This woman explains the noble reason why she contributes her time to the dismemberment (the “constitutionally protected right to privacy” which entails the ripping apart of human flesh, muscle, tissue and bone) of the most innocent class in our society . . . utterly defenseless babies.
Related posts:
Planned Parenthood’s shameless propaganda cartoon
Christ Alone Wyoming 
Notice how she said “particularly in the uninsured and low income”. So basically population control by not allowing anyone poor or uninsured to breed. We don’t need any more “charity cases”. It’s better to just kill them rather than allow them to live the horrors of life as a poor person. UGH!!! This is so sick and demented!! This is a direct byproduct of evolution. By thinking that we all come from nothing and that survival of the fittest is the way then of course you would think that only the rich and well insured should have the right to live. Oh and white should be added to that list as well because I’m sure the majority of the “uninsured and low income” people that they service in the city are black. Racism, pure and simple. SAD!
What’s that verse? “Thinking themselves wise they became fools”
LikeLike
I agree! It’s so sad, though, that the babies are paying for the sins of the parents! Instead of saying, “10% of the girls got pregnant and it shouldn’t be that way so I support planned parenthood” wouldn’t it be better to say those girls should have been taught abstinence so therefore I will support abstinence? The world’s philosophy is so out of whack and any justification of sin (whether it’s circular reasoning or not) is ok with them even if the justification makes no sense (which it normally doesn’t)!
This is very sad!
LikeLike
Let’s dissect the first part of this girl’s speech (Tanya and DPW shredded the last part quite effectively).
“Within my four years [at a Catholic school] 10% of my classmates gave birth…”
In other words, 10% of her classmates were having premarital sex when they shouldn’t have been. Continue…
“And there just shoudln’t be that kind of statistic…”
You’re right. Way too many young girls are having sex when they aren’t ready to face the consequences. Go on…
“I think all young women should have the opportunity for the information and health care they need to prevent unintended pregnancy…”
Don’t have sex until you are married. There will be no charge for that professional opinion. Oh, and there is no such thing as an “unintended pregnancy.” We might not intend it, but God gives life, and He did intend it. So it’s all about us. Got it. Whatcha got next…
“So they can have whatever future is entitled to them…”
Aha! That’s the root of the whole problem! “I exist. Give me what I want! I deserve an easy life! I deserve to get what I want! I shouldn’t have to deal with consequences!”
Basically, Planned Parenthood exists for the sole purpose of giving girls who want to go out and have sex with whomever they want, as many times as they want, the opportunity to kill their babies without reprisal. Because after all, these girls “are entitled” to a bright future, and all that baby stuff just gets in the way. PP is there to get rid of that problem, and help girls live the life they’re “entitled to.”
Umm. People should be careful about clamoring for what they are “entitled to.” Because if it were not for the grace of God and the cross of Christ, we would all get what we were “entitled to.”
LikeLike
Tanya: So basically population control by not allowing anyone poor or uninsured to breed.
Huh. Somewhere I missed where empowering low-income women to get contraception and access abortion so they have only the children they want, when they want to have them becomes “not allowed to breed”. There’s a gap in your logic, there.
Desert Pastor’s wife: wouldn’t it be better to say those girls should have been taught abstinence so therefore I will support abstinence?
No, because it’s been amply demonstrated that abstinence education does not work. Looking at the substantial difference in the abortion rate for teenagers in the US versus the Netherlands, it would be better to say that these kids should have been taught at school that it’s their choice when to have sex, and when they do, to use contraception. That’s what the Dutch do, and it works.
fourpointer: Basically, Planned Parenthood exists for the sole purpose of giving girls who want to go out and have sex with whomever they want
No: Planned Parenthood exists for adults, as well as teenagers., But yes: people should have sex with whoever they want. What are you, an advocate for sex with people who don’t want?
, as many times as they want,
See above. No one should have sex more than they want, should they?
the opportunity to kill their babies without reprisal.
Lie. Planned Parenthood has nothing to do with infanticide. Infanticide is far more likely to happen when a girl is forced through pregnancy against her will – which Planned Parenthood is against.
LikeLike
jesurgislac,
No, Planned Parenthood is the one who is lying.
It has been said that, “An abortion kills the life of a baby after it has begun. It is dangerous to your life and health. It may make you sterile so that when you want a child you cannot have it.”
So yes, Planned Parenthood does indeed commit infanticide.
LikeLike
jesurgislac,
Do some research on Margaret Sanger, the founder of PP. She was openly racist and did not want anyone who was poor to conceive or bear children, EVER.PP has never tried to remove themselves from her teaching. They have never rejected her viewpoints, they can’t because they embrace them in their business practices. PP is a business they make money on repeat customers. They do not have the welfare of women at heart. Its all about the almighty dollar. If they really cared about women and teens they would report incest, abuse and statutory rape. But they don’t because they would loose BUSINESS $$$. If women or girls truly needed “health care” they could go to their own family doctors or OB/GYN s but they don’t want to because that would mean accountability.
LikeLike
We are not just teaching abstinence and hope everyone decides to go with it but there must be a reason behind abstinence! The Bible does indeed show clearly that sex before marriage is sin. The whole idea is not only to keep your body pure in God’s eyes but also to keep your mind pure. What goes into the mind will come out in our actions. This is why it’s so important to live a PURE and HOLY life mentally, physically, spiritually, and emotionally according to Scriptures!
The so-called ample demonstrations are used apart from a holy and righteous God so, of course, they wouldn’t be able to live a pure and holy life. If people are taught morals but not taught the WHO and WHY behind the morals then eventually the morals will decline and you will eventually have an amoral society, which is EXACTLY what America is becoming!
On the other hand, you are encouraging the younger generation by telling them it’s ok to have sex before marriage just do it SAFELY! (That is another subject for another time.) If girls are getting pregnant and killing those babies then it becomes clear the whole idea is that it’s ok to murder as long as my life doesn’t get interrupted. The reality is that those girls should have lived with the consequences of their sin!
Of course, it does seem to me that you are not even interested in what the Bible has to say!
LikeLike
fourpointer: Planned Parenthood does indeed commit infanticide.
No: Planned Parenthood provides contraception, sex education, and abortions, to those who choose to make use of its services.
It has been said that, “An abortion kills the life of a baby after it has begun. It is dangerous to your life and health. It may make you sterile so that when you want a child you cannot have it.”
That may have been “said”: that doesn’t make it true.
Fact: an abortion terminates a pregnancy – you can call it “killing a fetus”, if you prefer, but a fetus is not a baby and a baby is not a fetus.
Fact: having an abortion performed by a trained professional is far less dangerous to a woman’s life or health than having a baby. Indeed, in all countries where abortion is illegal, maternal morbidity and mortality is far higher than in countries where abortion is legal.
Fact: while having an illegal abortion performed in unsterile conditions may mean a woman risks sterility, childbirth and pregnancy are far more likely to affect a woman’s ability to have another baby than abortion – and an abortion safely performed by a trained professional is no more likely to affect a woman’s future ability to have more children than it is likely to affect the children she already has.
desert pastor’s wife: We are not just teaching abstinence and hope everyone decides to go with it but there must be a reason behind abstinence! The Bible does indeed show clearly that sex before marriage is sin. The whole idea is not only to keep your body pure in God’s eyes but also to keep your mind pure. What goes into the mind will come out in our actions. This is why it’s so important to live a PURE and HOLY life mentally, physically, spiritually, and emotionally according to Scriptures!
You have a right to hold your own religious beliefs, but not to expect the state to impose them on others, nor to endanger your children by keeping them ignorant of basic facts.
If people believe it’s a sin to have sex before marriage, and refrain from having sex until they marry, knowing how to have safe sex will not affect their decision.
On the other hand, you are encouraging the younger generation by telling them it’s ok to have sex before marriage just do it SAFELY!
I think you’re missing the point. People do have sex before marriage.
It’s true, I don’t believe that’s a sin: nor do I believe there’s anything wrong with it, providing both people involved care for each other and are fully consenting. But I have no problem with people who believe it’s a sin refraining. I just think that everyone should have safe sex – married or not.
