Thus & Such, Vol. 25 (Kermit Gosnell Edition)

WARNING: This edition of "Thus and Such" touches on some very important, but very graphic subject matter.  Reader discretion is advised.

There's been somewhat of an internet buzz in recent days about a murder trial that is taking place as we speak that the mainstream media won't touch with a 99 1/2 foot pole.  One Kermit Gosnell is accused of one count of murder and seven counts of infanticide.  Why won't the media touch it?  Because Gosnell is an abortionist, and his abortion clinic was a literal house of horrors, with blood and body parts littering the hallways and rooms.  Not to mention that it can be shown that Gosnell specifically targeted minority and low-income women, and performed abortions on babies who had been born alive and shown to be viable (killing babies outside the womb)  This man is a butcher, the likes of the most vile mass murderers this country has ever known, and the media won't touch it because we all know that abortion is a safe, positive thing...right?

Educate yourself.  Get to know this man, his craft, and the horror that is abortion.

1. Learn all about Gosnell and the trial by watching this very important 21 minute documentary (warning: graphic images).

2. Read this article: The Monstrous Abortion Trial the Media Don't Want You to Know About.

3. "It would rain fetuses.  Fetuses and blood all over the place."  This is a quote from one of Gosnell's staffers.  This staffer claims that he saw at least 100 babies born alive and then killed.  We've forgotten what belongs on Page One.

4. "Where are we at when a child born into this world can be executed and the fathers and mothers and leaders of that society are not shaken to their bones with disgust?  Where is "Rachel weeping for her children?"  "Refusing to be comforted because they are no more."  The Story You May Not Have Heard.

5. Why hasn't the media run this story?  Why don't we hear anything about it?  Trevin Wax nails it in this article, giving 8 reasons for the media blackout on Kermit Gosnell.  

6. Take a look at this, and consider speaking out in whatever way you can: How You Can Shame the Media Into Covering the Kermit Gosnell Abortion Trial.

Sanctity of Life Sunday (Thus & Such, Vol. 17)

Today was/is Sanctity of Life Sunday.  I always want to do something on this Sunday during our church services, but I can never seem to get the information beforehand to be able to remember to do something.  Then when I get home from church, my Facebook feed is full of news regarding Sanctity of Life Sunday.  So since we didn't recognize it in church this morning, the least I can do is hopefully direct some people to some beneficial articles regarding abortion, comprising somewhat of a Sanctity of Life version of a "Thus & Such" post.  Here they are:

1. 15 Things to Consider About Abortion.  John Piper lays out fifteen reasons why abortion is never an option that satisfies logic, let alone justice.

2. When Does Human Life Begin?  Asked and answered, from both science and scripture.

3. Randy Alcorn on Abortion.  Hear the authors thoughts on abortion, family planning, and contraception.

4. Redeeming Abortion.  Hear a testimony about someone whose mother considered aborting him.

5. Abortion and Reconciliation.  Read how God forgives the sin of abortion, and makes all things new through the power of the gospel.

6. Hollow Agreement.  Being pro-life means more than just saying it.  Here are some practical suggestions for getting engaged.

7. Questions for Abortion Advocates.  Here are a list of 10 questions that anyone advocating for abortion seriously needs to consider.  If the answers to these questions disturb you, you need to rethink your position on abortion.

O God, Open the Eyes of the President!

10 Questions for Pro-Choice Candidates

Trevin Wax rightly observes that media-types love to ask pro-life candidates and supporters difficult questions about abortion.  More often then not, these questions are framed in such a way as to discredit the candidate's position, or to make him or her look inhumane.  Trevin has come up with 10 excellent questions for pro-choice candidates that, in my opinion, are fair and honest.  It would be fascinating to have a pro-choice blogger take on these questions and read their answers.  Here they are:

1. You say you support a woman's right to make her own reproductive choices in regards to abortion and contraception.  Are there any restrictions you would approve of?

2. In 2010, The Economist featured a cover story on "the war on girls and the growth of "gendercide" in the world - abortion based solely on the sex of the baby.  Does this phenomenon pose a problem for you or do you believe in the absolute right of a woman to terminate a pregnancy because the unborn fetus is female?

3. In many states, a teenager can have an abortion without her parents' consent or knowledge but cannot get an aspirin from the school nurse without parental authorization.  Do you support any restrictions or parental notification regarding abortion access for minors?

4. If you do not believe that hunan life begins at conception, when do you believe it begins?  At what stage of development should an unborn child have human rights?

5. Currently, when genetic testing reveals an unborn child has Down Syndrome, most women choose to abort.  How do you answer the charge that this phenomenon resembles the "eugenics" movement a century ago - the slow, but deliberate "weeding out" of those our society would deem "unfit" to live?

6. Do you believe an employer should be forced to violate his or her religious conscience by providing access to abortifacient drugs and contraception to employees?

