abortion Archives - Page 4 of 6

Tag Archive for: abortion

The Power Of Pro-Life Images

Legislating Morality, Culture & Politics

Forty-six years ago today, the landmark court case we now know as Roe-v-Wade legalized abortion in America. Some think the case is “settled law.” But those of us, who value every human life, don’t see it that way. Roe-v-Wade no more settles the moral question of abortion than the infamous Dred Scott decision “settled” the idea that slaves had no right to U. S. citizenship. But what is the most effective way to convince people of that truth? How do we make a case for life in a way that cannot be dismissed as a simple “religious opinion”? We have an obligation to make a reasoned case for life. But we can also use the power of pro-life images to make that case hit home.

The Case For Life

Several years ago, a local group asked me to give a presentation on how to connect Christian apologetics and the pro-life cause. My connection to the Life Training Institute (LTI) made that task an easy one.

At LTI, we use science and philosophy to show what the unborn is, why it is valuable, and why that makes taking its life a grave moral wrong. The argument is not in the least bit “religious.” It is a rational and reasoned case that points to the most basic of all human rights — the right to life. As I told the group, the case we make is perfectly compatible and consistent with what the Bible teaches. And that is just one more reason to believe the Bible is a reflection of the truth about ultimate reality.

Tell And Show

The presentation I used started with science. I offered the plain, scientific evidence for when life begins that you can find in any embryology textbook. This isn’t a mystery. It begins at the moment of conception.

Next, we use basic philosophical reasoning. We show that there is no difference between the person you are today and the embryo you once were. Certainly, there is no difference that justifies taking your life at that earlier stage in your development.

Finally, after making a reasoned case for our position, we warn our audience that we are about to show a 60-second video clip. There is no narration on the video. It is nothing but a series of images that show the aftermath of abortion in all three trimesters of development.

We do this carefully and compassionately. We warn the audience that the video is graphic and give anyone who wants it a chance to leave the room or cover their eyes before we show it. And then we play this:

This Is Abortion Video from Life Training Institute on Vimeo.

Repercussions

The presentation I gave that day was no different than any other I’ve given. Nor was the reaction to it. But several months later, a friend from the group told me a story about what happened afterward.

He said that he had never seen the argument against abortion presented in quite the way I presented it. It had moved him to put up a Facebook post about it with a link to the video I had shown. No big deal.

But there’s more to the story.

My friend’s post drew some attention and discussion. Little did he know that some of that attention was from a European lady who my friend had never met or spoken to. He and she just happened to be bird lovers and members of the same online group of folks who shared that interest. The lady was an abortion supporter. She was also an atheist.

The images had horrified her.

Seeing Is Believing

Because the post had provoked her, she contacted my friend through the bird-lover group to challenge him about posting it. This initiated a back-and-forth discussion that lasted for weeks.

Eventually, the bird-loving lady not only changed her view on abortion; she was also compelled by my friend’s reasoning to take things a step further. He convinced her to reconsider objections to Christianity itself. By the time he told me the story, the European lady had become a Christian. She was soliciting my friend’s advice about how to approach her “hard-core atheist” son to invite him to do the same.

All because she saw an image.

One Thousand Words

Some people are impervious to careful arguments. For whatever reason, they refuse to consider the logic of the pro-life position. But even if those pro-life arguments fall on deaf ears, the impact of video can be monumental. The European bird lover is not alone. The same thing happened to Ruben Navarette.

In August of 2015, Navarette saw the Planned Parenthood videos that had leaked earlier that summer. For him, that changed everything. He wrote an article on the Daily Beast website explaining why the videos made him question his “pro-choice” position. Ruben Navarette had been a supporter of abortion rights for 30 years. But seeing what abortion is and what it does made him reconsider his position.

Pictures do something words never could.

The Power To Persuade

We use horrifying images in driving classes to convince teens of the dangers of texting and driving. We show before and after images of methamphetamine users to see where drug abuse leads. The state of Wisconsin recently began airing disturbing videos to boost awareness of sex trafficking. And who can ever forget the images they’ve seen of the Holocaust death camps?

We use images because they’re effective in making important points.

Seeing injustice has a way of connecting our intellects to our emotions. The power in that connection is what compels us to change our behavior. Images allow rational human beings to see exactly what abortion is all about.

Thoughtful And Effective

I would never advocate shoving pictures of aborted children in the face of an unsuspecting observer. It’s just plain rude. And while I understand the motivation to do that, I also know that shock value can rebound into anger and dismissal.

I don’t want to be rude, and I don’t want to shock people. But I will keep showing images of abortion because my goal is bigger than that.

I want to make people understand, through reasoned argumentation, what abortion actually is and why it’s wrong. After 46 tragic years, I want them to see the reality that Roe-v-Wade has unleashed on otherwise civil society over 60 million times. I want to appeal to their humanity by connecting their heads with their hearts. I don’t just want to change their personal feelings about it. I want to motivate those who condone abortion to change their minds and behaviors.

I don’t just want to talk about it. And I don’t just want to make people look at it.

I want to make it stop.

Are Pro-Lifers Who Own Guns Hypocrites?

Legislating Morality, Culture & Politics

By Nathan Apodaca

Another assertion has become commonplace in discussions of abortion. Pro-lifers who own firearms, or support military actions abroad are misled at best, and at worst, hypocrites. The critic assumes that any inconsistently held pro-life beliefs are evidence pro-lifers aren’t actually motivated by a desire to protect human life, but rather a desire to control women’s liberty. This line of criticism lacks substance and misunderstands both the essential pro-life position as well as why people support gun rights or particular military actions.

Suppose for a moment it’s true that the vast majority of pro-lifers are hypocritical in how they hold their views on protecting life across various issues. Would that supposition invalidate the pro-life position as a whole? The essential pro-life argument is as follows:

It is wrong to intentionally kill innocent human beings
Elective Abortion intentionally kills innocent human beings
Therefore, elective abortion is wrong.

If the premises are true (and there’s good reason to believe they are) and the conclusion logically follows, then the argument is sound. Would a subset of the pro-life community being hypocrites demonstrate that either premise is untrue? Of course not. Neither the wrongness of killing innocent human beings nor the nature of abortion and its victims are in any way impacted by whether some pro-life advocates behave inconsistently toward life in regards to the views they champion.

In fact, this is little more than a personal attack. It’s highly unlikely that if the moral consistency of particular pro-lifers changed overnight, these critics would then drop their support for abortion. It’s a smokescreen, an attempt to poison the well of the pro-life cause, not an actual rebuttal of the above argument.

