Reports indicate abortion is the leading cause of death within the African-American community in the U.S. According to the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), since 1973 -- the year of the Supreme Court decision Roe v. Wade -- 13 million African-American lives have been lost to abortion.
"Between abortion and black-on-black crime, as a people group we're exterminating ourselves. We're not loving our children in the womb or outside of the womb... So I have to do whatever it is that I can do to help save babies' lives and to make an impact on our culture.
"We've become a culture of death -- and I want to be one of those used by God to move us from a culture of death to a culture of life.
"Less than two percent of the African-American population is involved actively in the pro-life movement... So any of the babies who have been saved -- our babies -- have been because there's been people who aren't concerned about the color. So [while] I say thank you to that... I also say it's time for my culture to wake up and to become involved."
Currently in Congress, every member of the Congressional Black Caucus identifies himself or herself as "pro-choice." Elliott laments that fact.
Elliott, who is a minister, author, and conference speaker, says she is devoted to helping men and women in becoming who God created them to become. "We are the head of every criminal activity. We have more babies die from [Sudden Infant Death Syndrome] -- there's something wrong," says the ministry leader. "And I believe the something that's wrong is we've moved away from our first love, which is Jesus Christ."
--Dr. Peggy Elliot on Genocide Within the African-American Community
Can anyone answer me why the Congressional Black Caucus and the NAACP are more concerned with promoting the Democrat platform to the expense of the needs of their own people? Are they blinded to what's happening within their own community and culture by a granted role and promise of power? Why doesn't the African-American community itself (not it's so-called leaders) see what is being done to them? Is it a spiritual fault within the community or is the fault of governmental interference?
What is it about liberal policy positions that make otherwise bright-minded individuals stumble about in the dark? Do they prefer the darkness I would characterize as an institutionalized 'lack of personal responsibility' offered them in place of the light of truth-- a scales falling from the eyes' kind of understanding?
Do some liberal policies, however well-meaning, promote the abandonment of deeper spiritual truths? How do conservative policies compare? Is there a moral difference between the two camps stated and defended general policies?
If genuine truth is the desired outcome of any public discussion, which side, conservative, liberal, (or neither), is closer to that 'scales falling from the eyes' variety?
Yes, Obama and his Nazi army of liberal zealots are marching through the inner cities of America, rounding up pregnant African-American women and forcing them to "kill their babies".
ReplyDeleteOr...
African-American women are making the choice not to give birth to a child who will live in poverty. Maybe they choose to become parents when they are ready to support them (instead of the child going on to the public dole, which you detest so much. See above post.)
15% of pregnancies end in miscarriage. This horrible plague surely results in more "baby" deaths than abortion by huge numbers. Why no outrage that there is no effort to cure this horrible plague? Why no outpouring of grief for this massive loss of life?
Miscarriage doesn't wield a scalpel, it is a force of nature.
ReplyDeleteOh, and, I'm sorry... but... did I make any mention of Obama? No? None at all? Then you and your irrelevant Nazi liberals can leave now. I never mentioned the president's name, neither did I infer or assign any culpability to the man.
Well pardon me but I just assumed that when you talked about "liberals" and "liberal" policies, you had this in the back of your mind:
ReplyDelete"America will be shat out the dark puckered hole of history, and Obama will have been the catalyst-- that final grunt and push, if you will --if not the direct cause."
"Miscarriage doesn't wield a scalpel, it is a force of nature."
And so is choice. Result is the same: dead "babies".
Abortion isn't a liberal policy instituted by Obama. He may support it, but then so do you. I can't rightly blame him or you for the evil of legalized abortion. I can only blame you for supporting it. Besides which, you're quoting another post. No one's getting shat out of anything here...
ReplyDeleteExcept perhaps the unborn, in a not so literal sense.
I don't "support" abortion. I support choice and the availability of safe abortions.
ReplyDeleteJim, are you being intentionally disingenuous or are you really that stupid?
ReplyDeleteDo you support a thug's choice to murder innocent people, too? It's the same thing. We can take this further, to a logical conclusion as well:
A thief has a choice to rob or not rob. Do you support that choice, too? A terrorist has the choice to fly jetliners into occupied buildings or not, too. Do you support that choice?
