pro-choice

Human Beings

.
.

…..The abortion crowd pushed abortion to make it legal by slanting the issue, avoiding the fact that abortion murders an unborn child.  In their arguments today, pro-murder people continue to slant discussions in order to persuade the gullible and protect their murderous position.  Essentially, that’s what the bloody supreme court did in 1973 – slant its discussion about the unborn child in the womb.  Those justices did it by relying upon a philosophical term (person) and using it rather than simply asking science and common sense if this was a human being or not.  Science says it is and thus abortion is murder.  But they skirted that by focusing on “person”.

…..In discussions with others, and in articles here, I routinely speak of a child in the womb or the unborn baby.  That’s common language that the world uses.  A woman who is pregnant is “with child”.  She will be asked, “Have you felt your baby move yet?”  But those who argue in support of murdering that baby will almost invariably try to slant the discussion by changing terms.  It’s not a baby.  It’s a fetus.  It’s not a child.  That’s not a person.  Or, it’s a zygote.  Or, it’s just a glob of tissue.  It’s the Nazi mind at work, making that unborn human being subhuman.  Before beginning to slaughter the Jews, gypsies, the infirm, Poles, and others, the Nazis used words and arguments to reduce those groups to something less than human beings.

…..Consider this list of some of the stages of a human life:

  1. zygote
  2. blastocyst
  3. embryo
  4. fetus
  5. newborn infant
  6. toddler
  7. teen
  8. young adult
  9. middle-aged
  10. senior

    Is a newborn infant not a human being because he is not a young adult? Is a toddler not a human being because he’s not a teen?  Is a senior not a human being because he’s not middle-aged anymore?  Those are absurd suggestions just as saying a fetus is not a baby so it’s not a human being and we can destroy it.  It’s absurd to argue that a woman can choose to have it torn apart within her womb because it’s just a fetus, not a baby.In discussions, a pro-choice person will slant his argument with the words fetus or zygote or others.  Always bring him back to the fact that whichever word he uses (and whichever word we use of those ten above or others that are not included), a human being is what exists in the womb and is merely developing into another stage of its existence.  Dr. Micheline Matthews-Roth of Harvard Medical School testified, “It is incorrect to say that biological data cannot be decisive…. It is scientifically correct to say that an individual human life begins at conception.”1

…..If I’m challenged in a one-on-one discussion about my use of the word “baby”, I may shrug and say, “Okay.  To be exact, the unborn baby is not a baby but a fetus.”  Then, I will use the phrase “human being” exclusively.  I will not allow the pro-murder individual to make the unborn child subhuman by using “fetus”.  I will reveal the truth that he wants to conceal and avoid by his slanted choice of terms by using “human being”.

…..Millions have been deceived by the pro-murder advocates because of their deliberate choice of words and phrases, because they carefully avoid the truth about what they desire- the death of a human being in a woman’s womb.  We must now reshape and re-capture the discussion by the words we deliberately choose that reveal what they try to hide from those they are misleading.

…..No matter which way they twist things, science is against them and they are murdering human beings at the rate of 2500 per day, in gruesome ways.

 

1 http://clinicquotes.com/scientists-speak-before-the-senate-human-life-begins-at-conception/

 

 

 

You’re Pro-Murder

 

 

   Carefully phrased and carefully chosen slogans by the Pro-Choice crowd are part of a deception that conceals the awful truth about their murder of the unborn.  We’re Americans, and Americans have a great love of freedom.  The word “choice” immediately appeals to that sense.  But it is a phrase that deliberately and deceptively stops short of revealing what the choice is.  It’s the choice of a Roman emperor watching the gladiators in the Coliseum – thumbs up or thumbs down, life or death.

   But we’re not in a Roman coliseum with life or death for a rugged, but defeated gladiator.  This is life or death for an innocent human being in the safe environment nature provides for it.  This thumbs down choice is the murder of a tiny human being at the mercy of someone with, by comparison, an overwhelming power.  It is the strong murdering the weak.

   But, some will protest, “I’m merely pro-choice, not pro-abortion.”  Let’s put it this way: Do you want abortions to continue or to be banned?  You want them to continue, right?, because you want women to continue to have the “right” to choose to murder their unborn child.  Thus, you want abortions to continue.  You’re pro-abortion.

   More than that, since you are pro-choice and therefore pro-abortion, you are actually pro-murder since abortion murders the unborn child.  You’re Pro-Murder.