Guns Protect Life

That being said, the claim that supporting gun rights or military service is inconsistent with the pro-life view is mistaken. As philosopher Tim Hsaio points out, self-defense is an extension of the right to life, intrinsic to all human beings. Since all human beings have the natural (intrinsic or God-given) right to life, then it is perfectly just for human beings to take steps to prevent themselves from being victimized by those with an evil intent. Writes Hsaio,

“Now since the purpose of a right is to protect my well-being, the possession of a right entitles me to protect that which I have a right to. Thus, if I possess the right to life, then I must also possess the corresponding right to secure or protect my life. I must, in other words, possess the right to self-defense. The right to self-defense follows immediately from the right to life—in fact, the right to self-defense is an integral part of the right to life itself. It is what gives substance to the right to life.”[1]

Remember, the reason abortion is wrong is because it intentionally kills an innocent human being. The vast majority of Americans who purchase firearms do not do so for the purpose of going out and intentionally killing innocent human beings, but for self-defense purposes or for protecting friends and family from those with wicked intentions.

What About Military Service?

Military action is a bit more complicated but still serves as a further extension of this principle. Being a service-member myself (Going on six years as a Cavalry Scout in the Army National Guard) I have received the question on numerous occasions, why do I oppose abortion if I am engaged in a line of work where my job is predicated upon the taking of human life?

The question ultimately relies on a confusion of moral principles. Remember, pro-lifers oppose elective abortion because it intentionally takes the life of innocent human beings. We could be mistaken in that claim, but that doesn’t necessarily make us inconsistent if we support or serve in the Armed Forces. It’s impossible to find a valid comparison between an ISIS fighter or a Nazi executioner and an unborn child. It’s not even worth pondering.

The ethics of warfare are complex and involve a great amount of moral ambiguity, but at their core are the same basic principles which underlie both the pro-life position and self-defense. Just as a toddler cannot adequately exercise the ability to defend their life or well-being, and therefore needs an adult (such as a parent) to fill this role, governments must protect the lives of citizens against immoral aggressors such as foreign states and terror groups. This is why we have police, intelligence services, and the military provided by civil government.

Debates over the ethics of contemporary military actions abroad usually come down to finer details about how to effectively engage enemy combatants and achieve victory with minimal loss of innocent life. While a military commander may foresee the loss of life on the battlefield, this in no way makes a conflict inherently immoral, provided steps are taken to mitigate the loss of life without compromising the overall mission. For instance, the introduction of laser-guided weaponry, thermal imaging, communications, and better surveillance/reconnaissance equipment has been a major boon towards limiting the risk to civilians(and friendly forces) caught in the crossfire of a battle.[2]

Even when an attack or war is being fought for justified reasons, the loss of innocent human life can sometimes be unavoidable. For instance, during the D-Day landings in Normandy, due to uncontrollable circumstances such as bad weather, enemy anti-aircraft fire, and other factors, Allied bombers often overshot their objectives and accidentally bombed civilian centers as well as Allied fighting positions.[3][4] While undoubtedly tragic, few would argue that the invasion would have been inherently unjust unless no civilian lives were lost. In war, a variety of unseen and unavoidable variables can pop-up in an instant and impact battlefield decision making. The advent of modern military technologies helps, but similar problems can still impact the battlespace resulting in tragedy. Communications errors, equipment failures, bad intelligence, and unethical behavior on the part of soldiers sometimes tragically lead to unintended results in conflict. Fatigue and cynicism can also play a role. Decision making on the battlefield changes within split seconds while still being guided by the commander’s intent, which is guided by an overall strategy and “big picture” mission of friendly forces. All of these safeguards can’t prevent the occasional unethical and immoral behavior (human beings aren’t basically good), which is why a clearly defined Rules of Engagement (ROE for shorthand) and Uniform Code of Military Justice are essential for a morally upright military. In the circumstances where soldiers behave unethically or even wickedly towards non-combatants, the military justice system corrects and punishes bad behavior, while promoting and honoring good behavior on the parts of service-members. Leaders should model good behavior and combat bad behavior within the ranks. As retired Marine Corps General James Mattis poignantly puts it, people should know that they have no better friend and no worse enemy “than a United States Marine.” The same is true for the rest of the Armed Services.

As Army Major Pete Hegseth points out, by and large, it has been the United States military (with help from countless invaluable allies worldwide), which has promoted stability, justice, and peace at home and abroad by serving as a sort of world sheriff.[5] Perfect, no, but until a better alternative presents itself, those who love justice shouldn’t feel ashamed for supporting the United States military. As the noted British historian Andrew Roberts argues, when the United States military is weak, wicked men like Adolf Hitler are able to make growing threats to the lives of millions of marginalized people; however, when the American military is strong, even oppressive superpowers like the Soviet Union are forced to tread carefully.[6]

The decision to engage in conflict must be guided by sound moral principles, which includes considering the possible unintended consequences of one’s decision. Good intentions alone are not good enough.

Conclusion

In light of this, pro-lifers are not hypocritical to support either gun ownership or armed conflict provided both are guided by sound moral reasoning. Debates over both are a sign of healthy functioning social conscience.

However, the debate over abortion has nothing to do with what sort of human beings pro-lifers are; it has everything to do with whether the unborn are human, and will be granted recognition as fellow members of the human family. Debates over the Ethics of war, capital punishment, and gun ownership are ultimately irrelevant to the humanity of the unborn and the inhumanity of abortion.

Notes

[1] Hsiao, Tim “Natural Rights, Self-Defense, and the Right to Own Firearms,” The Public Discourse https://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2018/10/42765/

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guided_bomb

[3] United States Army, “Invasion of Normandy” https://history.army.mil/brochures/normandy/nor-pam.htm

[4] Beevor, Antony D-Day: The Battle for Normandy

[5] Maj. Hegseth, Peter “Who Should Win the Nobel Peace Prize?” PragerUniversity, Nov 11, 2019

[6] Roberts, Andrew “Why America’s Military Must Be Strong” PragerUniversity, May 26, 2014

Does The “Legacy of Slavery” Explain Black Women’s 72% Out-Of-Wedlock Birth Rate?

Legislating Morality, Culture & Politics, Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Wintery Knight

James White asks: does the Bible apply to black women?

I don’t like Calvinist theologian James White at all, but at least he’s willing to defend the moral teachings of the Bible against the woke identity politics that is taking over Christian churches. A few months ago, he tweeted something very controversial (see above), and got into a lot of hot water with fake Christians. In this post, I’ll explain why he is right.

So, as you can see above, James is concerned that black women are having so many abortions, and he thinks that the solution to this is to encourage black women to take the Bible’s advice on sexual morality. Shocking, I know.