7. Alveda King, niece of Martin Luther King Jr., has said that "abortion is the white supremacist's best friend," pointing to the fact that black and Latinos represent 25% of our population but account for 59% of all abortions.  How do you respond to the charge that majority of abortion clinics are found in inner-city areas with large numbers of minorities?

8. You describe abortion as a "tragic choice."  If abortion is not morally objectionable, then why is it tragic?  Does this mean there is something about abortion that is different than other standard surgical procedures?

9. Do you believe abortion should be legal once the unborn fetus is viable - able to survive outside the womb?

10. If a pregnant woman and her unborn child are murdered, do you believe the criminal should face two counts of murder and serve a harsher sentence?

How Not to Campaign for Political Office

UPDATE: As should be expected, Albert Mohler has written on this subject as well, and in a much clearer and better manner than I have below.  I recommend you take a look at his article.

Note to self: if you ever want to tank your bid for a political office, just tell the public that you believe in the providence of an Almighty God - particularly the God of the Bible.  That's essentially what candidate Richard Muordock did when he now famously said, "I struggled with it myself for a long time [the idea that a pregnancy as a result of rape being having intrinsic value], but I came to realize that life is that gift from God.  And, I think, even when life begins in that horrible situation of rape, that it is something that God intended to happen."

Hmm.  Nothing unbiblical about that sentiment.  Why all the hubbub?  Let's break down what he actually said:

1. Life is a gift from God.
2. Rape is an inherently bad thing.
3. God is sovereign over the creation of life, even in despicable situations such as rape.

Hmm.  I still can't find anything in there that I disagree with, or that is offensive.  So why is the media and everyone in the political realm up in arms?  The problem here is that people in the media and political machine are twisting the words to imply that Mourdock meant that the rape that caused the pregnancy (which he describes as a gift from God) is therefore also a gift from God.  This is a deliberate and shameful spin on this man's innocent statement.  The fact that our country has come to twisting people's words in order to assert that they are in favor of rape is disgusting and shameful.

What makes this even more of a non-story is that pregnancies that occur through rape amount o less than one half of 1% of all pregnancies that end in abortion.  But for political reasons, the pro-abortion crowd always likes to know where a candidate stands on abortion in the instances of rape, incest, and when the life of the mother is threatened.  Study after study has proven that THIS IS A NON-ISSUE.  There aren't enough statistical instances of these situations to even register on the stat sheet.  But people keep bringing up these questions in order to demonize pro-life candidates through their answers.  It's a lose-lose for those who love life.  If they come down in favor of the life of the child, they look like insensitive jerks because they supposedly don't care about rape and incest, or the lives of mothers who are threatened as a result of the pregnancy.  Again, it's a non-issue, but those who would use these questions and arguments are intentionally and dishonestly twisting words and framing scenarios in order to further their pro-death agenda.  It's absolutely sickening.

Even the President of the United States falls prey to this twisted way of thinking, appearing the Tonight Show just last night.  "I don't know how these guys come up with these ideas..." Obama said.  "Rape is rape.  It is a crime.  And so, these various distinctions about rape don't make too much sense to me - don't make any sense to me."  He went on to say, "This is exactly why you don't want a bunch of politicians, mostly male, making decisions about women's health care decisions."

This response is astounding, at least in the sense that it suggests the president lacks the powers of reason to be able to accurately interpret Mourdock's statement.  If you want to disagree with Mourdock's position on abortion, go ahead.  But for the leader of the free world to play this ridiculous political game and infer that the man endorses rape?  Come on.  Do you honestly think that, Mr. President?  How low have we sunk?  Pretty low, apparently.  Not to mention his reframing of the whole conversation so as to make the debate about "women's health care decisions" instead of what it is and always has been about: human life.

Mitt Romney's response was no better.  He could have made taken a stand by refusing to play in the political game and stand up to clarify Mourdock's statement.  Instead, he distanced himself from Mourdock, saying that he disagrees with Mourdock, and that Mourdock's statement does not reflect his views.  Moreover, Romney has stated that he favors abortions in instances of rape, incest, and the health of the mother (again, a non-issue), so I guess it's not surprising that he played the same cards.

This whole system is hopelessly messed up.

The question is, did Mourdock mean that God intended the rape to happen, or did he intend the creation of life as a result of the rape?  I don't know how Mourdock would answer this question, so I'll only give you my answer: both.  God is sovereign, and either causes things to happen or allows them to happen.  God does not cause sin, but he uses it sinlessly.  For example, God allows rape to occur, for his own purposes, and uses that to create life.  In this, we cannot accuse God of evil, because God did not cause or force the rape to happen.  He simply allowed someone to carry out the wicked desires of his heart.  This is probably what Mourdock was getting at: something terrible happens (like a rape) at the hands of a terrible person, and God uses those bad things to bring about something wonderful: life.  Mourdock's point, I think is that we need to fight to protect life that God has sovereignly created.

