Category Archives: Abortion

Let’s Get Controversial…Where Do the Babies Go?

Hanging Out

Right now I am sitting in the office of the Ringgold Wedding Chapel, just hanging out, so to speak.

I’m here, today, to officiate 3 weddings, but in one wedding that is about to take place the family brought their own minister.

I don’t feel like going and watching a wedding just for the fun of it, and I don’t want to sneak over and steal any food from the reception hall while the bride and groom are otherwise distracted. So, like I said, I’m just hanging out for a little while.

What a perfect time to stir up a theological stink, right?

Babies

We should be thanking God for the surging tide of pro-life sentiment sweeping much of our nation right now! I firmly believe that the killing of infants in the womb is murder, for I believe that each and every fetus is an actual human being, regardless whether or not they vote for Republicans or Democrats.

But all this talk about abortion, the right to life, and millions of babies has brought back to mind a conversation I read years ago on a Calvinistic website (Monergism.com). It was just one of several “conversations” that eventually pushed me from Calvinism and helped define my theological stance as that of “provisionist”

The conversation was between two pastors and the subject was the funeral for an infant.

The first pastor discussed how challenging it had been to preach the funeral for a child, just a baby of less than a year old. He went on to say that the only thing he could do to help the grieving parents cope with the loss was to reassure them that one day, some day, they would be reunited with their child in heaven (since both parents were believers).

The second pastor, however, brutally chastised the first pastor for giving the parents of the dead child a false hope! Yes, he rebuked the first pastor for telling the parents they would one day see their child again because – now get this – he had no way of knowing if the deceased baby was “one of the elect.”

The second pastor said a better thing to have told the parents would have been the truth…that if the baby had been one of the “elect” they would see him again, but there’s no way to know till we get to heaven.

I still remember the burning indignation that welled up within me as I read that. With my face flush, I hammered out on the keyboard something akin to the following: “If I had been one of those parents, and you had told me that about my child, I would have given you the opportunity to go see where my baby went.”

Where Do They Go?

But, let’s be honest, what else is the reasonable conclusion to the Calvinist position on this subject? Are all babies who die too early to have accepted Christ (including those murdered in the womb) members of the “elect,” or is there the possibility that some were predestined to salvation and others were predestined to damnation? Even though some of you Calvinist friends of mine might not believe in “double predestination,” what is your answer to this?

Are we going to accept the proposition that God, the one who said, “Suffer the little children to come unto me,” is the same God who would, for His own pleasure, doom any number of consciousless infants to an eternity in hell? Is that EVEN a possibility within your theological systematic?

You may use the comment section to calmly and kindly discuss. 

15 Comments

Filed under Abortion

The Ivey League of Life

I’m just going to take a moment to address something that is top-tier controversial at the moment, even more so than the growing egalitarian/complimentarian debate that’s shaping up in the SBC because of Beth Moore.

Today the bravest woman in America is Gov. Kay Ivey of Alabama. 

From a sports perspective, I hate Alabama (the football team) with a white-hot passion, but today I stand beside the Governor of Alabama and her willingness to sign into law a bill that unashamedly acknowledges the “deeply held belief that every life is precious and that every life is a sacred gift from God.”

In passing this law, Alabama has courageously drawn a line in the sand that, up to this point, no other state has had the guts to do. Gov. Ivey surely must have known that the wrath of hell, along with all its infanticidal, pro-abortion propagandists and activists would want to come after her like a bunch of rabid piranhas.

By taking a clear and unequivocal stand for the sanctity of life in the womb. battle lines have been drawn, and by “battle” I’m positive the left will not suffice with hurling dirty looks and words. The right to murder a child for the sake of convenience and the promise of gain (or, rather, the right to worship Moloch) has become too delectable for the blood-thirsty who abhor consequences and idolize self.

People will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, boastful, proud, abusive, disobedient to their parents, ungrateful, unholy, without love, unforgiving, slanderous, without self-control, brutal, not lovers of the good, treacherous, rash, conceited, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God– – 2 Timothy 3:2-4 NIV

When you have as your core belief the idea that it is OK to rationalize away what is inherently human and kill a baby, whether in the womb or not, all because “self” is more inherently important and more worthy of life than the innocent “other,” you’re the coward and the deceived.

The Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), promising to sue, sent a tweet to Gov. Ivey that read, “You can’t say we didn’t warn you, @GovernorKayIvey. See you in court.” That’s just it, she heard your warning, and did what was right, anyway.

That’s why she is the brave one, and that’s why I will be listening to “Sweet Home Alabama” with a tad larger smile on my face.

Roll Tide.

6 Comments

Filed under Abortion, current events

Boycotting Georgia?

I, for one, regardless of Hollywood, support Georgia’s Governor, the new fetal heartbeat law, and the rights of the unborn.

The arguments from those boycotting Georgia are that this is an “attack on women,” or an attempt to “hold women hostage.” However, these and other similar protests do nothing but avoid and mislabel reality.

You see, it’s not about women’s rights; it’s about human rights, particularly the right to life – and more specifically, the right to not be torn apart limb from limb in your mother’s womb, or left to die on a stainless steel table while your “doctor” finishes a sandwich and paperwork.

Those who oppose this law and want to see it overturned must one day answer to their Creator for what they actually support: Infanticide, murder, and the torture of innocents.

Boycott Georgia? Not me! I fear a holy God more than Alysa Milano.

1 Comment

Filed under Abortion, America, Culture Wars, current events, Life/Death, politics

Jesus Memes and the Comma-Challenged

imageIn a recent Facebook post a friend of a friend posted a meme created by John Fugelsang, the actor, Huffington Post contributor, and former co-host of America’s Funniest Home Videos (1998-99). The meme was posted in an effort to show how that Jesus Christ, if He were politically active in today’s America, would more likely be a liberal Democrat than a conservative Republican.

Mr. Fugelsang uses his meme (if he was actually the one who created it) to state ten assertions regarding who Jesus was and what He believed. For ease of reading and future commentary by me, I’ve listed them below (punctuation intact).

According to John Fugelsang (and, by extension, the friend of a friend on Facebook) Jesus was a:

  1. Radical nonviolent revolutionary
  2. Who hung around with lepers hookers and crooks;
  3. Wasn’t American and never spoke English;
  4. Was anti-wealth anti-death penalty anti-public prayer (M 6:5);
  5. But was never anti-gay, never mentioned abortion or birth control,
  6. Never called the poor lazy,
  7. Never justified torture,
  8. Never fought for tax cuts for the wealthiest Nazarenes,
  9. Never asked a leper for a copay;
  10. And was a long-haired brown-skinned homeless community-organizing anit-slut-shaming Middle Eastern Jew.

Before I go any further, I must address Mr. Fugelsang’s punctuation. You see, I am not a grammar Nazi, nor am I a punctuation prodigy, but sometimes a point can better be made if one would pay attention to the proper use of commas. For example, without commas it could be inferred that Jesus hung around with the hooks and crooks which belonged to lepers. As for “anti-gay anti-death penalty anti-public prayer,” that simply makes my head hurt.

Now, to the ten assertions . . .

Radical nonviolent revolutionary.  First, how many radical non-violent revolutionaries are there? I guess they exist here and there, but are they really that common? I mean, once you put radical and revolutionary together, specifically with the qualifier of “liberal,” how many are not violent? Jeez! However, that’s only based upon my own observations, so I’m happy to be proven wrong.

However, the question that ought to be asked first is: “Was Jesus really a revolutionary?”  I don’t believe He was. For one thing, most revolutionaries are focused on bringing about change within a political system – Jesus’ purpose in coming had nothing to do with any political system. Then secondly, it is clear from Jesus’ own words that He did not come to change or do away with anything, only to fulfill it.

“Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill.” – Matthew 5:17 KJV

[He] hung around with lepers, hookers, and crooks (punctuation added).  One of the biggest misconceptions about Jesus is that because He chose not to stone anyone for things like adultery (John 8:11) He must have had no problem with their actions. The problem with that assertion is that it totally avoids his command to “go and sin no more.” Yes, Jesus ate with the sinners, but that’s not to be construed that He “hung around” with them. Jesus came for a purpose, to “seek and to save the lost” (Luke 19:10), not to condone their lifestyles and avoid confrontation. No, Jesus ate with sinners so that they might be saved!