If you read the replies to his tweet on Twitter, you’ll see millions and millions of comments calling him a racist, and telling him that slavery is to blame for EVERYTHING that black women do wrong. Basically, James haters say that black women can do anything they want and should never be told that it’s wrong according to the Bible because their bad choices are all the fault of slavery. So, the Bible doesn’t even apply to them, or something.

Here is an example from a radical feminist progressive named Karen Swallow Prior:

Karen Swallow Prior says that unlike whites, blacks have no moral agency

According to the fake Christians, it’s not that black women make poor choices with sex, it’s that the ghosts of white slavers who raped their great-great-great grandmothers reach through time with magic and force them to have sex with hunky bad boys who won’t commit to them before sex. It’s not rap music calling black women hoes! It’s the ghosts of slavery past. And even if this ghost theory isn’t true, we shouldn’t tell black women not to sin, because…it would hurt their feelings. After all, the Bible isn’t a book that’s designed to set boundaries to prevent self-destructive behaviors. It encourages us to listen to our hearts, be reckless, and sin as much as we can.

So, when did black community problems with sex and abortion start? Did it start with slavery times? Actually, blacks were doing GREAT at marriage and sexual matters just 50 years ago.

This reply to James White explained:

Blacks married at rates comparable to whites before the welfare

That’s true. Black children weren’t fatherless, so they weren’t having early sex outside of marriage, and so they weren’t getting abortions.

Children born to blacks were just as likely to be born in a married home as children born to whites, up until the 1960s:

Black women were more likely to be married before single mother welfare programs

(Source)

The reason that the graph is going upward is because daughters raised in fatherless homes tend to engage in sexual activity at younger ages because they are seeking approval from a man which their (single) mother cannot give them. It’s a tragic downwards spiral, and it affects all races. The only way to stop it is to tell women to choose marriage-minded men (not hot bad boys) and marry before having sex like the Bible says. But woke fake Christians think the Bible is too mean, and better to allow sin by saying that sin is inevitable because slavery ghosts or something.

What’s neat is that black men who take Christianity seriously are totally on board with the facts:

Black man here. Can confirm that the Bible applies to black women.

On this blog, I don’t talk about my ethnicity myself, for confidentiality reasons, but I have said that my skin is darker than Barack Obama. I’m not white or Asian. And the reason that I don’t fall into this trap of causing babies to be born out of wedlock is because I think that when the Bible says that sex outside of marriage is a sin, that this is true. I don’t make excuses or shift blame. It’s incumbent on me to obey since I claim to be a follower of Jesus. I’m not interested in identity politics. I’m not interested in racial divisions. I’m not interested in blame-shifting. The rules are the rules. And my following of the rules caused me to not cause abortions, according to Christian specifications. Period.

When it comes to sex outside of marriage, the answer of every Bible-believing Christian is simple: I’m against it. That is the correct answer, and anything more or less than this answer is demonic. If you are a Christian, sex outside of marriage is always morally wrong. And if you try to justify it, or blame someone else, in order to excuse it, then you’re not a Christian at all. If you try to make excuses for why someone did it, you’re not a Christian. Whether you have had it and been forgiven, or never had it, the answer is always the same: it’s morally wrong. Don’t do it. Never do it.

What I am seeing from people who are critical of James White’s tweet is that they are basically trying to attack those who make moral judgments based on what the Bible says. They want to make room for sinners to sin. The root of abortion sin is sexual sin. Real Christians discourage sexual sin and therefore protect unborn children. Fake Christians want to be liked by appearing compassionate, so they make excuses for sexual sin. If you take the Bible seriously on morality, you won’t be liked. Those who try to excuse sin do so because their need to be liked is more important than their need to promote what the Bible teaches.

Some fake Christians will say, “oh, but I do think the Bible is right about sex and marriage, but we have to care about slavery reparations and global warming and refugees and illegal immigrants and transgender rights, too.” Baloney. An authentic Christian is concerned about the things that the Bible teaches are “major” things. Drunkenness is a major thing. Sexual immorality is a major thing. Divorce is a major thing. Homosexuality is a major thing. If you meet a Christian who treats those issues as minor issues, and instead majors in what the secular left tells them are major issues, then you’re talking to a fake Christian.

Christianity isn’t a brain-dead faith. You get your priorities from the Bible, and you argue those priorities using facts. The facts about marriage rates are clear, and they show that the problems in the black community aren’t caused by slavery. They’re caused by single mother welfare programs. Those welfare programs taught women of all races that they didn’t have to listen to their fathers when choosing men. Those welfare programs taught women that feelings were a better guide in relationships than the Bible. Those welfare programs taught women that their eyes were a better judge of character than the performance of traditional marriage roles. Those welfare programs taught women that recreational sex was a way to get a man to commit and stop being a bad boy. We need to go back to the root cause of the problem. The root cause of the problem was making excuses for disobedience to the Bible and transferring money from married homes to out-of-control women. Of all races.

One Woman’s Quest for Straight Answers from Public Health Organizations

Legislating Morality, Culture & Politics

By Terrell Clemmons

After three years’ research on traumatic brain injuries he’d seen in prematurely deceased football players, Dr. Bennet Omalu wrote a paper in 2005 detailing his findings on the syndrome he named Chronic Traumatic Encephalopathy (CTE). He was hopeful that NFL doctors would build on his discovery for the well-being of NFL athletes. But instead of welcoming his data, an NFL medical committee called for it to be retracted. A thoroughgoing medical scientist, Omalu would do no such thing, and it took a full four more years of increasing pressure before the NFL publicly acknowledged the link between concussions sustained on the field and CTE.

A similar kind of David versus Goliath challenge may be developing between investigative journalist Punam Kumar Gill and the U.S. National Institutes of Health (NIH). A Canadian citizen of Indian descent and a lifelong pro-choice feminist, Gill became troubled after hearing questions raised about potential long-term risks of induced abortion. An honest investigator, she was quick to notice two things: (1) Although the questions did not concern the legality of abortion, because they were associated with abortion, few people seemed willing to listen, let alone talk about them. And (2) she herself might be guilty of allowing bias to blind her to a valid women’s issue where one might lie.

The dual discovery set her mind to thinking: What if there really were critical health risks to abortion? What were women actually being told before having one? And how were they doing afterwards? These were serious health care concerns, in some cases, matters of life and death. Shouldn’t they be discussed openly, rather than being dismissed as pro-life propaganda?

An Unlikely Team & A Balanced Report

She thought they should be, as did pro-life filmmaker Joses Martin of Mighty Motion Pictures. And so, although they came down on opposite sides of the pro-choice/pro-life divide, Gill and Martin teamed up to search out the truth about these questions for the sake of women everywhere. Their investigation is chronicled in the excellently produced documentary Hush: A Liberating Conversation About Abortion and Women’s Health. Here’s an overview.