   The same goes for those who say they are pro-life but don’t want to interfere.  “I don’t want to impose my will on others.”  “Live and let live”.  “I’m against abortion, but it’s up to them.”  No, you’re Pro-Murder, too, and for exactly the same reason.  Your hands-off approach means you desire that the right to abortion continues.  You’re actually for their right to choose.  You’re Pro Pro-Choice.  It’s just something you wouldn’t do, something you think is wrong for you to do, but something you want to continue since you’re not for stopping the murders.  Thus, you, too are Pro-Murder.    

   There is no middle ground in this issue.  Either you want the murders to continue or you don’t.

   Those of us who are pro-life are anti-murder.  As we change tactics to undo the deception of the pro-murder slogans, we must be very blunt about revealing what they have been concealing.  Pro-choice means pro-murder and we must quit using the first and adopt the second.    

 

 

The “Not Viable” Argument

 

…One of the common arguments to justify aborting an unborn baby is the argument that the fetus cannot live outside the womb at the time it is being aborted.  It is the “not viable” argument.  A fetus is not “capable of surviving or living successfully”1 outside of its mother’s womb.  It is totally dependent upon her for its survival. The earliest a baby has been born and has survived is 21 weeks and 5 days.2  Thus, the viable argument cannot be even be used about a baby at that stage because it could be viable, rather than “it is not viable”.

…But the argument is bogus to begin with.  The baby is viable in the mother’s womb.  It is only unable to survive if removed too early from where it is developing.  It is viable in the womb and not viable outside the womb.  It is viable in one place, but not another.

…In the same manner, the murdering abortionist is viable in one place but not viable in another.  If the Mafia took the killer out of his cozy abortion clinic, put concrete shoes on him, and dropped him into the depths of the ocean, the abortionist wouldn’t be viable in that situation.  He’s viable in one place, but not another.

…If a baby is aborted by giving it a chemical poison, it was alive and capable of continuing to survive in the womb, but the poison kills it in the very place it should have been nurtured.  It was no longer viable in the very place it once was viable.  If Jim Jones Kool-Aid is given to a person who is an accessory to murder by supporting and sustaining abortion, that person was alive and capable of continuing to survive in the place where he was.  But the poisoned Kool-Aid kills him and he was no longer viable in that same place.

…But here is the over-riding fact that one must always return to – viability doesn’t matter.  The supreme court was wrong in using that as an excuse for murder in Roe vs. Wade and those who parrot that argument are wrong as well.  One doesn’t have the right to murder a human being in the womb just because it wouldn’t be viable outside of the womb.  Abortion is murder and no one has the right to murder another human being.

…Do NOT let the murderers divert arguments from that fact.

 

 

1 https://www.google.com/webhp?tab=Xw#q=what+does+viable+mean

2 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preterm_birth

The Cause and the Solution

    At the beginning of the twentieth century, laws against abortion existed in each state.  At the time of Roe v Wade in 1973, thirty states still prohibited abortion while twenty allowed it under some extenuating circumstances.1  Roe v Wade was simply the supreme court being political and reacting in a political style to a growing sentiment of support for abortion.  How did that occur?  How did this nation go from being against abortion to so many accepting it with loud voices so that the supreme court heard and found excuses to accept it as well?

    In 1970, Dr. Malcolm Watts wrote an article for the California Medical Association in support of abortion.  He talked about the Judeo-Christian ethic that values all life, and titled his article “A New Ethic For Medicine And Society.”  He wrote, “In defiance of the long held Western ethic of intrinsic and equal value for every human life regardless of its stage, condition, or status, abortion is becoming accepted by society as moral, right, and even necessary….  Since the old ethic has not yet been fully displaced it has been necessary to separate the idea of abortion from the idea of killing, which continues to be socially abhorrent.  The result has been a curious avoidance of the scientific fact, which everyone really knows, that human life begins at conception and is continuous whether intra- or extra-uterine until death.  The very considerable semantic gymnastics which are required to rationalize abortion as anything but taking life would be ludicrous if they were not often put forth under socially impeccable auspices.”2

   In many people with loud voices, a new ethic supplanted the old Judeo-Christian ethic.  A disregard for human life (the unborn) replaced the recognition of the value of each life from conception to the grave.  Dr. Watts explained how.  It was done by separating “the idea of abortion from the idea of killing”, by “avoidance of the scientific fact…that human life begins at conception.”  It was done by “considerable semantic gymnastics”, by rationalizing “abortion as anything by taking life.”

   Many people were deceived by the methods Watts described and are continuing to be deceived as that methodology continues. That’s how the United States has come to murder 60,000,000 babies since 1973. 

