All I know is that once this is released, it is something that I will definitely see!
Showing posts with label abortion. Show all posts
Showing posts with label abortion. Show all posts
Sunday, August 23, 2009
Saturday, January 31, 2009
Friday, January 23, 2009
Let's not forget the unborn
How would you feel if you were trumped by the economy? or welfare reform? or change?
Let us never forget the importance of the sanctity of human life.
Let us be advocates for those that are unable to speak for themselves!
Here are some great links and sermons that can help us in our battle to save the unborn:
RC Sproul:
What Are the Key Issues?
How Sacred Is Human Life?
When Does Life Begin?
What Is the Relationship of Church and State?
What About Those Who Demand Their Rights?
What Is Your Verdict?
Why Are We Striving to Make Abortion Unthinkable? By John Ensor
Four Reasons You Might Be Aborted: An Open Letter to Fetal Humans By Joe Carter
Let us never forget the importance of the sanctity of human life.
Let us be advocates for those that are unable to speak for themselves!
Here are some great links and sermons that can help us in our battle to save the unborn:
RC Sproul:
What Are the Key Issues?
How Sacred Is Human Life?
When Does Life Begin?
What Is the Relationship of Church and State?
What About Those Who Demand Their Rights?
What Is Your Verdict?
Why Are We Striving to Make Abortion Unthinkable? By John Ensor
Four Reasons You Might Be Aborted: An Open Letter to Fetal Humans By Joe Carter
Friday, October 24, 2008
Tuesday, October 21, 2008
When is it Acceptable for a ''Pro-Life'' Voter to Vote for a ''Pro-Choice'' Candidate?
by Gerard V. Bradley
You can read the article here.
Let me add the disclaimer here that I don't think that it is every acceptable to vote for someone who is pro-abortion.
You can read the article here.
Let me add the disclaimer here that I don't think that it is every acceptable to vote for someone who is pro-abortion.
Monday, September 1, 2008
17 and pregnant...
I'm sure you've all heard by now that Bristol Palin is 5 months pregnant. It is something that the McCain campaign already knew before deciding on choosing her mother as the VP candidate.
The problem I have is that the media wants this to be a black mark against the McCain/Palin ticket.
I see it differently.
I remember hearing Obama say something that was startling:
I guess it comes down to the Republican ticket choosing life vs the Democratic ticket that feels like a baby is a punishment. In 8 years, we won't be hearing about Obama's oldest daughter being 5 months pregnant...because that child would have been aborted before we ever knew of his or her existence.
Should the unmarried get pregnant? No. But when they make mistakes...like we ALL do...should they get looked down on because they aren't choosing the easy way out?
I'm happy that their daughter is keeping her child. She has a tough road ahead of her, and with her mom being in the public eye and is being scrutinized more than ever, Bristol will definitely feel the effects.
I will continue to pray for our country, the election, the candidates, and a 17 year old girl who has been blessed with a child. All children are a gift from God...regardless of the circumstances. Let's try to remember that.
The problem I have is that the media wants this to be a black mark against the McCain/Palin ticket.
I see it differently.
I remember hearing Obama say something that was startling:
“Look, I got two daughters — 9 years old and 6 years old,” he said. “I am going to teach them first about values and morals, but if they make a mistake, I don’t want them punished with a baby."
I guess it comes down to the Republican ticket choosing life vs the Democratic ticket that feels like a baby is a punishment. In 8 years, we won't be hearing about Obama's oldest daughter being 5 months pregnant...because that child would have been aborted before we ever knew of his or her existence.
Should the unmarried get pregnant? No. But when they make mistakes...like we ALL do...should they get looked down on because they aren't choosing the easy way out?
I'm happy that their daughter is keeping her child. She has a tough road ahead of her, and with her mom being in the public eye and is being scrutinized more than ever, Bristol will definitely feel the effects.
I will continue to pray for our country, the election, the candidates, and a 17 year old girl who has been blessed with a child. All children are a gift from God...regardless of the circumstances. Let's try to remember that.
Thursday, February 28, 2008
The 5-Minute Pro-Lifer
Making the Case for Life…Like It’s Never Been Heard Before
Issue #1 - How to Defend Your Pro-Life Views in 5 Minutes or Less
By Scott Klusendorf
Suppose that you have just five minutes to graciously defend your pro-life beliefs with friends or classmates. Can you do it with rational arguments? What should you say? And how can you simplify the abortion issue for those who think it’s hopelessly complex?