When you say you "support choice", you are saying you support a woman's choice to kill her baby. Therefore, you support abortion. Stop playing semantics and just be honest with us and with yourself. You support murdering babies.
I don't "support" abortion.
ReplyDeleteIt's not "murdering".
They are fetuses, not "babies".
"Do you support a thug's choice to murder innocent people, too?
No. That is a crime. Abortion is not murder, it's not illegal, and a fetus is not a "people".
Abortion has been going on for centuries in one form or another. They were happening all over this country long before Roe v. Wade.
You will NEVER stop abortion. But you can stop women from being injured in back alley abortions by making abortion safe. Or is injury to women their punishment for irresponsibly having nookie?
You can also reduce abortions by supporting Planned Parenthood who's primary goal is in its name. It's very likely that they prevent more abortions than they provide.
Jim,
ReplyDeleteMark's point is accurate. If you support "a woman's right to choose", the obvious question is--the right to choose what? The answer is the right to choose to end the life growing within her, the right to choose to put to death the CHILD growing inside her.
And by calling that child "a fetus", as if that word denotes something other than a child (or person) in a particular stage of natural development, is indeed an attempt at playing semantics.
Abortion IS murder if it fits the definition of one who kills another for personal profit (not necessarily financial). As a legal term, there is a problem with its use as the act of abortion is not illegal. But that doesn't mitigate what is being done in the least from a moral or character perspective. Very, very few abortions are performed as self-defense wherein the risk to the life of the mother is certain or even very likely. Fewer are those where the child's life is likely to be a struggle due to problems with it.
The vast majority of abortions are totally selfish in nature with some using the thinnest of excuses, such as personal financial ability to support the child. That's loser-speak for "I don't want to do what's necessary to do the right thing."
Worse is the notion that "a normal sex-life" is an acceptable reason for killing the product of what a "normal sex life" is meant to produce.
Another is an appeal to prevent "back-alley abortions", as if there was some massive amount of women dying from such situations. This was mere propaganda by pro-abortion activists, but was baseless. The number of deaths attributed to such is miniscule, and is totally preventable by not engaging in the act that leads to pregnancy.
You want to pretend I would abolish sex. This is another lame argument as noted earlier. I want to abolish irresponsible sex and any in which people engage without taking into account the possibility of pregnancy, or worse, to engage with the willingness to kill the child should it come into existence, is irresponsible. Sex is not a necessity. Believing it is is immaturity.
Furthermore...
Laws against theft and murder hasn't stopped them either. To suggest we should allow, tolerate and/or accept the notion of people killing their own children simply because it will continue regardless of legislation is also incredibly immature and irresponsible.
ReplyDeleteIt doesn't matter how long abortion has been going on. Murder has been going on in this country as well regardless of laws and legal consequences. But a Christian doesn't support legislation that tolerates evil. When given the choice, a Christian votes against such legislation. A real one does, anyway.
"You can also reduce abortions by supporting Planned Parenthood who's primary goal is in its name. It's very likely that they prevent more abortions than they provide."
I just heard a statistic that suggested that 97% of women who go to PP for "family planning" end up getting abortions. PP never prevented one abortion I'd wager. Not on purpose. They don't provide anything that doesn't lead to abortion, because abortion is why they exist.
Maybe we should let the ACLU weigh in on this.
ReplyDelete"Will it cost taxpayers money to fund abortions?
No. Because the costs associated with childbirth, neonatal and pediatric care greatly exceed the costs of abortion, public funding for abortion neither costs the taxpayer money nor drains resources from other services."
http://www.aclu.org/reproductive-freedom/public-funding-abortion
"I just heard a statistic that suggested that 97% of women who go to PP for "family planning" end up getting abortions."
ReplyDeleteYou just heard that "statistic"? From where? You obviously get your "facts" from the same source as John Kyl. Or is this not intended to be a factual statement, too?
"PP never prevented one abortion I'd wager."
You'll lose. Not the least because it's a completely ludicrous and ignorant statement.
"They don't provide anything that doesn't lead to abortion, because abortion is why they exist."
An outrageous and dishonest statement. Probably one of the most dishonest things posted here, and that's saying a lot.
I support your RIGHT to smoke, but oppose the act of smoking.
ReplyDeleteI support your RIGHT to speak dishonest, inflammatory lies about an organization helping those with the least resources. I oppose your actual statements.