The atheistic, pro-abortion response would probably be to ask that, if God is indeed sovereign, then why did he allow the rape?  The answer is that God does sometimes prohibit people from carrying out the sinful desires of their heart.  God does sometimes prohibit people from doing what they want to do, but not always.  Why not?  I don't know.  God has a plan that we are not always privy to.  What I do know is that the Bible says that God is in control of everything, and has a plan and purpose for every action that has ever, or ever will, take place.  Moreover, if God went around preventing all people from doing evil, we would be nothing more than robots, carrying out God's will.  But we are not robots.  We are free moral agents, given the ability to choose right from wrong - to do evil or to do good.  If someone rapes someone else, that is his problem - not God's.  

Assuming this was Mourdock's intended meaning, and even if properly understood, Mourdock's statement is still bound to offend.  People don't want to believe in a God that allows bad things to happen for his own sovereign purposes.  Why not?  Because they want to be their own God, and being able to accuse God with evil justifies their own evil in their minds.  Secondly, because they don't want to admit that their is a sovereign God who is in charge, and to whom they must give an account.  On a lower level, people refuse to believe in a sovereign God because it messes with their worldview, and in particular, their ideas about human life and abortion.  People want to be promiscuous; people want to live convenient lives that aren't "interrupted" with the "burden" of children.  And since belief in a sovereign God would throw a wrench in their worldview, they are willingly self-blinded.  If we could criticize Mourdock in any way, it would be to be wiser than to expect a lost, fallen, and blinded world to be able to discern spiritual truth.  Like I said earlier, this is not going to get you elected to political office.

What Richard Mourdock said is certainly not popular, nor is it good for a bid for a political office, but it is true.

How Are Christians to Regard the Government?

I was perusing the archives at Tim Challies' site recently and came upon this fantastic article on how Christians are to regard the government.  These are some important things to think about, especially considering that our country is on the verge of either electing or re-electing a president.  But even if there were no impending election, I think it's a very profitable exercise for Christians to think about how they are to regard those in authority.

Challies posted some reflections on the Christian's responsibility to pay taxes, and to do so with honor and respect to those who are collecting them.  That sounds like a strange and even foreign concept to most of us, considering that nobody's really excited to give up their hard earned money at the end of a sword.  Nevertheless, scripture has some important things to say about this issue.  For that, I commend you to Challies' site.

What I wanted to think about here for a minute is something else that Challies' post brings up in a roundabout sort of way, and that is how Christians regard the government in general.  Challies writes this about the historical context of Romans 13:

He [Paul] was writing to people who lived in Rome, people who were under the authority of a government that worshipped idols, that was systematically out to conquer and subjugate the world, that made death a form of entertainment, that promoted slavery, that was utterly ruthless and actively opposed to God.  This was the government that was always on the verge of breaking out in persecution against the church.  It was the government that had put Jesus to death.  Paul was telling these Roman Christians to give honor, respect, and taxes to the very government that paid the wages of the men who crucified Jesus, who mocked him, who spat on him, who rejoiced in his death.  

The opening verses of Romans 13 go on to say that the very authorities Challies describes in the paragraph above have been placed in their position and given their authority by God.  Furthermore, resistance to these authorities is resistance to God, since God is the one who has put them there.  In fact, those who resist the authority of earthly rulers will incur the judgment of God upon themselves (probably through the very rulers that one intends to resist).

Two things come to mind when I think about this

1. 21st century America sounds a lot like first century Rome.  When compared to Challies' description of first century Rome, we likewise have leaders that worship idols; we likewise have leaders that are set on systematically conquering the world; we likewise have leaders that are obsessed with death, slavery (of other sorts), and who are actively opposed to God.  Furthermore, our government is (I believe) largely opposed to the Christian faith.  We can't claim that it's just a different context than what the Roman Christians experienced, because in many ways it's quite similar.  We also can't use an excuse like "I respect the office, not the man," as a reason for ragging on elected officials (which I've heard many times, almost always from Christians).  I don't think this is a biblically tenable position to take.

2. A proper understanding of these concepts is difficult in the context of a representative republic form of government.  C. S. Lewis once commented something to the effect that he appreciated the fact that he lived in a monarchy, because it was always clear who was in charge.  There was always someone that was clearly defined as the ruler, and the knee was to be bent to such a person, regardless of his or her decisions or decrees.  Here in America, if our rulers don't do what we want, we vote the bums out.  We are perhaps inclined to show less respect to our governing officials simply because of the nature of the way our government is structured.  This is something I think we need to be careful about.  It can be easy to disrespect, belittle, and dishonor those with whom we disagree politically - even on very important issues that we would consider to be crucial.  If nothing else, rest assured that the Christians in Rome likewise had to deal with authorities that held unbiblical positions on important issues, and Paul commanded them to show honor and respect.