Here’s how to succeed in three easy steps:
1) Clarify the issue. Pro-life advocates contend that elective abortion unjustly takes the life of a defenseless human being. This simplifies the abortion controversy by focusing public attention on just one question: Is the unborn a member of the human family? If so, killing him or her to benefit others is a serious moral wrong. It treats the distinct human being, with his or her own inherent moral worth, as nothing more than a disposable instrument. Conversely, if the unborn are not human, killing them for any reason requires no more justification than having a tooth pulled.
In other words, arguments based on “choice” or “privacy” miss the point entirely. Would anyone that you know support a mother killing her toddler in the name of “choice and who decides?” Clearly, if the unborn are human, like toddlers, we shouldn’t kill them in the name of choice anymore than we would a toddler. Again, this debate is about just one question: What is the unborn?
At this point, some may object that your comparisons are not fair—that killing a fetus is morally different than killing a toddler. Ah, but that’s the issue, isn’t it? Are the unborn, like toddlers, members of the human family? That is the one issue that matters.
Remind your critics that you are vigorously “pro-choice” when it comes to women choosing a number of moral goods. You support a woman’s right to choose her own doctor, to choose her own husband, to choose her own job, and to choose her own religion, to name a few. These are among the many choices that you fully support for women. But some choices are wrong, like killing innocent human beings simply because they are in the way and cannot defend themselves.1 No, we shouldn’t be allowed to choose that.
2) Defend your pro-life position with science and philosophy. Scientifically, we know that from the earliest stages of development, the unborn are distinct, living, and whole human beings. Leading embryology books confirm this.2 Prior to his abortion advocacy, former Planned Parenthood President Dr. Alan Guttmacher was perplexed that anyone, much less a medical doctor, would question this. "This all seems so simple and evident that it is difficult to picture a time when it wasn't part of the common knowledge," he wrote in his book Life in the Making.3
Philosophically, we can say that embryos are less developed than newborns (or, for that matter, toddlers) but this difference is not morally significant in the way abortion advocates need it to be.
Consider the claim that the immediate capacity for self-awareness bestows value on human beings. Notice that this is not an argument, but an arbitrary assertion. Why is some development needed? And why is this particular degree of development (i.e., higher brain function) decisive rather than another? These are questions that abortion advocates do not adequately address.
Put simply, there is no morally significant difference between the embryo you once were and the adult you are today. Differences of size, level of development, environment, and degree of dependency are not relevant such that we can say that you had no rights as an embryo but you do have rights today. Think of the acronym SLED as a helpful reminder of these non-essential differences:4
Size: True, embryos are smaller than newborns and adults, but why is that relevant? Do we really want to say that large people are more human than small ones? Men are generally larger than women, but that doesn’t mean that they deserve more rights. Size doesn’t equal value.
Level of development: True, embryos and fetuses are less developed than you and I. But again, why is this relevant? Four year-old girls are less developed than 14 year-old ones. Should older children have more rights than their younger siblings? Some people say that self-awareness makes one human. But if that is true, newborns do not qualify as valuable human beings. Six-week old infants lack the immediate capacity for performing human mental functions, as do the reversibly comatose, the sleeping, and those with Alzheimer’s Disease.
Environment: Where you are has no bearing on who you are. Does your value change when you cross the street or roll over in bed? If not, how can a journey of eight inches down the birth-canal suddenly change the essential nature of the unborn from non-human to human? If the unborn are not already human, merely changing their location can’t make them valuable.
Degree of Dependency: If viability makes us human, then all those who depend on insulin or kidney medication are not valuable and we may kill them. Conjoined twins who share blood type and bodily systems also have no right to life.
In short, it’s far more reasonable to argue that although humans differ immensely with respect to talents, accomplishments, and degrees of development, they are nonetheless equal because they share a common human nature.
3) Challenge your listeners to be intellectually honest. Ask the tough questions. When critics say that birth makes the unborn human, ask, “How does a mere change of location from inside the womb to outside the womb change the essential nature of the unborn?” If they say that brain development or higher consciousness makes us human, ask if they would agree with Joseph Fletcher that those with an IQ below 20 or perhaps 40 should be declared non-persons? If not, why not? True, some people will ignore the scientific and philosophic case you present for the pro-life view and argue for abortion based on self-interest. That is the lazy way out. Remind your critics that if we care about truth, we will courageously follow the facts wherever they lead, no matter what the cost to our own self-interests.
Article can be found here.
Issue #1 - How to Defend Your Pro-Life Views in 5 Minutes or Less
By Scott Klusendorf
Suppose that you have just five minutes to graciously defend your pro-life beliefs with friends or classmates. Can you do it with rational arguments? What should you say? And how can you simplify the abortion issue for those who think it’s hopelessly complex?