If girls are getting pregnant and killing those babies then it becomes clear the whole idea is that it’s ok to murder as long as my life doesn’t get interrupted.
Hardly. Infanticide is treated as a crime. It’s never okay to “murder” or to “kill babies”. Abortion is not infanticide.
Of course, it does seem to me that you are not even interested in what the Bible has to say!
I would guess I know the Bible better than you do – right down to the verses which celebrate and praise infanticide.
LikeLike
jesurgislac,
When I wrote An abortion kills the life of a baby after it has begun. It is dangerous to your life and health. It may make you sterile so that when you want a child you cannot have it I was quoting a pamphlet written in 1963 by the people at…….
Planned Parenthood.
Oops.
So, yes, at one time even Planned Parenthood said that abortion “kills the life of a baby.” Their words, not mine.
Apparently, PP started thinking about how much money they could make by “killing the life of a baby” and changed their rhetoric.
What PP won’t tell you is the number of shabby abortionists who can kill a woman in one city, pack up and move to another city and open up shop again because the abortion industry is fighting tooth and nail to avoid being regulated even to the equivalency of a dentist.
Suppose I went into a dentist to have a tooth pulled, and he was going to use the same forceps he had just used on the last patient without cleaning them. He would be shut down in a minute. Yet most abortionists don’t have a problem using the same dirty instruments and tables to perform one abortion after another. And with no oversight (except from who? Guttmacher? The CDC? Please!) they just go on their merry way to kill and maim all over again.
How about the many abortionists who let receptionists and janitors perform tests, or run anesthesia? And no, I’m not making this stuff up. It happens all the time, but the PP spin machine doesn’t want you to know about it. Or how about this guy in Illinois that performed an abortion on a woman who wasn’t even pregnant? Or this one where they murdered a baby that had the audacity to live through the attempted murder?
We could talk about the many PP clinics that have given their thumbs-up to statutory rape (and the consequences to those who expose PP). We could talk about why PP had to be so deceptive in obtaining building permits for their Aurora, IL
death plantclinic.Planned Parenthood is one the most deceptive, underhanded, uncaring corporations in America. They don’t care about women. The only beef they have against other abortionists is they are competition in the ever-shrinking abortion market. They want to be the only ones to be, in their words, “killing the life of a baby.”
LikeLike
fourpointer, so you’re quoting from a leaflet by Planned Parenthood written about illegal abortions? Because in 1963, in most if not all states in the US, it was illegal for a woman to have an abortion, and – as I noted upthread – illegal abortions tend to be dangerous. The solution is, of course, to make abortion legal, so that a woman who needs an abortion can have one safely, rather than risking her life to get one.
Your fantastic assertions that Planned Parenthood operates on a profit motive can’t really be answered: they’re too nonsensical.
As for the rest; you appear to be linking to some unconnected malpractice cases, and asserting that somehow because the doctors being accused of malpractice performed abortions, this means that all doctors who perform abortions are guilty of malpractice. By that logic, because Dr. Bernard Rottschaefer was convicted of medical malpractice in 2003, all doctors who practice internal medicine are guilty of giving their patients prescriptions for heavy paid medication in exchange for sex. True or false?
Your assertion that most doctors who perform abortions “don’t have a problem using the same dirty instruments and tables” is backed up, as far as I can see, by no data whatsoever – not even a record of malpractice: you link to an article with unverified claims by a pro-life activist.
Perforated uteruses do occur when an unskilled illegal abortionist attempts to carry out a D&C. The solution, if you care about women’s lives, is to make sure no woman who needs an abortion has to go to an illegal abortionist.
You also seem to have accepted as gospel a story about a baby “born alive” at 23 weeks and “dumped”. This is the Hialeah clinic story, and as it is supposed to have occurred in 2006, yet there is no evidence that anything beyond a nasty prank call to the police actually happened – well, I suspect you have been hoaxed. (Not that I mean to point at you, particularly, but this story of “Siomara Senises and Belkis Gonzalez” is all over pro-life blogs and hack sites like World Net Daily, telling an emotive story about an “abortion mill” – yet there appears to be literally no hard information about it whatsoever. Not even an entry on Wikipedia. Seriously: if this is supposed to be as big a story as all these pro-life sites claim, why is no one but pro-life sites interested in it? I can find information on verifiable sites about doctors convicted of medical malpractice five years ago: yet this case, which is claimed to be about two doctors who are supposed to have let unqualified people perform abortions… is somehow completely outside the news. Do you have any direct evidence – a findlaw article, a wikipedia article, a news story in a mainstream media site about their trial – that it ever actually happened?
As for the reporter who claimed to be 15 and tried to get Planned Parenthood staff to break rules of medical confidentiality: well, she failed, didn’t she?
LikeLike
“I think you’re missing the point. People do have sex before marriage.”
However i do think you are missing some other points, not so long ago it was not considered “normal” for 13 year olds to have sex.
Currently it is not seen as “exceptional”.
The age at which it is considered “normal” to have sex has been lowered continually.
And where 50 years ago it was unthinkable that someone would loudly proclaim that sex with children was acceptable, nay even encourageable, today there are several peadophile groups that are proclaiming this publicly, and they are taken more seriously than their opponents.
Ask yourself, is that a world you desire, or would you prefer a different one?
“Hardly. Infanticide is treated as a crime. It’s never okay to “murder” or to “kill babies”. Abortion is not infanticide.”
Ever heard of “late term abortion”
This is a nice picture. I do not advise to look at any others. Now please reiterate that this wasn’t a child.
http://www.priestsforlife.org/resources/photosassorted/LateTermAbortions/abortedbaby06.html
LikeLike
JPvB: Ask yourself, is that a world you desire, or would you prefer a different one?
I’m honestly not sure what you’re asking, JPvB.
We live in a world where, in the US, the government is ploughing millions of tax dollars into programs intended to keep teenagers ignorant of how to have safe sex and not to have sex until marriage – tand where thousands of 14-year-old girls have abortions or give birth each year.
We also live in a world where, in the Netherlands, the government requires that all schoolchildren are taught that:
– it’s okay to have sex when you decide to have sex
0 it’s better to have sex as part of an established relationship
– when you decide to have sex, here’s how to get contraception and here’s how to use it
– when you decide to have sex, do so responsibly and safely
And, proportionally, the Netherlands has a teenage abortion rate one-seventh of the US abortion rate. Indeed, when I was looking for comparable data in a previous argument, I found that in any one year, the chance of even one girl 14 or under having an abortion or giving birth in the Netherlands was pretty close to zero.
So whatever causes teenagers to have unsafe sex and need to have abortions – it isn’t teaching them about safe sex nor is it teaching them that it’s OK to have sex before marriage. In fact, the correlation is just the reverse: girls who are given abstinence-only sex education are just as likely to have sex, but far more likely to get pregnant or get infected with an STD.
Ever heard of “late term abortion”
TYes. So are you in favor of encouraging easy access to early abortion? Or are you in favor of letting women who need abortions late in pregnancy die or suffer permanent damage?
This is a nice picture. I do not advise to look at any others. Now please reiterate that this wasn’t a child.
A fetus is not a child.
But a 14-year-old girl, raped by her father and her uncles, 20 weeks pregnant before she can escape and get to a doctor who will help her terminate her very-much-unwanted pregnancy, is a child. What will you say to that 14-year-old girl? She existed: she had to fight the Irish government for the right to go “abroad” to the UK to get an abortion. Would you force a raped child to give birth against her will?
LikeLike
jesurgilsec
You’re avoiding the point that Planned Parenthood said, explicitly, that “abortion kills the life of the baby.” They weren’t talking about legal vs. illegal. They were stating as fact that “abortion kills the life of the baby.” And yes, PP does indeed operate out of a profit motive. That’s why they encourage their workers to get girls in the door any way possible. Don’t paint PP as being the altruistic do-gooders you’re trying to say they are. If they were, they wouldn’t be so concerned about clinics being regulated.
As far as why there isn’t more coverage of abortion deaths in the media–You’re kididng me, right? The left-wing media machine that is fawning all over Obama and Hillary? It’s a known fact that the vast majority of “journalists” are liberal, and vote Democrat most of the time. Yeah, they’re gonna do a negative story about abortion.
