Abortion is Murder

I was already reminded this morning that today is the 38th anniversary of the infamous Roe v. Wade Supreme Court decision. Since that day, more than 50,000,000 people have been killed while in their mother's wombs--roughly one-fourth of every single pregnancy in America since that time.

Human life begins at conception. Some question that, but the clear teaching of the Bible, the facts of science, and the inevitability of logic point unmistakably to this conclusion. Others have written, more eloquently than I, from biblical, scientific, and logical perspectives, that abortion is nothing but the snuffing out of a human life.

If the life of somebody "outside the womb" is snuffed out by another human being, we call it murder. If the life of somebody "inside the womb" is snuffed out by another human being, it should still be called murder. Abortion, truly, is just a euphemism for murder.

Michael Vick: My Thoughts, Three Years Later

Back in 2007, Michael Vick was convicted and imprisoned for several crimes related to dog fighting and mistreatment of dogs. Unlike many people, I thought he got a punishment appropriate for his crimes; furthermore, the loss of public esteem and untold millions of potential earnings heaped even further punishment on his head.

I blogged about this in August of 2007 (here and here), and pointed out that while Vick's crimes were barbaric, that they are no more barbaric than the "legal" practice of abortion that goes on daily in this country.

Vick has served his time. He continues to give speeches against dogfighting and, if anything, has raised public awareness of this vulgar activity. Now that his punishment has been served, we as citizens need to accept his public confession and allow him the opportunity to function as a member of the community--just like any of the rest of us.

Think about what God has done for us. We were wicked, vile, and vulgar sinners, deserving of a punishment for our sins. But God offered us His Son, who paid that punishment--it is done. Those of us who have accepted His offer of salvation can see that price only in the rearview mirror of our lives.

I don't know if Michael Vick is a Christian or not, but we must treat him as God has treated us: As a sinner who had a sentence to serve--and that sentence has been served.

And those abortion doctors, by the way....they need salvation, too. And if one of them gets saved and repents of his sins and turns from his wickedness, then we have to love him as a Christian brother, as God commands.

Planned Parenthood Director Quits After Watching Abortion on Ultrasound

Planned Parenthood Director Quits After Watching Abortion on Ultrasound - FOXNews.com

I have learned that while abortion "providers" (I prefer not to call them "doctors") need to use ultrasound in order to accomplish their evil deeds, the mothers are almost never allowed to view the ultrasound. Why? Because then they will see the obvious: That the child inside their womb is alive—it is a real, living human being.

Even the nurses, in general, prefer not to look at the ultrasound.

The story linked above tells us of a 29-year-old former director of a Planned Parenthood clinic in Texas. While it is encouraging to know that she realized the atrocity of abortion and became pro-life, it was also disturbing to read how the profit motive figures into the abortion industry.

Here are some excerpts:

Johnson said she became disillusioned with her job after her bosses pressured her for months to increase profits by performing more and more abortions, which cost patients between $505 and $695.

"Every meeting that we had was, 'We don't have enough money, we don't have enough money — we've got to keep these abortions coming,'" Johnson told FoxNews.com. "It's a very lucrative business and that's why they want to increase numbers."

But Johnson said her bosses told her to change her "priorities" and focus on abortions, which she said made money for the office at a time when the recession has left them hurting.

"For them there's not a lot of money in education," she said. "There's as not as much money in family planning as there is abortion."

Without a doctor in residence, she said, her clinic offered abortions only two days a month, but the doctor could perform 30 to 40 procedures on each day he was there. Johnson estimated that each abortion could net the branch about $350, adding up to more than $10,000 a month.

"The majority of the money was going to the facility," she said.

Johnson said she never got any orders to increase profits in e-mails or letters, and had no way to prove her allegations about practices at the Bryan branch. She told FoxNews.com that pressure came in personal interactions with her regional manager from the larger Houston office.

"Ideally my goal as the facility's director is that your abortion numbers don't increase," because "you're providing so much family planning and so much education that there is not a demand for abortion services.

"But that was not their goal," she said. [Emphasis mine]

Abortion is the cold-blooded murder of an innocent human being. To encourage others to have abortions in order to line one's own pockets is beneath contempt.