The crux of the issue is how I actually go about showing honor and respect to someone who believes differently than I do, say on the issues of abortion and gay marriage.  These are big issues that I feel strongly about.  Nevertheless, respect and honor is due to those whom God has put in this position.  How do I do this?  A few things come to mind.

1. Recognize that each leader is in place by the authority of God and nothing else.  God has placed leaders where they are for his purposes.  They have not achieved their end by their own means.  Realize that God is still sovereign, no matter who is on the throne or holds the office of the presidency (or governor, or senator, etc.).

2. Realize that in honoring leaders, I am honoring God.

3. I can hold elected officials in prayer, always seeking their best.

4. I can pray for myself, that God would help me to view all people in love and give me a desire to reach the lost with the gospel (yes, even those elected officials that we can't stand).

5. I can read the Bible to study the ways in which God has ordained leaders in the world for our good in order to gain a better understanding.

6. I can watch the way I talk about these people in public discourse.

7. I can realize that there but by the grace of God go I.

63 Questions for People Who are Pro-Abortion

Yep.  63 of 'em.  And they all come from Kevin DeYoung.  To be honest, I think 63 questions is actually on the low side.  I can think of a few others that Kevin didn't ask.  Anyway, they're still good to think about.  Here they are.

What shall we call the unborn in the womb?

If the entity is a living thing, is it not a life? If your person began as a single cell, how can that fertilized egg be something other than a human being? Isn't it more accurate to say you were an embryo than that you simply came from one?

So when does a human being have a right to life?

Shall we say size matters? Is the unborn child too small to deserve our protection? Are big people more valuable than little people? Are men more human than woman? Do offensive linemen have more rights than jockeys? Is the life in the womb of no account because you can't hold him in our arms, or put him in your hands, or only see her on a screen?

Shall we make intellectual development and mental capacity the measure of our worth? Are three year-old children less valuable than thirteen year-olds? Is the unborn child less than fully human because he cannot speak or count or be self-aware? Does the cooing infant in the crib have to smile or shake your hand or recite the alphabet before she deserves another day? If an expression of basic mental acuity is necessary to be a full-fledged member of the human community, what shall do with the comatose, the very old, or the fifty year-old mom with Alzheimer's? And what about all of us who sleep?

Shall we deny the unborn child's right to life because of where he lives? Can environment give us value or take it away? Are we worth less inside than outside? Can we be justly killed when we swim under water? Does where we are determine who we are? Does the eight inch journey down the birth canal make us human? Does this change of scenery turn "its" into persons? Is love a condition of location?

Shall we reserve human dignity only for those humans who are not dependent on others? Do we deserve to live only when we can live on our own? Is the four-month old fetus less than human because she needs her mom for life? Is the four-month old infant less than human when she still needs her mom for life? What if you depend on dialysis or insulin or a breathing apparatus? Is value a product of fully-functioning vitality? Is independence a prerequisite for human identity? Are we worth only what we can think, accomplish, and do on our own?

If the unborn life is human life, what can justify snuffing it out? Would it be right to take the life of your child on his first birthday because he came to you through sad and tragic circumstances? Would you push an 18 month old into traffic because she makes our life difficult? Does a three year-old deserve to die because we think we deserve a choice?

What do you deserve now? What are your rights as a human person? Did you have those same rights five years ago? What about before you could drive? Or when you used training wheels? Were you less than fully human when you played in the sandbox? When you wore a bib? When you nursed at your mother's breast? When your dad cut your cord? When you tumbled in that watery mess and kicked against that funny wall? When your heart pounded on the monitor for the first time? When you grew your first fingernails? When you grew your first cells?

What shall we call the child in the womb? A fetus? A mystery? A mistake? A wedge issue? What if science and Scripture and commonsense would have us call it a person? What if the unborn child, the messy infant, the wobbly toddler, the rambunctious teenager, the college freshman, the blushing bride, the first-time mother, the working woman, the proud grammy, and the demented old friend differ not in kind but only in degree? Where in the progression does our humanity begin and end? Where does life become valuable? When are we worth something? When do human rights become our rights? What if Dr. Seuss was right and a person's a person no matter how small?

Why celebrate the right to kill what you once were? Why deny the rights of the little one who is what you are?

My Version of an "A la Carte"

With a nod to Tim Challies, I present my own version of an A la Carte, although it won't be daily as it is on Tim's site.  I have no idea how he gets all of the content for his site.  It seems like it could be a full time job to maintain it.  It's the only blog site I read every day.  I recommend you do too.

Anyway, what follows is four articles that I've read recently that I either thought were quite good or made me think (two of which I came across on Challies' site).  I had originally saved the articles as ones that I'd like to refer to, think through, and blog about in the future, but after some of them have been sitting in my inbox for a couple weeks now, it's time to admit I don't have time to do that and just post them for anyone who might be interested.  So here goes.