   What’s the solution? 

   The solution is the opposite of the deceit used by those who wish to murder the unborn for their own selfish reasons.  Tell the truth.  They separate the idea of abortion and killing.  We must present the facts and join the two since abortion is murder.  They want to speak of sterile procedures.  We must speak of unborn babies being poisoned by a salt solution and writhing in convulsions for perhaps an hour as its skin is burned.  We must speak of the babies being torn apart, limb by limb; of their skulls being crushed; of their brains being sucked out.

   Not only must we speak of this so that the deceived will understand that abortion is not just a medical procedure but the murder of a human being, but we must speak of it everywhere we go, at all times and in all places.  We must speak of it on social media.  We must put up signs along the highways and byways.  We must put it on bumper stickers on our cars.  We must teach it with the clothes we wear.  We must proclaim it on billboards and in ads.  We must saturate this nation with the truth to a greater degree than the deceitful spread their wicked lies.

   Start today in every way you can and keep going until an amendment is passed to ban abortion.  My website is now fully functional and bumper stickers can be ordered there.

   

 

 

1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_in_the_United_States

2 Brennan, William.  The Abortion Holocaust, p.107

Very Little Progress

 


…If one looks at the Gallup Poll concerning pro-life and pro-choice numbers since 1998, there has been very little change. 

   Since 1998:  

        lowest % favoring pro-life – 41% (2006, the latest)
        highest % favoring pro-life – 51% (2009)       

        lowest % favoring pro-choice – 41% (2012)
        highest % favoring pro-choice – 51% (2006)

        largest margin favoring pro-life – 9% (2012, the latest)
        largest margin favoring pro-choice – 10% (2006)        

   A glance at the last two might cause one to think that things have changed and pro-life is on the upswing and the numbers for pro-choice have begun to fall.  But here’s the stark reality:

        Pro-life began in 1998 with 45%; ended in 2016 with 46%.

        Pro-choice began in 1998 with 48%; ended in 2016 with 47%.1

Eighteen years have passed with virtually no progress.  Let’s face the facts.  What we’re doing is not working.

   Some of us aren’t doing enough.  We’re pro-life. We’re against abortion, but we’re passive.  We’re like small children with short attention spans.  A child gets a new toy and plays with it for a while and then goes on to something else.  We hear something about abortion and we’re roused for several hours.  Then, we go on with our lives.  We must sustain our outrage against the murder of the unborn and do more.  Will you even follow this site for a few months and read upcoming articles to see what you can do?  Or is even that too much?

   Some of us are doing much, but what we’re doing isn’t effective in changing the mind of America.  Some work around abortion clinics trying to change the mind of women about to have an abortion.  I read of one such case just yesterday where a couple changed their minds because a pro-lifer talked with them and persuaded them that their unborn child was precious to God.  That’s absolutely wonderful!  But others continue to stream into murder clinics at the rate of 2500 per day.  Some march in the streets to bring awareness to the cause.  Others pass out literature, send out emails, start petitions, try to influence politicians.  But in the last eighteen years, there has been almost no change. We must do something in addition to what we’re already doing, something different.  Are you willing to follow this site to discover what will work?

   Do it now.  Don’t wait.       

 

 

1 http://www.gallup.com/poll/1576/abortion.aspx

Two Facts – The Second

Two facts (not preference and opinion like most of politics) must forevermore affect the votes of those who still have a heart and soul.  The first is that abortion is murder.  The second is that any support of the Democratic Party (which endorses the murder of the unborn as part of its platform) makes one an accessory to murder and guilty as well.  The first fact is proven here:

Two Facts – The First

The second fact:

Supporting the Democratic Party that endorses the murder of the unborn as part of its platform makes one an accessory to murder and guilty of murder as well.

One of the planks in the platform of the Democratic Party wholeheartedly supports the right to abortion.  The following is from their 2012 party platform:

“The Democratic Party strongly and unequivocally supports Roe v.
Wade and a woman’s right to make decisions regarding her preg-
nancy, including a safe and legal abortion, regardless of ability to pay.
We oppose any and all efforts to weaken or undermine that right.
Abortion is an intensely personal decision between a woman, her
family, her doctor, and her clergy; there is no place for politicians or
government to get in the way. We also recognize that health care and
education help reduce the number of unintended pregnancies and
thereby also reduce the need for abortions. We strongly and un-
equivocally support a woman’s decision to have a child by providing
affordable health care and ensuring the availability of and access to
programs that help women during pregnancy and after the birth of a
child, including caring adoption programs.”1

To support the Democratic Party with contributions, or just by one’s vote makes one an accessory to murder.