Oh, and as far as “mainstream sources”–
1st link–AFPN, which linked to the Arizona Republic.
2nd link–FindArticles, linked from Human Life Review. Yeah, the only evidence was the words of a woman who worked there and saw it happen. Guess she made the whole thing up. ::rolls eys::
3rd link–Free Republic Online, with plenty of links.
4th link–This was an actual case, ruled on by an actual court. Didn’t find a lot of mainstream press, but what do you expect?
5th link–To which you replied, “This is the Hialeah clinic story, and as it is supposed to have occurred in 2006, yet there is no evidence that anything beyond a nasty prank call to the police actually happened – well, I suspect you have been hoaxed.” Again, you’re kidding…..right? I guess Gonzalez and Senises duped the Miami Herald too, didn’t they? The police found the body in the clinic and performed an autopsy. Oh, I guess the police are a bunch of raving anti-choicers, huh?
Links 6 & 7–Yes, this story actually took place, you and I both know that. And we both know it wasn’t about “confidentiality.” It was about getting a girl in the door and getting the money form the abortion. They just don’t want to admit they got PWNED. We also know that PP never denied offering to help a girl cover up statutory rape (something that PP has been caught red-handed doing many times), and in fact tried to use the courts to squelch her. Michelle Malkin picked up on it.
Link 8–You have to admit, the guy hit the nail on the head. PP used fraud to get their building permit. Even Hannity had it on his show.
But I guess if the ultra-liberal New York Times doesn’t blare it on their front page, it doesn’t count, right?
LikeLike
“Would you force a raped child to give birth against her will?”
While we are talking about straw men , how about his one….
Would you tell a women who just gave birth to a premature baby , Stop crying it was just a fetus?
And on another note, I think you should check the WHO stats on Maternal morbidity /mortality. The US has terrible stats. Being one of the most technologically advanced nations you think we would be on top. Abortion is legal here so why hasn’t that pushed us to the top of the list? Your theory doesn’t hold water. So the 29 countries that rate better than us, they are all countries in which Abortion is legal huh? And they must do a better job at their abortions too cause less of their women die.
LikeLike
I’m sorry , I was wrong. We are now # 41 on the list. Has Roe v. Wade been overturned?
LikeLike
Let’s go to the final authority on the matter – after all, “Let God be true and every person a liar!”
Psalm 139:13-17
13 For You formed my inward parts; You covered me in my mother’s womb.
14 I will praise You, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made; Marvelous are Your works, And that my soul knows very well.
15 My frame was not hidden from You, When I was made in secret, And skillfully wrought in the lowest parts of the earth.
16 Your eyes saw my substance, being yet unformed. And in Your book they all were written, The days fashioned for me, When as yet there were none of them.
17 ¶ How precious also are Your thoughts to me, O God! How great is the sum of them!
PP aid and abet mass murder! God calls it murder! As for horrible things like rape, yes, even in those matters, we realize that God is sovereign. It is ONLY by His grace that more of this does not take place.
But if the Word of God is true (and it is), then even the life allowed to conceive through rape comes because God allows that life to come to pass.
Amazing that for all the brou-ha about life being an evolutionary wonder and science explains it all – NOBODY HAS EVER CREATED LIFE IN THE LABORATORY!
This is simply because the giver of life is God Himself, and the life of a human begins at the moment of conception! He gives life and He alone has the right to take it away. He is sovereign in all things over His universe. All the depravity and wickedness found within the world, and all of the laws contrary to the Law of God will never make it right – and ultimately each person will have to give an answer before God.
Fearfully and wonderfully made,
The Desert Pastor
LikeLike
Ever heard of “late term abortion”
Answer from jesurgilsec – “Yes. So are you in favor of encouraging easy access to early abortion? Or are you in favor of letting women who need abortions late in pregnancy die or suffer permanent damage?”
The answer is NO, NO, NO!! A true believer who seeks to follow the commands of God will tell you that what we ARE in favour of is – encouraging others to realize that children are an heritage from the LORD, and the fruit of the womb is HIS REWARD!
Abortion is merely the ultimate selfish endpoint of a life that is lived contrary to the ways of God!
“I can do what I want with whoever I want, and I don’t have to suffer the consequences. If I do happen to get pregnant, all I have to do is psych myself up by believing the lies of satan and his minions (which include PP), and I can ease my guilty conscience that I have MURDERED MY BABY because people like PP have one ulterior goal in mind – population control and reducing the world numbers by any means possible in order to promote even more nefarious motives (such as a one world government).”
For all readers, the reality is that satan is seeking to fool the population into accepting everything but the truth of God’s Word.
Let me tell you what else is happening in the Netherlands which jesurgilsec is so fond of quoting – There are members of the government who are seeking to reduce the age of consent down to 12! I personally have met and know a Christian brother who fights against this in the Netherlands and he provided information to me indicating that these same people’s ultimate goal is to get the age where it is legal to have sex down to 8!!!!!!
Yep, the Netherlands a wonderful place to live and to be. Before long, pre-teens will also be able to have sex with adults and when a pregnancy occurs – well, the parents don’t have to know – the child will be convinced the best thing to do is to KILL THE BABY!
By the way, PP and other organizations like them have some of the same depraved, wicked plans in store for America’s young people. They are just not honest enough to tell you that for fear of the riots amongst those few who still fear God and keep His commandments!
Thankful for the forgiveness of God,
The Desert Pastor
LikeLike
“I’m honestly not sure what you’re asking, JPvB.”
What i am asking is, what would you your world like to be, and is the current trend i described one you like, or is it one you’d rather see a bit differently.
It is one thing to live in a world and float along, it is something else to try improve it even if it is only for a few minutes.
“[US part deleted, insufficient data for me to comment]
We also live in a world where, in the Netherlands, the government requires that all schoolchildren are taught that:
– it’s okay to have sex when you decide to have sex
0 it’s better to have sex as part of an established relationship
– when you decide to have sex, here’s how to get contraception and here’s how to use it
– when you decide to have sex, do so responsibly and safely”
Actually, i never had that in school (yes in the netherlands), not as far as i remember, but perhaps my memory is faulty, or they only did that after the 1990.
“And, proportionally, the Netherlands has a teenage abortion rate one-seventh of the US abortion rate. Indeed, when I was looking for comparable data in a previous argument, I found that in any one year, the chance of even one girl 14 or under having an abortion or giving birth in the Netherlands was pretty close to zero.”
Don’t worry, the trends are worsening. Despite the increasing attention for prophylactives.
“So whatever causes teenagers to have unsafe sex and need to have abortions – “it isn’t teaching them about safe sex nor is it teaching them that it’s OK to have sex before marriage. ”
Agreed.
“In fact, the correlation is just the reverse: girls who are given abstinence-only sex education are just as likely to have sex, but far more likely to get pregnant or get infected with an STD.”
The correlation is not quite reverse, for despite evermore extensive information in the NL the STD levels is on the rise.
Click to access 441100022.pdf
A few hundred pages, but to summarize,
rise of HIV infections is slowing (good news)
Chlamidia, Syfilis are strongly rising
Gonorhea is constant
Hepatitis B is rising, (in males now back to the 1984 level)
Genital warts is rising, incidentally the virus that increases the risc of cervical cancer, and for which condoms do not help.
Genital herpes is rising
In short, it seems as if sex-education is not the panacea we are looking for. If that is the situation we would do well to work on multiple fronts but (at the least) both have sex education, and explain why it is not a good idea to fuck around, and why “being in love” is not the same thing as “loving”
Unfortunately the second part is always derided because it …… (fill in your own adjective)
Finally, or better said, coinciding your complaint that “abstinence teaching” doesn’t work, of course it doesn’t work. It will never work if it is mere lip service. If on the one side you hear about “abstinence” because it is better than condoms and on the other side you are being bombarded by sexual messages (walk down a busy street and start looking at how sex sells) how sex solves everything, and how bitches and ho’s are there for your pleasure, what do you expect?
As we say in dutch “De kat op het spek binden” (lit: To tie the cat to the bacon(and expecting it not to eat….))