Should Christians Refuse to Pay Taxes When They Are Used to Finance Abortions?  This is the question asked by R.C. Sproul Jr., and his answer is "yes."  Put simply it's a matter of obedience to scripture (which commands us to pay taxes and obey the authority of the government).  Coming from a Reformed point of view, I would add that we do so in full confidence that all things are governed by God, and even the government does nothing without his allowance or say so.  Check out the article.

It's Not a Job When it's Ministry.  So says the author of this article.  I'm not sure what I think about this one, but at least it's got me thinking.  I do think it's inaccurate to elevate ministry vocations over secular or non-ministry vocations (and for the record, I'm not sure this article does that).  I guess I would say that all jobs are ministry jobs, whether they're in a church or not.  Take a look at it and see what you think.

Why Disabilities?  This author examines disabilities and talks about them in light of sin and God's good design.  Most people, including Christians, fail to understand mental and physical disabilities in light of God's sovereignty.  This is a good place to start thinking about it.

A Biblical Theology of Motherhood.  This is easily the longest and most technical of any of the articles, but it is no less very thought provoking.  Ever though about the role of mothers in the meta narrative (big picture) of of scripture?  Me neither.  I have now, and I'll continue to ponder it in the coming days.

The Hypocrisy of Abortion

Just read this article on abortion. I don't want to say the abortion argument is old or stale, because the fight against the taking of life can never get old. Nevertheless, the arguments are out there, the evidence is out there, but people won't listen. It shows how hypocritically inconsistent our society is. Here are a couple inconsistencies this article pointed out:

1. We say that a woman should have rights over her own body, but we disregard the rights of the unborn child.

2. We charge people with two counts of murder, and we mourn and record to separate deaths in the event of a death or murder of a pregnant mother, but we do not consider the unborn baby to be worthy of life when it comes to abortion.

3. Doctors and scientists are constantly coming up with new ways of treating premature babies in order to save their lives, even when they are extremely early, while we tend to think that the earlier the better when it comes to abortion.

4. The law holds dead beat dads accountable - forcing them to fulfill some of their parental duties, but fathers have no say over whether or not their partner can/should have an abortion.

5. Our society (rightly) condemns racism, yet it seems as though abortion clinics have a significant target market: minorities. A large number of abortion clinics are located in low-income, minority neighborhoods.

At the very least, abortion advocates need to admit to these inconsistencies. How are they explained? Am I misunderstanding them? Is there a reason why we consider unborn babies to be life in some instances and not others? Or are we really just that hypocritical? I think a little honest societal self-examination would reveal that abortion is really just a matter of convenience. Babies take up a lot of time and resources and commitment. So our country is pro-life when it's convenient.

What is the pro-abortion answer to these inconsistencies? I suspect there isn't one.

Pro - "Whole Life"

This bi-month's issue of Relevant Magazine featured 50 Ideas That Changed Everything. The collection is a celebration of Relevant's 50th issue. The 50 ideas include things like the rise of Indie music, pop culture trends in filmmaking, Tivo, the Emergent Movement, and theological trends in the church. It's a pretty big smorgasbord. One of the "ideas that changed everything" that caught my eye was number 24: "Pro Life Should Mean More Than Just Abortion Opposition." The magazine says, "Over the last 8 years, young Christians have embraced a more holistic definition of 'pro-life.' Though they are still opposed to abortion, that's not where pro-life stops now. Instead, this generation has adopted a whole-life ethic, which means they are opposed to unjust war, torture, the death penalty, oppression, and the crippling poverty that can be a death sentence for people around the world." In an earlier issue, Relevant editor Cameron Strang voiced the "whole-life ethic" by saying, "... the example Jesus set for us to stand up for the defense of the innocent does not end at birth. Just as they do for abortion, Christians should be on the forefront of standing against things that take millions of innocent lives around the world every day - systemic poverty, preventable disease, unnecessary wars, slavery, genocide. The list goes on."

I've got some problems with this way of thinking, and I've talked about it before, here and here. But my biggest problem with this way of thinking is that it implies that the church has traditionally ignored issues of poverty, torture, unjust war, and oppression in the past, and that fighting for life in these areas is somehow a new thing with this upcoming generation. This implication, however, is completely ignorant of the historical and present reality of the ministry of the church to the world in all areas of life. If this is what this generation thinks, it's ignorant and needs to take a church history class and look into current local and global missions work and Christian humanitarian aid efforts. Christians all over the world are fighting for life. In America, we focus on abortion because it is an incredibly serious problem in this country. But, to be sure, Christians are concerned for all threats to life everywhere. You can take that to the bank.

Here's the proof: columnist David French ran the numbers, and it turns out Christians today (and yesterday, and 100 years ago, before abortion was even an issue) overwhelmingly support "whole-life" ministries and charities. And I mean overwhelmingly. The amount of time and money Christians give to anti-abortion and homosexuality charities or campaigns (although homosexuality isn't really at issue as much in this debate) are literal blips on the radar screen compared to how much we give (in time, money, and resources) to fighting poverty, illness, and oppression.