And when the scribes and Pharisees saw him eat with publicans and sinners, they said unto his disciples, How is it that he eateth and drinketh with publicans and sinners? When Jesus heard [it], he saith unto them, They that are whole have no need of the physician, but they that are sick: I came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance. – Mark 2:16-17 KJV

[He] wasn’t American and never spoke English. Except for the most die-hard KJV-only-ist, and one who might never have had even the most basic of history lessons, most would agree. This is pretty much a given. However, the assertion being made is that Jesus is thought of by conservatives as being pro-American and anti-everything else, and that is mostly untrue and unfair. Sure, there are some kooks who believe America is the New Jerusalem, but there are others out there, such as Louis Farrakhan, who believe aliens live in a spaceship and are circling Earth as we speak. Neither represents the majority, I hope.

Actually, the only think that we must be concerned with is whether or not our nation (whichever nation that is) is on the side of the Lord, for His Kingdom is not of this world.

When Joshua was near the town of Jericho, he looked up and saw a man standing in front of him with sword in hand. Joshua went up to him and demanded, “Are you friend or foe?” “Neither one,” he replied. “I am the commander of the LORD’s army.” At this, Joshua fell with his face to the ground in reverence. “I am at your command,” Joshua said. “What do you want your servant to do?” – Joshua 5:13-14 NLT

[He] was anti-wealth anti-death penalty anti-public prayer (M 6:5).  Oh boy. May I break this down into sub points? I mean, really, commas would have been helpful.

  1. Anti-wealth. I’d really like to know where Fugalsang got this. My guess is that he got it from passages like Luke 12:15 or Matthew 6:19-21. In the first Jesus warns us to guard against greed, while the second advises us to store up treasure in heaven, not down here where it can corrupt and/or be stolen. Even more, Fugalsang may be thinking of how Jesus is described as one having no place to lay His head (Luke 9:58), or that passage where Jesus says it’s easier for a camel than a rich man to pass through the eye of a needle (Mark 10:25).However, the fact is that it wasn’t wealth that Jesus had a problem with; it was greed, envy, selfishness, and faith in one’s own money and not in God.The reason Jesus spent more time with the poor than the wealthy was because the wealthy more often had hard hearts (much like today). The rich tend to put their faith in their possessions and positions more than in God, so why would they respect the One who divested Himself of the riches of heaven and humbled Himself, even to the death of the Cross (Philippians 2:8)?You see, Jesus wasn’t anti-wealth; He was concerned only with what men do with it (Matthew 25) and the condition of their hearts: “For what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul?” (Mark 8:36). For crying out loud, the Church is forever in debt to Christians who used their wealth (while remaining wealthy) to feed, clothe, house, and instruct the poor of the world. It was even a rich woman in Thyatira named Lydia who used her wealth to house the early Church in her town (Acts 16:14-40).
  2. Anti-death penalty. Again, this must be one of those derivations from John 8:11, the passage where Jesus rescued a woman caught in the act of adultery. The only problem is that this passage does not assert that Jesus disagreed with the law, but rather opposite. Jesus gave every opportunity for her accusers to carry out the death penalty which was prescribed by law, but none of them were able to stand without hypocrisy. Jesus knew they were trying to set Him up, not to mention the fact that there was an un-mentioned man involved. Jesus took the opportunity to take the Law beyond where it could go on its own and showed mercy and grace.
  3. Anti-public prayer (M 6:5). Seriously? First, you don’t abbreviate the book of Matthew with a capital “M”. I mean, there are other books in the Bible that start with “M,” such as Mark, Malachi, and Micah. I guess since we’re talking about Jesus we’re supposed to know the one to which he was referring.Secondly, to use Matthew 6:5 as a basis for condemning public prayer is to admit one has little understanding of context. The context in this passage of Scripture was one which dealt with pride and hypocrisy. Jesus was addressing those who did good deeds and prayed verbose prayers all for the purpose of being seen and praised by men. That is why He said of the hypocrites, “They have their reward.”

So, what is the assertion being made with this point? That people should not be allowed to pray in public? That freedom of speech should not include two Christian school football teams being allowed to use a public address system to say a prayer before a game? – Yes that just happened.

But was never anti-gay, never mentioned abortion or birth control.  The whole “anti-gay” thing has been argued over and over and much has been devoted to it, yet liberals will only hear what they want to hear; therefore, I will devote very little time to it in this essay. However, saying that because Jesus never mentioned abortion or birth control means these are non-issues and would have been no concern to Him is ludicrous. It would be just as easy to say that governments shouldn’t restrict unnecessary use of antibiotics because Jesus never mentioned Penicillin.