Ever heard of “late term abortion”
“Yes. So are you in favor of encouraging easy access to early abortion? Or are you in favor of letting women who need abortions late in pregnancy die or suffer permanent damage?”
Your last statement is a bit of a straw man argument unless you can prove that all of the women who come in for a late time abortion come in because they are in mortal danger. Lets face the fact, most come in because they put their heads in the sand and refuse to adress the problem rather sooner, putting ones head in the sand is quite a common human reaction.
As for early term abortion, i am not an advocate either (as you supposed already i think).
Ideally, i’d prefer no fucking around and no unwanted pregnacies. However that is never going to happen.
Second choice would be a system where both girl and boy are held accountable and must find a way (with help) on how the deal with the responsibility they thought they were ready for. (ignoring that sex may lead to pregnancy, is ignoring that playing russian roulette may lead to death). Not really going to happen either i am afraid, but it is something to strife for.
Third choice would be allow for early term abortion, but give honest and balanced information, do tell on how abortion may lead in 1 in X cases to infertility. (anyway the chance to win a lottery is smaller). Do tell how a certain % of women end up with psychological problems. Do not pretend that is a harmless procedure without consequences. If it were so, why the difference between removing a wart and getting an abortion?
And do give enough information about possible alternatives to abortion.
That is a situation that is reachable within human society, but unfortunately the only tune being sung by the “pro choice” group is “more opportunities for abortion”
This is a nice picture. I do not advise to look at any others. Now please reiterate that this wasn’t a child.
“A fetus is not a child.”
Did you look? Or are you just repeating a mantra.
“But a 14-year-old girl, raped by her father and her uncles, 20 weeks pregnant before she can escape and get to a doctor who will help her terminate her very-much-unwanted pregnancy, is a child. What will you say to that 14-year-old girl? She existed: she had to fight the Irish government for the right to go “abroad” to the UK to get an abortion. Would you force a raped child to give birth against her will? ”
Right, and that is a very common case in Ireland, the UK and the US? A thousand of them each year?
Again strawman, because the problem here isn’t abortion, it is rape, imprisonment, breach of trust. The problem of abortion is not the root problem it is a derived one.
May i extend the imprisonment a bit longer, she now is in her 38th week. Would you advocate abortion? If not where do you lay the arbitrary line? If you do, why lay an arbitrary line at birth?
LikeLike
fourpointer: You’re avoiding the point that Planned Parenthood said, explicitly, that “abortion kills the life of the baby.” They weren’t talking about legal vs. illegal. They were stating as fact that “abortion kills the life of the baby.”
What point are you trying to make? That you found a Planned Parenthood publication from 1963? Or that you found a pro-life website which claims this line comes from a PP publication from 1963? What exactly does this quote from 45 years ago, 10 years before abortion became legally safely available to all women in the US, mean to you?
And yes, PP does indeed operate out of a profit motive.
And no, Planned Parenthood is visibly and transparently not doing so. I wondered why PP go to the trouble of making their actual IRS return photocopied available as a PDF from their home page – but I suppose even with this public information available, demonstrating how PP is not operating as a profit-making organisation, most pro-lifers never bother to check it and continue to repeat the nonsense they’ve been told.
Planned Parenthood is a valuable women’s healthcare resource.
As far as why there isn’t more coverage of abortion deaths in the media–You’re kididng me, right?
No, I’m asking you why, when pro-life sites claim that two “abortion mills” in Florida were shut down only 2 years ago because of gross malpractice on the part of the doctors, I can find absolutely no evidence for the incidents that are claimed to have occurred. The only mainstream news story merely reports that the clinic surrendered its licence. Actual medical malpractice stories generally have more legs.
Tanya: “Would you force a raped child to give birth against her will?”
While we are talking about straw men
I’m sorry, you’re calling a raped and pregnant child a “straw man”? Wow, that’s abusive.
The Desert Pastor’s wife: The answer is NO, NO, NO!!
So you are in favor of forcing raped children to give birth against their will, and also in favor of letting women die in pregnancy?
Abortion is merely the ultimate selfish endpoint of a life that is lived contrary to the ways of God!
So a 14-year-old girl, raped by her father and her uncles, was in your view “living a life contrary to the ways of God” and was therefore being “selfish” when she wanted to abort the pregnancy that resulted from incestuous rape?
Let me tell you what else is happening in the Netherlands which jesurgilsec is so fond of quoting – There are members of the government who are seeking to reduce the age of consent down to 12!
Well, ma’am, given that you advocate forcing 14-year-old girls to give birth after they have been raped, I think I prefer the Netherlands, where they strongly oppose rape and forced pregnancy. I’m against both.
LikeLike
Hi jesurgislac,
Do you consider yourself to be a true child of the One True and Living God? In other words, would you say that you are a born again Christian, a believer in and follower of the Lord Jesus Christ as He has been revealed in the Holy Bible?
If not, my I share the Eternal Gospel of Jesus Christ with you? It would be my honor and privilege. If you are interested in learning what Jesus Christ did for those who are called by His Holy Name I’d be happy to share with you. Feel free to e-mail me at axeroot@hotmail.com
In Christ,
CD
LikeLike
jesurgislac,
Your reply from posts 16-17 was, “So you are in favor of forcing raped children to give birth against their will, and also in favor of letting women die in pregnancy?
“So a 14-year-old girl, raped by her father and her uncles, was in your view “living a life contrary to the ways of God” and was therefore being “selfish” when she wanted to abort the pregnancy that resulted from incestuous rape?
“Well, ma’am, given that you advocate forcing 14-year-old girls to give birth after they have been raped, I think I prefer the Netherlands, where they strongly oppose rape and forced pregnancy. I’m against both.”
This is Desert Pastor’s wife this time but if you take the time to notice on posts 16-17, you were talking to my husband, The Desert Pastor.
You espouse a lifestyle that goes contrary to the Word of God and you also encourage a life of sin and debauchery that is horrifying to conceive to say the least. In this we are not talking about what might or might not happen. We are talking reality! The reality is that both you and PP encourage murder.
A baby is a baby at the moment of conception. You can’t base what happens on SITUATION ETHICS, which is exactly what you are doing. It seems to me that you are also encouraging children to have sex at young ages.
My husband told you about the Netherlands and how they are seeking to bring the age of sex down to 8 years of age. You seemed to think that was a great idea so my question is, do you encourage pedophilia? This is exactly what it sounds like to me and I begin to be VERY concerned over this matter.
Nonetheless, I find it odd that you are so insistent that you know more about the Bible, as you so arrogantly put it, toward the beginning of the posts. I take it, then, that you know my study habits of both reading of Scripture and praying.
If you notice, I never made any comment about your study habits of the Word of God because I don’t know your study habits. On the other hand, I begin to question more and more your actual knowledge of the Bible and also of the God of the Bible.
The only way a true believer could even come to somewhat of an understanding within the Word of God is through continuous prayer. The Lord does NOT show Himself EXCEPT through the building of a relationship with His children. This comes through meditation, reading and memorization of Scripture. This also comes through prayer to the holy God of Scripture not to a god that you made up in your mind.
We are commanded to live a holy and godly life in this world. Just as CD said in post 20, if you do not know the Lord Jesus Christ as your personal Saviour then there are several on this blog that are willing to help you. Both The Desert Pastor and I use the email address thedesertpastor@yahoo.com
God is holy, just and righteous. One day He will pour forth His wrath upon this world and on those who are rebellious towards Him and they will be sent to eternity in hell. Right now He is ever merciful and gracious but it will not last forever! The Bible also clearly states that those who are lost, His wrath abide on them! Do not wait too long to come to Him. Whoever comes to Him, He will in no wise cast out!
I urge you to come humbly before the cross and seek the Lord’s forgiveness before it is eternally too late. The most important question in life is “What is your relationship with the Lord?”
LikeLike
“While we are talking about straw men
I’m sorry, you’re calling a raped and pregnant child a “straw man”? Wow, that’s abusive. ”
Stop and read again. The straw man is suggesting that it is a common occurrence.