So then why this push for being so called "Pro Whole-Life?" If it turns out that Christians already are pro whole-life, then why does a generation of Christians think we aren't, and why do they feel it is there responsibility to call the church out on this issue? I can only think of two possible reasons: 1) the current generation is painfully and dangerously ignorant of the historical and present ministry of the church in the world, or 2) it's a strategy for promoting a liberal social agenda in this country and abroad. I tend to think it is the latter rather than the former, although I almost hope it's because we're just that stupid. This is the problem I've had with Cameron Strang and the folks at Relevant for some time now. They espouse a lot of social justice gibberish that sounds really good and noble, but in the end it seems to be good for nothing put promoting their liberal social agenda. The quote from Strang above is prefaced by an assertion that "This is where those on the right don't get it..."

Either way, the numbers don't lie: Christians are pro whole-life. I don't say that as a point of pride, because there is certainly more to be done to fight for life in the world, and the battle is never over. But to accuse the church of sleeping on the job just isn't accurate, helpful, or edifying.

What If Abortion Were Illegal?

One of my friends on Facebook posted this video (warning: there are some very brief images of aborted babies in this video):


The voice behind the camera in the video claims to be from the AtCenter Network, an online "news" agency. He's going around, asking pro-life protestors questions like, "What should the penalty be for a woman who had an illegal abortion? Should there be a punishment under the law against women who have illegal abortions?"

First of all, the LAST intention of this video is to gather "news." The video is set up to make people who are pro-life look stupid because they supposedly haven't thought about the ramifications of their stance. That's totally misleading, and I think it's purposely misleading. Why haven't abortion protestors thought this question through? Because it hasn't been relevant for the past 35 years. I have to admit that I haven't thought through this question before I saw this video, but it only took me about 1.5 seconds to come up with an answer (to that end, the pro-life people in the video do look a tad slow - how hard is it to come up with an answer?).

Before I give you my answer, it's important to make sure we're all working under the same understandings. I'm working under the assumption that, if abortion were illegal, it would be because the unborn "fetus" would be considered a human life, and the taking of said life would be seen as murder (hence the illegality of the action). If this were the reason for outlawing abortion, then anyone who took part in an abortion (mother, doctor, someone who drove the mother to the abortionist, etc.) would be viewed, legally, as an accessory to murder at the very least, if not charged for 1st degree murder. So then, the answer is, "yes." IF abortion were illegal, and IF abortion were viewed as murder, and IF a mother or doctor were convicted of having an abortion / committing murder, they obviously should be punished under the law. All murderers should be punished. What should the punishment be for murdering an unborn child, exactly? That would vary the same way that punishment for "regular" murder varies.

The guy behind the camera wants these pro-life demonstrators to say that women who have an abortion should be punished, and punished severely. His questions are framed in a context that will force the answer (that he wants) to be seen in a negative light. That way, he can trump up charges of insanity against the pro-life movement for wanting to punish innocent women who have already suffered the trauma of an abortion (but why would it be a trauma? Isn't it a simple medical procedure?) He wants them to look heartless and crazy. It's incredibly deceptive and fallacious. I wonder what pro-choice people would say if asked the same question? Do they have an automatic answer they would spit out? Of course not. Why? Because they likewise haven't considered the question for the past 35 years. Or ask the pro-choicers this: What should the punishment be for a woman who has a late term abortion (which is already illegal)? Come on, someone spit that answer out on the spot! Didn't think so.

Abortion comes down to one question: is the "blob of tissue" in the mother's womb a life? If the definitive answer is "no," than go ahead and do whatever you want to it. People have surgeries to remove tissue all the time. But if the answer is yes (not even "definitively yes," but even just "probably yes") then it should absolutely be illegal to do anything harmful to it, let alone kill it, and anyone who were to harm the unborn life in any way should face the full effects of the law.

The Unseen Super Bowl Ad

As usual, most of the Super Bowl ads last night were pretty good. There was, however, at least one ad that didn't get played: this one.



Why didn't the ad get played? Apparently NBC refused to carry any political style ads during the Super Bowl. It should be noted, however, that PETA - People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals - also had an ad rejected. But not for political reasons. Their ad was rejected because it was too sexually explicit. PETA was apparently told by NBC that their ad would be run if they could tone down the sexuality. PETA apparently declined. But wait a minute: isn't PETA at least a semi-political group? Read more about this hypocrisy below.

NBC Sacks Pro-Life Super Bowl Ad

Network Nixes Commercial Celebrating Potential of Life

CHICAGO, Jan. 29 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- NBC has rejected an uplifting and positive pro-life ad submitted for its Super Bowl broadcast this Sunday. After several days of negotiations, an NBC representative in Chicago told CatholicVote.org today that NBC and the NFL are not interested in advertisements involving "political advocacy or issues."