Pray that others, especially mothers and abortion providers, realize the enormity of their sin.

Senate Democrats: Abortion = Healthcare

Adding to the growing corpus of evidence that democrats in D.C. want—nay, demand—abortion funding as part of the abominable healthcare bill is a Senate committee vote that occurred this morning. In a 13-10 vote (with pseudo-republican Snowe joining twelve democrats), an amendment offered by Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT) to "strengthen anti-abortion provisions" was defeated.

It must be remembered that President Obama and most of the key democrats in Congress have already shown clearly that they want to see abortion funding in any final version of the healthcare bill that might pass Congress.

It must also be remembered that abortion is nothing short of the cold-blooded murder of a human being.

And speaking of things to remember...if someone is so cold-blooded as to accept the murder of an innocent life, what will stop their cold heart when it comes to euthanasia? Or "withdrawal of care"?

Pro-Life Free Speech Denied in California!

According to this news article (pictures included), a seventh-grade girl in California was made to change her shirt when school administrators, at the very beginnning of the day, noticed that it contained a pro-life message. That day, April 29, had been designated as "National Pro-Life T-shirt Day" by the American Life League.

A picture is worth a thousand words, especially in this case. You can view pictures of the T-shirt here.

The storyline is the usual plot: Student wears T-shirt disdained by left-wing school administrators, is rudely told to change it (and does). Parent threatens lawsuit (and in this case, lawsuit goes forward).

There are two main issues to note here. First, anyone walking around a typical middle or high school today will notice a variety of T-shirts with advertising slogans, sports teams, brand names, artwork, and other content on them. Most of them are not the least bit offensive (not liking some other kid's sports team does not count!), but quite frankly, occasionally they are. They might contain images of some perverse "artist" or "rock star," or encourage behaviors that are unwise, rebellious, or immoral. [Note: Schools generally ban—as they should—T-shirts which promote activities that are illegal for minors, such as smoking or drinking.]

A T-shirt containing two photos of living human beings and which implies that abortion kills them is neither offensive nor inaccurate. To ban such a T-shirt while allowing so many others is hypocritical, and constitutes allowing "free speech" for some students and not for others. [Note #2: I would have no problem if a school decided to ban all T-shirts or even all T-shirts with any kinds of words/messages; this is consistent, and part of an appropriate dress code.]

The second and greater problem is the realization—still present in America after all these years—that there are those who hate the pro-life message and want to kill it. Free speech does not interest these people except to the extent that it allows them to speak. They care not for what is right and good.

The article concludes with this insightful quote by the mother's lawyer:

First Amendment attorney William Becker, who represents Amador, disagreed that the shirt could be seen as containing inappropriate messages.

"The message of the T-shirt is that life is sacred," he said. "One would be very hard pressed to find anything wrong with that particular idea, except that some people do object to the political message."

And If That Last Post Doesn't Make You Mad Enough....!

The title of the foxnews.com article says it all:

Senate Bill Would Fine People More Than $1,000 for Refusing Health Care Coverage

Yes, that's right: The proposed legislation says that if you choose—for nearly any reason, it appears—not to purchase health care for yourself (and your family if you have one), you will be forced to pay a fine.

"Called "shared responsibility payments," the fines would be set at least half the cost of basic medical coverage, according to the legislation."

On top of that, the fines will be collected through the income tax system...people are going to really love April 15 if that enters their tax picture.

This is a new low for the Democrats in the Senate (and White House), and represents a huge step toward a socialist/communist economic system in our country. And, yes, it gets worse; here's the final paragraph from the article:

"At their heart, all the bills would require insurance companies to sell coverage to any applicant, without charging higher premiums for pre-existing medical conditions. The poor and some middle-class families would qualify for government subsidies to help with the cost of coverage. The government's costs would be covered by a combination of higher taxes and cuts in projected Medicare and Medicaid spending."

The poor's health care will be paid by everyone else. Those of us who live clean lives and are blessed with good health will be underwriting the smokers, the obese, the sexually promiscuous—and I suspect the abortion seekers, too.