Let’s save some time and get straight to the big theological issue in the room: Jesus is the second Person of the Trinity, the Word of God made flesh, Emmanuel (“God with us” – Matt. 1:23). What was said about homosexuality in the Old Testament are actually the same position Jesus took, for He and the Father are One (John 1:1-2, 14; 17:11).  The only difference is that Jesus came to show that the strict requirements of the Law could only cause men to realize their own sinfulness in the light of Holy God, not save them. Jesus came to show God was merciful and wanted to graciously save men through putting their faith in Jesus. If you divest Jesus from His divinity then all you have is a crazy man who thought He was God and died for nothing.

As for birth control (speaking of contraception), there is no mention of it in the Bible, most likely because it was commonly understood that children were a gift from God (Gen. 4:1; 33:5) and the man with a “full quiver” was blessed (Psalm 127:5). With regard to abortion, it is God who gives life and considers us persons even before we are born (Psalm 139:13-14; Jeremiah 1:5), so I believe Jesus would have viewed elective abortion as murder. After all, it was Jesus’ own cousin, John the Baptist, who “leaped” in his mother’s womb when (Luke 1:41) when she greeted the pregnant Mary.

[He] never called the poor lazy. No, I don’t think He did. However, the Bible (the Word of God – See John 1) does say the following:

  • By the sweat of your face you shall eat bread, till you return to the ground, for out of it you were taken; for you are dust, and to dust you shall return.” – Genesis 3:19 ESV
  • For even when we were with you, this we commanded you, that if any would not work, neither should he eat. – 2 Thessalonians 3:10 KJV

[He] never justified torture. That’s probably true – can’t argue with that. Of course, Jesus wasn’t a military leader who’s task it was to protect the lives of millions of his fellow citizens, either. Actually, Jesus was the One who gave His life so that others might live. Yet, He also said to be “wise as serpents and harmless as doves” (Matt. 10:16). We will all have to answer to God for our actions.

[He] never fought for tax cuts for the wealthiest Nazarenes.  This is actually correct! Jesus never did fight for tax cuts for the wealthy. However, it is equally true that Jesus never fought to reduce taxes, either – even for the poor. In Matthew 22:17-21 Jesus made it perfectly clear that we are to pay taxes when taxes are due, and that even goes for the least of us. He said, “Give unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God what is God’s.” Later, speaking to average Christians, the Apostle Paul wrote:

And for this reason you pay taxes, since the authorities are God’s public servants, continually attending to these tasks. Pay your obligations to everyone: taxes to those you owe taxes, tolls to those you owe tolls, respect to those you owe respect, and honor to those you owe honor.  – Romans 13:6-7 HCSB

[He] never asked a leper for a copay.  No, I don’t guess He ever did that, either; He just healed them. The last time I checked, neither Republicans nor Democrats are God (even though some think they are) and somebody has to pay somebody for adequate medical services (therefore, refer back to Romans 13:6-7…not just the rich should pay).

And finally, [Jesus] was a long-haired, brown-skinned, homeless, community-organizing, anti-slut-shaming middle eastern Jew.  Well, at least Mr. Fugelsang got the brown-skinned, homeless (technically speaking), anti-slut-shaming middle eastern Jew parts right. The rest, along with the usual lack of commas, he stereotypically got wrong.

Nazarenes (sometimes called Nazarites) were from Nazareth; Nazarites were those who took a vow not to cut their hair, drink wine, etc. Jesus never took a Nazarite vow. But, then again, Mr. Fugalsang is not a Bible scholar, only a political comedian who writes for the Huffpo and creates comma-challenged memes.

Funny how all of this would have been unneccessary if Mr. Fugalsang had actually read the Bible . . . and a grammar handbook.

3 Comments

Filed under Abortion, America, Apologetics, Bible Study, Jesus, politics

Perfection Not Required

“Two men went up into the temple to pray; the one a Pharisee, and the other a publican. The Pharisee stood and prayed thus with himself, God, I thank thee, that I am not as other men are, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even as this publican.”

“And the publican, standing afar off, would not lift up so much as his eyes unto heaven, but smote upon his breast, saying, God be merciful to me a sinner.” – Luke 18:11, 13

Looking for Perfection?

God doesn’t use perfect people; He uses REAL people. Yet sadly, within the church, there are many men and women who have felt inferior and useless because of sinful and broken pasts.