Abortion & Breast Cancer

Gill interviewed several medical doctors. Is there evidence of a link between abortion and breast cancer? She asked. Yes, said Dr. Ian Gentles, coauthor of Complications: Abortion’s Impact on Women (2013); there have been “many dozens of studies [that] show a real, statistically significant link.” Yes, said Dr. Angela Lanfranchi, a breast cancer surgeon who has seen it in a textbook and in her practice. No, said Dr. David Grimes, an ob-gyn and abortionist for more than four decades, “there are no long-term consequences from abortion.” This issue is settled, he said. Doing continued studies would not only be inappropriate but unethical.

Thus, right off the bat, Gill and Martin encountered the deep divide between medical professionals. But Grimes had underscored his point by adding that his opinion was the same as that of all the major medical organizations. This did seem to add credibility to the “no consequences” side, so that’s where they went next.

One after another, Gill contacted them: The American Cancer Society. The Canadian Cancer Society. The National Cancer Institute. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. The Society of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists of Canada. The Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists in London. The Susan G. Komen Breast Cancer Foundation. And finally, the World Health Organization. But to her surprise, not only would none of them consent to an interview, they would not even speak to her. Not one. The case was closed, they all said. Anything she needed to know could be found on their website. It was as if they were all working off the same script.

With no other option, and now starting to feel suspicious of those denying any link, Gill went to their websites. Each one referred to a 2003 conference held by the NIH cancer division, the National Cancer Institute (NCI), where it had been concluded once and for all that there was no link between abortion and breast cancer. Upon this discovery, she tried again to speak with someone at the NCI, going so far as to visit in person. But when she arrived, she was swiftly escorted off the grounds by security. What was going on here?

A thoroughgoing journalist, Gill was not one to be intimidated into silence. She continued to dig and question until, eventually, she located a recording of the 2003 conference online and got to the bottom of the “no abortion-breast cancer link” conclusion. She explains her findings in some detail in the film but suffice it here to say that a careful look raises serious questions about who or what dictated the outcome of this seminal conference. Was it honest medical science? Or was it abortion politics?

Abortion & Pre-term Birth

Pre-term birth rates have doubled in the U.S. since Roe. Every year, more than 11,000 newborns die on the day of their birth in America due to prematurity, and those that survive exact untold emotional and financial costs on health care resources and families before ever leaving the hospital. After discharge, they face heightened risks of such lifelong disabilities as cerebral palsy, autism, chronic lung disease, and other vital organ maladies.

“It seems there’s a real clear unwillingness to deal with the science on this,” said Dr. Martin McCaffrey, a neonatologist who has frontline experience in caring for preemies and their families. He was invited in 2008 to serve as an expert panel member at the Surgeon General’s Conference on Preventing Preterm Birth, held by the NIH. He brought up the abortion-prematurity link and presented 122 articles as supportive evidence, but the co-chairs would not allow discussion, even though the link has been demonstrated in more than 80 studies. McCaffrey estimates that abortion accounts for 18 percent of very preterm births (earlier than 32 weeks’ gestation), yet in all the material published to raise awareness of prematurity, there is no mention of prior abortion as a possible risk factor. None. The question is, why not?

Abortion & Adverse Psychological Effects

This has been covered in Salvo before. Gill cites the alarmingly high rates of such maladies as PTSD, eating disorders, depression, substance abuse, and suicide in post-abortive women, but the most moving evidence of post-abortion trauma comes from the post-abortive women she interviews, many of whom suffer heart-wrenching grief and regret decades later.

Shouldn’t women considering abortion be provided with this information? Gill asks. No, insists Dr. Grimes, the abortionist. That would be “a very overt attempt to dissuade or discourage women from exercising their right to have an abortion.” Apparently this is what passes in his world for medical ethics.

The Moral Imperative of Informed Consent

For people of conscience, though, informed consent matters, and women considering abortion deserve factual information. Since neither the abortion industry nor the bureaus of medical apparatchiks will so much as countenance the data, Gill and Martin have brought it to the public themselves. Meanwhile, they continue to press the NIH and NCI to address the questions Hush raises, but so far, they have received no response beyond the same scripted suggestions to visit the NCI website, which in turn still cites the 2003 conference.

Hush is top-notch work. In many ways, you, the viewer, feel like you’re along on their quest. And where appropriate, well-crafted graphics depict the medical explanations, making the breast cancer and pre-term birth connections understandable.

“Over time,” said Dr. Patrick Fagan, who coauthored a 2014 paper on the abortion-breast cancer link, “the 2003 NCI conference is going to become an embarrassment in the history of the NCI itself.” Indeed, it may. It took Dr. Omalu four years to awaken the conscience of the NFL. The consciences of the NIH and NCI have already been slumbering for over thirteen years. One can hope that Hush will, paradoxically, finally wake them up.

Ethical Or Expedient? The True Philosophy Behind Abortion

Legislating Morality, Culture & Politics

By Madelyn Wood

An American outcry has erupted recently in response to newly legislated restrictions on abortion in certain states. Outraged, public figures have gone so far as to boycott Georgia, an entire state, in protest. Why have the American people fought so hard against abortion restrictions and pushed so vehemently for full-term, easily accessible abortions for all?

They claim it is a woman’s right to choose, and granted; no one acquiesces to being stripped of their rights. Their opposition, however, claims that fetuses should be protected under the label of human rights as well. At the end of the day, both sides appeal to the greater authority of Human Rights, but whose rights are right?

Before analyzing the touchy, and often even the personal, subject of abortion, we must cover the common ground between both sides. Abortion is defined as the “deliberate termination of a human pregnancy.” Pregnancy is divided into three trimesters: the first spanning weeks one to twelve, the second, weeks thirteen to twenty-seven, and the third, week twenty-eight to birth. Again, both sides appeal to Human Rights as lending weight to their respective arguments.

Aside from these few facts, however, disagreement, and even name-calling or personal attacks, abound. Though the recent public backlash seems to be in response to legislation, the pro-life vs. pro-choice debate (these are arguably poorly chosen titles, but for the sake of commonly-used terms, they will be used here) represents a deeper philosophical impasse. First of all, each must answer the question, when does life begin?

Three major theories about the beginning of life are in play. The first, commonly held by pro-lifers but widely dismissed, holds that life begins at conception. The next view claims that life begins when a heartbeat is detected, which occurs around eight weeks; additionally, during week eight, “the embryo becomes a fetus, all structures present in rudimentary form.” (Geneticist Ricki Lewis, Ph.D. on DNA Science Blog, When Does a Human Life Begin? 17 Timepoints) Finally, others hold that when a fetus has a chance of survival outside the womb, around 21 weeks, it is living. Notice that all of these definitions of life indicate life begins before the 22-week mark.