And then I'll really be mad.

Prioritizing the News of the Day

Here are some headlines that you may or may not learn about in today's news:

• Approximately 3,000 children murdered in their mothers' wombs today.
• Congress soon to vote on one of the largest tax increases in American history, under the poor disguise of something called "cap and trade."
• American soldiers involved in conflict in Iraq and Afghanistan.
• Some calling for the resignation of a governor of a state containing 4.5 million people.
• An over-the-hill rock star who has been in trouble for doing unspeakable, perverse things with children and whose music grates on the ears of millions of Americans died yesterday.

The first four are significant things going on today that will affect (or even end!) the lives of Americans for some time to come. The fifth item, though sad, is not going to affect most of us, and certainly not in a life-changing way.

We are going to be better citizens if we deal with those first four matters properly...so let's get to work.

Good News! Majority of Americans Now "Pro-Life"

As you can see from this graph, a new Gallup poll has determined that there are now more Americans who identify themselves as "pro-life" than "pro-choice." This is very encouraging for those of us who view abortion as a moral evil.

So the question arises: Why are more people identifying themselves as pro-life? Are there simply more people coming around to the proper point of view? Are more Americans repulsed by our president's militant pro-abortion views? To be honest, I have no idea...but I am glad to see it.

Thanks to theblogprof for bringing this to my attention.

Random Thought of the Day

If the president and various other people think waterboarding is torture, how do they justify abortion?

Did anyone ever die from waterboarding?

Obama at Notre Dame, and an Interesting Quote

According to this article, in comments today to Catholics at a national prayer breakfast, Archbishop Raymond Burke slammed Notre Dame University for inviting President Obama to speak and to receive an honorary degree; specifically, he called it a "scandal." I have addressed this subject already.

He also spoke about Katherine Sibelius, a Catholic, who has been appointed to Obama's Cabinet, and other pro-abortion Catholic politicians; the article contains this quotation from the archbishop, in reference to these various Catholic politicians:

He added that it "grieves me to say that the support of anti-life legislation by Catholics in public office is so common that those who are not Catholics have justifiably questioned whether the church's teachings regarding the inviolable dignity of innocent human life is firm and unchanging. It gives the impression that the church herself can change the law that God has written on every human heart since the beginning of time." [Emphasis mine]

Wow! As a Baptist myself, concerned with my own testimony and that of my church, it scares me to think what we would be like if, due to the pervasive subversion by us of Bible doctrine, we gave the impression that we (Christians individually, or the church collectively) were able to change that doctrine to suit our own purposes.

This does not extend only to the "sanctity of human life" issue. If thousands of Christians (or Baptists in particular) were to publicly support a doctrine that says Jesus Christ was not the Son of God, would that give an impression? If thousands were to claim that salvation could be achieved through our own works, would that give an impression? If thousands were to claim that evolution is the explanation for how we got here, would that give an impression?

What impression are you giving those around you? What impression does your church give on Scriptural matters?

Something to think about for the weekend.

Obama's Decision to Observe National Day of Prayer Privately Draws Public Criticism

Obama's Decision to Observe National Day of Prayer Privately Draws Public Criticism - Presidential Politics | Political News - FOXNews.com

Posted using ShareThis

Notice what Obama does choose to notice publicly:

• Invite gay families to the Easter Egg Roll
• To advance abortion
• Defend his tax cheat nominees for high office

But to publicly participate in something like prayer? No.

Record Numbers of Births, Births to Unwed Mothers

The headline reads, "More Babies Born in 2007 Than Any Other Year in U.S. History." The reported number was 4,317,119 births.

This is going to get some mileage in the press because it exceeds the previous record, set 50 years earlier, at the height of the "baby boom." It is not particularly impressive when one considers that fifty years ago, the number of women of childbearing age was approximately half of what it is now.

Consequently, the "rate" of birth is not even close to what it was back then.

The more important and troubling aspect of the story is this: About 1.7 million of those births were to unwed mothers. This means that, on average in 2007, there was a baby born to an unwed mother every 18 seconds...a child who will, statistically, likely grow up without the blessings of married, loving parents who demonstrate biblical marriage and morality.