But since you contend that it is not a straw man, you must have evidence of that raped and pregnant children are very common case in Ireland, the UK and the US?
LikeLike
JPvB: The straw man is suggesting that it is a common occurrence.
I believe you are saying that it’s more common for 14-year-old girls to be pregnant than it ought to be. Which I agree with: returning to your post above, about stats for pregnancy, abortion, and STDs in the Netherlands: Adolescent Sexual Health in Europe and North America.
The correlation is not quite reverse, for despite evermore extensive information in the NL the STD levels is on the rise.
In the US, the estimated HIV prevalence rate in young men ages 15 to 24 is over three times higher than the rate in the Netherlands. In the US, the estimated HIV prevalence rate in young women ages 15 to 24 is nearly three times higher than the rate in the Netherlands. In the US, the teen syphilis rate is over six times higher than that of the Netherlands. In the US, the teen gonorrhea rate is over 74 times higher than that in the Netherlands.
We have already covered the fact that teen pregnancy rates and teen abortion rates are far higher in the US than in the Netherlands.
You ask if this is a trend I would like to see continue. No. I think the US should strive to be more like the Netherlands. What do you feel? Are you happy with the enormously high rates of teen abortion, teen pregnancy, and teen STD infection in the US and would rather see this trend continue – than adopt the Netherlands program and cut them drastically?
Third choice would be allow for early term abortion, but give honest and balanced information
I agree.
do tell on how abortion may lead in 1 in X cases to infertility.
And that in a significantly higher number of cases, pregnancy and childbirth will lead not only to infertility, but to permanent damage to the mother’s health and in some instances to death. Since you’re for honest and balanced information, I’m sure you’ll agree that the far higher risks of pregnancy and childbirth must be explained honestly to a teenage girl who may have picked up the idea that it would be bad or risky for her to have an early abortion.
Did you look? Or are you just repeating a mantra.
I looked. Did you look at the sites I linked to about the numbers of women who die – along with the fetus – when abortion becomes illegal or is unavailable?
Desert Pastor’s wife: This is Desert Pastor’s wife this time but if you take the time to notice on posts 16-17, you were talking to my husband, The Desert Pastor.
I do apologize for confusing the two of you, and for implying that it’s you who wants women to die in pregnancy and for raped children to be forced through pregnancy and childbirth, when in fact it’s your husband who wants that.
Nonetheless, I find it odd that you are so insistent that you know more about the Bible, as you so arrogantly put it, toward the beginning of the posts. I take it, then, that you know my study habits of both reading of Scripture and praying.
Well, I have read the Bible through from Genesis to Revelations. I have studied some passages, as far as I could, from the original texts. (I don’t read Hebrew, but I’ve looked at literal word-for-word translations.) I have studied the historical background and originating mythology. I have read many parts of the Bible in multiple different translations, and commentaries. And while I agree this sounds arrogant, yes: in my experience of discussing the Bible, I know more about the Bible, and have read more of it, than most people, including most Christians.
Coram Deo: Do you consider yourself to be a true child of the One True and Living God? In other words, would you say that you are a born again Christian, a believer in and follower of the Lord Jesus Christ as He has been revealed in the Holy Bible?
No: I was brought up as an attender of the Religious Society of Friends (Quakers). I am now an atheist. I am interested to see, however, that the One True and Living God you believe in has a strictly limited number of true children: to Quakers, you see, who follow what Jesus said in the gospels, every human being is a true child of God. However, I am a believer in freedom of religion, and certainly you have a right to believe your God takes no interest in the majority of human beings in the world.
LikeLike
“In the US, the estimated HIV prevalence rate in … [lots of stuff about comparison US-NL figures, read it above]
….continue – than adopt the Netherlands program and cut them drastically? ”
Interesting as this information is, the contra-indicative trend of rising STD in the netherlands show that there is more going on than just a relation of “education” vs “STD or pregnancy”. A clear proof of “correlation is not Causation”
So what would be the causes of high incidences of teen STDs and teen pregnancies?
The cheap way would to be say:
Sex without condoms,
even cheaper would be to say:
Sex.
But that is basically ignoring the question on why do children start having sex earlier and earlier.
Sure 50 years ago, there were also 13 year olds having sex, but somehow STD’s were not as high. Somehow teen pregnancies were not as high. So what changed?
Might it be the the current generation is being pressed to have sex, because it is healthy, because it is normal, because everybody does it, because sex is sex and love is love, because being infatuated is sufficient grounds for engaging in sex, because experimentation with multiple partners (mostly serial, but parallel is not discouraged, threesomes anyone?) is “required” in order to have a better start in a later permanent relationship? That sex is merely a tool in the arsenal of live, and that a “casting couch” is a valid way of achieving success?
The message the children are getting is: Sex is cheap, sex is fun, it has no consequences and you are unreasonable if you don’t have sex when on a date (with the possible exception of the first date, but even that is eroding).
If you want to belong (and what teenager doesn’t), fuck around, it is no big deal anyway.
That is the message society is telling them, and most children cannot resist the message since they have a fractured self image.
Might it be because children are one the one side forced to grow up before they are ready (sleutelkind, hmm how do you say it in english.. Key child, i.e. a child of 10 year old that has a key of the house because nobody will be home when he comes from school, so he has to manage himself until his parent(s) come home, including possibly shopping for food) and on the other hand are kept children at older by withholding responsibility from them? That same responsibility that means that actions have consequences?
Personally, i think that the rise in STD pregnancies, in eating disorder, in psychatrist counseling, the violence in school (shootings and knifings), are all signs of the same problem: A lack of self image in children because of neglect.
Focussing on one aspect, as PP does, is trying to mopp up a flowing stream. Ignoring the reasons for the problems is insuring failure.
Applying the saying “an ounce of prevention is better than a pound of repairs” to prohpylactics and teen pregnancy (and STD’s) is too narrow an application, the prevention should begin with allowing children to be children and making them secure for themselves, and able to handle choices.
And the only way you learn to handle choices is when there are consequences to those choices. That starts as early as a choice between cake and cookies means either cake or cookies, not the one and later (after some whining) the other.
“No: I was brought up as an attender of the Religious Society of Friends (Quakers). I am now an atheist. I am interested to see, however, that the One True and Living God you believe in has a strictly limited number of true children: to Quakers, you see, every human being is a true child of God. ”
I have not found that “strictly limited” view in earlier posts, but perhaps i missed it.
Not being familiar with Quaker theology, the question here is what does it really say, and is that what you think it says. You might be right.
And presuming you are, the quotes below seem mainly to support that view.
http://www.biblija.net/biblija.cgi?Bible=Bible&q=children+GOD&step=20&qall=1&qids=80808080808080808ffffffff&idq=33&id32=1&pos=0&set=3&l=en&q1=1
But one should not forget the condition, one part talks about walking the walk (those who do so…) the other part talks about the root reason: All of you are God’s children because of your faith in Christ Jesus
No faith no child of God.
Romans 8 explains it a bit.
“If our minds are ruled by our desires, we will die. But if our minds are ruled by the Spirit, we will have life and peace”
“You are no longer ruled by your desires, but by God’s Spirit, who lives in you. People who don’t have the Spirit of Christ in them don’t belong to him.”
So apparently there are people who don’t have the spirit of christ in them, and therefore are no children of god, as is confirmed a few verses later.
“Only those people who are led by God’s Spirit are his children…..God’s Spirit makes us sure that we are his children”
Now if the Quaker position is that everyone is Gods child because everyone has gods spirit inside, then their position is in contradiction with the scripture. Scripture clearly states the fact that there are people without Gods Spirit.
If they mean that everybody is invited to be Gods child, then they are correct, but then they are not saying that everybody in fact is Gods child.
“However, I am a believer in freedom of religion, and certainly you have a right to believe your God takes no interest in the majority of human beings in the world.”
I don’t believe in freedom of religion.
I believe that freedom of religion is a requirement from Gods perspective, not because he doesn’t care, but because he allows people to make their choices. He wants no slaves, but children.
But freedom would be no freedom, if there were no choices, and choices would not be choices if there were no consequences, i believe that God has show both the choices and the consequences thereof in the bible.