So how does abortion work? There are two main types of abortions: medical and surgical. Medical abortion offers a pill, causing the woman to bleed and lose the embryo or fetus, which would otherwise — had it not been intentional — be considered a miscarriage. Surgical abortion removes the fetus by a vacuum or manually. According to an experienced ex-abortionist, Dr. Anthony Levatino, “A second-trimester D&E abortion is a brutal, inhumane procedure… Let’s just say that they call it dismemberment abortion for a reason.” (Fox Host at Point of Tears as Former Abortionist Describes 2nd-Trimester Abortion, CNS News)

~D&E Abortion Process~

Purposeful termination of a human life has a name: killing. According to all three of the above definitions of life, termination of a pregnancy in the third trimester is killing an innocent human being. To deny that is to deny that the fully-formed fetus, with a heartbeat and even the ability to feel pain, is a person. Yet somehow, seven states offer third-trimester abortions, and over 25 states offer second-trimester abortions. As Levatino explains so clearly, these babies are being dismembered, and their body parts reassembled on a doctor’s tray; simply because they are surrounded by amniotic fluid and a political dispute, they are not protected by this great authority we call human rights. It’s inhumane. It’s unacceptable.

We live in a society where soldiers who sacrifice their lives for their country and its people are applauded as heroes; those same hands applaud women who sacrifice their children’s lives for personal convenience. How does that happen? At best, our culture is confused about its values. At worst, it’s decisive about its values and chooses to ignore them.

Modern Western culture values expedience over ethics. Such moral depravity is not limited to an abortion problem. In fact, it affects everyone. When one lies about a colleague to gain a promotion, for instance, expedience is valued over ethics. The fact that it is accepted, even celebrated, to terminate second- and third-trimester pregnancies, and with them, innocent children points to the ethical corrosion of an entire society. It screams through a megaphone, “I’m more important than you! My happiness, convenience, comfort, etc. are more important than the next person’s.” In some cases, even more, important than the next person’s life.

Such a mindset actually implicates all of us. After all, the lying coworker subscribes to the same philosophy as the aborting mother. This truth should change the way we hold pro-life vs. pro-choice conversations. First of all, pro-choice supporters and activists must face the “when does life begin?” question head-on; otherwise, they are blindly endorsing killing, and if they aren’t, they need to prove it. It would also benefit them to appeal to statistics and reason rather than appeals to emotion or petty personal attacks.

Secondly, pro-lifers must be just that: pro-life. The other side has made it explicitly clear that pro-lifers are often hypocrites, supporting fetuses in the womb but neglecting them afterward. Granted, people cannot be perfect, but they can be consistent. They must also support the lives of mothers who feel they want or need an abortion; many of them have suffered domestic or sexual violence, or they are entrapped in poverty, or they feel unsupported and unprepared for a child. Most importantly, if anyone dares advocate for the lives of the unborn, they must root out the expedience-over-ethics ideology from their own lives– the philosophy that says personal convenience is more important than what is right.

Remember, both sides of this argument feel they are standing up for human rights: pro-choice, for a woman’s right to choose abortion, and pro-life, for a baby’s right to live. Because these sides are opposed to one another, they often fall prey to the either-or myth. Human rights is a wide umbrella, wide enough for both sides to take shelter from the rain of injustice. In other words, a child’s right to live and a woman’s right to health care can coexist– so long as the woman does not encroach upon, or end, the life of another.

The only way to remedy the injustice of abortion is to protect life at all stages and to fight against a mentality which prefers oneself over others. As George Orwell put it when describing injustice in his allegorical satire, Animal Farm,

“All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others.”

In this clear, satirical wording, it is easy to agree that inequality is wrong. But can we adopt this mentality when it applies to the abortion debate?

All lives are equally valuable: no, a woman does not have the right to kill her child at any stage of its life. Likewise, all lives are equally valuable: no, it is not acceptable to dismiss or attack someone because their opinions differ from your own. All lives are equally valuable. A philosophical reform which values the sanctity of all human lives and respects human rights is the only hope to protect the unborn and overcome our selfishness-saturated society.

Madelyn Wood loves Jesus and gets excited about sharing the reality of Him with other people. Because she grew up in split families with opposing worldviews, she became a skeptic from a young age. When one of those worldviews taught her that Jesus was a made-up, mythical character, she decided to investigate for herself. After spending about one and a half years researching the person of Jesus, God revealed the real Jesus to her via apologetics and the Holy Spirit. Madelyn is so thankful that God is allowing her to use her passion for writing to impact other seekers through apologetics.

Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/2XMeF8L

July 23, 2019/by Guest

Unplanned and the Abortion Debate with Dr. Mike S. Adams

Podcast

Podcast: Play in new window

In this episode, Frank talks about the movie Unplanned, based on the dramatic true story of a former Planned Parenthood leader who, after participating in an actual abortion procedure for the first time, walked down the street to join the Coalition for Life. He also interviews the great Dr. Mike S. Adams about his debate with Dr. Willie Parker, an abortion doctor who has performed thousands of abortions and claims to be a Christian. We don’t shy away from the truth, you shouldn’t either, listen to this important episode of the Cross Examined Official Podcast.

Keep us busy by sending your questions to Hello@CrossExamined.org and don’t miss this episode!

Subscribe on iTunes: http://bit.ly/CrossExamined_Podcast rate and review! Thanks!!!

Subscribe on Spotify: http://bit.ly/CrossExaminedOfficial_Podcast

Subscribe on Stitcher: http://bit.ly/CE_Podcast_Stitcher

April 8, 2019/by Guest

Twitter suspends account of pro-life movie “Unplanned”, deletes 99% of their followers

Legislating Morality, Culture & Politics, Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Wintery Knight

Wow, big social media companies like Facebook, Google, Youtube, and Twitter are really ratcheting up their suppression of any accounts that challenge their allies in the Democrat Party. For example, on the weekend Twitter decided to suspend the account of the new pro-life movie “Unplanned.” And then they deleted 99,000 of their followers.

PJ Media reports:

The pro-life movie Unplanned surprised at the box office its opening weekend, taking 5th place with $6.1 million. That didn’t stop Twitter from attacking the film twice in one weekend, however.

The movie’s Twitter account was briefly suspended on Saturday, mere hours after its release on Friday. On Sunday, the account seems to have mysteriously lost 99,000 of its 100,000 followers.

There was a backlash against the suspension of the account. Twitter didn’t provide any rule that was violated, but they reinstated the account – with zero followers. People trying to re-follow the account were prevented from doing so, including the author of the PJ Media article:

I attempted to follow the page, but the same thing happened to me.