They are the people who sit on the pews, week after week, doing all they can to be faithful in life, but are forbidden to hold positions in the church.  

They are much like the Publican, men and women who know they have failed before, but want to be forgiven and start new.  They are not the ones that look down on others for mistakes they’ve made. 

Genesis of Dysfunction

A while back I read through the book of Genesis in a couple of sittings.  Reading a book of the Bible that way, especially in a different translation, can help you see the story from a new perspective.  This time I was just astounded at how messed up these people really were!  There was so much “stuff” going on that if it were today, it would make an episode of Jerry Springer look tame!

Consider, if nothing else, the sad story of Jacob, Leah, and Rachel. This was a seriously messed up family with real marital problems.  At one point, Leah and Rachel get into a jealous argument over a son’s mandrakes.  Just imagine you were a marriage counselor and listened in to the following story…

Reuben went out during the wheat harvest and found some mandrakes in the field.  When he brought them to his mother, Leah, Rachel asked, “Please give me some of your son’s mandrakes.”  But Leah replied to her, Isn’t it enough that you have taken my husband?  Now you also want my son’s mandrakes?”

“Well,” Rachel said, “you can sleep with him tonight in exchange for your son’s mandrakes.”  When Jacob came in from the field that evening, Leah went out to meet him and said, “You must come with me, for I have hired you with my son’s mandrakes.”  So Jacob slept with her that night. – Geneses 30:14:16 HCSB

Check this out…

  • Twice Abraham told other people that his wife, Sarah, was his sister so that he would not be harmed.
  • Joseph’s brothers hated him and sold him to traveling salesmen.
  • Jacob and Esau were seriously at odds.
  • Leah, poor thing, kept trying to have children so that her husband, Jacob would love her.

And there’s more!

  • Jacob’s father-in-law, Laban, got him drunk on his wedding night and gave him the wrong wife – on purpose.
  • The son’s of Jacob (founders of ten of the tribes of Israel) lied to a bunch of men about making a covenant, then proceeded to slaughter all of them after they had convinced them to be circumcised.

It just goes on and on.  Messed up, I am telling you! MESSED UP!

Nevertheless,

God told Abraham in Genesis 12:2-3: “And I will make of thee a great nation, and I will bless thee, and make thy name great; and thou shalt be a blessing: And I will bless them that bless thee, and curse him that curseth thee: and in thee shall all families of the earth be blessed.”  How is this even possible?  

If God can use Abraham and his family with all their problems to bless the nations, then He can use ANYBODY!

 

7 Comments

Filed under Abortion, abuse, Christian Living, Do not judge, Faith, General Observations, legalism, Relationships and Family, Struggles and Trials, World View

Abortions, Not Roses

Unbelievable

It’s now been 5 years ago that the former president of Planned Parenthood, Cecile Richards, was suggesting gifts for Valentines Day, and I feel the story is worth repeating.

I really appreciated it, too, because, as a guy who wants to impress his girl, every little suggestion for something new can help.

So, what did Ms. Richards suggest? What did she share on her Twitter account that we men needed to know? What, pray tell, are we supposed to go out and purchase this year?

Roses? Candy? Diamonds? A new car? Tickets to the opera? A new dress? A year’s supply of lipstick? Dinner at Tavern on the Green? A Ruth’s Chris gift certificate? A singing candy gram? A day at the most expensive beauty salon? A exotic vacation to Hawaii?

abortionistNo. According to Cecile Richards, the one thing that EVERY woman REALLY needs for Valentines Day is…no joking…an ABORTION!

Interesting…don’t you think? I wonder how that would work? Maybe it would go like this…

“Sweetie, you’ll never guess what I got you this year for Valentines Day!”

“OH! I’m so excited! What is it my dearest?”

“Are you sitting down? I bought you an abortion! Isn’t it great?!”

“AAAHHH! You are SOOO sweet! You knew that little parasite that started growing inside of me after we had pre-marital, un-protected, lust-driven sex was going to hamper my hedonistic desire for consequence-free pleasure, didn’t you? I knew you cared.”

“Hey! Don’t mention it! There’s a lot more where that came from. So, once you survive having that blob of non-human cells ripped out of your uterus, let’s forget all about all that free contraception we’re being offered, and just go for it! What do you say?”

“You really know how to treat a woman, don’t you?”