Brian Burch, President of CatholicVote.org reacted: "There is nothing objectionable in this positive, life-affirming advertisement. We show a beautiful ultrasound, something NBC's parent company GE has done for years. We congratulate Barack Obama on becoming the first African-American President. And we simply ask people to imagine the potential of every human life."

"NBC told CatholicVote.org that they do not allow political or issue advocacy advertisements. But that's not what they told PETA," said Burch. "There's no doubt that PETA is an advocacy group. NBC rejected PETA's ad for another reason altogether."

According to an email posted on PETA.org, Victoria Morgan, Vice President of Advertising Standards for Universal, said: "The PETA spot submitted to Advertising Standards depicts a level of sexuality exceeding our standards." Morgan even detailed "edits that need to be made" in order for the spot to run during the Super Bowl.

"NBC claims it doesn't allow advocacy ads, but that's not true. They were willing to air an ad by PETA if they would simply tone down the sexual suggestiveness. Our ad is far less provocative, and hardly controversial by comparison," said Burch.

"The purpose of our new ad is to spread a message of hope about the potential of every human life, including the life of Barack Obama," said Burch. "We are now looking at alternative venues to run the ad over the next several weeks."

The ad aired on BET in Chicago on Inauguration Day. It has become an Internet hit with over 700,000 views in seven days. The ad was in the top 10 "most viewed" category on YouTube on Inauguration Day last week.

The ad reads: "This child's future is a broken home. He will be abandoned by his father. His single mother will struggle to raise him. Despite the hardships he will endure...this child...will become...the 1st African-American President." The ad concludes with the tagline, "Life: Imagine the Potential." The ad is the first of several ads in new campaign launched by CatholicVote.org.

The ad can be viewed at www.CatholicVote.org -- a project of the Fidelis Center for Law and Policy.

SOURCE Fidelis Center for Law & Policy

Pres. Obama: "How do we reduce the number of abortions?"

First watch this (and take particular note of the statement at 1:37):



Now read this: President Obama struck down a rule Friday that prohibits U.S. money from funding international family-planning clinics that promote abortion or provide counseling or referrals about abortion services.

Hmm. Something's not right here: on the campaign trail, Obama says he wants to reduce the number of abortions. Once in office, Obama reinstates federal funding (that's right, your tax dollars) for abortions over seas - in other words, increasing the number of abortions. How do those two go together, exactly?

Double Homicide?

I saw this story on the 10:00 news on channel 11 tonight (watch the video on the right sidebar, or read the story).

To summarize, it's a tragic story of a young Minneapolis girl, 15 year old Annshalike Hamilton, who was brutally murdered by way of blunt force trauma. Her body was found a couple weeks ago inside a North Minneapolis garage. After the autopsy results came back police discovered that Annshalike was 6 to 7 months pregnant at the time of her death. Upon this discovery, police have now categorized the crime that took Annshalike's life as a "double homicide." Please pray for Annshalike's family as they mourn.

I don't want to diminish in any way the tragedy that is the loss of Annshalike's life, but in mourning her death we must also, as the police have rightly noted by terming the murder as a double homicide, mourn the loss of the life of the unborn child within her.

If you are at all even a casual reader of this blog, you already know where I'm going with this: the only way that Annshalike's murder can be categorized as a double homicide is if the thing inside her was a living human being. Pro-choice supporters claim that fetuses indeed are not living beings, and can therefore be selectively eliminated. But if that's the case, why is Annshalike's murder categorized as a double homicide? If they ever catch the murderer(s) who brutally murdered Annshalike, I think they would be wise to use this as their defense. It makes sense, doesn't it?

The outright hypocrisy of describing this loss of life as a double homicide, yet at the same time insisting that abortion is NOT the taking of a life is simply mind boggling and disgusting. I am continually shocked and (since it involves the taking of innocent life) disgusted by the lack of the ability to think reasonably and logically by those on the pro-choice (or as I have taken to calling it, "pro-death") side of the abortion debate regularly display. It simply does not make sense: a baby cannot be a human being in one sense (like in this case, murder) and not in another sense (like in abortion).

This is one of the oldest and most foundational principles of philosophy: the law of non-contradiction. It states that "A" and "Non-A" cannot be equal in the same form or sense at the same time. In plain language, it's impossible for something be both true and not true at the same time and in the same context. For example, a table cannot be both made entirely of wood and not made entirely of wood at the same time. You've either got two different tables or two different contexts. You can't have both at the same time. In the case of unborn children, they can't be living beings and not living beings at the same time and in the same context. So then, to say that Annshalike's unborn child was murdered, but to say that children are NOT murdered through the act of abortion is a violation of the law of non-contradiction. It just simply can't be. Either killing unborn children in any context is murder or it isn't. It logically can't be both.

The inability of pro-choice supporters to understand this basic, elementary concept is baffling. In the mean time, keep Annshalike's family in your prayers. They are experiencing twice the grief in this tragedy.