However, the movie performed so well at the box office that they are expanding the number of theaters next week to 1,700:

Despite the Twitter suspension and sudden mysterious loss of followers, Unplanned racked up more than $6.1 million at the box office, despite being predicted to take in only $2-3 million. Even more impressive, the film only played on 1,060 screens, earning an average of $5,770 per screen.

On Sunday, the film announced that its distributor, Pure Flix, will add an additional 600 screens for a count of 1,700 screens next week.

The movie also earned an A+ rating from CinemaScore, and it has a 93 percent positive rating on RottenTomatoes.

I’d make sure that you go see it as soon as possible. Remember what happend to the Gosnell movie, last time? The theaters pulled it very early, even though it was doing very well.

This isn’t the first time that Twitter has censored voices critical of their allies in the Democrat Party. Remember when they refused to allow a pro-life election ad from (now Senator) Marsha Blackburn? Or when they censored pro-life ads from the well-known pro-life Susan B. Anthony List group? Or when they said that death threats against conservative Dana Loesch were permissible? They also allowed threats of violence to be made against the pro-life Covington students. They also blocked pro-life ads from Live Action. Basically, they censor anything that makes their pro-abortion allies in the Democrat Party look bad.

I understand that companies make mistakes, but why are all the mistakes made by these big social media companies in favor of their allies in the Democrat Party? Is it because they don’t want their allies in the Democrat Party to lose elections?

Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/2IbAy8l

April 7, 2019/by Guest

The Abortion Debate: Dr. Mike Adams vs. Abortion Doctor

Debates, Legislating Morality, Culture & Politics

Dr. Mike S. Adams takes on Dr. Willie Parker, an abortion doctor who has performed thousands of abortions. This debate took place on February 21, 2019 at UNC Wilmington. Although Dr. Parker claims to be a Christian, he says in his book that there are no moral absolutes and there is no right interpretation of Christianity. So much for sin then.

While Dr. Parker does claim, oddly, that the parable of the Good Samaritan somehow supports his work as an abortionist, this debate does not hinge on scripture passages, but on the distinction Dr. Parker tries to make between a human being and a person. That false distinction was used to defend chattel slavery when the Dred Scot Supreme Court decision declared that blacks were only three-fifths of a person.

“Human” is discovered by the science of genetics. “Person” is defined by whoever is in power at the time, maybe even just five lawyers on a court. If human beings don’t have a right to life, only what we define as “persons” do, then none of us are safe.

Watch the debate here:

April 6, 2019/by Guest

Responding to Sam Burke’s Argument That Christianity Entails Anti-Natalism

Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Evan Minton

In the comment section of one of the posts on the Cerebral Faith facebook page, Sam Burke commented “If I found out Christianity was true, I would do everything in my power to stop people from having kids so that more people don’t go to Hell. According to Matthew 7:13 only a few people will find the way to Heaven. Almost everyone who is born will end up being burned in eternal conscious pain for eternity according to the Bible. A trillion years and the person will not be a second closer to being out of Hell. Any parent who truly believes and understands this, and knows their kids will statistically probably end up in Hell and has kids anyway hates them. Having children violates “love your neighbor as yourself” on that viewpoint. If Hell, then Anti-Natalism.

And not to mention if the Age of Accountability is true we should conceive kids just for the sake of aborting them and therefore “populating Heaven.” And I am Pro-Life!! Or infants are damned unless they accept Jesus as their savior from the time they are born. Christianity is utterly hopeless, depressing, etc. No compassionate person could want Christianity and all that it entails to be true.”

Is this the case? If Christianity is true, does it entail that you should either abort your children or refrain from even having them? I’ve already dealt with the Age-Of-Accountability-Entails-That-Abortion-is-ok argument in this blog post here and in chapter 4 of my book A Hellacious Doctrine: A Biblical Defense Of The Doctrine Of Hell. So I won’t rehash those answers here. Rather, I’ll address the more modest argument that if Christianity is true, and if more people statistically end up in Hell instead of Heaven, then it’s basically our moral obligation to refrain from even conceiving!

First, God Has Made Salvation Available to All, Anyone Damned Has Only Themselves to Blame

Jesus said that “For God so loved the world that He gave His one and only son so that whosoever believes in Him will not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world might be saved through Him. Everyone who believes in Him will not perish but whoever does not believe in Him is already condemned because he has not believed in God’s one and only son.” – John 3:16-18 (emphasis mine).

God The Father gave up God the Son (i.e., Jesus) to die for the sins of the world! The Greek word translated “world” here is kosmos, and it is most often used to either describe all of humanity, the entire planet, or the entire physical universe. If you are a part of the world, then God loves you and became a man to atone for your sins. I’m a part of the world. You’re a part of the world. Adolf Hitler was a part of the world. Osama Bin Laden was a part of the world. The random person who drove by my house yesterday is a part of the world. Every human being is included in this passage. Moreover, whosoever out of the group that God loved (i.e., the world) who places their faith in Jesus will not perish but have eternal life. Jesus said that God didn’t send His Son into the world to condemn it, but to save the world through him.

Because “God so loved the world”, he therefore “wants all people to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth” (1 Timothy 2:4), and is “not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance” (2 Peter 3:9). As a result of this love and desire, He “gave his only begotten son” and by that is meant that Jesus “gave himself as a ransom for all people” (1 Timothy 2:6, cf. 1 John 2:2, Hebrews 2:9).

God offers this salvation to all. We’re not able to accept it on our own (see John 6:44, John 6:65), so God sends His Holy Spirit to enable us and persuade us to receive His offer of salvation at the preaching of the gospel (Acts 16:14, John 12:32). This grace can be resisted (Acts 7:51), resulting in the persons own damnation if they continue to resist God’s grace until they die (John 3:36). The choice is up to you. Will you resist The Holy Spirit or will you yield to Him?

God became incarnate, died on the cross to take the punishment we deserved and then rose from the dead. God sends grace to all people to draw them to salvation. Some choose to resist God’s grace and others choose not to. The ones who resist cannot indict either God or their parents for the choice they made. They have no one to blame but themselves. This is why it is often said that God doesn’t send people to Hell, but rather, people send themselves. No one who ends up in Hell has to be there. Their damnation could have been avoided.

Secondly, He Is Assuming That Parents Have No More Say in The Eternal Destiny of their Children Than Birthing Them.

Sam Burke is assuming that parents have no more say in the eternal destiny of their children than merely birthing them and letting them decide for themselves. However, Proverbs 22:6 says “Train up a child in the way he should go; even when he is old he will not depart from it.”