And if you consider how many babies are aborted annually, you will see that only about half of the children conceived in the wombs of American women will make it out of the womb to be greeted by married parents.

Proverbs 14:34: "Righteousness exalteth a nation, but sin is a reproach to any people." We should be praying to God for His mercy upon our nation. Our reproach is deserved.

The Anniversary of a Day of Infamy

Not December 7, 1941....that day only killed a couple of thousand innocent Americans. The greater day of infamy was January 22, 1973, when the Supreme Court gave free reign to those who believe the murder of the unborn is a constitutionally protected privilege. Since then, something like 50,000,000 innocent Americans have been slaughtered in the cruelest and vilest ways imaginable.

In lieu of exercising my writing abilities, I will gladly request that you read this article by Nick DeLeeuw of RightMichigan.com, who both addresses our responsibilities as Christians and as citizens where this matter of abortion is concerned.

It saddens me that we now have a president—and a majority of Congress—who have no intention of changing the status quo. May God have mercy upon us.

Good For Them! Catholic Bishops Speak

Even though I am a Baptist (and proud of it), I cannot help but commend the Roman Catholic bishops who are referenced in this article for their outspoken support of an obvious biblical truth: Abortion is unequivocally wrong and sinful.

Here is a portion of that article:

The nation's Roman Catholic bishops vowed Tuesday to forcefully confront the Obama administration over its support for abortion rights, saying the church and religious freedom could be under attack in the new presidential administration.

In an impassioned discussion on Catholics in public life, several bishops said they would accept no compromise on abortion policy. Many condemned Catholics who had argued it was morally acceptable to back President-elect Obama because he pledged to reduce abortion rates.

And several prelates promised to call out Catholic policy makers on their failures to follow church teaching. Bishop Joseph Martino of Scranton, Pa., singled out Vice President-elect Biden, a Catholic, Scranton native who supports abortion rights.

"I cannot have a vice president-elect coming to Scranton to say he's learned his values there when those values are utterly against the teachings of the Catholic Church," Martino said.

Archbishop Joseph Naumann of the Diocese of Kansas City in Kansas said politicians "can't check your principles at the door of the legislature."

Naumann has said repeatedly that Kansas Gov. Kathleen Sebelius, a Catholic Democrat who supports abortion rights, should stop taking Holy Communion until she changes her stance.

"They cannot call themselves Catholic when they violate such a core belief as the dignity of the unborn," Naumann said Tuesday.

Notice: "accept no compromise on abortion policy." Abortion is murder. It is wrong. It is sin. There is no middle ground or gray area here. It is absolutely morally wrong. Period.

Obama: Strongly Pro-Abortion!

According to this article by Patrick J. Buchanan, here are some observations about Obama's voting record on abortion-related legislation:

"For not only is Barack the most pro-abortion member of the Senate, with his straight A+ report card from the National Abortion Rights Action League and Planned Parenthood. He supports the late-term procedure known as partial-birth abortion, where the baby's skull is stabbed with scissors in the birth canal and the brains are sucked out to end its life swiftly and ease passage of the corpse into the pan."

"Yet, when Congress was voting to ban this terrible form of death for a mature fetus, Michelle Obama was signing fundraising letters pledging that, if elected, Barack would be "tireless" in keeping legal this "legitimate medical procedure."

"...Barack did not let the militants down. When the Supreme Court upheld the congressional ban on this barbaric procedure, Barack denounced the court for denying "equal rights for women." "

"Thrice in the Illinois legislature, Obama helped block a bill that was designed solely to protect the life of infants already born, and outside the womb, who had miraculously survived the attempt to kill them during an abortion. Thrice, Obama voted to let doctors and nurses allow these tiny human beings die of neglect and be tossed out with the medical waste."

"Obama is an abortion absolutist. "I could find no instance in his entire career," writes Freddoso [author of the new book Case Against Barack], "in which he voted for any regulation or restriction on the practice of abortion." "

"In 2007, Barack pledged that, in his first act as president, he will sign the Freedom of Choice Act, which would cancel every federal, state or local regulation or restriction on abortion. The National Organization for Women says it would abolish all restrictions on government funding of abortion."