God help us! Have mercy on us! 

Lord in heaven, open Cecile Richards’ eyes to the murderous lunacy that is her idiotic suggestion!

Wouldn’t a box of chocolates and a dozen roses be a much better suggestion?

10 Comments

Filed under Abortion, Culture Wars, current events, General Observations

Dissecting the REAL Reason for Abortion

Yesterday, a story came out on FoxNews.com entitled “Women’s rights groups support late-term abortion, despite public outcry“.  In that story, the CEO of Planned Parenthood Empire State Acts ( a New York lobbying and advocacy group for Planned Parenthood), Robin Chappelle Golston, is quoted as stating the following during a celebration of New York’s new law:

We cannot overstate how important it is for all New Yorkers to have the ability to control their own bodies and determine their own destinies… ” Robin Chappelle Golston

I would like to dissect Robin Golston’s statement in an effort to answer a simple question: “What is the real reason behind such support for abortion?”

Image may contain: 20 people, people smiling, people standing, suit and indoor

From PPESA Facebook page

Image may contain: 4 people

From PPESA Facebook page

The above photos were captured from the Planned Parenthood Empire State Acts’ Facebook page, and both show the satisfaction and intense emotions attached to the signing of the new abortion law in New York by Gov. Andrew Cuomo. If you remember, even iconic New York City buildings were lit with pink light the same night.

So why all the smiles? Why all the celebration?

Now, to keep it fair, I went to the Facebook page of the woman in the middle of the lower picture – her name is Francis Fox-Pizzonia. She has posted articles saying all this third-trimester, baby-killing, infanticide talk is nothing more than scare tactics, and that nobody is going around happy and frivolous when they make the serious personal choice to abort.

However, the somber, serious tones of caring seem to ring hollow when I watch a video like the one below (WARNING: EXPLICIT LANGUAGE AND ADULT CONTENT):

If you actually had the strong stomach to watch the whole disgusting thing, did you listen to the little song at the end? Did you listen to her “prayer”? She said toward the end:

“I stand in my power… I’m grateful for the power I have to create and destroy with love. I have agency over my life and my body and my world.”

If you go to the website where the above video was published (ShoutYourAbortion.com), what you will see is a very common theme that runs through the titles of other stories women have shared. Some of the titles include:

  • “IT WAS A DECISION THAT ALLOWED ME CONTROL OF MY LIFE AND SAVED ME FROM A LIFE OF POVERTY”
  • “WE NEVER WANTED CHILDREN”
  • “MY HUSBAND AND I SIMPLY WANT TO BE CHILD FREE”
  • “I CAN SEE THAT I BELONG TO A TRADITION OF RESISTANCE AND BODY AUTONOMY”
  • “OUR LIVES WERE DEVASTATINGLY DIFFICULT TO MANAGE AT THAT TIME, I CANNOT EVEN FATHOM HOW MUCH MORE DIFFICULT IT WOULD HAVE BEEN HAD I CONTINUED…”
  • “MY ABORTION WAS GOOD FOR ME AND MY FAMILY”

What is the theme of which I speak?

Oh, it’s found in the words of that sentence I was going to dissect in the first place, remember?

“…to have the ability to control their own bodies and determine their own destinies…”

You see, abortion has very little to do with the actual life of a mother – as in whether or not having the baby will kill her. What it is really about, what really drives the floats in the parade

(again, WARNING: EXPLICIT LANGUAGE AND CONTENT)

… is the selfish, one-sided, egotistic, pride-centered desire for women to have the ability to control their own bodies and determine their own destinies… despite the rights of others.

Abortion, unless done in an effort to legitimately save the life of the mother (not spare her from mental, emotional, or financial stress) is the pre-determined trampling of another’s rights and the taking of another’s life in order to further one’s own self-determined goals… which is nothing short of a violation of human rights and nothing less than first-degree murder.

Unless, of course, the fetus is nothing more than a “clump of cells,” a “spark,” a “tumor,” a “parasite,” or a “mistake.”

But if it’s a BABY…if it’s a PERSON…

For, lo, as soon as the voice of thy salutation sounded in mine ears, the babe leaped in my womb for joy. – Luke 1:44
I was cast upon thee from the womb: thou [art] my God from my mother’s belly. – Psalm 22:10

Some autonomous individuals are in for a rude awakening.

14 Comments

Filed under Abortion