It is generally true that if you raise your child right, he’ll grow up right. Theologically, one should expose their children to sound doctrine at a young age, and teach them apologetics from a young age. You can start with having them read books like “The Case For Christ For Kids” by Lee Strobel, “The Case For Faith For Kids” by Lee Strobel, “The Mystery Of The Picture: Where Did The Universe Come From? Did It Come From Nothing?” by Mary Katherine Mammen and Neil Mammen, and “The Awesome Book Of Bible Answers For Kids” by Josh McDowell and Kevin Johnson. When they enter high school, you can move them on to more advanced material like the regular “The Case For Christ” by Lee Strobel, “My Redeemer Lives: Evidence For The Resurrection Of Jesus” by Evan Minton, and others. See my blog post “Teach Your Children Apologetics” for a larger list.

While your kids should look at the evidence for Christianity’s truth, You should be a well-informed Christian and be able their questions as well. As J. Warner Wallace once said, you are the first apologist your child will ever be exposed to. I think fewer young people would leave the church if we were prepared to make a reasonable case for Christianity instead of emphasizing feeling based experiences, and (this especially goes for youth pastors) entertainment. When I become a father, I will ensure that if my child grows up and apostatizes, it won’t be for intellectual reasons (John 3:19-20).

The answer to the problem of your offspring going to Hell isn’t to refrain from having them, but to make sure that they know the Living God.

Thirdly, While Jesus Said More Would Be In Hell Than Heaven, He Never Gave Exact Numbers

You have no idea the ratio of damned to saved and neither do I. It’s difficult to read Matthew 7:13-14 and not get the idea that Jesus said there would be more damned than saved. However, Jesus didn’t give an exact ratio. For example, Jesus never said that for every 1 person who is saved, 100 are lost. For all we know, for every 1 saved, only 2 or 3 are lost. You can’t calculate the probability that your offspring will, by the end of his life, have spurned The Holy Spirit. We’re not in a position to tally the exact number of saved to lost. All Jesus said is that many would enter the death gate and few would enter the life gate. That’s not exactly what I’d call mathematical precision.

Revelation 7:9 observes, “After this I looked, and behold, a great multitude that no one could number, from every nation, from all tribes and peoples and languages, standing before the throne and before the Lamb, clothed in white robes, with palm branches in their hands.” Millions and millions of people will be in Heaven from all over the world.

Finally, Annihilationism Is an Option

Burke’s criticism presupposes a very specific view of Hell; the Eternal Conscious Torment view. However, what if Annihilationism is true? Annihilationism is the view that the damned do not, in fact, suffer eternal conscious torment. Rather, on some forms of annihilationism, they suffer for a little while are eventually annihilated, or they annihilated immediately upon being judged by God. Thus, annihilationism is absolutely no different than Atheism and Deism concerning the afterlife. The only difference is that Atheists and Deists believe that everyone is annihilated, whereas the Christian annihilationist only believes some are.
Since I do not adhere to annihilationism, I have tried to respond to Burke’s argument while presupposing ECT. However, in the case that Burke or others find my response unsatisfying, I would advise them to look into the case for annihilationism. I don’t want Burke or others to reject Christianity on the basis of a secondary doctrine that I could be wrong about. If I did that, I’d be no different than Christians who require people to give up assent to Darwinian Evolution. If I’m wrong and annihilationism is true, then it has even less force than it would on ECT.

Evan Minton is a Christian Apologist and blogger at Cerebral Faith (www.cerebralfaith.blogspot.com). He is the author of “Inference to The One True God” and “A Hellacious Doctrine”. He has engaged in several debates which can be viewed on Cerebral Faith’s “My Debates” section. Mr. Minton lives in South Carolina, USA.

Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/2tXr0Wu

March 10, 2019/by Guest

What Is The Intellectual Cost of The Pro-Choice Position?

Legislating Morality, Culture & Politics, Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Luke Nix

Introduction

In recent months a major political and moral shift has been underway across America. The legality and morality of both infanticide and murder are actually being debated. But not under those terms. No, euphemisms are being used to obfuscate what is truly at stake- the lives of millions of people- your children’s lives, your grandchildren’s lives, for generations to come.

If we continue to ignore this debate and do nothing, we do so at a severe intellectual, moral, and personal cost. This post will help you see through the intentional obfuscation of those who are actively attempting to deceive you into supporting these atrocities.

The Terms Used

The debate over infanticide and murder are logical extensions of the debate over abortion. On one side, people argue that terminating a pregnancy (up to and including while the mother is in labor) can be justified (the “pro-choice” position), while the other side argues that there exists no such justification (the “pro-life” position). The pro-choice advocate gets emotionally heated because they believe that a mother has the right to exercise autonomy over the life of her unborn child.

The pro-life advocate gets emotionally heated because they believe that no human, including the mother, has the right to exercise autonomy over the life of any unborn child.

In the midst of the emotional exchanges, some advocates on both sides attempt to take a more objective approach and provide evidence for their position in an effort to bring a logical resolution the debate. If one side is successful in this goal, then their emotional responses may be justified by the evidence, but if that position is not justified by the evidence, then the emotional responses (and the position itself) is not justified and logically must be abandoned. The abandonment would include all laws and legal decisions that support the position as well. Today, I want to take some time to examine the available options and see how they square with reality and experience.

Is Abortion a Matter of Opinion?

I take the position of being pro-life. I do not hold this position to be merely my opinion that is only “true for me;” I hold this position to be objectively true, whether anyone believes it or not, and that it applies to all people in all cultures at all times. Not only is this a matter of fact position; I have the evidence to establish that this position accurately reflects reality and should be held by others as well.

In my discussions with pro-choice advocates, they will present any and every way they think may get them past the pro-life conclusion. Many of them believe that they can choose (true to their label) any number of ways to escape the pro-life position. Do they succeed? I believe they do, but it comes at a steep price. Today I want to present four options that the pro-choice advocate has to choose from in their effort to maintain their position in opposition to mine (the pro-life position), but I wish to also show that the cost is too high for any of the options to be reasonable or desirable.

Examining the Pro-Life Argument

To see what these options are, let us examine the pro-life argument:
If the unborn are human and if it is immoral to take the life of an innocent human, then it is immoral to take the life of the unborn (abortion).
There are three components to this argument that may be attacked by the pro-choice advocate. If one or more of those components are successfully defeated, then the conclusion fails. These three components are addressed throughout the book “The Case for Life” by Scott Klusendorf, but here is a video that gives an overview:

Simply stated, the unborn are human (component #1 is established by science), and it is immoral to take the life of an innocent human (most people agree with component #2 and evidence it in numerous ways), thus it is immoral to take the life of the unborn (the conclusion). This is a valid, logical argument (component #3- modus ponens).