I believe that God acutely does care what happens to *ALL* the people in this world. Most people just don’t care about God.
God is merciful, and wants to save all people, but he also is just, and will hold people accountable.
Contemplate this: Without justice, there can not be mercy.
For what is mercy? IMHO, an undeserved relief from punishment.
What is punishment? A compensatory and compulsory act or occurrence required because of ones own actions.
What is justice: Meeting out recompense and punishment to those who deserve one or the other.
God has shown what is the measure against which me measures. Most of us would not consider the ten commandments as extreme, or at least the last 5 as extreme as the first five violate freedom of religion.
6) Do not murder.
7) Be faithful in marriage.
8) Do not steal.
9) Do not tell lies about others
10) Do not want anything that belongs to someone else. Don’t want anyone’s house, wife or husband, slaves, oxen, donkeys or anything else. ”
Even in the narrowest, letter of the law sense, i have been guilty of breaking at least 8 9 and 10. (and i presume is everybody else in this world) So punishment is in order.
Because God *DOES* care about all people (whom all deserve punishment according to justice) he has shown a way for mercy.
You are free to ignore it. You are not free from the consequences of the ignorance.
LikeLike
jesurgilsac,
I wonder why you won’t admit that in this quote from Planned Parenthood they admit that abortion kills a baby. The age of the quote is not relevant. The fact that they said it is. And if you want, Google the phrase “abortion kills the life of a baby.” See how many hits it comes up with.
And why is it you won’t believe something happened unless it was trumpeted in the left-wing media? If I told you my mom died on the operating table in Sayre, PA in 1985, does that mean it didn’t happen because you can’t find an article in the New York Times? And why is it that pro-life sites are not credible, but apparently pro-abortion sites are? Being a little selective aren’t we? Oh, and go back and read that article from the Miami Herald. Here, I’ll lift some quotes for you:
“Last month, Hialeah police responded to a report that an 18-year-old who had come in for an abortion had given birth to a baby boy inside the clinic. The fetus was found nine days later.”
“An autopsy has been performed on the fetus, but the results have not yet been made public.”
“The A GYN clinic in Miramar was shut down last year, after three employees were charged with practicing medicine without a license, according to state records.
One employee, Adieren Rojas, who was hired to clean the Miramar clinic, was promoted to medical assistant. She has pleaded guilty to nursing without a license.
After the closing of the Miramar clinic, a new clinic opened at the same location with a new name and new corporate officers, according to state records.”
Here’s from a Miami-Ft. Laud. CBS station:
“The woman was taken into a recovery room and according to witnessess, gave birth in the clinic.
”Employees cut the umbilical cord, put the baby in a bag and walked away with it,” Hialeah Lt. Ralph Gracia said.
An anonymous caller, who police believe to be a clinic worker, alerted officials that the baby was born alive and possibly killed. When officials arrived, however, there was no body to be found.
CBS4’s Dave Malkoff reported that when police were called to the scene a second time Friday night, they found the body of a dead baby in a biohazard bag.
“In 24 years in law enforcement, I have never seen a case like this,” said Hialeah Detective Tony Rodriguez, the lead investigator.
Detectives believe the abortion clinic tampered with the evidence. The fetus was reportedly 12 inches long and weighed 2-3 pounds. Hialeah Police PIO, Frank Gonzalez, believe the baby was born premature and is unsure how the baby died.”
So, was it right for the abortion clinic to do what they did? Since this child was indeed born live, surviving the procedure, should the clinic have been shut down? Or was shutting down the clinic for killing a living, breathing child the work of a bunch of overzealous anti-choicers?
LikeLike
No: I was brought up as an attender of the Religious Society of Friends (Quakers). I am now an atheist. I am interested to see, however, that the One True and Living God you believe in has a strictly limited number of true children: to Quakers, you see, who follow what Jesus said in the gospels, every human being is a true child of God. However, I am a believer in freedom of religion, and certainly you have a right to believe your God takes no interest in the majority of human beings in the world.
If I may say so jesurgilsac I think you have a misconception of the One True and Living God of Christian theism. I also believe that atheism is an untenable philosophical worldview if one wishes to hold to a coherent, rational, and logical worldview. Not only do I believe this is true about atheism, but I believe I can objectively demonstrate it as fact.
You didn’t respond to one question; may I share the Eternal Gospel of Jesus Christ with you?
In Christ,
CD
LikeLike
fourpointer: I wonder why you won’t admit that in this quote from Planned Parenthood they admit that abortion kills a baby.
I wonder what possible relevance you think an uncontextual quote from a 45-year-old publication can have? Why does it matter to you so much what language Planned Parenthood used to warn women off illegal/unsafe abortions 10 years before women were able to access safe and legal abortion in the US?
Coram Deo: If I may say so jesurgilsac I think you have a misconception of the One True and Living God of Christian theism.
Certainly you may say so: you yourself said upthread that you would only consider me “a true child of the One True and Living God” if I shared your religious beliefs, and I do not, and never have.
I also believe that atheism is an untenable philosophical worldview if one wishes to hold to a coherent, rational, and logical worldview.
I also believe that you are completely wrong to believe this. Nor do I believe that you or any other theist could “objectively demonstrate it as a fact”: since the fact is, there are no gods, neither the Abrahamic One nor any other. I came to this conclusion about 20 years ago, after about 10 years of considerable thought and extensive study: many people of various religions, Christians more than others, have attempted to convince me that deity exist, and none have managed to do so.
You didn’t respond to one question; may I share the Eternal Gospel of Jesus Christ with you?
I apologize for not responding to your kind offer: as it happens, I already own two copies of the gospels, plus several books of commentary, and of course have access to virtually every single translation ever made in English via the Internet. There’s no need for you to “share”.
LikeLike
jesurgislac,
The quote from PP has nothing to do with whether or not the abortion is legal/illegal. They were saying, point-blank, that “abortion kills a baby.” Period. Nothing about legal/illegal. It’s the abortion itself that kills, not the legality of it. They as much as admitted that a child inside the womb is a living being, and when that child is aborted, the child is killed.
Knowing this is the reason that Bernard Nathanson–the man who almost singlehandedly convinced the Supreme Court to pass Roe–to renounce all the work that he had done getting abortion legalized. It’s the same reason Norma McCorvey (aka Jane Roe) has been fighting to get Roe overturned. Or are they just “sell-outs” for daring to have a conscience?
Recommended Reading:
Won By Love, Norma McCorvey
Aborting America, Bernard Nathanson (Quote: “I confess that I knew the figures were totally false, and I suppose the others did too if they stopped to think of it.”)
The Hand of God, Bernard Nathanson
LikeLike
fourpointer: The quote from PP has nothing to do with whether or not the abortion is legal/illegal.
Without the context of the quote, which I do not have (and suspect that you don’t either!) it would in any case be impossible to know that. Given that the quote as you gave it was “An abortion kills the life of a baby after it has begun. It is dangerous to your life and health. It may make you sterile so that when you want a child you cannot have it” it strongly suggests, even without any other context, that Planned Parenthood is warning women away from unsafe illegal abortions: clearly, a publication from 1965 cannot be referring to safe legal abortions.
They were saying, point-blank, that “abortion kills a baby.”
No: you’re misquoting even the small part of the quote.
Or are they just “sell-outs” for daring to have a conscience?
If they had a conscience, either of them, would they be campaigning for women to die?
LikeLike
From Plan Your Children for Health and Hapiness”:
Q: “Is it [birth control] an abortion?”
A: “Definitely not. An abortion kills the life of a baby after it has begun. It is dangerous to your life and health. It may make you sterile so that when you want a child you cannot have it. Birth control merely postpones the beginning of life.”
Where in that whole quote do they ever talk about legal vs. illegal abortion? They’re talking about abortion killing the child, NOT the woman. And since, as you claim, you do not have “the context of the quote,” then aren’t you the one reading something into it that isn’t there? I’m just laying out the quote for ya. If you want to misrepresent what they said, that’s up to you.
If they had a conscience, either of them, would they be campaigning for women to die?
I must have missed something. How are they “campaigning for women to die?” Let me guess. The old, tired, worn-out “back-alley butcher with a coat hanger” argument, right?