I support your RIGHT to chose to kill yourself (euthanasia), though I would strongly oppose you actually doing so.
Do you see a pattern here? There are areas of our life where we must make personal morally grey decisions. I can fully support someone's right to make an individual decision, and at the same time not be morally culpable in the choice itself.
It's like how Right-to-Lifers aren't morally culpable for the deplorable conditions in state and federal orphanages, even though you advocate for increasing their population ten-fold.
Because people cannot draw their own conclusions. And too many other people in power acquire their power and money by the continued expansion of victim classes.
ReplyDeleteRacist Pimps? Poverty Pimps? Explain that.
BZ
Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, et al
ReplyDelete"I can fully support someone's right to make an individual decision, and at the same time not be morally culpable in the choice itself."
ReplyDeleteBut if you vote for those who support retaining the "right" to kill one's child, you ARE culpable because such support makes you complicit. You have acted on behalf of the choice to end the child's life. For example, I support everyone's "right" to choose how to live their lives. But to willingly vote for legislation that allows, tolerates or enables bad behavior, I am now part of that faction that condones the behavior. There's a difference between supporting the right to choose and supporting those who provide the bad choice. (I acknowledge that, for example, supporting a candidate who supports abortion doesn't mean the voter supports abortion, since that is only one issue the candidate favors. There might not be other candidates who don't support abortion. One might not have the moral character to even recognize the evil of abortion so that the issue isn't seen as important. But where all other things are equal but the support or non-support of abortion, to elect the abortion supporter makes one culpable of every abortion his elevation to office helps to occur.)
"It's like how Right-to-Lifers aren't morally culpable for the deplorable conditions in state and federal orphanages, even though you advocate for increasing their population ten-fold."
Right-to-Lifers don't advocate for orphanages. We advocate for responsible adults who live in a manner that doesn't result in a child being aborted, abused or sent to a state run orphanage with deplorable conditions. Try again.
"But if you vote for those who support retaining the "right" to kill one's child".
ReplyDeleteNobody supports the right to kills one's child. There is no such right. That's why everyone who kill's their child is held accountable by law.
"Nobody supports the right to kills one's child. There is no such right. That's why everyone who kill's their child is held accountable by law."
ReplyDeleteYou engage in willful and purposeful stupidity, Jim. If you don't understand how babies are made, perhaps that would explain your otherwise dishonest response. If you support a woman's "right to choose", what choice is at risk? The "right" to kill her child. The debate over this mythical, nonConstitutional "right" has never been over any other issue but the "right" to kill one's own unborn child. Honest, honorable people of higher character, Christian or not, don't play semantic games and they understand what a child is whether it is still in the womb or not. No law can change or eliminate a person's humanity. It didn't change it during the days of slavery, when some low character people felt they could dismiss personhood on the basis of skin color, and it doesn't change it now, when present day people lacking honor or honesty dismiss personhood on the basis of size, age and/or stage of human development.
So if you support a candidate because of his pro-abortion position, his pro-"women's right to choose" position alone or in part, you are supporting the abortions themselves, which is the killing of a child not yet born.
"The "right" to kill her child."
ReplyDeleteNope, the right to terminate her pregnancy if she chooses.
How incredibly dishonest, dishonorable and shameful to pretend a woman terminating her pregnancy isn't killing her child! Perhaps you and your woman produced toads or pigs or chimpanzees, but most normal people produce children when the man impregnates the wife. You play word games with human lives and lean on law and legalism rather than common sense and humanity.
ReplyDeleteSemantics, Jim. It amounts to the same thing. And you call us dishonest?
ReplyDeleteMy "woman"? Thanks for the biology lesson, Marshall. I had sort of forgotten that she didn't produce toads.
ReplyDelete"You play word games with human lives and lean on law and legalism rather than common sense and humanity."
It is you who play the Frank Luntz word games, not I. I don't "lean" on law and legalism. I respect the rule of law. But "law and legalism" supports common sense and humanity.
Common sense says you can't stop nookie. Common sense says Planned Parenthood reduces the number of abortions. Common sense (and history) says you'll never stop abortions completely. Humanity says that abortions should be safe.
Your solution continues to boil down to stopping nookie if it isn't done with the intent to produce humans.