh Second Amendment Separation of Powers Slavery Socialist Government Tea-Bagging Tea-Parties terrorists The Raw Deal Thuggery Tom Tancredo Traitors War Criminal War on Weather War-Crimes Worst President in History

  © Blogger template Werd by Ourblogtemplates.com 2009

Back to TOP