This alone should cause any decent person to cast their vote for another candidate. But as Buchanan himself stated in his article,

"How can a man who purports to be a Christian justify this?"

Wisdom From The Family

My brother Adam had the following editorial published in the Patriot-News (view it here if you wish). The comments are wise; this is probably his best editorial yet.

Choice Was Made

Sunday, January 27, 2008

I read with disgust the answers given by Dorothy Fulton concerning abortion (Jan. 13). She states, "A woman is not free unless she can control her own body and choose whether she will or will not be a mother."

If a woman is seeking an abortion because she does not want children, then she has already lost control of her body. She gave up that control when she engaged in an act that caused the pregnancy. The choice was made; it is now a matter of what to do with the consequences.

Many women make the choice of whether to have children, but they do so responsibly, via birth control or abstinence.

What has this innocent child done to deserve such an abrupt ending to a life that is just beginning? The pro-abortion, anti-consequence crowd would have us believe that this child is the enemy.

What has caused society to devalue life to this degree?

God created human beings in His image. It is my opinion that people are trying to kill off God (in their heart and mind) by killing off those who are created in His image.

-- ADAM MATESEVAC, Lower Swatara Twp.

Shocking Statistics To Think About

I mentioned in a blog post some time ago that the annual worldwide abortion total stands at about 46,000,000. This is a holocaust unparalleled in human history: The premeditated murder of so many innocent babies.

But the number 46,000,000, quite frankly, is one of those generic, "big" numbers that most of us deem impressive but don't think about much. Until....

Today I received an e-mail pointing me to a "world clock." This is fascinating to me for many reasons, not all of them statistical, but the one that caught my attention was the one on abortion. That "46,000,000 per year" translates to about 87.5 abortions per minute...and there goes the clock ticking each one of them off at what now seems a horrifically fast pace.

Some statistics about what 87.5 deaths per minute would be like:

• A small Midwestern town of 1000 would be gone within 11.5 minutes.
  
• The village of Paw Paw, Michigan (pop. 3363 in 2000) would be gone in 38.4 minutes.
• My county of Van Buren, Michigan (pop. 79,018 in 2000) would be gone in just over 15 hours.
• Kalamazoo County, Michigan, would be gone in a bit less than 2 days.
• Finland would be wiped out in about 6 weeks.
• Michigan would be wiped out in about 11.5 weeks.
• California, the most populous state at about 36,500,000, would be completely exterminated in about 290 days—or about 41.4 weeks.
  

There's also a ticker that marks off births and deaths (and the corresponding population growth). It is amazing just how frequently humans are being born, and dying, on this planet. And then I realize: Every one of those births is a soul that will live somewhere forever; every one of those deaths is a soul going to either heaven or hell.

If that doesn't impress your soul with the importance of spreading the Gospel message now, you need to examine yourself.

Click here to view the population clock.

A Tragic Ignorance About God's Order

In this article from the London Daily Mail, we are told of two women who refuse to have babies—because babies are not "eco friendly," and increase the carbon footprint of the human race on our planet. The first woman, Toni, got pregnant by her boyfriend at age 25 and, after an abortion, subsequently had herself sterilized. She is now 35. The second woman, Sarah, felt the same way; but her husband got a vasectomy instead.

Both women (and their husbands) claim to enjoy children but are adamantly against having their own. They believe that procreation makes our planet a worse place to live [Toni is quoted as saying, "...a woman like me, who is not having children in order to save the planet, is considered barking mad."]. They also seem to believe the "usual environmentalist views."

Toni also struck me as seeming the more hypocritical of the two; in the article she is quoted more concerning her lifestyle (they "have a much nicer lifestyle" without children; they just came back from a long trip to South Africa—how much fossil fuel was spent doing that?). Sarah and her husband are portrayed as more serious about their "carbon footprints." But both of them are missing the main point that God would want them to focus on....