……….“Aiding and abetting in a murder means that you were an accessory
……….to the crime. While you may not have been part of the actual crime,
……….you had knowledge of the crime before or after it was committed, you
……….may have assisted in it commission through advice, actions, or
……….financial support.”2

……….“A person who aids and abets stands to be sentenced with the same
……….punishment as the actual perpetrator under federal law, and many
……….states follow the same guideline.”3

Many religious people who are against abortion still vote for the Democratic Party.  In the 1996 presidential election, 43% of evangelicals voted for Bill Clinton.4  In the 2016 presidential election, 45% of Catholics voted for Hillary Clinton.5  If all the religious who are against abortion would vote against the Democratic Party because of the murder of the unborn, more pro-life congressmen would be elected and no pro-choice presidents would be elected.  The supreme court would have fewer liberals on it, increasing chances that Roe v. Wade would be overturned.  If religious voters voted against the Democratic Party for that single reason, they would influence others.  Eventually, an amendment to ban abortion would be passed.  At the moment, however, a person who is somewhat on the fence about abortion might look at all the religious people who don’t mind voting for it and think that it is all right for them to vote for it, too.  Voting for the Democratic Party helps sustain the holocaust against the unborn.  If a man drives the vehicle when a second man goes into the liquor store and murders the clerk, the first is an accessory to murder.  If a voter drives the political vehicle in which abortion murder is the plan, he’s an accessory to murder as well.  Only politics can end the murder of the unborn.  One either supports it and continues it with his vote or helps to ban it by voting for the only party that would end it.

As shown previously, our government’s laws mean that one who supports a murder is an accessory to murder, to be sentenced with the same punishment as the murder because he himself is guilty of it.  God’s law is the same.

……….“Anyone who goes too far and does not abide in the teaching of
……….Christ, does not have God; the one who abides in the teaching, he
……….has both the Father and the Son. 10 If anyone comes to you and does
……….not bring this teaching, do not receive him into your house, and do
……….not give him a greeting; 11 for the one who gives him a greeting
……….participates in his evil deeds.” (II John 9,10)

In the first century, a Christian traveler was often invited into the home of another Christian to stay.  The apostle John said that if one helps a false teacher in this way, or even gives him a greeting (such as “God be with you”), he participates in his evil deeds.  Those who support the cause of candidates favoring abortion participate in the evil of abortion and are accessories to murder.

   The religious in this country who oppose abortion and then vote for the Democratic Party because of some trivial reason (all is trivial compared to murder, opinions versus fact) are guilty of hypocrisy, something Jesus roundly condemned when He saw it in the Pharisees (Matt.23).  They are guilty of saying and not doing.  Jesus said this of the Pharisees before repeatedly calling them hypocrites, “  therefore all that they tell you, do and observe, but do not do according to their deeds; for they say things and do not do them” (Matt.23:3).  Many say they are against abortion and then act in such a way that supports and sustains it.  They say things, but do not do.

The Babylonians destroyed the temple in Jerusalem and killed, or took into captivity, those in Judah.  Israel in the north had already been destroyed and taken into captivity by Assyria.  When their captivity was over, some who remained came back to Jerusalem and settled again.  God spoke to them through the prophet Haggai, saying, “Is it time for you yourselves to dwell in your paneled houses while this house lies desolate?” (Haggai 1:4).  They had built their houses and were comfortable in them while the temple had not been rebuilt.  And, in their comfort, they said, “The time has not come, even the time for the house of the Lord to be rebuilt” (Haggai 1:2).  They put themselves first and God second and God was not blessing them.  Many who are against abortion have been comfortable in their own houses and have been mostly passive while the slaughter of the unborn goes on and on.

The time has come to arise and fight, and stop the holocaust instead of being an accessory to murder and voting for the Democratic Party.

–

************************************************************

 

 

1 http://www.ontheissues.org/celeb/Democratic_Party_Abortion.htm

2 https://www.quora.com/What-does-aiding-and-abetting-in-a-murder-mean

3 https://www.reference.com/government-politics/sentence-aiding-abetting-70e37f22c477f64

4 https://dougwead.wordpress.com/2008/09/11/the-history-of-the-evangelical-vote-in-presidential-elections/

5 http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/11/09/how-the-faithful-voted-a-preliminary-2016-analysis/