Still no answer on whether the Hialeah abortion clinic should have been shut down for killing the child that survived the attempted abortion, huh? Didn’t think so.
LikeLike
Hmmmm….. Sounds like they are talking about ABORTION to me and they definitely don’t mention that it’s about “unsafe abortion.”
Funny, how PP advocates LOVE to twist words to make things say what they want it to say! Unfortunately, I haven’t seen any PP advocate tell the truth, just their ‘version’ of the truth.
The thing with truth is that truth is no longer truth when ANY kind of lie is added to it! A half-truth is the same thing as a lie, as is a quarter truth or any other kind of truth outside of the whole truth!
Thankfully, we know the moderators have tried to share the truth on this blog and if people refuse to listen then they will answer to God one day. The moderators have done their duty.
A big thanks to all the moderators for all the hard work they put into this blog.
LikeLike
Oh, that’s interesting: thanks for giving me the context of the quote.
It makes more sense when you know that Planned Parenthood is explaining to people who don’t understand how the Pill works (possibly other forms of birth control are being referenced, but I would guess that the Pill is the only form of contraception that people could be confused by) that when a woman takes the pill, she isn’t having an abortion, which would then have been illegal and worrying, she is merely preventing conception.
In context, it’s clear the subject of the question/answer is not abortion: it’s the contraceptive pill, which even today is claimed falsely by pro-lifers to be an “abortifacient”, which of course it is not.
In 1965, when abortion was illegal, I would guess that Planned Parenthood’s writers felt they could not refer to abortion in any other terms than the careful “ending the life of your baby” – though as women’s health professionals, they must have been aware that abortion could be performed safely, and it was the illegality that brought the risk.
They’re talking about abortion killing the child, NOT the woman.
Well, of course in the bad old days when abortion was illegal, maternal mortality in the US was much, much higher. Were the pro-lifers who want to make abortion illegal achieve their goal, their only sure accomplishment would be to ensure that more pregnant women would die (maternal mortality), and more women would suffer damage to their health as a result of pregnancy (maternal morbidity). In any country where abortion is illegal, maternal mortality/morbidity rates are always far higher than in countries where abortion is legal.
I cited upthread three articles that go into considerable detail why this is so: but in short, pregnancy can kill or permanently damage a woman’s health, and if a doctor is legally not permitted to be honest with a woman about how dangerous her pregnancy may be, she and the doctor won’t be able to decide to terminate at need.
Still no answer on whether the Hialeah abortion clinic should have been shut down for killing the child that survived the attempted abortion, huh?
I must have missed where you cited any evidence that this ever actually happened.
LikeLike
I must have missed where you cited any evidence that this ever actually happened.
Look, if want to be willfully ignorant, and ignore the Miami Herald article I have linked to TWICE, then I cannot have anything but pity for you. But this is getting really old. Keep your blinders on, stay in the dark, and keep chomping on the mouthfuls of BS that Planned Parenthood is feeding you.
Personally, I have had much more productive dialogs with abortion supporters who were honest enough to read what I said. But someone like you, who ignores the clear evidence that is right in front of your nose–I ain’t playing this game no more.
Good day.
LikeLike
In the end, fourpointer, that’s all it is to a lot of these people — a game! I noticed nothing was said about half-truths being the same thing as a lie! I also noticed she tried twisting your words to say that it was THE PILL that was being talked about and many other things that continued to be twisted.
Anyway, those 3 videos that tell about PP give the low-down on what these people are really like. They can’t bear to face the truth because they know what they have done and it isn’t save lives!
LikeLike
Certainly you may say so: you yourself said upthread that you would only consider me “a true child of the One True and Living God” if I shared your religious beliefs, and I do not, and never have.
If one rejects the truth claims of the One True and Living God as He has revealed Himself within the Holy Bible then one cannot be considered to be “a true child of the One True and Living God” therefore an assessment that you are not such a child seems quite accurate and, as a professing atheist, you seem to be in total agreement with this assessment.
I also believe that you are completely wrong to believe this. Nor do I believe that you or any other theist could “objectively demonstrate it as a fact”: since the fact is, there are no gods, neither the Abrahamic One nor any other. I came to this conclusion about 20 years ago, after about 10 years of considerable thought and extensive study: many people of various religions, Christians more than others, have attempted to convince me that deity exist, and none have managed to do so.
Based on your reply is it fair to say that you would summarily renounce your rational-material atheist worldview if I were to provide you with an objectively factual demonstration of my original assertion which was: atheism is an untenable philosophical worldview if one wishes to hold to a coherent, rational, and logical worldview?
I apologize for not responding to your kind offer: as it happens, I already own two copies of the gospels, plus several books of commentary, and of course have access to virtually every single translation ever made in English via the Internet. There’s no need for you to “share”.
No apologies are necessary, but I thought I’d ask. Your Bible commentary library sounds fascinating, what titles do you have?
In Christ,
CD
LikeLike
Sounds like they are talking about ABORTION to me and they definitely don’t mention that it’s about “unsafe abortion.”
That’s odd: I’d certainly say that an abortion that “may make you sterile” would constitute an unsafe abortion: which of course doesn’t apply to any early abortion carried out by a qualified healthcare specialist. Further, your notion that when they say “dangerous to your life and health” they don’t mean “unsafe” just looks wrong to me.
fourpointer: and ignore the Miami Herald article I have linked to TWICE
All the Miami Herald article says is that “a fetus recently was discovered in a biohazard container” at the clinic, and the clinic had voluntarily surrendered its licence. Notably, while this news report says that the state attorney’s office is “still reviewing the case” (on August 10 2006) you don’t appear to be able to find that the case review turned up anything proving the story of the “killed baby”.
You see, you asked me to comment on a “killed baby”. So I asked you to cite independent evidence that anyone at the Hialeah clinic had “killed the child that survived the attempted abortion”. You have yet to do so.
Desert Pastor’s Wife: Oh, no, it’s not a game. Safe, legal access to abortion and to contraception is too serious to be a game.
LikeLike
Sorry, I wanted to add a note to Coram Deo: Now if the Quaker position is that everyone is Gods child because everyone has gods spirit inside, then their position is in contradiction with the scripture.
What George Fox, the founder of the Society of Friends, wrote in his journal in the 17th century: “So the ministers of the Spirit must minister to the Spirit that is in prison, which hath been in captivity in every one, that with the Spirit of Christ people may be led out of captivity up to God, the Father of spirits, do service to Him, and have unity with Him, with the Scriptures, and with one another. This is the word of the Lord God to you all, a charge to you all in the presence of the living God; be patterns, be examples, in all countries, places, islands, nations, wherever you come; that your carriage and life may preach among all sorts of people, and to them; then you will come to walk cheerfully over the world, answering that of God in every one; whereby in them ye may be a blessing, and make the witness of God in them to bless you: then to the Lord God you will be a sweet savor, and a blessing.”
Friends do believe that there is “that of God” in everyone, and also take literally Matthew 25, verses 35-40 – especially, of course, the unjunction “Inasmuch as ye did it unto one of these my brethren, even these least, ye did it unto me” – where “my brethren” are given as the most vulnerable and needy, criminals, the sick, the very poor. No distinctions are made in the text of the gospels – in fact, Jesus is frequently quite stringent about calling out people who think they’re better believers than others. (See Luke 18, verses 9–14, quite applicable to this discussion: “people who trusted in themselves that they were righteous, and viewed others with contempt”.)
LikeLike
Okay, I thought I had a response to fourpointer above the note to Coram Deo, but it seems to have vanished. Oh well.
LikeLike
jesurgislac,
I think there may be a case of mistaken identity since I didn’t make the statement you referenced in your comment #37, although I am in general agreement with the position taken by the original author.