Perspective

Wow.



The Mississippi Baptist Convention recently collected 50 million pennies and ressurrected a display outside the state legislature to hold them in. Why 50 million? Because that's the estimated number of babies that have been aborted since 1973 via Rove vs. Wade.

It's easy to get lost in the numbers (4,000 abortions per day since 1973 is approximately 50 million), but seeing it like this inspires a completely different kind of reaction.



The memorial, called the "Memorial to the Missing" weighs 300,000 pounds and contains a half million dollars - all in pennies. The plaque that is attached to the memorial reads thusly:

"Before you is a collection of 50 million pennies! Each penny represents one child who has been aborted since the Supreme Court decision Roe vs. Wade in 1973. A penny like a baby seems to be so small and sometimes of very little worth, but when seen in a collection of 50 million it becomes enormous.

Each coin is a person, but in many cases it also represents the difficult process of decision-making, fear, and loneliness. While some speak of pro-choice, these babies had no choice. While some speak of a mother's right to control her own body, 50 million babies were not given their right to live.

Fifty million missing children represented by these pennies must be cause for us to stop, pray, consider what we are doing as a nation, ask God to forgive us, seek ways to help those who are struggling with the decision, and look to the Lord to restore each of us."

You can read more about the memorial here.

In Praise of Single Issue Voting

Check out this excellent article from this month's WORLD magazine, by Tony Woodlief. He brings up several points that I've been thinking for a long time now, but have not been able to verbalize. Basically, it comes down to this - abortion is the only issue. If abortion really truly is the taking of a life, then nothing else matters at this point in our nation's history. Here's Tony's article:

I have become something I once reviled: a single-issue voter. I used to think that a wise voter tries to discern each candidate's intentions on major issues, and then casts his vote based on an assessment of who will do the greatest overall good—or the least evil. I thought those voters who support a candidate based on a single issue—whether he will increase school funding, say, or lower taxes—were shirking their duty to consider the full ramifications of putting someone in office. What good is electing someone who is "right" on one thing, I thought, if he gets everything else disastrously wrong? This was the reasoning I used as I congratulated myself for wisely apportioning my votes based on utilitarian calculations.

Now I suspect this sort of calculation misses something. I've become convinced that a nation which sanctions the extinguishing of unborn children, and further, the outright execution of near-term infants, doesn't deserve admiration even if it gets every other policy right.

I used to include abortion as part of my voting calculus, mind you, but only a part. What if a candidate is pro-life, for example, but favors disastrous tax and trade policies that would consign people to lower living standards? Or what if he wants to use our military in pursuit of ill-defined foreign policy goals? Shouldn't these things factor into my equation?
Those other issues certainly affect a country's safety, prosperity, and greatness. But I've come to believe that a nation that tolerates destruction of innocents deserves neither safety nor prosperity nor greatness. We've descended into barbarism, and it poisons how we treat the elderly, the incapacitated, even ourselves. We shouldn't be surprised, having made life a utilitarian calculation, that more and more humans become inconvenient.

It's certainly true that there are other issues that ought to concern Christians, like the sanctity of marriage, and how we treat the mentally ill, the elderly, and children who have been born. But abortion is, in my view, the touchstone. Get this one wrong and your moral compass can guide you in nothing else.

There are complications. Does it really matter, for example, if a county supervisor is pro-life? Maybe so. Years ago the late-term abortionist George Tiller expanded his murderous facility in Wichita, Kan., with little trouble, even as local authorities harassed pro-life groups. The battle over abortion is being waged locally, and it makes all the difference in the world whether officials welcome abortionists with open arms, gutlessly tolerate them for fear of legal trouble, or actually get down to the business of scrutinizing their activities with a fine-toothed comb.

Even worse in the Wichita case, the city's mayor during this period advertised himself as pro-life. Hence an additional problem for the single-minded voter: Many candidates claim this label, yet they have no intention of taking action. The ones who will act, meanwhile, may be far less electable. Voters who don't care about abortion can tolerate a candidate who pays lip-service to the Bible-thumpers. But there's a danger they'll write him off as a nut if he devotes significant energy to the cause once in office.

There's also the challenge that a genuine and committed opponent of abortion may win office, work to end this abomination, and simultaneously arm regimes that slaughter innocents in other countries. If we oppose the murder of unborn infants not because they are cute, but because the execution of innocents is evil, then we have to apply this standard throughout our politics. I always thought the single-issue voter didn't have to think, but maybe that's not the case. There are indeed complications.

Yet there is also painful clarity that comes with single-mindedness. Jobs, highways, schools, economic growth—none of these matter if we're willing to sanction murder to get them. Perhaps my mentality is a recipe for political isolation for Christians, for the losing of elections, and maybe even a loss of national greatness. I worry that the alternative, however, is to lose something far greater, which is our ability to discern good from evil, and to act accordingly.