The Options

If the pro-choice advocate wishes to deny its conclusion (“it is immoral to take the life of the unborn”), then he/she must deny that the unborn are human (which would be anti-science), deny that murder is immoral (which would be anti-human), or deny the validity of the argument (which would be illogical). The pro-choice advocate, indeed, has multiple options to choose from in their support of abortion:
A. Be immoral (accept the conclusion)

Be anti-science (deny unborn are human)
Be anti-human (deny immorality of murder)
Be illogical (deny logic and reason)

Every one of those options denies some feature of the world we live in; they violate the reality we all experience. The first violates what we know to be objectively good. The second violates nature. The third violates humanity. And the fourth violates logic.

Of course, none of those options is mutually exclusive (more than one can be chosen), but is any combination of those options really desirable?
I mean, who wants to be immoral? Who wants to be anti-science? Who wants to be anti-human? Who wants to be illogical? And who wants to be more than one of those, much less all four? The reality is that no one really wants to be any of those.

Avoiding The Options?

In an effort to ignore this argument and avoid those options, many abortion advocates will raise emotionally charged issues like financial hardships, career and life ambitions, future potential suffering of the child, the mother’s bodily autonomy, rape, incest, and many others. However, unless what they appeal to can successfully undermine the humanity of the unborn, the immorality of murder, or the validity of logic, the conclusion stands, and the abortion advocate is still stuck with at least one of the undesirable options. Some pro-choice advocates even appeal to the health of the mother to avoid these options; however, when further investigated we find that the conditions they say necessarily “medically indicate” abortion have alternatives (see this thorough analysis of this challenge by Clinton Wilcox of the Life Training Institute: “Are Late-Term Abortions Ever Medically Indicated?“)

For The Love of Truth, Is there Another Option?!

The emotional, financial, and physical difficulties, pain and other challenges are enormous, yet as we contemplate the intellectual and moral sacrifices that must be made, a struggle ensues between the head and the heart. This struggle is not to minimize, invalidate, or deny the difficulties, pain, challenges of these issues; rather it is to recognize the reality of those and the denials of reality that they push us towards. Perhaps abortion is not the only solution and remedy to the difficulties, pain and challenges. As we engage in this struggle, another option that can reconcile the head and the heart, reality and our challenges, does seem to emerge:

None of the above (Be Pro-Life)

True to Reality

Being pro-life is the only moral, pro-science, pro-human, and logical option available. Further, the pro-life position, contrary to the pro-choice position, is the only option that preserves the right of the little woman in the womb to make her own choices and exercise her own bodily autonomy in her life. This is precisely what the pro-choice position aims to do but ironically fails to accomplish every time an abortion is executed. The pro-choice position cannot avoid violating the right to choose of the women in the womb.

Many pro-choice advocates will accuse pro-life advocates at this point of being “anti-woman.” However, I must ask this question: if limiting the liberty of a woman is “anti-woman,” then what is killing a woman before she even has a chance to taste liberty?

The pro-choice position is self-defeating and self-destructs no matter which direction its advocates attempt to argue and no matter which of the previous options is chosen.

True to the Real Challenges

No one has ever claimed that choosing life is easy. In fact, it can be down-right difficult emotionally, financially, and physically. Being on the side of truth is rarely easy. False views must be easier, relatively speaking, than the true view; otherwise, they have no appeal. Those who value truth over increased difficulty and are willing to deal with increased difficulty for the sake of truth have a daunting task on their hands when the difficult situations arise regarding pregnancy and an uncertain future for both parents and child.

For those who are pregnant and are willing to accept difficulty for the sake of truth, numerous options exist to help with the various difficulties that will arise. I go through just a few of them in my post “Providing The Case Against and Solutions for Abortion.” I encourage you to investigate the options and choose which ones best fit your needs and goals. Talk with friends and family, who also value truth, so that they can help share the burdens and carry you through.
For those who have had an abortion and feel the weight of what has happened (whether chosen or coerced), there is healing, there is forgiveness, and there is redemption. I highlighted the “Silent No More Awareness Campaign” in a recent post because of their ministry to post-abortive mothers and families.

They, themselves, have been wounded by abortion and have become “wounded healers” for you. As emphasized by this ministry, the only hope offered through healing, forgiveness, and redemption for the post-abortive mother is obtainable because of the most important event in the history of the world: the Resurrection of Jesus Christ. From the words of the Apostle Paul:

If Christ has not been raised from the dead, there is no forgiveness for any sin, including abortion, and there is no healing from it. The Apostle Paul had committed murder before he met the risen Jesus, yet Paul was granted forgiveness for his sin by Christ. Jesus’ resurrection, as with the pro-life position discussed throughout this post, is not a matter of opinion; this historical event has been established as a real event through the evidence (see “The Risen Jesus and Future Hope” by Gary Habermas). Because of the evidence, you can be confident that Jesus’ Resurrection, and the promises of forgiveness, redemption, and healing are not mere platitudes to give false hope but that they are real and are offered to you by the Creator of life, Himself.

Conclusion- Pro-Life Eternally

No matter where you are, if you were once pro-choice but have now chosen to take the pro-life position, it not only leads to truth and life for the unborn, it leads you to the Giver of Life and eternal Life through Jesus Christ. It is pro-Life to the fullest extent.

Luke Nix holds a bachelor’s degree in Computer Science and works as a Desktop Support Manager for a local precious metal exchange company in Oklahoma.

Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/2V51JoT

February 17, 2019/by Guest

Tag Archive for: abortion

The Case For Life

Tell And Show

Repercussions

Seeing Is Believing

One Thousand Words

The Power To Persuade

Thoughtful And Effective

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Guns Protect Life

What About Military Service?

Conclusion

Notes

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Recommended resources related to the topic:

An Unlikely Team & A Balanced Report

Abortion & Breast Cancer

Abortion & Pre-term Birth

Abortion & Adverse Psychological Effects

The Moral Imperative of Informed Consent

Recommended resources related to the topic:

First, God Has Made Salvation Available to All, Anyone Damned Has Only Themselves to Blame

Secondly, He Is Assuming That Parents Have No More Say in The Eternal Destiny of their Children Than Birthing Them.

Thirdly, While Jesus Said More Would Be In Hell Than Heaven, He Never Gave Exact Numbers

Finally, Annihilationism Is an Option

Introduction

The Terms Used

Is Abortion a Matter of Opinion?

Examining the Pro-Life Argument

The Options

Avoiding The Options?

For The Love of Truth, Is there Another Option?!

True to Reality

True to the Real Challenges

Conclusion- Pro-Life Eternally