Based on your prior comments I realize that you are a professing atheist, but I wonder how you personally feel about the portion of your comment that stated: “Friends do believe that there is “that of God” in everyone, and also take literally Matthew 25, verses 35-40 – especially, of course, the unjunction “Inasmuch as ye did it unto one of these my brethren, even these least, ye did it unto me” – where “my brethren” are given as the most vulnerable and needy, criminals, the sick, the very poor. No distinctions are made in the text of the gospels”
In your view do you think the pre-born would be considered in “least of these” in whom the Friends believe there is “that of God”? Again I realize that you may not personally subscribe to such a view but since I’m quite ignorant of the Friends and you have some background with them that you might know what their position might be on this issue.
In Christ,
CD
P.S. – I hope you’ll respond to my questions in my post #35!
P.S.S. – Sometimes my comments get stuck in the SPAM queue so you’re “missing comment” will likely show up once The Pilgrim has cleared it.
LikeLike
Coram Deo: In your view do you think the pre-born would be considered in “least of these” in whom the Friends believe there is “that of God”?
Who is doing the “considering” in that sentence? (Serious question: I can’t actually tell, and I can’t give you a serious answer.)
Based on your reply is it fair to say that you would summarily renounce your rational-material atheist worldview if I were to provide you with an objectively factual demonstration of my original assertion which was: atheism is an untenable philosophical worldview if one wishes to hold to a coherent, rational, and logical worldview?
You are not the first theist I have met who has claimed that they can prove to me that atheism is “an untenable philosophical worldview”. I appreciate your politeness and the kindness with which you make this offer, but the answer is, I consider this to be as unreasonable an offer as if you asked “Would you agree to be transformed into a dolphin if I could prove to you that the moon is made of green cheese”?
Before I was 10, I believed in God: by the time I was 20, I no longer did. There was no sudden “conversion” to atheism: but over ten years during which I read and studied both Christian and other mythologies and legends, I began first to think of myself as agnostic and later to realize that in fact, no deity actually exists – there are no gods, or there is no God, whichever you prefer. Calling this a “belief system” is reifying a negative: atheism is the absence of a belief in deity.
So you see: I cannot “summarily renounce” the absence of a belief system. It’s just not something that could happen. To convince me not to be an atheist you would have to convince me that a god or gods existed, and as none do, I don’t see how you would do that. I honestly wouldn’t want you to waste your time trying – I assure you, several people have tried in the past to convince me their god existed, and succeeded only in convincing me that they sincerely believed in the existence of their god.
If one rejects the truth claims of the One True and Living God as He has revealed Himself within the Holy Bible then one cannot be considered to be “a true child of the One True and Living God” therefore an assessment that you are not such a child seems quite accurate and, as a professing atheist, you seem to be in total agreement with this assessment.
Oh yes: I don’t believe in any of the variations of God described within the Bible or the Qu’ran, or anywhere else. Therefore, I would say that of course no one is a “child of God” because there is no God.
But I know Quakers and others who would strongly disagree: G. K. Chesterton wrote in response to a letter from H. G. Wells:
Wells was an atheist, of course, and Chesterton a Christian.
In fact, if you know your Bible, Jesus’s test for passing into Heaven concerns material works of kindness rather than faith.
LikeLike
“In fact, if you know your Bible, Jesus’s test for passing into Heaven concerns material works of kindness rather than faith.”
May i suggest you reread your bible.
Especially Romans and John?
You are probably refering to James, who presuposes the presence of faith, but then says that the proof is in the pudding, so if you have faith, it should show in your works.
A different story altogether
LikeLike
You are probably refering to James
Not at all. I’m referring to Jesus’s words in Matthew, chapter 25:
“But when the Son of Man comes in His glory, and all the angels with Him, then He will sit on His glorious throne. “All the nations will be gathered before Him; and He will separate them from one another, as the shepherd separates the sheep from the goats; and He will put the sheep on His right, and the goats on the left. “Then the King will say to those on His right, ‘Come, you who are blessed of My Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world. ‘For I was hungry, and you gave Me something to eat; I was thirsty, and you gave Me something to drink; I was a stranger, and you invited Me in; naked, and you clothed Me; I was sick, and you visited Me; I was in prison, and you came to Me.’
“Then the righteous will answer Him, ‘Lord, when did we see You hungry, and feed You, or thirsty, and give You something to drink? ‘And when did we see You a stranger, and invite You in, or naked, and clothe You? When did we see You sick, or in prison, and come to You?’
The King will answer and say to them, ‘Truly I say to you, to the extent that you did it to one of these brothers of Mine, even the least of them, you did it to Me.’
Jesus said it, very plainly: if you want to be counted among the sheep, if you want to enter into the kingdom of heaven, the key is acts of kindness, not faith.
LikeLike
Either you, or i must misunderstand Jesus, or perhaps Jesus himself was confused (but i don’t think so)
When Jesus says to Nicodemus the following
“And the Son of Man must be lifted up, just as that metal snake was lifted up by Moses in the desert.
Then everyone who has faith in the Son of Man will have eternal life.
God loved the people of this world so much that he gave his only Son, so that everyone who has faith in him will have eternal life and never really die.
God did not send his Son into the world to condemn its people. He sent him to save them!
No one who has faith in God’s Son will be condemned. But everyone who doesn’t have faith in him has already been condemned for not having faith in God’s only Son.”
(John 3:11(b)-18)
He clearly is speaking about faith, not acts, the acts only come secondary, as can seen from the next verses
“The light has come into the world, and people who do evil things are judged guilty because they love the dark more than the light.
People who do evil hate the light and won’t come to the light, because it clearly shows what they have done.
But everyone who lives by the truth will come to the light, because they want others to know that God is really the one doing what they do.”
The light is Jesus (compare John 1). And those who do evil hate him. Those who lives by the truth want others to know that God is doing what they do.”
What Jesus says here, is further explained by Paul, when he starts in Romans 2:6 stating that everybody will be judged according to their works, even talking about “good works” and eternal live.
He does not stop there, but goes on to show that those who depend on works are under the law, and all have transgressed at least once, and therefor must be judged according to the law (romans 3): all have sinned and all forfeit the glory
James says the same “If you obey every law except one, you are still guilty of breaking them all. ”
Paul continues explaining in romans 3:
“Now we see how God does make us acceptable to him. The Law and the Prophets tell how we become acceptable, and it isn’t by obeying the Law of Moses.
22 God treats everyone alike. He accepts people only because they have faith in Jesus Christ
27 What is left for us to brag about? Not a thing! Is it because we obeyed some law? No! It is because of faith.”
Now there is a place for good works, but it is not “earning salvation”. It always must be kept in mind that, when talking about good works, the bible sees two kinds: Works of Law and Works of Faith.
Neither offer salvation, but the second one are the fruit of a living faith. That faith that is required for salvation.
Those among us who have no faith, but do good works, do works of law, they are merely trying to fulfill the law of God, but remember what James said (above). If you want merittuous (sp?) entry into the eternal life on the basis of works of law, then you better be sure you NEVER EVER break even on tiny commandment. For myself, i already am too late.
LikeLike
Either you, or i must misunderstand Jesus
I don’t think that’s possible. The message in Matthew chapter 25 is repeated again and again through all the gospels – kindness, mercy, generosity, charity.
Possibly you think Paul knew better than Jesus? Paul was certainly better educated and more thoughtful: Jesus was just an uneducated Galilean peasant with a bunch of good ideas about how people live their lives.
Now there is a place for good works, but it is not “earning salvation”.
So you actually believe that when Jesus said that good works were the only way into the heaven, Jesus was wrong?
Here’s the odd thing: I thought Christians believed that Jesus was, actually and literally, God. So how do you work it out that when Jesus says the only path to heaven is via charity and kindness to others, God got it wrong – Paul knew better that God, and you trust in Paul when he writes to the Christians in Rome better than you trust in Jesus when he talks to his followers in Palestine?
LikeLike
Actually (and sincerely) I think I should apologize. While I feel the message Jesus expresses in his own words is pretty clear and that the speech in Matthew is just the most explicit and direct version of it, I also feel that, as an atheist without any belief in an afterlife, I really have no business telling other people how they should believe in order to get into heaven.
I can read for myself what Jesus said: it’s none of my business how much value Christians want to place on what Jesus actually said versus the letters Paul wrote to various early churches.
LikeLike
Counseling?!
Take two aspirin and keep them between your knees until morning.
LikeLike