Here’s how to succeed in three easy steps:
1) Clarify the issue. Pro-life advocates contend that elective abortion unjustly takes the life of a defenseless human being. This simplifies the abortion controversy by focusing public attention on just one question: Is the unborn a member of the human family? If so, killing him or her to benefit others is a serious moral wrong. It treats the distinct human being, with his or her own inherent moral worth, as nothing more than a disposable instrument. Conversely, if the unborn are not human, killing them for any reason requires no more justification than having a tooth pulled.
In other words, arguments based on “choice” or “privacy” miss the point entirely. Would anyone that you know support a mother killing her toddler in the name of “choice and who decides?” Clearly, if the unborn are human, like toddlers, we shouldn’t kill them in the name of choice anymore than we would a toddler. Again, this debate is about just one question: What is the unborn?
At this point, some may object that your comparisons are not fair—that killing a fetus is morally different than killing a toddler. Ah, but that’s the issue, isn’t it? Are the unborn, like toddlers, members of the human family? That is the one issue that matters.
Remind your critics that you are vigorously “pro-choice” when it comes to women choosing a number of moral goods. You support a woman’s right to choose her own doctor, to choose her own husband, to choose her own job, and to choose her own religion, to name a few. These are among the many choices that you fully support for women. But some choices are wrong, like killing innocent human beings simply because they are in the way and cannot defend themselves.1 No, we shouldn’t be allowed to choose that.
2) Defend your pro-life position with science and philosophy. Scientifically, we know that from the earliest stages of development, the unborn are distinct, living, and whole human beings. Leading embryology books confirm this.2 Prior to his abortion advocacy, former Planned Parenthood President Dr. Alan Guttmacher was perplexed that anyone, much less a medical doctor, would question this. "This all seems so simple and evident that it is difficult to picture a time when it wasn't part of the common knowledge," he wrote in his book Life in the Making.3
Philosophically, we can say that embryos are less developed than newborns (or, for that matter, toddlers) but this difference is not morally significant in the way abortion advocates need it to be.
Consider the claim that the immediate capacity for self-awareness bestows value on human beings. Notice that this is not an argument, but an arbitrary assertion. Why is some development needed? And why is this particular degree of development (i.e., higher brain function) decisive rather than another? These are questions that abortion advocates do not adequately address.
Put simply, there is no morally significant difference between the embryo you once were and the adult you are today. Differences of size, level of development, environment, and degree of dependency are not relevant such that we can say that you had no rights as an embryo but you do have rights today. Think of the acronym SLED as a helpful reminder of these non-essential differences:4
Size: True, embryos are smaller than newborns and adults, but why is that relevant? Do we really want to say that large people are more human than small ones? Men are generally larger than women, but that doesn’t mean that they deserve more rights. Size doesn’t equal value.
Level of development: True, embryos and fetuses are less developed than you and I. But again, why is this relevant? Four year-old girls are less developed than 14 year-old ones. Should older children have more rights than their younger siblings? Some people say that self-awareness makes one human. But if that is true, newborns do not qualify as valuable human beings. Six-week old infants lack the immediate capacity for performing human mental functions, as do the reversibly comatose, the sleeping, and those with Alzheimer’s Disease.
Environment: Where you are has no bearing on who you are. Does your value change when you cross the street or roll over in bed? If not, how can a journey of eight inches down the birth-canal suddenly change the essential nature of the unborn from non-human to human? If the unborn are not already human, merely changing their location can’t make them valuable.
Degree of Dependency: If viability makes us human, then all those who depend on insulin or kidney medication are not valuable and we may kill them. Conjoined twins who share blood type and bodily systems also have no right to life.
In short, it’s far more reasonable to argue that although humans differ immensely with respect to talents, accomplishments, and degrees of development, they are nonetheless equal because they share a common human nature.
3) Challenge your listeners to be intellectually honest. Ask the tough questions. When critics say that birth makes the unborn human, ask, “How does a mere change of location from inside the womb to outside the womb change the essential nature of the unborn?” If they say that brain development or higher consciousness makes us human, ask if they would agree with Joseph Fletcher that those with an IQ below 20 or perhaps 40 should be declared non-persons? If not, why not? True, some people will ignore the scientific and philosophic case you present for the pro-life view and argue for abortion based on self-interest. That is the lazy way out. Remind your critics that if we care about truth, we will courageously follow the facts wherever they lead, no matter what the cost to our own self-interests.
Article can be found here.
Monday, February 4, 2008
Tuesday, January 22, 2008
Friday, October 26, 2007
Thursday, September 13, 2007
UK opinion shift on the abortion issue
There is a very interesting article here titled "Why I, as a feminist, abhor how the abortion law has been so abused".
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