God wants husbands and wives to procreate. Except for that small percentage who are not biologically able to do so, it is selfish disobedience to the commands of Genesis 1:28 and 9:1 to not have children. Furthermore, an array of verses points to the conception of children as a blessing to the parents (e.g., Psalm 127:3-5).

Furthermore, God's view about our responsibility concerning the planet can be summed up in Genesis 1:28 and in the various passages about stewardship: We humans are to have dominion over the earth and all the living things therein; and we are to procreate. But we are also to use the earth's resources wisely, prudently, and without waste. We are to teach our children to do likewise.

Were it not for Jesus Christ, sin would overtake and conquer this earth long before pollution ever could. And let us not forget: Someday, He will make new heavens and a new earth!

Abortion May Be a Greater Tragedy Than You Think!

According to these two stories from Foxnews.com (click here and here to read them), worldwide abortions in 2003 were down to "only" 41.6 million.

Here are some quotations from these articles (my commentary is in a different color):

"One in five pregnancies worldwide and one in three pregnancies in Europe ends in abortion, according to a new study published in a special female-focused issue of the Lancet.

"The study also found that, on average, 90 percent of women worldwide will have an abortion before the age of 45, based on 2003 data. However, many women will have had multiple abortions and many none at all to come to this average. [To put this in more statistically-understandable terminology, the average woman will have 0.90 abortions by the age of 45.]

"Although the statistics may seem startling, worldwide rates of induced abortion actually fell 17 percent from 46 million to 42 million between 1995 and 2003." [Later in the article, it uses the 41.6 million number instead, but even that only represents a decrease of 9.565%. When reading or hearing statistical data in the media, make it your habit to be highly skeptical. Reporters are not statisticians, and they can be easily misled]

"...Of the 41.6 million abortions worldwide, 35 million were in the developing countries, and 6.6 million in developed countries.

"The worldwide induced abortion rate fell from 35 per 1,000 women ages 15 to 44 in 1995 to 29 per 1,000 in 2003.

"That same year, 48 percent of all abortions worldwide were unsafe (up from 44 percent in 1995), and 97 percent of unsafe abortions were in developing countries. In developed countries, 92 percent of abortions were safe. [Read the article for a morbid definition of what this means. No abortion is safe. At least one person dies every single time.]

"Globally, there were 31 abortions for every 100 live births in 2003, while in Eastern Europe there were more abortions than live births, 105 abortions for every 100 live births, more than double the level of the next highest world region, Eastern Asia (51 abortions for every 100 livebirths).

"Eastern Europe also saw the biggest decrease in abortion rates between 1995 and 2003, down 50 percent. The authors attribute this decline to an increased use of modern contraception methods."

From the second article:

"Women are just as likely to get an abortion in countries where it is outlawed as they are in countries where it is legal, according to research published Friday.

"In a study examining abortion trends from 1995 to 2003, experts also found that abortion rates are virtually equal in rich and poor countries, and that half of all abortions worldwide are unsafe."

"...Abortion accounts for 13 percent of maternal mortality worldwide. About 70,000 women die every year from unsafe abortions. An additional 5 million women suffer permanent or temporary injury." [I can't help but think about the sowing-and-reaping principle here, or the fact that God does punish sin.]

Just for comparison purposes, the number of 2003 abortions worldwide is approximately equal to the total 2000 combined population of California, Arizona, and Nevada.

Thoughts on Michael Vick and Abortion, continued

Michael Vick was apparently unsatisfied with some of his dogs. Therefore, he killed them.

• The dogs committed no crime.
  
• The manner of the killings was cruel and inhumane.
• He did not want most of the world to know what he did.
• His actions were illegal under federal law.

And most of the world now looks on Vick as a barbaric person.

Some women get pregnant and are displeased with the prospect of having children. Therefore, abortion "doctors" kill them.

• The babies committed no crime.
  
• The manner of the killings is cruel and inhumane.
• Most try to keep their activities secretive.
• Their actions are legal in this country.

Logically, then, are not these people at least as barbaric as Michael Vick? Why does the media portray Vick as an evil person, yet excuses the abortion industry?

If a woman has a right to kill her child, why doesn't Vick have a right to kill his dog?